Full text of "Control of subversive activities. Hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Eighty-first Congress, first session, on S. 1194 and S. 1196, bills to protect the United States against certain un-American and subversive activities. April 29, May 4, 6, 18, 19, and 20, and June 10, 1949"

oK-o q?)^^,v^^\^( ^

U. S. SUPT OF TX >CL?M EN TS

"Bn

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

UNITED STATES SENATE

EIGHTY-FIEST CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION
ON

S. 1194 and S. 1196

BILLS TO PROTECT THE UNITED STATES

AGAINST CERTAIN UN-AMERICAN

AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

APRIL 29, MAA' 4, 6, 18, 19, AND 20,
AND JUNE 10, 1949

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
93357 WASHINGTON : 1949

PU BLIC j

^■

■^55v V/ii'{

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

PAT McCARRAN, Nevada, Chairman

HARLEV M. KILGORE, West Virginia
JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi
WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington
J. HOAVARD McGRATH, Rhode Island
BERT H. MILLER, Idaho
HERBERT R. O'CONOR, Maryland
FRANK P. GRAHAM, North Carolina

J. G. SouRWiNE, Counsel

.ALEXANDER WILEY, Wisconsin
WILLIAM LAXGER, North Dakota
HOMER FERGUSON, Michigan
FORREST C. DONNELL, Missouri
WILLIAM E. .TENNER, Indiana

Subcommittee on S. 1194 and S. 1196

JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman

BERT H. MILLER, Idaho HOMER FERGUSON, Michigan

HERBERT R. O'CONOR, Maryland FORREST C. DONNELL, Missouri

CONTENTS

Testimony of — Page-

Hon.' Homer Ferguson, a United States Senator from the State of

Michigan 64

Hon. Olin A. Johnston, a United States Senator from the State of

South CaroHna 1 50^

Hon. Karl E. Mundt, a United States Senator from the State of

South Dakota i 20'

C. B. Baldwin, secretary. Progressive Party 215

Thomas G. Buchanan, Jr., legislative director. Civil Rights Congress,

Washington 175

Rev. John Darr, Jr., Young Progressives of America, New York City. 174

Clifford J. Durr, president, National Lawyers Guild, Washington 126'

James F. Green, chairman. National Americanism Commission, the

American Legion, Omaha, Nebr 114

Thomas E. Harris, assistant general counsel, Congress of Industrial

Organizations, Washington, D..C ^. lo6'

Mrs. Ada B. Jackson, Congress of American Women, New York City_ 86>
Arnold Johnsoli, legislative director Communist Partv, New York

City -' 178-

Winston McDaniel, student, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.. 210

Robert E. McLaughlin, national legislative director, AMVETS 83

Bernard Mintor, United Furniture Workers of .\merica, Congre.ss of

Lidustrial Organizations, New York City 209

Joseph H. Rainey, magistrate, Philadelphia, Pa 206-

Donald Richberg, attorney, Washington, D. C 217"

Rabbi Benjamin Schultz, executive director, American Jewish League

Against Communism, Inc., New York City 120-

Arthur Schutzer, State executive secretarv, American Labor Partv,

New York City ^ . 1 24

Benjamin C. Sigal, attorney, Washington, D. C, representing Amer-
icans for Democratic Action and Civil Liberties Union 93

John C. Williamson, assistant director, National Legislative Service,

Veterans of Foreign Wars 78-

Text of bills, S. 1194 and S. 1196 - 1

Summary analysis and comparison of S. 1194 and S. 1196 58

Communism, what it is and how it operates. (Examples submitted by

Senator Mundt) 61

Newspaper clipping, the Washington Daily News, dated May 3, 1949 65

APPENDIXES

The committee file contains scores of letters, telegrams, postals, and resolutions

from individuals, labor groups, and citizen organizations, both in favor of and'

opposed to legislation which would control subversive activities. In the interest

of conservation of space and printing costs, all the above mentioned naaterial is

not included in the printed hearings. It does, however, remain as part of the

public records of the files of the committee, open to the scrutiny of interested

parties.

Page

Disabled American Veterans (letter dated May 5, 1949, and resolution).. 223-
Federal Grand Jurv Association for Southern District of New York (letter

dated May 2, 1949, and presentment).. -^_ 223-

Statement of Osmond K. Fraenkel, attornev, New York Citv, in opposition

to S. 1194 and S. 1196 " 226.

Ill

IV CONTENTS

Page

Statement of Lewis G. Hines, national legislative representiitive, American

Federation of Labor, dated June 9, 1949 227

Statement of Harry See, national lej^islative representative, Brotherhood

of Railroad Trainmen, dated i\Iay 18, 1949 228

Library of Congress (Legislative Reference Service) , entitled "Constitution-
ality of H. R. 5852," similar legislation of the Eightieth Congress 229

Benjamin C. Sigal, complete statement in opposition, representing Ameri-
cans for Democratic Action and American Civil Liberties Union, dated
May 6, 1949 234

Zachariah Chafeo, Jr., professor of law. Harvard University, statement

opposing S. 1194 and S. 1116, dated June 4, 1949 238

CONTEOL OF SUBVEESIVE ACTIVITIES

FRIDAY, APRIL 29, 1949

United States Senate,
Subcommittee or the Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, D. C

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:50 a. m., in room 424,
Senate Office Building, Senator James O. Eastland (chairman of the
subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Eastland, Miller, O'Conor, Ferguson, and
Donnell.

iUso present: Robert Barnes Yomig and John Mathews, profes-
sional stafl members.

Senator Eastland. The committee will come to order.

We have this morning met to begin hearings on S. 1194 and S. 1196,
entitled bills "To protect the United States against un-American and
subversive activities.'" Those bills will be placed in the record at this
point.

(The bills referred to follow:)

[S. 1194, 81st Cong., 1st sess.]
A BILL To protect the United States against certain 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,
1949."

NECESSITY FOR LEGISLATION

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

(1) There exists a world Communist movement which, in its origins, its devel-
opment, and its present practice, is a world-wide revolutionary political movement
whose purpose it is, by treachery, deceit, infiltration into other groups (govern-
mental and otherwise"), expionage, 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 Communist
political organization.

(2) The establishment of a totalitatian 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, ana of religious worship,
and results in the maintenance of control over the people through fear, terrorism,
and brutality.

(3) The system of government known as a totalitarian fiictatorship is charac-
terized 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 indis-
tinguishable.

2 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

(I) Tlio direct ion and control of the world Communist movement is vested in
and exercised by the f'ommiinist dictatorship of a foreign conn^ry.

(5) The Communist dictatorship of such fonMSin country, in exercising such
direction and control and in furthering the jMirposes of the world Communist
movement, establishes or causes the establishment of, and utilizes, in various
countries, political organizations which are acknowledged by such Commvmist
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 countries,
acting under such control, direction, and discipline, endeavor to carry out the
objectives of the world Communist movement l)y 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. Although such Communist political organizations usuall.y designate
themselves as political parties, they are in fact constituent elements of the world-
wide Communist movement and promote the objectives of such movement by
•conspiratorial and coercive tactics, instead of through the democratic processes of
a free elective system or through the freedom-preserving means employed by a
political party which operates as an agency by which people govern themselves.

(7) In carrying on the activities referred to in paragraph (6), such Communist
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 affili-
ated 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 partici-
pate in the world Communist movement, when they so participate, in effect
repudiate their allegiance to the United States and in effect transfer their allegi-
ance 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 existing
Cornmunist 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.

(II) 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 States as an
independent nation, and to guarantee to each State a republican form of govern-
ment, 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. 3. For the purposes of this Act —

(1) 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 per-
sons, whether or not incorporated, permanently or temporarily associated together
for joint action on any subject or subjects.

CONTROL OF SUBVERS1^ E' ACTIVITIES 3

(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 dominated or controlled by the
foreign government or foreign governmental or political organization controlling
the world Communist movement referred to in section 2, and (B) operates pri-
marily to advance the objectives of such world Communist movement, as set
forth in section 2 of this Act.

(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 organization, or (B) is
prim-arily operated for the purpose of giving aid and support to a Communist
politicalorganization, a Communist foreign government, or the world Communist
movement referred to in section 2.

(5) The term "Communist organization" means a Communist political organ-
ization or a Communist-front organization.

(6) The term "publication" means any circular, newspaper, periodical, pam-
phlet, book, letter, post card, leaflet, or other publication.

(7) 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, commerce,
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 wit'hhi the District of Columbia.

(9) The term "Commission" means the Subversive Activities Commission
created by section 13 of this Act.

(10) The term "final order of the Commission" means an order issued by the
Commission under section 14 of this Act, which has become final as provided in
section 15 of this Act.

CERTAIN PROHIBITED ACTS

Sec. 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire^
or agree with any other person to perform any act which would substantially
facilitate or aid in the establishment within the United States of 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. For purposes of this subsection, the term "totalitarian
dictatorship" means a form of government, not representative in form, character-
ized by (1) the existence of a single political party, (2) such identity between such
party and its policies and the government and governmental policies of the country
in which it exists as to render such party and the government itseK indistinguish-
able for all practical purposes, and (3) the abolition or prohibition of all other
political parties.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States or of any
department or agency thereof, or of any corporation the stock of which is OMTied
in whole or in part by the United States or anj- department or agency thereof, to
communicate in any manner or by any means, to any other person whom such
officer or employee knows or has reason to believe to be an agent or representative
of any foreign government or an officer or member of anj^ Communist organization
as defined in paragraph (5) of section 3 of this Act, any information obtained in
the course of his official duties or employment of a kind which shall have been
classified by the President (or by the head of any such department, agency, or
corporation with the approval of the President) as affecting the securit}' of the
United States, unless such officer or employee shall have been specially authorized
by the head of such department, agency, or corporation to make such disclosure
of such information.

(c) Any person who violates any provision of this section shall, upon con-
viction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000. or imprisonment
for not more than ten years, or by both such fine and such imprisonment, and
shall, moreover, be thereafter ineligible to hold any office, or place of honor, profitj
or trust created by the Constitution or laws of the United States. ' 'i

(d) Any ofi'ense punishable under this section may be prosecuted at any time
without regard to any statute of limitations.

4 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

EMPLOYMENT OK MEMBERS OF COMMUNIST POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS

Sec. 5. (a) When there is in effect a final order of the Commission requiring
an organization to register as a Communist political organization, it shall be
unlawful for any members of such organization, with knowledge that such order
has become final —

(1) in seeking or accepting any office or employiuent inider the United
States, to conceal the fact that-he is a member of such organization; or

(2) to hold any nonelective office or employment under the United States.

(b) When there is in effect a final order of the Commission requiring an organ-
ization to register as a Communist political organization, it shall be unlawful
for any officer or employee of the United States to appoint or employ any indi-
vidual as an officer or employee of the United States, knowing that such individual
is a member of such an organization.

(c) As used in this section, the term "member" shall not include'any individual
whose name has Tiot been made public because of the prohibition contained in
section 9 (b) of this Act.

DENIAL OF PASSPORTS TO MEMBERS OF COMMUNIST POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS

Sec. 6. (a) When there is in effect a final order of the Commission 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) 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 Commission requiring an organ-
ization to register as a Communist political organization, 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 such
organization.

(c) As used in this section, the term "member" shall not include any individual
whose name has not been made public because of the prohibition contained in
Bection 9 (b) of this Act.

REGISTRATION AND ANNUAL REPORTS OF COMMUNIST ORGANIZATIONS

Sec. 7. (a) Each Communist political organization (including any organization
required, by a final order of the Commission, 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,
b}" a final order of the Commission, to register as a Communist-front organiza-
tion) shall, within the time specified in subsection (c) of this section, register with
the Attorne.y General, on a form prescribed by him by regulations, as a Commu-
nist-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, within thirty 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 thirty days after such organization becomes a Commu-
nist 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 Commis-
sion 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, contaming the following infor-
mation :

(1) The name of the organization.

(2) The nanie 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 designation or title of the office

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 5

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 dur-
ing the period of twelve full calendar months preceding the filing of such statement.

(5) In the case of any officer or member whose name is required to be shown in
such statement, and who uses or has used or who is or has been known by more
than one name, each name which such officer or member uses or has used or by
which he is known or has been known.

(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) (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 (includ-
ing the sources from which received and purposes for which expended) by such
organization.

(2) It shall be 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 members
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 an
officer or member of the organization in respect of which such registration state-
ment or annual report was 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. Upon written request
of any individual so notified who denies that he holds any office or membership
(as the case may be) in such organization, the Attorney General shall forwthith
initiate and conclude at the earliest practicable time an appropriate investigation
to determine the truth or falsity of such denial, and, if the Attorney General shall
be satisfied that such denial is correct, he shall thereupon strike from such registra-
tion statement or annual report the name of such individual. If the Attorney
General shall decline or fail to strike the name of such individual from such regis-
tration statement or annual report within six months after receipt of such \\'ritten
request, such individual may file with the Commission a petition for relief pursuant
to section 14 (b) of this Act.

(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 hidividual performing the orduiary 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 pre-
scribe, to register for such organization, to file such registration statement, or
to file such annual report, as the case may be.

REGISTRATION OF MEMBERS OK COMMUNIST POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS

Sec. 8. Each individual who is a member of any organization which he knows
to be registered as a Commimist political organization under section 7 (a) of this
Act, but which has failed to include his name upon the list of members thereof
filed with the Attorney General, shall within sixty days after he shall have obtained
such knowledge register with the Attorney General as a member of such organiza-
tion. The registration made by such individual shall be accompanied by a regis-

6 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

tration statement, to be prepared and filed in such manner and form, and
containing such information, as the Attorney General shall by regulations pre-
scribe.

KEEPING OF registers; PUBLIC INSPECTION; REPORTS TO PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS

Sec. 9. (a) The Attorney General shall keep and maintain in the Department
of Justice —

(1) a "Register of Communist Political Organization," which shall include
(A) the names and addresses of all Communist political organizations regis-
tered under section 7, (B) the registration statements and annual reports filed
by such organizations thereunder, and (C) the registration statements filed
by individuals under section 8; and

" (2) a "Register of Communist-Front Organizations," which shall include
(A) the names and addresses of all Communist-front organizations registered
under section 7, and (B) the registration statements and annual reports filed
l\v such organizations thereimder.

(b) Such registers shall be kept and maintained in such manner as to be open
for public inspection: Provided, That the Attorney General shall not make public
the name of any individual listed in either such register as an officer or member of
any Communist organization until thirty days shall have elapsed after the trans-
Inittal of the notification required by section 7 (g) to be sent to such individual*
and if prior to the end of such period such individual shall make written request
to the Attorney General for the removal of his name from any such list, the At-
torney General shall not make public the name of such individual until six months
shall have elapsed after receipt of such request by the Attorney General, or until
such time as the Attorney General shall have denied such request and shall have
transmitted to such individual notice of such denial, whichever is earlier.

(c) The Attorney General shall submit to the President and to the Congress on
or before May 1 of each year (and at any other 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 and addresses of the organizations listed in such
registers and (except to the extent prohibited bj' subsection (b) of this section)
the names and addresses of the individuals listed as members of such organizations.

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 he knows that (1) there is in effect a final order of the
Commission requiring such organization to register under section 7 of this Act
as a Communist political organization, (2) more than thirty 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 OP THE MAILS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE

Sec. 11. 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 Commission requiring it to register under section 7, or for any person
acting for or on behalf of any 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 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";

(2) to broadcast or cause to be broadcast anj' 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 Com-
munist organization".

COXTROL OF SUB\"ERSI\E ACTIVITIES 7

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 7, or (2) there is in effect a iinal
order of the Commission requiring such organization to register under section 7.

(b) No organization shall be entitled to exemption from Federal income tax,
mider 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 Commission requiring such organization
to register under section 7.

SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES COMMISSION

Sec. 13. (a) There is hereby established the Subversive Acti\ities Commission,
which shall be composed of three members designated by the President, one from
the Departm.ent of State, one from the Department of Commerce, and one from
the National Military Establishment. Members of the Commission shall serve
as such without additional compensation. It shall be the duty of the Commis-
sion —

(1) upon application made by the Attornev General under section 14 (a)
of this Act, or by any organization under section 14 (b) of this Act, to deter-
mine whether any organization is a ''Commuiiist 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 3 of this-
Act; and

(2) upon application made by the Attorney General under section 14 (a)
of this Act, or by any individual under section 14 (b) of this Act, to deter-
mine whether any individual is a member of any Communist political organ-
ization registered, or by final order of the Commission required to be regis-
tered, under section 7 (a) of this Act.

(b) Subject to the civil-service laws and Classification Act of 1923, as amended,
the Commission mav appoint and fix the compensation of such personnel as may
be necessary for the performance of its functions.

(c) The Commission may make such rules and regulations, not inconsistent
with the provisions of this Act, as may be necessary for the performance of its
duties.

(d) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Commission such
sums as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out its functions.

proceedings before commission

Sec. 14. (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, or that any individual who has not registered under section
8 of this Act is in fact required to register \mder such section, he shall file with the
Commission and serve upon such organization or individual a petition for an order
requiring such organization or individual to register pursuant to such subsection
or section, as the case may be.

(b) Any organization registered under suVjsection (a) or subsection (b) of section
7 of this Act, and any individual registered under section 8 of this Act, may, not
oftener than once in each calendar year, make application to the Attorney General
for the cancellation of such registration and (in the case of such organization) for
relief from obligation to make further annual reports. Within sixty days after
the denial of any such application by the Attorney General, the organization or
individual concerned may file with the Commission and serve upon the Attorney
General a petition for an order requiring the cancellation of such registration and
(in the case of such organization) relieving such organization of obligation to
make further annual reports. Any individual authorized by section 7 (g) of this
Act to file a petition for relief may file with the Commission and serve upon the
Attorney General a petition for an order requiring the Att j.-ney Geu-^ral to strike
his name from the registration statement or annual report upon which it appears.

8 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

(c) Upon the filing of any petition pursuant to subsection (a) or_ subsection (b)
of this section, the Commission (or any member thereof or any examiner designated
thereby) 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 any member of
the Commission or any duly authorized examiner. Subpenas shall be issued on
behalf of the organization or the individual who 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 paid witnesses in the district courts of the United States. In case of
disobedience to a subpena the Commission may invoke the aid of any court of the
United States in requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the pro-
duction of documentary evidence. Any of the flistrict courts of the United States
within the jurisdiction of which such inquiry is carried on may, in case of contu-
macy 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.

(d) All hearings conducted under this section shall be public. PJach party to
such proceeding shall have the right to present its case bj^ 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 Commission.

(e) In determining whether any organization is a "Communist political organi-
zation", the Commission shall take 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 in-
directly, from or at the direction of such foreign government or foreign or-
ganization;

(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 (i) 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 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

(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 sub-
ordinate to their obligations to such foreign government or foreign organiza-
tion.

(f) In determining whether any organization is a '"'Communist-front organiza-
tion," the Commission shall take into consideration —

(1) the identity of the persons who are active in its management, direction,
or supervision, whether or not holding office therein;

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 9

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

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

(4) the extent to which the position taken or advanced by it from time to
time on matters of policy does not deviate from the position taken by any
Communist political organization.

(g) If, after hearing upon a petition filed under subsection (a) of this section,
the Commission determines —

(1) that an organization is a Communist political organization or a Com-
munist-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 ordei requiring such organization
to register as such under section 7 of this Act; or

(2) that an individual is a member of a Communist political organization
(including an organization required by final order of the Commission to regis-
ter under section 7 (a)), 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 indi-
vidual an order requiring him to register as such under section 8 of this Act.

(h) If, after hearing upon a petition filed under subsection (a) of this section,
the Commission determines —

(1) that an organization is not a Communist political organization or a
Communist-front organization, as the case may be, it shall make a report in
writing hi 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; or

(2) that an individual is not a member of any Communist political organi-
zation, 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 individual to register
as such member und^r sectijn 8 of this Act.

(i) If, after hearing upon a petition filed under subsection (b) of this section, the
Commission determines —

(1) that an organization is not 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; issue and cause to
be served upon the Attorney General an order requiring him to cancel the
registration of such organization and reheve it from the requirement of
further annual reports; and send to such organization a copy of such order; or

(2) that an individual is not a member of any Communist political organiza-
tion, or (in the case of an individual listed as an officer of a Communist-front
organization) that an individual is not an officer of a Communist-front organi-
zation, it shall make a report in writing in which it shall stage its findings as
to the facts; issue and cause to be served upon the Attorney General an order
requiring him to (A) strike the name of such individual from the registration
statement or annual report upon which it appears or, (B) cancel the registra-
tion of such individual under section 8, as may be appropriate; and send to
such individual a copy of such order.

(j) If, after hearing upon a petition filed under subsection (b) of this section,
the Commission determines —

(1) that an organization is a Communist political organization or a Com-
mimist-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 denying its petition for the
cancellation of its registration and for relief from the requirement of further
annual reports; or

(2) that an individual is a member of a Communist political organization,
or (in the case of an individual listed as an officer of a Communist-front
organization) that an individual is an officer of a Communist-front organiza-
tion, 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 individual an order
denying his petition for an order requiring the Attorney General (A) to
strike his name from any registration statement or annual report on which it
appears, or (B) to cancel the registration of such individual under section 8,
as the case may be.

10 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Sec. 15. (a) The i)arty aggrieved by any order entered by the Commission
under subsect''on (g), (h), (i), or (j) of section 14 may obtain a review of such order
in the United States (^ourt of Appeals for the Distirct of Columbia by filing in
the court, within sixty days from the date of service vipon it of such order, a
written petition jiraying that the order of the Commission be set aside. A copy
of such petition shall be forthwith served upon the Commission, and thereupon
the Conunission 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
Commission. Thereupon the court shall have jurisdiction of the proceeding
and shall have power to affirm or set aside the order of the Commission. The
findings of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by the preponderance of
of the evidence, shall be conclusive. If either party shall apply to the cotirt for
leave to adduce additional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the court
that such additional evidence is material, the court may order such additional
evidence to be taken before the Commission and to be adduced upon the pro-
ceeding in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may
seem proper. The Commission may modify its findings as to the facts, by reason
of the additional evidence so taken, and it shall file such modified or new findings,
which, if supported by the preponderance of the evidence, shall be conclusive,
and its recommendations, if any, with respect to action in the matter under con-
sideration. If the court shall set aside an order issued under subsection (j) of
section 14 it may, in the case of an organization, enter a judgment cancelling the
registration of such organization and relieving it from the requirement of further
annual reports, or in the case of an individual, enter a judgment requiring the
Attorney General (A) to strike the name of such individual from the registration
statement or annual report on which it appears, or (B) cancel the registration of
such individual imder section 8, as may be appropriate. 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 title 28, United States
Code, section 12.54.

(b) Any order of the Commission issued under section 14 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 certi-
orari, if the order of the Commission 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 Com-
mission 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 Commission
be affirmed or the petition for review dismissed.

PENALTIES

Sec. 16. (a) If there is in effect with respect to any organization or individual
a final order of the Commission requiring registration under section 7 or section 8
of this Act —

(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" section 7, 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 section 7 to
register or to file any registration statement or annual report on behalf of
such organization, and each individual having a duty to register under section
8, shall, upon conviction of failure to so register or to file any such registration
statement or annual report, be punished for each such offense by a fine of not
less than $2,000 and not more than $5,000, or imprisonment for not less than
two years and not more than five years, or by both such fine and imprison-
ment.

For the purposes of this subsection, each day of failure to register, whether onthe
part of the organization or any individual, shall constitute a separate offense.

(b) Any individual who, in a registration statement or annual report filed under
section 7 or section 8, 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

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 11

statements made or information given not misleading, shall upon conviction
thereof be punished 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 two years and not more
than five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. For the purposes of this
subsection —

(1) each false statement willfully made, and each willful omission 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 constitute a
separate offense; and

(2) each listing of the name or address of any one individual shall be
deemed a separate statement.

(c) Any organization which violates any provision of section 11 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 85,000. Any individual who violates ajiy
provision of sections 5, 6, 10, or 11 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 two years and not more than five
years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

APPLICABILITY OF ADMINISTKATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

Sec. 17. 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, by the Commission under this Act, except to the extent that this
Act affords additional procedural safeguards for organizations and individuals.

SEPARABILITY OF PROVISIONS

Sec. is. 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.

[S. 1196, 81st Cong., 1st sess.]
A BILL 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 Act, 1949."

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 character-
ized 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 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 develop-
ment, and its present practice, is a world-wide revolutionary political movement
whose purpose it is, by treachery, deceit, infiltration into other groups (govern-
mental 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 Communist
political organization.

12 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

(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-
trollen, directed, and subject to the discipline of the Communist dictatorship of
such foreign country.

(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 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, wnth the
existence of affiliated constituent elements working toward common objectives in
various countries of the w^orld, 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 partici-
pate 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 knowinglj' 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 Conmiunist totalitarian dictatorships, and threatens to
establish similar dictatorships in still other countries.

(11) The recent demonstrations of Communist objectives and methods through-
out the world 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 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 accom-
plishing its purpose in the United States.

DEFINn fONS

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, corporation, company,
partnership, association, trust, foundation, or fund; and includes a group of
persons, whether or not incoporated, 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 ordi)iary and usual
characteristics of a political party, which (A) is substantially dominated or
controlled bj* the foreign government or foreign governmental or political organi-

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 13

zation controlling the world Communist movement referred to in section 2, and
(B) operates primarily to advance the jjolitioal objectives of such world Com-
munist movement.

(4) The term "Communist-front organization" means any organization in the
United States (other than a Commvuiist 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 organization, 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 Com-
munist movement referred to in section 2.

(5) The term ''Communist organization" means a Communist political organ-
ization or a Communist-front organization.

(6) The term "publication" means any circular, newspaper, periodical, pam-
phlet, book, letter, post card, leaflet, or other publication.

(7) 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, commerce,
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 "Board" means the Subversive Activities Board established bj'
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 section 14 of this
Act, requiring an organization to register under section 7 of this Act as a Commu-
nist political organization or a Comnaunist-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 would substantially contribute to the
establishment within the United States of 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,
with intent to assist in the establishment within the United States of such totali-
tarian dictatorship. For purposes of this subsection, the term "totalitarian dicta-
torship" means a government, not representative 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 and
governmental policies of the country in which such party exists, and (2) the sup-
pression of opposition to such party, and (3) the denial of those fundamental
rights and liberties of individuals which are characteristic of a representative form
of government, such as freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of
relieious worship.

(b) Any person who violates 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 ten years, or by both such fine and such imprisonment, and shall, more-
over, be thereafter meligible to hold any office, or place of honor, profit, or trust
created by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

EMPLOYMENT OF MEMBERS OF COMMUNIST POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS

Sec. 5. (a) When there is in effect a final order of the Board requiring an or-
ganization to register as a Communist political organization, it shall be unlawful
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 nonelective office or employment under the United States,
(b) When there is in effect a final order of the Board requiring an organization

to register as a Communist political organization, 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 such an organization.

&3357— 49-

14 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

DENIAL OF PASSPOKTS TO MEMBERS OF COMMUNIST POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS

Sec. 6. (a) When there is in effect a final order of the Board re(|uiring an or-
ganization to register as a Communist political organization, it shall be unlawful
for any member of such organization, with knowledge that such order has become
final —

(1) to make application for a passport, or the renewal of a passport, to
be issued or renewed bj' 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 organization
to register as a Communist political organization, it shall be unlawful for any
officer or employee of the United States to issue a passport to, or ronew the pass-
port of, any individual knowing that such individual is a member of such organiza-
tion.

REGISTRATION AND ANNUAL REPORTS OF COMMUNIST ORGANIZATIONS

Sec. 7. (a) Each Communist political organization (including any organization
required, by a final order of the Board, to register as a Communist political or-
ganization) 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 Commiuiist political organ-
ization 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 organ-
ization or a Communist-front organization after the date of the enactment
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 Board 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 and the address of its principal office.

(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 designation 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 accoimting, 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 file^i.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 15

(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 exp nded (in-
cluding the sources from which received and purposes for which expended) by
such organization.

(2) It shall be the duty of each Comnumist 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
members of such organization and of persons who activeh* 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 was 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. In the event that the
individual so notified shall disclaim the accuracy of such listing, he may by written
communication so advise the Attorney General, who shall thereupon enter the
fact and date of such disclaimer upon the registration statement or annual report
upon which such individual is so listed.

(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 perform-
ing the ordinary and usuual duties of a secretary) of such organization, and of
such officer or officers of such organization as the Attornej^ General shall l)y regu-
lations prescribe, to register for such organization, to file such registration state-
ment, or to file such aimual report, as the case mav be.

(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, be punished for each such
offense by a fine of not less than $2,000 and not naore than $5,000, or im-
prisonment for not less than two years and not more than five 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 v/hich is necessary to make the statements
made or information given not misleading, shall upon conviction thereof, be
punished for each such offense by a fine or not less than $2,000 and not more
than $5,000, or by imprisonment for not less than two years and not more than
five 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.

(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

16 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

the names and addresse.-; 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 thirty- days have elspsed 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 OF FOREIGN COMMERCE

Sec. 10. It shall be unlawful for anj' organization which is registered under
section 7, or for any organization with respect to w'hich 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 with knowledge of such registration or order —

(1) to transmit or cause to be transmitted, through the United States
mails or b}- any means or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce,
any publication 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 or
television 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 hx , a Communist

organization".

DENIAL OP 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 contribution
(1) such organization is registered under section 7, or (2) there is in effect a final
order of the Board requiring such orgarization 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 Subversive
Activities Board, which shall be composed of three members, who shall be ap-
pointed 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 one year, one for a
term of two years, and one for a term of three years, but their successors shall be
appointed for terms of three years each, except that any individual chosen to fill
a vacancy shall be appointed only for the unexpired term of the member whom
he 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 President, 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 shall, at
all times, constitute a quorum. The Board shall have an official seal which shall
be judicially noticed.

(c) The Board shall at the close of each fiscal year make a report in writing
to the 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
Board, and an account of all moneys it has disbursed.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 17

(d) Each member of the Board shall receive a salary of $12,500 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" w'ithin the meaning of paragraph (4)
of section 3 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
e.xaminers 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 Coliunbia 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 \)y the Board or by any
individual designated by it for that purpose.

(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 powders 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.

(]) 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 organiza-
tion 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 sixty days after the denial of
any such application by the Attorney General, the organization concerned may
■file w'ith the Board and serve upon the Attorney General a petition for an order
requiring the cancellation of such registration and relieving such organization of
obligation to make further anntial 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 designated
thereby) 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 wellnesses 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 reqtiiring 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 w'hich 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 obev 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.

18 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

(d) All hearings conducted under this section shall be public. Each party to
such proceeding shall have the right to present its case with the assistance of
counsel, to offer oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebutttal evidence, and
to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure
of the facts. An accurate stenographic record shall be taken of the testimony
of each witness, and a transcript of such testimony shall be filed in the office of the
Board.

(e) In determining whether anj- 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 ; and

(2) the extent to which its views and policies do not deviate from those of
such foreign government or foreign organization; and

(3) the extent to which it receives financial or other aid. directlj^ or indirectly
from or at the direction of such foreign government or foreign organization;
and

(4) the extent to which it sends members or representatives to any foreign
country for instruction or training in the principles, policies, strategj', or
tactics of such world Conimunist movement; and

(5) the extent to which it reports to such foreign government or foreign
organization or to its representatives; and

(6) the extent to which its principal leaders or a substantial nuiuber of its
members are subject to or recognize the disciplinary power of such foreign
government or foreign organization or its representatives; and

(7) the extent to which in order to conceal its foreign connections (i) 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 ac-
knowledge membership, or b}' any other method) ; (ii) its members refuse to
acknowledge membership therein; (iii) it fails to disclose, or resists eflt'orts to
obtain information as to, records other than membership lists; (iv) its meet-
ings are secret; and (v) it otherwise operates on a secret basis; and

(8) the extent to which its princiapl 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 Com-
munist movement referred to in section 2; and

(2) the extent to which its support, financial or otherwise, is derived from
any Communist political organization, Commiuiist foreign government, or
the world Communist movement referred to in section 2; and

(3) the extent to which its funds, resources, or personnel are used to further
or promote the political objectives of any Communist political organization,
Communist 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 politi-
cal organization, Communist foreign government, or the Morld Communist
movement 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 sucli organization an order requiring such organization to register as
such under section 7 of this Act.

(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 organiza-
tion 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 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.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 19

(i) If, after hearing upon a petition filed under subsection (b) of this section,
the Board determines that the organization is not a Communist political organiza-
tion 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 upon the Attorney General an order requiring him to cancel
the registration cf such organization and relieve it from the requirement of further
annual reports. A copy of such order shall be sent to such organization.

(j) If, after hearing upon a petition filed under subsection (b) 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 refusing to cancel the registration of
such organization and to relieve it from the requirement of further annual repoi-ts.

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Sec. 14. (a) The party aggrieved by any order entered by the Board under
subsection (g), (h), (i), or (j) of section 13 maj^ obtain a review of such order in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Dii-trict 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 thp order of the Board be set aside. A copy of such petition
shall be forthwith ser^ ed upon the Boara, 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 as certified, make its
findings of fact and conclusions of law thereon, and enter an order affirming or
setting aiide 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 registration 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 title 28,
United States Code, section 1254.

(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 aifirmed 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 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 sections 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 two years and not more than
five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

APPLICABILITT OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

Sec. 16. Nothing in this Act shall be held to inake the provisions of the Adminis-
trative 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 applica-

20 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

tion of .such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected
thereby.

Senator Eastland. The Chair desires to make a statement on the
procedure that has been decided on in executive session for the benefit
of the representatives of the organizations who are present and of the
press.

The committee expects to hold rather extensive hearings. We ex-
pect to give, if possible, every one a chance to be heard. I am sure
that no member of the committee desires to report out any bill that
would interfere with the liberties of the American people. We cer-
tainly do not want to dam the stream of liberty in this country. The
object in the whole thing is legislation that will prevent others from
depriving the people of this country of their liberty.

The committee has determined that whether or not a person is a
member of the Communist Party now, or has been a member of the
Communist Party, is a relevant question. It is something that we
should know to be able to evaluate the testimony before the com-
mittee. It is a material question. We expect to ask the witnesses
whether or not they are members of the Communist Party, whether
or not they have been members of the Communist Party, and if any
witness should refuse to answer that question, then the committee
will not be interested in any testimony from that witness. We don't
think that it is right for a witness to come before the committee, refuse
to give us his background, and select which questions he shall answer
and which questions he shall not answer. So that will be the rule in
the conduct of the hearings.

At the hearings last year there was conduct here which certainly
impugned the dignity and the authority of the United States Senate.
The committee has ordered its staff to work on the law of contempt,
to report back, and in case the conduct of a witness or the refusal of
a witness to answer questions would constitute contempt or not will
be decided at the time in the light of the law and in the light of the
judgment of the committee. We do not want to persecute anybody.
We simply seek light. We shall attempt to report out sound legisla-
tion, provided legislation of this kind is reported out. But the rule
now is that if a witness refuses to tell whether or not he is a Com-
munist and whether or not he has been a member of the Communist
Party, he will not be permitted to testify.

The first witness is the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Mundt.

STATEMENT OF HON. KARL E. MUNDT. UNITED STATES SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me that in hearings of
this tj^pe you probably will want to swear witnesses.

Senator Eastland. By the way, we waive the Commimist require-
ment for a Member of Congress.

Senator Mundt. It appears to me that at heariiigs of this type you
might want to establish the precedent of swearnig in your witnesses.
If so, I am perfectly willing to be sworn.

Senator Eastland. Senator, as far as the Chair is concerned, that
will be waived in the case of a Member of Congress.

Senator Ferguson. But might we have the rule, then, that outside
of Congress, Members of either branch of the Congress, the witnesses
will be sworn?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSn'E ACTIVITIES 21

Senator Eastland. I think we ought to wait for Senator Donnell to
get here.

Senator Mtndt. It is acceptable to me to be sworn.

Senator Eastland. That is agreeable to me, but I think we should
wait.

Senator Ferguson. 1 want to make a statement and I am perfectly
Anlling to be sworn. I am pei'fecth^ ^^^lling to answer the question,
also.

Senator Eastland. Certainly, but I think we ought to wait. The
Senator from Missouri is gone now.

Senator Ferguson. On the question of swearing the witness?

Senator Eastland. Yes.

Senator Mundt. Whatever the committee desires.

Senator Eastl.\nd. Go ahead. Senator.

Senator Mundt. I shall begin at least by answering the question
that I am not now and never have been a member of the Communist
Party. I want to say that I echo heartily the very commendable
statement of the chairman in stating that the Congress of the United
States does not want to do anything w^hich would dam the stream of
liberty in this country. This legislation which we have before us,
which I am testifying in support of, S. 1194, it seems to me very
definitely tends to guarantee the fact that the American stream of
liberty can continue to flow, that it can flow down the traditional
channel of freedom which has meant so much to every American in
this country.

I would like to give ]ust a word or two of background about this
legislation.

S. 1 ] 94. as it is now called, in which the Senator from South Carolina
has joined me, is very similar in many aspects to the so-called Mundt-
Nixon bill which passed the House of Representatives in the Eightieth
Congress by a vote of 319 to 56. That legislation in turn was a direct
outgrowth of 10 years of hearings, testimony, investigation, and study
on the part of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. It
was the first legislation ever brought out by that Committee. It grew
out of a gi'eat abundance of experience as to the actual nature of
commtinism.

It happens, ]Mr. Chairman, that the first Communist meeting that
I ever attended was in 1928 in Denver, Colo., where because of a
unique set of circumstances I was privileged, if you can call it that,
to attend a Communist cell meeting. It m.ade a tremendous impres-
sion on me. From that time since, both before I came to Congress
and afterward, I have been interested in helping the American public
generally to understand the true nature of communism. I have at-
tended other Communist meetings since. It occurs to me that we
cannot approach legislation of this type until we get thoroughly in
mind the nature of the particular movement that this legislation is
designed primarily to control.

If we start on the assumption that communism is an economic
theory, we find that w^e are discussing a question beyond the normal
purview of legislative attention. It can be demonstrated by complete
documentary evidence, gentlemen, as I am sure you w^ell know, that
communism is not an economic theory. It has long since abandoned
its original economic formula as written by Karl Marx and Dr.
Engels in the first instance or as reinterpreted by Lenin at the time
it became the basis of the Russian experiment. It does not now oper-

22 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

ate and has never operated any place in the workl in confoiniity with
its early concept of taking from those who have too much to share
with those who have too little. It has become something completely
and utterly difl'erent in Russia and in each of tlie captive countries
that Russia has since subdued.

I think in the second place we have to approach this legislation
with the clear-cut understanding that we are not dealing with another
political party. We found a great amount of confusion df'veloping in
the debate over in the House in the last session on the AIiuidt-Nixon
bill because some well-intentioned patriotic Americans were confused in
their thinking because they consiclered the Communist Party a politi-
cal partly solely on the basis that it so calls itself. It can be completely
demonstrated with documentation that connnunism does not in any
area of the world exemplify the characteristics which we all recognize
as being part of a political party. A political party has definite
characteristics the same as other organi^cations and other institutions.

I think it is sufficient to prove this point to point out that neither
in Russia nor in any of the countries which Russia has since indoctri-
nated and subdued through communism is there any such thing as an
election in which the people have a right to elect between candidates,
to make a choice between parties. A political party has as its chief
characteristic the fact that decisions are made at the polling places
and at the ballot box or on the voting machine. The Communist
Party, so called, does not even pretend to achieve its objective in
that manner. It achieves it in some instances through revolution, in
other instances through intrigue, through aggression, through a num-
ber of other well-recognized means of controlling populations, but in
no area has it ever secured control of a country b}^ operating like a
political party, by having a vote through which the people have voted
communism into power.

Senator Eastland. Senator, it is not an arm of Russian foreign
policy?

Senator Mundt. It is completely, sir. We can define communism
accurate!}^ by saying it is an international conspiracy. I want to
give to begin with what I consider to be a more complete and adec^uate
definition of communism.

Senator Ferguson. You mean conspiracy against other govern-
ments?

Senator ]Mundt. An international conspiracy against any non-
Communist country in the world.

Senator Eastland. Is it not an international conspu-acy for control
of the world by the Soviet Union?

Senator Mundt. Correct. Here is a rule-of-thumb definition of
communism which I believe ca mot be successfully refuted: Com-
munism is a way of life which holds that all of the means of produc-
tion and all of the means of distribution and the complete control of
capital shall be directed from the capital city of the land under the
domination of one group that permits no organized opposition, and
which in addition holds that members of the Communist group any-
where in the world must subscribe to the program and promote
policies which have the objective of creating a world-wide dictatorship
under the control of the leadership of the Soviet Russian Republic.
I think the longer one studies this question, the more he is convinced
that that definition will stand up and hold true.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 23

Senator O'Coxor. If I may interrupt your thought right there, in
connection with that attempt and that avowed purpose, is it also
one of the elements that they advocate violence in order to accom-
plish their purpose?

Senator ^Iuxdt. The Communist polic}^ is one which constantly
changes and adapts itself to circmnstances of the local situation.
"Where violence is requhed, they advocate it and they practice it.
"Wliere they can do it by intrigue and coup d'etat as they did in
Czechoslovakia, thf^y do it without violence or with the minimum
of violence. But nothing, no tactic, no technique, no matter how
cruel or violent, stands in the way of the Communist trying to achieve
the objective set forth in that definition.

I think that is one reason that J, Edgar Hoover has been so correctly
advising America that there is very little distinction or difference, if any,
betsveen the basic practices and concepts of communism as it functions
in the Communist countries of the world, fascism as it functioned in
Italy, and nazism as it functioned under Hitler in Germany. They
all have basically and fundamentally the same tactics, the same
techniques, the same devices, the same totalitarian goals. Com-
munism has spread out further over the world than either of the other
isms. It has developed a more intricate espionage apparatus. It
has representatives scattered in higher spots of iiifluence in more
countries. But in the final analysis each proceeds on the theory
that it must dominate the world in order to succeed. It has that as
its goal.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think it is necessary to go into very much
detail with this committee as to the extent to which communism today
endangers our freedoms in America. You have had before another
Senator committee durhig the Eightieth Congress some of the leaders
of the American Communist Party who have testified openly and
under oath that in the unfortunate event of war between Russia and
the United States, they would be on the side of Russia because Russia
would be espousing communism and they believe communism is be
right. Since that time, under orders of Moscow, acting in unison, we
have had Communist leaders in all of the foreign capitals of the world
where communism is today a vigorous influence announcing boldly
and blatanth^ that in the event of war between Russia and theii' coun-
try, they too would be on the side of Russia because they, too, would
be on the side of communism.

We have had before us an abundance of testimony since the Mundt-
Nixon bill passed the House to demonstrate the degree to which
espionage has been practiced in high places of Government in our own
country. At the time we are opening these epochal hearings in the
Senate, 11 Communists are being tried in a com't in New York under
allegations that they seek to overthrow this Government by force and
violence. At the same time Judith Coplon is being tried in a com't
here in the District under charges that she was conducting an espionage
apparatus in the Attorney General's Office of the Department of
Justice itself. We have had the confessions of people like Miss
Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers that they themselves
were engaged in conducting a Communist espionage apparatus here in
Washington.

It seems to me that nothing could drimatize the need for new
legislation on communism any more vividly than this fact: After the

24 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

House liad concluded its investigation of tlie so-called Cliambors-Hiss
affair, a grand jury in New York indicted Alger Hiss on two counts,
one of which was concealing from the grand jury the fact that he was
engaged in an espionage apparatus. In spite of that fact, the grand
jur}^ indicted him only on the matter of perjury, because there is no
law at the present time whicli deals specificall}^ with this matter of
peacetime espionage. I think that that certainly underscores the fact
that we need some legislation so that when a man is considered by a
grant jury to be engaging in perjury because of concealment of
espionage activity, it could always turn to a Federal statute and
indict him for his espionage activities themselves.

In this testimony I am not trying to prejudge the trial of Alger
Hiss, which I think should come off speedily now. It has already been
too long delayed in my opinion. I am quoting that incident to
underscore the fact that we lack sufficient legislation on the Federal
statute books today to deal with peacetime espionage.

Senator Eastland. Why has his trial been delayed?

Senator Ferguson. I was wondering just what you had on that,
what knowledge you have as to why it was delayed.

Senator Mundt. I don't want to try to read into the thoughts of
the Justice Department why it has so frequently deferred these trials.
Its reasons, as it announced it publicly, is that it prefers to delay
opening those trials until it concludes the trial of the 11 Communists
who are now being tried in New York City.

Senator Ferguson. Are they in any way tied together?

Senator Mundt. They are in no way tied together insofar as the
perjury indictment is concerned, and it is a little bit hard for me to
comprehend the logic of an argument which would indicate that the
Justice Department does not have sufficient attorneys to try the two
trials at the same time.

Senator Eastland. Is that the reason, that there is some attorney
engaged in the - rosecution of Communists in New York whom they
want to prosecute Hiss?

Senator Mundt. They have not put it quite that way, but they
have simply said that they prefer to wait until after the other trial
has been held. As I say, I do not think the argument is sound, but
I do not want to try to read the minds of the Attorney General and
his assistants.

Senator Eastland. Continuances on the part of the Government
would give Hiss a moral right to ask for some continuances, would it
not?

Senator Mundt. He requested the first continuance, he may have
requested the others, but having been continued that long, it seems
to me now the time has come to hold a trial. I point out in that
connection that in the case of the Canadian espionage agent. Carp,
he was arrested in this country several months after Alger Hiss was
indicted. He was taken to Canada, he was tried, and he has been
sentenced and convicted. Still, we have not even begun the trial of
Mr. Hiss. Certainly that is a commerdation of the speed with which
the Canadian Government justice operates as contrasted with our
own, and I can only reaffirm my hope that they will not again defer
the trial of Alger Hiss.

Senator Eastland. "Wliat you say is true, unless there is some
good reason that the Department has decided that public interest is
served by the delay. What that reason, if any, is, we do not know.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 25

Senator Mundt. I do not know, and if there is such reason T beheve
the American pubhc is entitled to have it told to them. It does not
look well to have this trial so long deferred.

I would like to discuss the provisions of this bill primarily in the
manner in which it differs from the Mundt-NLxon bill as it passed
the House or in the form in which it was left after the subcommittee
of the Judiciary in the Senate, in cooperation with a conference com-
mittee of the House, made some rather important and helpful amend-
ments in the closing days of the Eightieth Congress.

I would like to say, first of all, that the United States Senate is
confronted with thi^ee choices today insofar as communism is con-
cerned in this country. We can follow the suggestion of a great
many fuie American organizations and some very good students of
communism, that we outlaw the party. Personally, I have not been
in favor of that. I helped sign the committee report in the House
which disapproved of that. 1 believe that the FBI believes there
are better ways in which the matter can be handled. It occurs to
me that to outlaw the party, among other things, would destroy a
very effective technique which the FBI has been usmg and which
has been demonstrated in the current trial of the 11 Communists in
New York City, and that is the fact that it is comparativel}' easy
today to do counterespionage work in Communist cells and Com-
munist organizations and Communist meetings. If we outlaw them
we necessarily tighten the situation in which operating underground,
as they then will, will make it more difficult for FBI agents to mas-
querade themselves as Communists and to do counterespionage
work.

However, if that is the only approach, if it is a question of doing
nothmg or outlawing the Communist Party, certainly I would stand
with those then who would prefer to outlaw it as contrasted with doing
nothing.

Doing nothmg, of course, is a second alternative. It is an alterna-
tive it seems to me that we have altogether too long followed through
now. We have been impressed bv the seriousness of the situation.
We are struggling with a $42,000"000,000 Federal budget, $21,000-
000,000 of which directly or hidirectly is labeled to fight communism
m this world. One-half the Federal budget is directly or indirectly
used for that specific purpose.

Senator Ferguson. Would you be a little more specific on that,
because that may be a little difficult to understand unless you tie it up
with the whole question of peace and the idea of a future war.

Senator Mundt. That is a very good point. Senator Ferguson. Any
realist in this country knows that the one real threat to world peace is
the fact that there is this cleavage in ideology and cleavage in interest
between the Communist part of the world and the non-Communist
part of the world. Our defense budget alone iims to the tune of
$15,000,000,000 to prepare ourselves for the possible eventualities that
this wicked situation might produce. In addition to that, we have
over $5,000,000,000 allocated for rehabilitation of countries in order
to strengthen them agahist the perils and the hazards of communism.
In addition to that, we have over a billion dollars we are being asked
to appropriate for arms for the Atlantic Pact which is dra^^^l up and
entered into specifically to try to give the free portions of the world a
working organization with which collectively they can oppose further
aggressions on the part of the Communist Party.' That in itself adds

26 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

II]) to tlic $21,000,000,000, if we did not include the extra appropria-
tions we arc compelled to make for such State Department policies as
the "Voice of America" program, strengthening the FBI to give us
additional security against communism, and other miscellaneous items
which would add up to well over another billion and a half dollars.

Senator Fergusox. Have you the cost that we might be expending
directly through the FBI and the Department of Justice and State
agencies on this rjuestion of protection against Communists right here
in America?

Senator Mundt. It is prett}^ ha:rd. Senator, to break down the FBI
expenditures in terms of the portions which they require because of
counterespionage and count ermeasures against communism and
those which they need for the other enforcement features of their work.
It is a safe and honest deduction to make that the vast percentage of
their efforts and their expenditures these days are no longer on kid-
napping and the movement of automobiles across boundary lines, but
in protecting and securing this country against espionage stemming
from communism.

Senator Ferguson. The entire cost of the loyalty checks could be
attributed to this question of communism right here in America.

Senator Muxdt. Correct, which alone is $25,000,000.

There is a third approach. I have mentioned outlawing, I have
mentioned doing nothing. The third approach is the approach incor-
porated in S. 1194, which involves the techniques of exposure, identi-
fication, registration, and notification. In that wo have continued to
permit communism to have freedom to meet, freedom to assemble,
freedom of the press, freedom of the use of mail, freedom of the ballot,
freedom to elect public officials to office. In no way circumscribed
and in no way are any restrictions built against those freedoms of the
Communist Party, but we dip awa}^ back down into an accepted
American procedure starting early in 1900 when in the matter of food
and drugs we passed a Pure Food and Drug Act which operated on the
theory that the buyer should beware, that the public should know
what is in the patent medicine bottle, that people should not unknow-
ingly be expected to consume something thinking it was something
else. So this legislation operates on the theory that Communists in
this country should operate as such. It compels them to replace
their conspiratorial espionage tactics with tactics more closely re-
sembling those of an honest political party.

So, proceeding to point out how S. 1194 conforms with those
principles that I have set out as a third approach to this program of
communism which is neither outlawing the party nor ignoring the
menace, let us look at the detailed functions of S. 1194.

The first important feature of the bill, it seems to me, is section 2,
subparagraph (1), which gives a working, understandable, and accurate
definition of comm.unism, presented as a legislative interpretation in
one single paragraph. Once this bill is enacted into law, any private
organization that wants to, for example, as the motion picture has
indicated it desires to do, can incorporate in its contracts the fact that
they can be abrlgated if a person belongs to a Communist Party.
They have a working, legal, understandable definition on which to
work.

We witnessed a rather unfortunate situation in this country in the
course of the last year when one of the members of the Hollywood

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 27

group who came down here to testify about communism clechned to
answer the $64 question whether he was, or had ever been, a member of
the Communist Partv. He dechned to answer it, I might add, be-
cause we had, at the same time we asked the question, his Communist
Party card in our file which we had secured from the FBI.

Senator Eastland. Who was that witness?

Senator Mundt. I will have to check that to be sure I have the
right name. I will supply that for the record. [The witness was
Lester Cole.]

After he had done that, the motion picture industry canceled his
contract. He took the case up in court in California and the court
compelled them to reinstate the contract and to reimburse him for all
his back pay on the theory that there was nothing in the contract
which he held which gave them the right to abrogate it simply because
he was a member of the Communist Party.

Senator Ferguson. Has that case been appealed, do 3^ou know?

Senator Mundt. I do not think it has.

Senator Ferguson. Would you check on that, Mr. Young?

Senator Mundt. I have never seen a notice in the paper that it has.

Mr. Young. Do you have the citation of the case?

Senator Mundt. I will supply it for j^ou.

Senator Ferguson. Will you check that so the record might show
it, Mr. Chairman? [Citation: Cole v. Loews Inc., et al. (76 Fed.
Supp. 872.)]

Senator Eastland. You are not surprised at the California court,
are you, Senator?

Senator Mundt. No; but I was badly disappointed. I was
badly disappointed that an American judge would so rule and so hold
and make it increasingly difficult for an honest effort to succeed which
attempts to protect the motion-picture-going public against the scripts,
the actions, the activities, and the propaganda devices of Communists.
That underscores once more the need of some Federal law.

I conferred at great length with Eric Johnston and with Joyce
O'Hara of the Motion Picture Association both ])efore and after that
trial. They pointed out, and I am sure their intentions are sincere
and their efforts were vigorous, that without some kind of law theAr
are virtually helpless today to eradicate communism from Hollywood,
which is one of the power spots toward whi.-h Communist leaders
direct their functionaries because they realize the tremendous public
opinion molding possibilities of the motion-picture industry.

Senator Fe.rguson. I want to say that I think probably the court
cov.ld be excused on the ground that it did not take judicial knowledge
as to what comm.unism is in the world and in America todav. This is
something new in the development of the world.

Senator Eastland. If I remember the case, that was proved.

Senator Ferguson. Yes; but it la^^ked proof. They did not try it
on the theor\ of trying to show what communism really was. If they
had offered direct evidence, I t.hink your answer would have been
different as to what commimism was. Not offering direct evidence
and proving that part of the case, how detrimental it was. how sub-
versive it was, the court not being in a position to take judicial notice,
leaves it so that, as you say, probably contracts in the future will have
to provide for cancellation.

28 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Mundt. That would seem to indicate, then, Senator, that
there was either ignorance or ineptitude on the part of the attorneys
presenting the case. They did not present communism in its true
light if they let them get by with the shibboleth that it was an eco-
nomic theory or political party instead of a world-wide conspiracy
operating at an international level according to a demonstrable
pattern.

Senator Eastland. Was that not proved? If I remember the case,
was it not proved that communism was a conspiracy to overthrow this
Government?

Senator Ferguson. Then of course I agree with the chairman,
there is no excuse for the decision.

Senator Mundt. If it was not proved there is no excuse for the
failure not to prove it. I have not read the whole transcript of the
case, so I cannot speak with authority as to what was and was not
approved. I read the verdict with tears in my eyes.

Senator Miller. After all, the decision was based upon the theory
that there was nothing contained in the contract that stated that if it
was established that this particular contract holder was a Communist,
that would be sufficient to cancel the contract.

Senator Mundt. That is the basis of the verdict, that is correct.
That was what I mentioned in my origin il statement.

Senator Miller. Yes; I think you did.

Senator Mundt. That is the first great contribution which it seems
to me this legislation would make. There are several paragraphs
there pointing out collateral arguments as to just what the Communist
Party is and how it operates, but the essence of it is incorporated in
that single sentence, one paragraph definition found in subparagraph
(1) of section 2.

Having established what the Communist Party is, we can go to
page 8 of the bill, section 4. Section 4, when the legislation was be-
fore you a year ago, when the AIundt-Nixon bill passed the House,
and during our hearings in the House Committee on un-American
activities, was the most controversial feature of the bill. It was not
only misrepresented skillfully — —

Senator Eastland. What did it provide, Senator?

Senator Mundt. I am coming to that. It was not only misrepre-
sented skillfully by Communist propagandists, but casual and cursory
readers of the propaganda and the publicity and the testimony arrived
at a completely inaccurate conclusion. So, with the very definite aid
of Senator Ferguson and Senator Donnell — and I think Senator Wiley
was the third member of that subcommittee last year, was he not?

Senator Ferguson. Yes.

Senator Mundt. Congressman Nixon and I worked with the Sen-
ators over a period of weeks, redefining the prohibited acts in section 4
so that there could be no possible misconception of what it actually
did. I want to read it to you now and then carefully go into exactly
what it proposes to do.

Section 4 says :

It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly —

We put in the word "knowingly" because some people said a man
might be innocent about what he was doing. So that word is put in
with deliberation.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 29

knowingl}' to combine, conspire, or agree with any other person to perform any
act which would substantially facilitate or aid in the establishment within the
United States of a totahtarian dictatorship * * *_

Let us pause there a moment to point out that this does not mean, it
very definitely does not mean that this prohibits a person writing an
editorial or prohibits a person making a speech, because this goes to
the act, and it has to be the performance of an act which would sub-
statially facilitate or aid in the establishment within the United States
of a totalitarian dictatorship, and it does not end there.

* * * a totalitarian dictatorship, the direction and control of which is to
be vested in, or xercised by or under the domination or control of, any foreign
government, foreign organization, or foreign individual.

Senator O'Conor. Could I ask you a question right there because
of your long familiarity with it? In any sense does this provision or
any other provision of the bill affect thought control?

Senator Mundt. Not in the slightest, because it goes to the act.

Senator O'Conor. I understand. Do you in any sense attempt to
control thought?

Senator Mundt. We not only do not attempt to control thought,
we oppose any attempt to control thought. We oppose any attempt
to control speech. We oppose any attempt to control freedom of the
press. Those are permitted to continue to function under the terms
of this bill.

Senator O'Conor. Does it prescribe any penalties for or attempt
to interfere with political opinions as such?

Senator Mundt. Xo; it does not prescribe a penalty for them; it
does not make them guilty. I am glad you raised those questions
"because that helps tremendously to clarify this issue.

Senator O'Conor. I assume, if I may just go one step further, that
it does not in any sense interfere with criticism of governmental opera-
tions as such, based on an attempt to point out shortcomings or
possible betterments of any governmental operation?

Senator Mundt. You are exactly correct. It even would not make
it illegal for a man to get up on a speaker's rostrum and adovcate that
we should have communism in this country instead of the system that
we have.

Now may I point this out further, because you are going to hear
some of the Communist v^itnesses and some of their fellow travelers
who are communists in disguise coming before this committee, who
will say, "This is legislation which is aimed particularly at us." It is
aimed "at communism, because communism today is the great internal
movement which is attempting to overthrow our Government and
make us subservient to a totalitarian power. May I call to your
specific attention that at no place at all in the sentence that I have
read in this prohibited act does it mention anything about communism.
This act would be just as much directed against the activities of the
German- American Bund as it is against communism. Had we had
this act in 1940, 1938, and 1939, it would certainly have provided for
the arrest and the conviction of members of the German-American
Bund in this country, and it would have provided for the arrest and
conviction of members of the Black Dragon Society of Japan in this
country, because those organizations at that time, as communism
today, were advocating and conspiring to perform actions to bring

93357—49 3

30 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

about the domination of America by a foreign government, a foreign
organization, or a foreign individual. I think that we shoukl keep that
clearly in mind when people come up and say, "We feel it is specifi-
cally against communism."

This bill fits the shoe, and the shoe fits the Communist foot today,
but if they can disprove the fact that the shoe fits the foot, they can
walk with all the freedom that they now have.

Senator Ferguson. Is it not true that this merely goes to totah-
tarian dictatorship, whether it be of the proletariat or anyone else?

Senator Mundt. Yes, and it goes only to that form of totalitarian
dictatorship which is controlled from abroad.

Senator Ferguson. That is true.

Senator Mundt. If we have in our midst some crackpot that wants
to advocate that he become a dictator in this country on his own, he
can still do that.

Senator Ferguson. But it is a totalitarian dictatorship dominated
or sponsored by those in foreign lands.

Senator Mundt. Absolutely right. [Reading:]

For purposes of this subsection the term "totalitarian dictatorship" means a
form of government not representative in form, characterized by (1) the existence
of a single political party * * *_

That would hold for the Nazis or the Fascists or the Communists.
[Reading:]

(2) such identity between such partly and its policies and the government and
governmental policies, of the country in which it exists as to render such party
and the government itself indistinguishable for all practical purposes.

That holds equal already for fascism, and communism, and nazism,
and I think you will quicldy discover the mental trickery of the
Communists when they come before you trying to say that this dis-
criminates against them and that they in turn are against fascism and
nazism, because as a matter of fact, it is a quick and easy change
from a Communist to a Nazi or from a Nazi to a Communist. When
I was in Budapest, Hungary, with Senator Barkley a little over a
year ago, we met a number of Hungarian doctors who told us that
they were presently treating patients who were at that time the
Communist commissars of Budapest, but they had treated the same
patients a number of years ago when they were the Nazi gauleiters of
the same place. There is little distinction between a gauleiter or a
Communist abroad, and many of them are exactly the same. May I
point out that the judge who presided in the Hungarian trials of the
cardinal was a former Nazi judge. It was quick and easy for him to
change. It is quick and easy for these American fakers to do the
same thing. [Reading:]

* * * for purposes of this subsection, the term "totalitarian dictatorship"
means a form of government not representative in form, characterized by —

I have given you (1) and (2). [Reading:]

(3) the abolition or prohibition of all other political parties.

The first thing that the Nazis did was to try to extermuiate the other
parties. The Fascists followed the same form, and the Communists
have carried it to the nth degree. We have in our country today a
host of political refugees, such as Mikolajczyk of Poland, who are here
because they belong to a party which was non-Communist, and they
were driven from their country, put in concentration camps, and some

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTHITIES 31

of tlw^m executed only because they dared to voice an opinion and a
political belief contrary with that hold by the Communists in control
of the Government.

The second part of section 4 is completely new. It does not appear
in the AIundt-Nixon bill. It does not appear in any of the other legis-
lation before you dealing with this subject, because it grows directly
out of the experience we had in the House Committee on Un-American
Activities last fall in investigation of the so-called pumpkin papers
case, the espionage activities of the Chambers-Hiss case, the Bentley
case, and others. So (b) attempts to define peacetime espionage.

Senator Ferguson. Is the Senator familiar with the biU that is
before us, S. 595, the internal-security bill?

Senator Mundt. The one Attorney General Clark has been testify-
ing on?

Senator Ferguson. Yes. There have been certain alterations in
the bill.

Senator Mundt. I am not familiar with the alterations.

Senator Ferguson. I am inclined to think that the pumpkin case
would be covered by one section of that act, and that is the reason
I call it to the Senator's attention.

Senator Mundt. At all events, we can certainly agree that any over-
ail legislation dealing with the Communist problem should cover
pumpkin paper cases.

Senator Ferguson. I agree with you; yes.

Senator Mundt. We have put this in and perhaps the other ap-
proach would be equally good or better.

Subsection (b) says this:

It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States or of any
department or agency thereof, or of any corporation the stock of which is owned
in whole or in part by the United States or any department or agency thereof, to
communicate in any manner or by any means, to any other person whom such
officer or employee knows or has reason to believe to be an agent or representative
of any foreign government or an officer or member of any Communist organization
as defined in paragraph (5) of section 3 of this Act, any information obtained in the
course of his official duties or employment of a kind which shall have been classified
by the President (or by the head of any such department, agency, or corporation
■with the approval of the President) as affecting the security of the United States,
unless such officer or employee shall have been specially authorized bj'^ the head of
such department, agency, or corporation to make such disclosure of such informa-
tion.

Had this law been in operation at the time the grand jury in New York
indicted Alger Hiss for perjury on the grounds he concealed from
them the fact that he was engaging in espionage activities, it would
have been bound by his oath of good performance and citizenship
also to have indicted him for peacethne espionage. Is it important,
I think, that we face up to the fact that today our Government boards
and bm-eaus and corporations have become a field place for the Com-
munists to function because they can do so almost with complete
immunity.

Senator Eastland. The Hiss case. Senator, would be covered in:
the internal security bill which we reported out to the full committee.

Senator Mundt. That is the one the Senator referred to?

Mr. Young. Yes; S. 595.

Senator Mundt. Probably so. I am talking about existing legisla-
tion. I certainly hope so. There is a great big opening in the security
defense line of America, and certainly the Communists have been

32 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

pouring a whole stream of spies into the Government as a consequence
of that.

The penahy it estabhshes for those prohibited acts which I have
already mentioned are that —

Any person who violates any provision 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. . . .

So we differentiate betw^een peacetime and wartime espionage.
Wartime espionage is a punishable crime by death, by life imprison-
ment. This is punishable with a maximum penalty of 10 years and
$10,000 which is a definite penalty.

Senator Ferguson. Does the Senator distinguish in his particular
bill, defining what is wartime and what is peacetime? You see, we
get a situation which we have today, that we are neither at war nor
at peace, as some people may think.

Senator Mundt. We distinguish in this way. This is over-all
legislation operative equally in peace or war. When we know we are
at war we have legislation which now covers espionage, but in this
twilight area, as you have apparently described it, we have no knowl-
edge at the moment covering the situation.

Senator Ferguson. But does the wording of yours indicate that it
applies only in what you call peacetime?

Senator Mundt. No. This covers all kinds of conveyance of
materials to foreign governments.

Senator Ferguson. No matter what the time is?

Senator Mundt. For this reason, this would also make it illegal
for some well-intentioned individual having security secrets at his
command to peddle them without authority to an ally. This, you
see, is to an ally or anyone. He has to have authority to do it. We
should not, I think we must agree, permit individual Americans in
relatively obscure positions, even out of the best of motives, to give
our security secrets away to the closest of allies.

Senator Ferguson. Wliat kind of papers do you have in mind that
it would be a crime to deliver to allies?

Senator Mundt. That is spelled out in definition. It is any paper
which has been

Senator O'Conor. Classified.

Senator Mundt. Yes; classified as affecting the security of the
United States, all classified information.

As the Senator understands, one time a thing is classified and at
another time it is not.

Senator Ferguson. I understand that, but the word "classified"
is not always under a directive of the President.

Senator Mundt. By the President or by somebody acting for him.

Senator O'Conor. The head of any department, agency, or
corporation.

Senator Ferguson. Then this goes so far as to allow an adminis-
trative officer to classify anything, and the transfer of that would be
criminal under your act.

Senator Mundt. It permits him to transfer anything provided he
has the approval of the President so to do, but it keeps the respon-
sibility on the President. It says with the approval of the President.

Senator Ferguson. Does the Senator know whether or not that
has been the practice in the past, marking things "Secret" or "Top

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 33

secret"? We have so many definitions and so many stamps in these
departments.

Senator Mundt. The difficulty in the past has conspicuously been
not one of classifying too much and keeping too much from the
enemy, but permitting too much to leak out to the enemy, the failiu-e
to protect the papers.

Senator Ferguson. Has this anything to do with the national
defense?

Senator Mundt. This is very definitely a part of the national defense.

Senator Ferguson. I mean the papers we are talking about.
If it is marked "Secret" because it is for the national defense, that is
one thing, but suppose it is just marked "Secret" and it has nothing
to do with the national defense.

Senator ^SIundt. That is covered in the definition as aft'ecting
the security of the United States. It is spelled out.

Senator O'Conor. In line 12 of the bill the requirement is that the
classification .would be of those papers which affect the security
of the United States.

Senator Ferguson. That was what I wanted to get at.

Senator Mundt. That is right. That is definite.

Senator Ferguson. Wliat about the person knowing, or believing
or having reason to believe that it woidd affect the security?

Senator Mundt. From the standpoint of the person against whom
the statute runs he can determine that by whether it is marked
"Classified" or not. The man who does the classifying acts in his
responsible capacity as the representative of the President.

Senator Ferguson. AU right. AVhat you do, then, is to use the
word "classified" to be the determining feature. Suppose it is not
marked?

Senator Mundt. If it is classified it is marked or it is supposed to
be marked.

Senator Ferguson. Suppose he gets the knowledge from a classified
paper and then gives it orally?

Senator Mundt. If he knows or has reason to believe that it is
classified, he is guilty.

Senator Ferguson. Is that the language you use, "knows or has
reason to believe"?

Senator Mundt. If he does not know it, of course he is not held
responsible for an inadvertence.

Senator Ferguson. I wish you would take the law that I gave you
the number of, S. 595, and go over that in relation to this particular
section.

Senator Mundt. I will be very happy to do that.

Senator Ferguson. Perhaps you will discuss it with the Senator
off the record rather than to interrupt what you have to say here
today.

Senator Mundt. Yes, I will be glad to.

Now we come to subparagraph (d) of section 4, which is also new
legislation growing out of the same hearings and the same espionage
difficulties.

Any offense pubishable under this section may be prosecuted at any time
without regard to any statute of limitations.

We have this imique situation as the basis for that section. M!iss
Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers both admitted then* guilt

34 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

as espionage agents, and their guilt as espionage agents apparently
took place at such a time that present laws cannot operate against
them.

Senator Eastland. You mean the statute of limitations?

Senator AIundt. The statute of limitations has run. It has been
shown to be a continued conspiracy down to the present.

Senator Ferguson. Does the Senator realize that Mrs. Bentley
gave her testimony to the FBI so they knew it before the statute of
limitations had run?

Senator Mundt. The Senator also realizes that Whittaker
Chambers

Senator Ferguson. Gave the same testimony to the State Depart-
ment at that time.

Senator AIundt. That is right.

Senator Ferguson. So we cannot blame the statute of limitations
for the fact that the Bentley and Chambers cases were not prosecuted.

Senator Mundt. That is right, but the statute of limitations did
prevent the House Committee on Un-American Activities from
building a case on which we could get a conviction of either of those
two.

Senator Ferguson. Yes, but you have also to realize that it is not
the duty of either the Senate or the Un-American Activities Com-
mittee to build cases for prosecution.

Senator AIundt. There is no substitute for diligence on the part
of the Attorney General or the State Department.

Senator Eastland. Where is your provision about the statute of
limitations?

Senator Mundt. I am sorry, at the bottom of page 9, going over
to the top of page 10. That is new and does not appear in the legis-
lation of last year. It grows directly out of the frustration that the
grand jury experienced and that our committee experienced.

Senator Eastland. I would like to hear you on that. The com-
mittee adopted a 10-year limitation in the internal security bill.

Senator Mundt. We had m mind when we fii'st worked this over,
Congressman Nixon and I, with the Senate legislative conference, the
Jeasibility of putting in a 10-year limitation and decided against it
because we were persuaded by this position, that in crimes of this
type which are crimes against the security of the country, which are
crimes of espionage, though it would be peacetime espionage, which
are crimes which, if not detected or punished, may destroy freedom
for everyone — we saw no reason to have 10 years any more than to
have 3 years because even with 10 years some people might slip
through the noose.

Senator Eastland. Some people might slip through, but yet would
it not also be possible that grave injustice would result? A person
could be indicted years after an occurrence, when the witnesses were
dead, when the witnesses were beyond the reach of the court, and
when his right to make a defense would prejudiced.

Senator Mundt. I think there is some danger in that.

Senator Eastland. Does not a provision like that sacrifice some-
thing that is basic in our system?

Senator AIundt. I do not think you could quite use the word
"sacrifice." I think it does impinge upon it. I want to be candid
about it. I think in all legislation of this type you frequently come

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 35

to this question: Are we going to run the danger that here and there
an innocent man may be somewhat imperiled and perhaps even
unjustly punished, or are we going to continue to rmi the danger that
a nation of innocent people is going to be imperiled and perhaps
unjustly punished by having their freedoms usurped by dictatorial
aggression? Sometimes you run into that twilight zone of decision.
T\ e had in mind the case of Hans Eisler, who for 12 vears without
detection in this country operated as one

Senator Ferguson. V\ us it without detection?

Senator AIundt. In his case, yes.

Senator Ferguson. You mean that we had no evidence

Senator AIundt. Hans Eisler for 12 years operated as the master
mind in the European link of the Communist Party. Finally it was
brought to light largely through the testimony of Budenze, who
switched from the Communist Party.

Senator Eastland. A\ait a minute, nov\'. You mean for 12 years
he was the European link, the master mind of the Communist Party?

Senator jMundt. For 12 years.

Senator Eastland. And you say in violation of the law?

Senator Mundt. Because he was here under fictitious passport.

Senator Eastland. There was a passport violation, of course.

Senator Ferguson. That would not be covered by this.

Senator Mundt. The point I am making. Senator is this: The only
law he could violate was a passport violation. There was no law
against this kind of business he was doing.

Senator Ferguson. Would your bill cover that?

Senator Mundt. Not at all. I point out that as a case to say
sometimes it goes beyond 10 years before 3"ou detect him. It would
not cover that at all.

Senator Eastland. That would be true of any crime. I do not
see why we should make an exception m this bill.

Senator Ferguson. ]\Ir. Chairman, that is the reason I am inter-
ested in the Bentley and Chambers cases. They were known. They
were known.

Senator Mundt. Yes, they were known.

Senator Ferguson. Is it not one of our fundamentals that yoa do
have except in rare instances, a statute of limitations so that we can
try to protect the rights of people, so that they can not be convicted
years afterwards when all of their witnesses, all possible witnesses
would be gone? There is such a flux in the world in 10 years that if
we camiot discover this in 10 years we should not prosecute.

Senator AIundt. I readily recognize that we have very little chance
in America to win the fight against communism unless and until we
can get law enforcem.ent officers and prosecuting officials who will
move within the span of 10 years.

Senator Ferguson. Yes. If you do not move within that time,
there is very little prospect of our ever getting convictions.

Senator Mundt. I agree. I would not quarrel at all with any effort
to limit it to 10 years.

Senator Eastland. As a matter of fact, you wo aid not object to a
limitation?

Senator Mundt. As I say, we deliberated very carefully and finally
decided on no limitation, but I would not quarrel violently WTth a
10-year limitation.

36 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Ferguson. I would just like to call to the attention of the
committee that we have before us also the bill, S. 1196, which is in
substance, with som.e refinem.ent, what the Judiciary Committee of
the Eightieth Congress tried to arrive at.

Senator Mundt. I have been trying to point out the distinguishing
features between this and that.

Senator Eastland. I would like to hear Senator Mundt on the
difference between your bill and his bill.

Senator Ferguson. Yes. Wednesday, when we meet, I probably
will be able to give som.e renaarks on that distinction, too.

Senator Mundt. All right.

Senator Ferguson. I have not any quarrel or pride in authorship
in this. I think we are trying to arrive at exactly the same thing.

Senator Mundt. There is no question about it.

Senator Eastland. We will recess now until next Wednesday morn-
ing at 10 o'clock.

Senator Mundt. Do I understand I am to come back at 10 o'clock
Wednesday morning?

Senator Eastland. Yes.

(Whereupon, at 11:55 a. m., the committee recessed until 10 a. m.,
Wednesday, May 4, 1949.)

CONTEOL OF SUBYEKSIVE ACTIVITIES

WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 1949

United States Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:10 a. m., in room
424 Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C, Senator Bert H.
Miller, presiding.

Present: Senators Eastland (chairman of the subcommittee),
Miller (presiding), O'Conor, and Ferguson.

Also present: Kobert Barnes Young, and John Mathews, profes-
sional staff members.

Senator Miller. I might observe that Senator Eastland reports
that he cannot be here until somewhat later in the morning, and the
hearing will be in order.

When we recessed the other day we still had Senator Mundt before
us and I guess you may resume your presentation, whatever it might
be. Senator.

STATEMENT OF HON. KARL E. MUNDT, A UNITED STATES SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA— Resumed

Senator Mundt. All right. Senator.

When the hearing stopped last week we were in the process of
discussing the provisions of S. 1194 and making occasional comparisons
and drawing contrasts between that legislation and S. 11 96 and also the
original Mundt-Nixon bill that passed the House of Kepresentatives
last year. You will recall we had just completed discussion of the
provisions of section 4 of the bill, and I presume we proceed now to
conclude our discussion as to the statute of limitations and the various
methods for doing something legislativevdse to correct the present
situation whereby claims against the Government -become outlawed
in 3 years. \

It is proposed in this legislation to eliminate the statute of limita-
tions entirely. And Senator Ferguson, I think it was, or Senator
O'Conor^ — I have forgotten which — brought out that in another piece
of legislation before your committee a 10-year limitation had been
established, and I said as far as I was concerned 1 had no particular
violent quarrel as to whether it was 10 or 12 years or no limitation
whatsoever, although in my own personal conviction it seems to me
that crimes involving treason and espionage should never be outlawed
because, after all, they are crimes of a mighty serious consequence.

Proceeding to section 5, unless you gentlemen have questions to me
further about that, section 5 is the section headed "Employment of
members of Communist political organizations," and that section pro-

38 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

vidos that "Wlion there is in effect a final order of the Commission,"
and the term "Commission" and the order of the Commission are
described later in the bill.

When there is in effect an order "requiring an organization to regis-
ter as a Commmiist political organization, it shall then be unlawful
for any member of that organization," to seek or accept any office or
employment under the United States, and to conceal the fact that he
is a member of such organization. If he seeks it or accepts it without
disclosing the fact that he is a Communist, he has committed a crime,
or "to hold any nonelective office or employment under the United
States."

The reason we used the word "nonelective" is because we feel that
in a free country like ours if the electors of any particular district or
division of Governmet decide loiowingly that they want to have a
Communist to represent them, so long as communism is legal, so long
as they know they are electing a Communist, it is their American
right to elect any kind of guy they want for office. So we draw the
Ime clearly between nonelective and elective offices.

We also make it illegal for an officer

Senator Ferguson. Would not a Communist have a very difficult
time taking the oath of office?

Senator jMundt. I do not think so, because a Communist is trained
early in life to lie. So I think he would take it fraudulently.

Senator Ferguson. I mean if he were actually a Communist, then,
of course, he would not pay any attention to the oath.

Senator Mundt. If he were both a Commmiist and an honest man,
he could not take the oath. He w^ould find a way.

Senator O'Conor. Is it possible to be both?

Senator JMundt. I do not think so. Perhaps some Communists
do.

Senator Miller. Well, Senator, are there not Communists who
actually and sincerely believe that they have the true philosophy of
government?

Senator Mundt. I tlimk so.

Senator Miller. And honestly believe it.

Senator Mundt. I think so, but since communism teaches in part
the destruction of our way of life, and the oath of office inists that you
uphold it, I say you cannot be a Communist and an honest man and
take the oath of allegiance at the same time.

Senator Miller. I see your viewpoint.

Senator Mundt. I do not challenge at all that some Communists
are sincere devotees of their particular creed.

Senator Miller. And probably they figure that resorting to the
processes that they do would be justified because of that belief.

Senator AIundt. The Communists, Mr. Chamnan, always figure
that the end justifies the means.

Senator O'Conor. It always has been said, Senator, that a part of
their training justifies in their opinion the taking of false oaths or the
allegation that they do not even belong to the Communist organization
in order to further their interests.

Senator Mundt. That is definitely correct, and in some cases where
literature of the Communists has been found and discovered, in other
cases where the FBI or others have done a counterespionage job on

CONTROL or SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 39

communism, it has been clearly disclosed that l^nng to the so-called
capitalists is part of the cloak of good behavior for the Communists.

Senator Ferguson. In fact, they require it, do they not, as part of
their training?

Senator Muxdi. It is required certainly from the standpoint of
those engaged in the under-cover work.

Senator Ferguson. Yes. For instance, then their card is concealed
and they are under cover, their job is to conceal the fact that they are
Communists and that anything is justified to effect that concealment.

Senator AIundt. Some of these bureaus, as we call them, over on
the other side, these former Communists who have disavowed their
allegiance to communism and have sincerely rejected it, have rejoined
the forces of decency, have clearly told us that at the time they were
doing under-cover work for the Communists they were instructed by
their superiors to deny the fact that they were Communists. To make
the thing clear-cut, they are not even permitted to carry a Communist
card and the written records are destroj'ed in the offices. They go
imder a code name. They operate in the shadowy activity where they
have no record as to their Communist attachments, because a Com-
munist espionage agent, of course, tries to carry out the outward
activities of a good citizen so that nobody detects him in his nefarious
job.

Proceeding, to make the law effective we provide that any officer or
employee of the United States who knowingly appoints to office a
member of the Communist Partj^ is also equally in violation of this
section of the law. I think that is all there is to that particular section^
although I might call to your attention that as used in this section
the term "member," shall not include any individual whose name
has not been made public because of the prohibitions contained
in section 9. As you go through the bill you will note that we have
changed the old ^lundt-Nixon bill in this connection. We have set up
a particular machinery and procedure whereb}' somebody who feels
he has been falsely hsted as a Communist has due and ample oppor-
tunity to have his name taken from the list before it is published and
before the provisions of the law run against him. That will become
clear as we go through the bill.

Section 6 is denial of passports to members of Communist political
organizations. I think that stands clear by its title. Whenever there
is in effect a final order of the Commission requiring that organization
to register as a Communist political organization, it is unlawful for
any member with knowledge that such order has become final to make
application for a passport or to use such a passport, and it is unlawful
for any officer of the United States Government to grant such a pass-
port. There again we put in the precaution that it shall refer as
''member" only to those whose names have been made public after
due process.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if he would explain
on the record as to why, in his opinion, people should not be given
passports because of their going for training and communication, and
so forth.

Senator Mundt. Yes, I think that is a very, very important point.
I might illustrate it by the case of one young man from the Senator's
State, a young colored boy by the name of Noel, which is a case in

40 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

point, who secured a passport after being granted a Communist
scholarship to study in Russia. He made no pretense about the fact
that he was a Commimist. He got the Communist scholarship. He
had worked himself up in the particular Communist group he belonged
to. He happened to be a young workman in Henry Ford's factory
in Detroit. They granted him a passport. He went to Europe and
studied in the Lenin Institute in Moscow. After studying there a
while he was appalled at what they were teaching him because they
were not teaching him what he expected to learn, that there were
political, economic, and social concepts of communism. They were
teaching him sabotage. They were teaching him espionage. They
taught him the location of the water supply of the city of Detroit and
the name of the chemicals and poisons to inject into the water to
poison the people of the city of Detroit in the event of a Communist
revolution in this country or an attack from Communists abroad.
They showed him maps and charts and graphs of the network of
transportation of the city of Chicago and taught him how he could
associate himself with others in sabotaging that transportation bottle-
neck in America in the event of a Communist revolution in this country
or an attack from Communists abroad.

He was a patriotic young man at heart. He came home and dis-
cussed it. He came over to our committee. He showed us his note-
books and told us about what he had been studying and said that we
should certainly not permit Americans to go over there and to get
them.selves trained in that kind of business and then come back in
order to carry out their plans.

That is just one reason, of course.

Senator Ferguson. Do you have reason to believe that there are
those who go through this school and come back and that they do not
disclose it to American authorities and are avowed Communists and
will help to carry out their scheme?

Senator Mundt. That is right. We know of the names of a great
many Americans who have gone to the Lenin Institute and finished
the course. Incidentally, we know" the names of some Europeans, too,
like Anna Pauker and some of the dictators of Europe today who have
finished the course. They, of course, didn't tell us what they took.
We know Neol is not the only one. We have had others who became
Communists originally because they felt there was something worth
while and sincere about it, and they became badly disillusioned when
they found it out and their good American patriotism replaced that
Communist illusion.

It would also work in such a situation as this. Mr. Browder over
20 times has crossed the seas to visit Moscow as the leader of the
Communist Party, as the director at one time of the Seventh Confer-
ence of the Communist International, an organization set up to destroy
capitalism around the world. He has gone there of course to report
to his rulers in Moscow as to the progress of communism in this coun-
try, to relay any secrets which may have come to him from people
like Miss Elizabeth Bentley or Wliittaker Chambers or Alger Hiss or
any one of a number of others who may have given them to him; to
bring back from Moscow instructions for his party and for those
doing underground work.

It seems to me just a reasonable precautionary method that we
should take that when we know a person is a Communist not to grant

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIV^ITIES 41

liim a passport to travel abroad for the purpose of destroying the coun-
try which he has left. So we would make that provision in the law,

I w^ould like to say here, Mr. Chairman, that Miss Ruth Shipley
down in the Division of Passports has done a highly commendable
job. One womaii has done a great one-man job down there trying t&
stop it. She cannot do it alone. She operates without any govern-
ing regulation. She has at times been asked to grant passports and
visas to people whom she would rather not grant them to, and legis-
lation of this kind I am sure under a woman such as Miss Shipley
would be reasonably and accm^ately and hontestly enforced. There is
no chance for error under the new provision because the list of names
will be before every Goverimient employee.

Section 7, registration and annual report of Communist organiza-
tions. Each Communist political organization required to register
as such shall within the time specified iji this act be compelled to
register. We set forth wiiat registration involves. It is registry
with the Attorney General on a form prescribed by him by his regula-
tions. They shall register for the kind of organization that it is. The
registration required — I am referring now to page 12:

shall be made (1) in the case of an organization which is a Communist political
organization or a Communist-front organization on the date of the enactment
of this act, within 30 days after such date; (2) in the case of an organization be-
coming a communist political organization 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 —

it shall register.

If the organization is one which the Attorney General has found
shall be required to register it also has 30 days in which to register.

^Miat does this registration statement include? That takes us to
page 13. It shaU include, first of all, the name of the organization;
secondly, the name and last-known address of each individual who at
the time of such registration or who was dtu'ing the period of 12 months
preceding such registration an officer of the organization with the
designation and title of the office he holds and with a brief statement
of the duties and functions of each individual officer.

So your officers are registered along with the names.

Then an accounting in detail of the moneys received and expended.
You will note so far, Mr. Chairman, we require of these Communist
organizations precisely the same kind of registration statement that
you require of the Republican- Party and the Democratic Party
under the Hatch Act. In other words, as I said on the daj^ of my
original testimony, since the evidence clearly shows that the Com-
munist Party no place in the world, including America, acts like a
political party or is a political party, this legislation is an endeavor
to channel their activities into the area that a political party operates
in this country.

Those three things, if it conforms with them, would compel them
to act like a political party.

Senator Ferguson. I wonder whether I might inquire there, Mr.
Chairman. At the present time they are able to take larger dona-
tions than $5,000 from individuals, are they not?

Senator Mundt. That is correct.

Senator Ferguson. There is no limit on what they take.

42 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Mundt. Because they do not engage in political campaigns
in the accepted American sense of the term.

Senator Ferguson. They do not disclose who gives them the
money.
• Senator Mundt. That is right.

Senator Ferguson. Do you know whether or not there are persons
who make large donations to the Communist Party?

Senator Mundt. Yes; we know of a building in New York City
which is used by the Communists as a school which was donated by
one fabulously wealthy American by the name of Frederick Vanderbilt
Field, and there are other rich Americans who unfortunately have been
induced to make large contributions, sugar-daddy ing these Communist
causes.

Now we come to No. 4.

Senator O'Conor. Right in that connection, wSenator, it is true
that quite sizable contributions were reported from members of the
movie colony.

Senator Mundt. Right, tremendous contributions.

Senator Ferguson. Did your committee have evidence on those?

Senator Mundt. Yes; we had evidence.

Senator Ferguson. Reliable evidence?

Senator Mundt. Incontrovertible evidence as to the size of the
contribution, especially in the early days when our committee was
proceeding under Martin Dies and was being attacked pretty bitterly
by the administration at that time, and Martin Dies used some pretty
direct methods of getting evidence by getting it first and subpenaing
it afterward, so the records were pretty complete for a while. That
evidence was not obtained in the best manner. Our committee de-
veloped better habits of behavior after that, more circumspect habits
of behavior, but the evidence at least was secured. There was no
question about that.

In recognition of the fact that what we are dealing with is not a
political party, we add to these first three which I have given you
which applies to them as it applies to Republicans and Democrats,
a fourth phase about registration at the bottom of page 13. It says:

In the case of a Communist political organization, the name and last-known
address of each individual who is a member of the organization at any time during
the period of 12 full calendar months preceding the filing of such statement —

shall be included.

We add a new subsection (5) that —

In the case of any officer or member whose name is required to be shown in
such statement, and who uses or has used or who is or has been known by more
than one name, each name which such officer or member uses or has used or by
which he is known or has been known —

must be registered.

In other words, that grew directly out of the hearings last fall where
we discovered that Whittaker Chambers, for example, had about six
or seven different names when he was operating as a Communist
underground agent, that the people with whom he was associated
were each known by a number of names. A clear-cut recognition
that without some such safeguard as that simply compelling a Com-
munist to register is simply compiling a useless roll of pseudonyms and
aliases. You have to have a law which requires them to list the series
of aliases which they use because it is very difficult to remember what is

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 43

the right name of a Communist. We started out in writing this pro-
vision to say he should use his legal name. We discovered a Commu-
nist sometimes has quite a few different legal names in sequence. We
think this language we have drawn up after careful consultation with
the legislative counsel is broad enough and tight enough and inclusive
enough to compel a Communist to list the various names by which he
is known. We think that is tremendously important because, after
all, we want this to be an enforcible act, and that means that the
governmental officials must have the protection of having an index
available as to those people who are laiown to be Communists, and
before they make an appointment or before they determine whether
or not a passport is to be granted.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire.

This list IS to be given by the officer of the organization?

Senator Mundt. It is to be given by the officer of the organization,
that is correct.

Senator Ferguson. Therefore, section 5 on page 4 would apply if
he knew that he had aliases or other names?

Senator Mt^ndt. That is right. We have also a statement later
in the bill which places some responsibility on the individual to register
if he knows that he is a Communist and knows that he has not been
registered.

Then the rest of it I thinlv is pretty clear. It just sets up the dates
and the place the registration is to be made, the duties and processes
of registration. I might add that this section grew out of testimony
that Attorney General Clark gave us in the last Congress, what he
said is the reason present registration laws are not enforced and where
in his opinion they were unenforceable and why no cases have ever been
tried under them; because they fail to fix and fasten the responsibility
for registration upon the individual. You cannot prosecute an organ-
ization. So we have spelled out here a definite responsibility and the
fixation of that responsibility so as to be sure that this time it is an
enforceable law.

"You can appreciate when you \\Tite legislation of this Idnd you
immediately run into difficulty raised by this situation: Wliat is to
prevent the Communist officers from including everybody in this
room in a registration list and saying that they are Communists and
consequently smearing a lot of good citizens? We had to have some
means of preventing that. We tried a device under the Mimdt-Nixon
bill which after more careful deliberation we thought could be im-
proved, so in this legislation there is some new language that I would
like to call your attention to because I believe it meets that predica-
ment that you run into whenever you deal with tricky people such as
these Communists are.

It starts primarily on page 15, line 16, but I had better start with
(g) so that you get the whole concept:

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 an officer
or member of the organization in respect of which such registration statement or
annual report was filed * * *_

Senator Ferguson. So that it might be clear this only applies to
Communist political activities.

Senator Mundt. This applies to Communist political organizations
insofar as members and officers are concerned, and Communist-front
organizations insofar only as officers are concerned.

44 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Ferguson. I wanted to get that clear on the record.
Senator Mundt. Right. [Reading:]

* * * a notification in writing that such individual is so Hsted; and such
notification shall be sent at the earliest possible time * * *.

In other words, tliere will be a regnlar procedure, a post card will
go out from the Attorney General with this person's correct name
and address, stating: "You have this day been listed as a Commu-
nist" — or "an officer in a Communist political organization" or "an
officer in a Communist-front organization."

And such notification shall be sent at the earliest practicable time after the filing
of such registration statement or annual report. Upon written request of any
individual so notified who denies that he holds any office or membership (as the
case may be) in such organization, the Attorney General shall forthwith initiate
and conclude at the earliest practicable time an appropriate investigation to
determine the truth or falsity of such denial, and, if the Attorney General shall be
satisfied that such denial is correct, he shall thereupon strike from such registra-
tion statement or annual report the name of such individual. If the Attorney
General shall decline or fail to strike the name of such individual from such
registration statement or annual report within 6 months after the receipt of sucn
written request, such individual may file with the Commission a petition for
relief pursuant to section 14 (b) of this act.

(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 action, it shall be
the duty of the executive officer —

to perform that duty.

The new point is that there is protection there. As w^e go tlu'ough
the bill, you Avill see how that protection ramifies out to give complete
security to a person falsely listed.

The "registration of members of Communist political organiza-
tions," section 8:

Each individual who is a member of any organization which he knows to be
registered as a Communist political organization under section 7 (a) of this act,
but which has failed to include his name upon the list of members thereof filed
with the Attorney General, shall within 60 days after he shall have obtained such
knowledge register with the Attorney General as a member of such organization.

That is the point I was mentioning to you, Senator, that he has some
responsibility.

The registration made by such individual shall be accompanied by a registra-
tion statement, to be prepared and filed in such manner and form, and containing
such information as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe.

Senator O'Conor. Senator, because of j^our splendid grasp of this
whole subject matter, I thought it might be pertinent to ask a question
just at this juncture on this very phase of the matter. What is your
opinion concerning the oft-repeated criticism of this particular type
of legislation that such provisions as those to which you have just
referred, if put into effect, would drive the Communists underground?

In other words, as you know, throughout the country there is on
the part of very many fine citizens the thought that the ultimate
effect might be to driv^e them underground and therefore defeat its
purposes.

Senator Mundt. I am very happy you raised that question because
it is frequently discussed and it is the source of very honest disagree-
ment among highly patriotic citizens. We have to start, I think,
with this realization wdiich unfortunately a lot of our scholarly
associates in the field of education and religion and joiu'nalism fail to
understand, that communism is now underground insofar as the most

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 45

significant part of the Communist Party apparatus is concerned.
Certainly the Bentley espionage ring, the Chambers espionage ring,
the Judith Coplon espionage ring operated underground. Hans
Eisler operated for a dozen years underground in this country, direct-
ing from abroad the activities of Communists in this country.

Senator Ferguson. According to the testimony now in the New
York trial, was not a great amount of the activities of the leaders
underground as disclosed by these witnesses who are taking the
stand?

Senator Mundt. That is correct. So we have a dual organization
at all times. So long as Communists remain in the minority in this
country we can be assured that the most dangerous part of the
Communist apparatus will stay underground, with or without legisla-
tion. They are underground now when there is no legislation dealmg
with them.

Now to approach the problem from the matter of making the
Communist Party illegal would be obviously to drive the -swhole
machinery into the ground. That would put a jail sentence or a
monetary penalty on anybody who belonged to the Communist
Party. That would compel every activity, every movement, every
organization, every circulation of a newspaper, every broadcast to
be an underground operation, and it would make it, as I said on the
first day of testimony, much more difficult for the FBI, for the
Un-American Activities Committee, for the Department of Justice,
for the police authorities generally to find even the telltale wake
behind the periscope of the submarine to know where their dangerous
operator was moving.

So I look at this legislation, frankly, gentlemen, as legislation
which forces the Communist Party out of the ground, just the opposite
from forcing it mto the ground. This legislation should find the
support of people who say we think that we should compel the Com-
munist Party to operate above ground, at least in part. This, you
see, will compel them at least to register the names of their officers
at the very minimum. It will compel them to register the names of
some of their front organizations as a very minimum. It will compel
them to register names of some of the members of the party as a very
minimum, because it cannot help very much to influence public
opinion if it appears they have filed their registration statement that
they have 17 officers and 20 members. They are going to have to
show some kind of membership strength, and they are going to have
to have to conduct some of their activities above ground so that they
can have some kind of appeal to people that they cannot contact
individually by their underground apparatus and mechanism.

So I think this will serve a very constructive purpose of forcing out
into the open where everybody can see them some of the Communist
activities and individuals who now either operate under the ground
completely or in a twilight area where insofar as 75 percent and
maybe 90 percent of Americans are concerned, they are underground.
Just a few know about their activities.

Senator Fergusoisi. Is there any difference between driving these
people underground by such a registration law than there is by
driving foreign agents that are now required to register?

Senator Mundt. Not a bit. For other purposes, you mean.

93357 — 19 4

46 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator FEfiGusOxS. Correct. The law now requires foreign
agents

Senator Mundt. To register.

Senator Ferguson. To register.

Senator Mundt. That is right.

Senator Ferguson. And therefore those who say that this will
drive people underground, you would think that that law would
drive them underground.

Senator Mundt. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. That is the purpose of the FBI and the police,
to ferret out these who would go underground. Then you would
have a penalty against the officers who were officers of an organization
and did conceal the fact and pat them underground. Today j^ou
really haven't any penalty for them being underground.

Senator Mundt. No penalty whatsoever and there is no way to
force them to operate along certain rules. Of course, when America
decided that opium smoking should be made illegal, it drove some
opium smokers underground. When in our good judgment we decided
that Kidnaping was not a mark of good citizenship, we drove kidnaping
underground. When it was decided that in order to protect the
Federal currency we ought to make the printing of money and the
coining of coins of Government function instead of voluntary activity
by everybody in the community, we drove counterfeiting under-
ground. Certainly this is going to drive espionage further under-
ground perhaps than it is now because it is going to make a penalty
for the person who engages in it. I suppose a young lady like
Miss Coplon would be more careful about making her contacst.
She would not make them under the shadow of an elevated railway
track in New York City. She might meet further underground in
that activity and be more cautious perhaps. But it also gives Amer-
ican prosecuting authorities a way to punish these underground
espionage activities. It makes it a peacetime crime and it will
consequently tend to discourage its general practice by a lot of people
in the class into which I suppose Miss Coplon would fall — romantic,
giddy-eyed, adventuresome, who vitiates in the field of espionage.
It would make it less attractive to people who don't intend to make
acareer out of it.

Now going over to the keeping of the registers, public inspection,
reports to President and the Congress.

Senator Ferguson. I think we should not just classify women as
those who do these nefarious things.

Senator Mundt. No, I think you are exactly right.

Senator Ferguson. It is not always just under the claim of love, is
it?

Senator Mundt. Not always, no. It is hard to drive love from a
woman's heart, though. It has lots to do with most of the cases
that have been brought in.

Keeping of registers, puh>lic inspection and so forth, under section 9:

The Attorney General shall keep and maintain in the Department
of Justice (1) a register of Communist political organizations including
the names and addresses of all Communist political organizations,
registered under the act, the registration statements and annual
reports required as to finances and also the registration statements
filed by individuals.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 47

Secondly, a registration of Communist-front organizations, two
separate registers, one the Communists themselves, the other the
dupes, the associates, the cohorts of the Communists, the Communist-
front organizations.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think the Communist fronts will be
able effectively to operate under a registration such as these bills
would require? Do you think they will be able to finance themselves?

Senator \Iundt. I think one of the big advantages. Senator Fergu-
son, of that act is to destroy what J. Edgar Hoover told our committee
in these hearings was one of the most vicious aspects of Communist
activity in this country, and that was its uncamiy ability to create
fronts through which it functions. I concur with you that the big
body of American citizentry, is patriotic and sound enough so that
when it knows it is being appealed to by a Communist-front organiza-
tion, it will resist the appeal. I don't think American Youth for
Democracy, AYD, would have made the tremendous strides it did in
Michigan and other States, confusing and deluding students and pro-
fessors alike, if it had been compelled to carry on the masthead of its
letterhead and all its publicity the fact that ''We are a Communist-
front organization. ' '

Senator Ferguson. Do you not think that the youth of America,
the great number of them in our colleges, would just have no tiling to
do with the front organizations if they could go to a book in the
Attorney General's office and ascertain that that was a front and that
it was trying to operate among the students? Do you not think that
their patriotism for America would be such that they would just have
nothing to do with it and that such an organization could not operate
on the American campus?

Senator Mundt. I agree completely. I think you would limit
Communist activities on college campuses to a comparatively small
tough-minded group of known Communists who were perfectly willing
to be known as such and that you would not get any of the people
whose patriotism is sound to affiliate with that kind of organization.
I agree with you.

The registration shall be kept and maintained as political organi-
zations except that it shall not include the names of the individual
members. Such register shall be kept and maintained in such manner
as to be open for public inspection. To protect the innocent, we want
to make it clear and I certainly hope the press will cooperate in
making it clear so that Americans can judge this legislation on the
basis of what it is, and not on the basis of what the Communists
claim that it is, so we put in this important proviso:

That the Attorney General shall not make public the name of any individual
listed in either such register as an officer or member of any Communist organ-
ization until 30 days shall have elapsed after the transmittal of the notification
required by section 7 (g) to be sent to such individual, and if prior to the end of
such period such individual shall make written request to the Attorney General
for the removal of his name froin any such list, the Attorney General shall not
make public the name of such individual until 6 months shall have elapsed after
receipt of such request by the Attorney General, or until such time as the Attorney-
General shall have denied such request and shall have transmitted to such indi-
vidual notice of such denial, whichever is earlier.

That is entirely new language, and that is brought in 'this bUl. It
is not in the Mundt-Nixon bill. It is not in the other legislation.
It is brought in because in consultation with that rarest of all forms

48 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

of American political life, an honest liberal, in consultation with some
honest liberals, in consultation with people who would like to support
this legislation but fear it might be used to smear innocent people,
this device has been worked out.

Jjct me recapitulate so it will be entirely clear: This means that any
mdividual who receives, and they all receive, a written notice that
his name has been mentioned can by simply writing a penny postcard
to the Attorney General have six complete full calender months before
his name appears on any list, and shall during those 6 months be able
to carry through the specific machinery set up here for convincing
the Attorney General that he is not properly registered and none of
the operations of the law run against him during that period.

Senator Ferguson. Suppose the Attorney General does not take
his name off, then he has a right to appeal to your Commission?

Senator Mundt. That is correct.

Senator Ferguson. Does he have a right under this to have a
decision by the Commission prior to the time of making public his
name?

Senator Mundt. Yes. We will come to that in the Commission
procedure.

Senator Ferguson. So he has a right to conceal his name until he
gets the final order of a Commission, and then it would become public.

Senator Mundt. That is correct.

Senator Ferguson. If they denied taking the name off.

Senator Mundt. That is correct.

Senator Ferguson. If they find he was a member or was an officer
in the case of a front organization.

Senator Mundt. That is right. That is precisely right. It says
the Attorney General shall submit to the President and to the Congress
on or before May 1 of each year or at any other time when requested
by resolution of either House a report with respect to the carrying out
of the provisions of this act, et cetera.

In section 10, "Membership in certain Communist political
organizations."

It shall be unlawful for any individual to become or remain a
member of any organization if he laiows that there is in effect a final
order of the Commission requii'ing such organization to register and
such organization has not registered. Let us be clear we are not
making it unlawful for a person to become and remain a member of a
Communist Party. It is provided the party registers. If the party
says, "We are bigger than the law, we haven't our commissar in
Washington 3^et, we haven't established a politburo yet, but we are
still important enough that the laws of the Government don't apply
to us, so we don't register." Then it is illegal for a person to belong
to that kind of organization which operates in blatant and bold de-
fiance of the law.

Senator Ferguson. And he having knowledge that it is in violation
of the law.

Senator Mundt. He having knowledge that it is in violation, he is
himself as a participating member consequently in violation. That is
the point there.

"Use of the mails and instrumentalities of interstate or foreign
commerce," section 11. Quite to the contrary of editorials I have
read even since we had our meeting last week, that this legislation is

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 49

going to deny the right, so-called, of the Communists to function in
this country, let me point out that when this law becomes operative,
if it does. Communists retain every right to use the mails, every right
to broadcast, and every right to elect their candidates to office, every
right to maintain a campaign, every right to put up posters and
pamplilets that any American has. All this legislation says is that it
must identify itself properly, identify its product with its name. That
alread}'^ applies to the Republican Party. It already applies to the
Democratic Party. ^Ye have in fact under the present circumstance
granted to the Communist privileges and concessions denied both the
Republicans and Democrats, because in campaigning you cannot just
send anonymous jokers through the mail attacking a candidate for
office. Somebody has to sign it, somebody has to identify it. Under
the Hatch Clean Pohtics Act you have to put the label of the party on
it if it is a party matter.

Senator Ferguson. Even the billboard campaigns has to have on
it by that authority. So there is nothing new in this.

Senator Mundt. Nothing new except it applies the same principle
to the Communists, and I would certamly appreciate it w^hen some of
these people come, as they inevitably will come before your com-
mittee and say, don't discriminate against the Communists. Ask
them to justify if they can why the Communists alone today should
have the right to anonymity when Republicans and Democrats are
expected, and rightfully so, to identify their campaign material.
I think the time has come certainly when we discontinue granting
special bonuses and privileges and concessions to an outfit dedicated
to the proposition of the destruction of this Government. It says
here simply in the use of the mails that in order to use the mails
Communist-front organizations and Communist Party must put on
the literature they send through disseminated by "blank," the name
of the organization, a Communist organization or a Communist-front
organization if it happens to be that.

Section 12 is clear-cut. You know what it means by its title. We
had the unique and incongruous situation develop about 14 months
ago that it was disclosed that the Bureau of Internal Revenue was
granting tax concession and tax immunity to several Communist
organizations, Communist-front organizations, because they allegedly
were engaging in an educational program. When the House Com-
mittee on Un-American Activities brought out the list, the Internal
Revenue Bureau very promptly discontinued grantmg those tax con-
cessions to those groups. We thought it would be a good safeguard
to put it in the law just to make sure that that kmd of situation does
not develop agam. I guess America is unique m many ways, but
certainly we are unique in the fact that we give tax concessions to
organizations trying to destroy the tax-collecting authority of the
Government.

I don't think anybody did that deliberately down there. I think
it is a case where it is difficult for the Internal Revenue people to
know which organizations are and which are not Communist organiza-
tions. In this legislation it will be clear and easy to enforce the law.

Senator Ferguson. May I mquire, would it not be essential, not
blaming the tax collector at the present time, the Treasury Depart-
ment, it would be required that he give tax exemption if their charter

50 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

and procoodino; qualified under a certain regulation, unless we have
some act like this?

Senator Mundt. Well, they have considerable latitude, Senator.
I have been down in the last 10 years on different cases

Senator Ferguson. Should they voluntarily discriminate and pass
judgment? Here you have a board finally to pass judgment.

Senator Mundt. Correct. I concur completely in that. We
should have the thing clear-cut so there is no option so far as the
Treasury Department is concerned, because you might have authority
in the Treasury Department at a certain time in which the Com-
munists had pretty liberally infiltrated themselves, as they had at
one time in the State Department and, incidentally, in the Treasury
Department.

If that situation prevailed, you could readily run into that situation,
if you gave them volition down there so they could grant tax exemp-
tion to a great many front organizations. This makes it clear that
this certainly expresses the intent of all good citizens, the intent of all
good people in the administrative and executive branches of the
Government, and relieves them from the measures and temptations
which come otherwise if a little group of people can determine yes or
no as to tax exemption.

Mr. Young. May I ask one question, Senator Mundt? In section 9,
I notice that you deny the use of the mails and i*adio. Would you mind
including television in that section?

Senator AIundt. No; I think television would be a good addition.

Mr. Young. It happens to be in the other bill and I didn't know
whether you omitted it purposely.

Senator Mundt. Technology moves so rapidly it is hard to keep up
with it. I think it would be a good idea to include television.

Senator Ferguson. Of course this does not deny the use. It merely
says if you use these media, you must identify yourself.

Senator Mundt. That is correct. We want to make it clear that
it does not deny it. It does not put a single extra hurdle in front
of the Communists which does not now exist for the Republicans or
the Democrats. If any member around this table goes on the radio
tonight to express his viewpoint as a paid broadcast, he has to identify
the source of that income or support.

Section 13, ''Subversive Activities Commission." This is very
similar to that which has been in the other legislation, and I will
mention the parts that are new. "There is hereby established a
Subversive Activities Commission," comprised of three people, and
you have before you three choices. This legislation says the Depart-
ment of State would be represented, the Department of Commerce
would be represented, and the Military Establishment. The original
Mundt-Nixon bill selected them from the Department of State, the
Department of Commerce, and the Department of Labor. Senator
Ferguson's bill leaves the selection in the hands of the President.
You have three different approaches to the same thing.

Senator Ferguson. The reason I suggested that Board should
represent all of the people, and the method of getting them to represent
all of the people is tlu-ough the President and through the Senate by
approval, rather than saying that this is a State Department, Treasury,
or Army Commission. It was a little broader than that. It is a matter

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 51

for all of the people to name this board, and the only medium we have
is tlii"oiigh the President.

Senator Mundt. Certainly I have no partici'lar point of view that
I care to stress very greatly in that connection. We all agree that it
should be appointed by the President. Whether we should establish
any guide posts to help him make his selection or not, is comparatively
immaterial, I would think. I might say the reason we put in the
National Military Establishment is that as regarding these espionage
cases we quickly recognized that the security of this country was very
definitely involved in this whole business, and we felt maybe they
should be brought into the pictare. I presume under your arrange-
ment. Senator Ferguson, the President in all probability would take
care of that anyhow.

Senator Fekguson. They should come in as witnesses.

Senator Mundt. Yes. It shall be the duty of the Commission
to function as follows:

"(1) Upon application by the Attorne.v General" or by any organi-
zation, giving to any organization in this country, the most violently
and viciously and blatantly un-American organization the same right
as the Attorney General, upon application of either the Attorney
General or the organization under question to determine whether such
organization is a Communist political organization within the meaning
of the paragraph or a Communist-front organization, when that is
made the Commission is mandated to carr}^ oat proceedings to estab-
lish findings under the provisions set up under this act.

Upon application made by the Attorney General or any individual
concerning the membership of the organization, the Commission
makes such rules and regulations not inconsistent with the provisions
of this act which may be necessary in the performance of his duties
and making its findings. And it appropriates the funds.

Section 14, proceedings:

Whenever the Attorney General shall have reason to believe that any organiza-
tion which has not registered under subsection (a) or subsection (b) of section 7 of
this act * * * shall file with the Commission and serve upon such organiza-
tion or in4ividual a petition for an order requiring such individual or organization
to register —

pursuant to the act. Then that organization and the individual may
not oftener than once in each calendar year make application to the
Attorney General for the cancellation of such registration or for relief
from the obligation to make further annual reports. [Reading:]

Within 60 days after the denial of any such application by the Attorney General,
the organization or individual concerned may file with the Commission and serve
upon the Attorney General a petition for an order requiring the cancellation of such
registration and (in the case of such organization) relieving such organization of
obligation to make further annual reports. Any individual authorized by section
7 (g) of this act to file a petition for relief may file with the Conmiission and serve
upon the Attorney General a petition for an order requiring the Attorney General
to strike his name from the registration statement or annual report upon which
it appears.

That process is resorted to upon the filing of such petition. The
Commission or any member thereof or examiner designated thereby
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

52 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

and the production of books, papers, correspondence, memoranda,
and other records.

It provides imder (d) the method by which the hearings shall be
conducted. They shall be conducted in public. Each party in such
proceeding shall have the right to present its case by oral or documen-
tary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, to conduct cross-examina-
tion, and to be represented by counsel. The whole thing is set up.

In determining its findings, the legislation provides certain guide-
posts for the Commission. In determining whether an organization
is a Communist jDolitical organization, the Commission shall take 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 inider 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; * * *.

In other words, that is one of the criteria to be used, the extent to
which foreign domination controls the activities of this group set up
in America.

A second criterion, the extent to which the views of this organization
and its policies do not deviate from those of such foreign government
or foreign organization.

May I suggest that the question of deviation is highly important.
It is not so much the places at which they are similar. It is a place
at which they do not deviate. Under the rule of the Communists
they permit no deviation at all. You smoke them out when they get
to a situation such as we had in the world a few months ago when you
had to stand up and be counted all over the world in the unhappy event
of war between Russia and your country, whose side are you on?
Duclos, Thorez, Dennis, Foster, and all the rest of them were compelled
to get up and say "We are on the side of the Communists." It is a
question of deviation. They do not permit any deviation because
Communists know if they permit their hirelings and their underlings
even once to express opinions deviating from the master rule, they
establish a dangerous precedent that they might again follow and they
might have another Tito on their hands.

So it is a pretty safe criterion to follow.

Senator Ferguson. Might I ask a question at this point? That
hasn't varied from the time that Gates and Foster testified before the
committee?

Senator AIundt. That is right.

Senator Ferguson. That was a year ago. But it was very signifi-
cant at this time because it follow^ed those in other countries indicating
that it was world-wide rather than just the idea of two men or a group
of men here that they would not support America and would support
Russia. It was significant — was it not? — that when Robeson went to
Paris on the so-called peace tour he made a statement in complete
conformity with it, and also he refused to answer whether or not he
was a Communist.

Senator Mundt. That is very significant, Senator. I was reading
hearings before your committee in the Eightieth Congress the other
night when you had Foster before you and were trying to pin him down
on this point. He did not deviate then and does not deviate now, but

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 53

now he made it crystal clear and then he attempted to confuse the
issue.

Senator Ferguson. That is right. He was a little frightened.
He did not know what we were trying to discover or why, but in sub-
stance he said the same thing.

Senator Mundt. That is right. You had not given him time, you
see, to communicate with Moscow for the right answer. You caught
him rather unprepared, but he was ready the other time.

We list these criteria:

(2) the extent to which its views and policies do not deviate from those of such
foreign governments or foreign organization ;

(3) 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;

(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 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 govern-
ment organization or its representatives; * * *

As in the case when they removed Browder as head of the Communist
Party in the country after the war and put in W. Z. Foster at the
direct order of ^Moscow relayed to this country by Jacques Duclos of
France. That is a pretty startling indication that communism in
America is a creature movement controlled by the head of the Com-
munists in Moscow.

Senator Eastland. Who is the head of the Communist movement
in the United States? Is it Dennis?

Senator Mundt. The head is W. Z. Foster. The associate head is
Eugene Dennis. If you are speaking of the part that plays in the
public. We have been unable to discover the underground chief who
is directing the present espionage activities in Washington. Smce
Eisler has disappeared, and J. Peters is out of the picture, we do not
know that. The open heads at the moment are Foster and Dennis.

Senator Eastland. Do jou not believe there is in the city of
Washington somebody high in this Government with great power that
is alined with the Communist movement who places these people in
strategic positions in the Government?

Senator Mundt. I think there is no question about that. They
cannot work their way in without great assistance from somebody on
the inside. It was said when Miss Coplon was discovered, the main
job has not been done. We must find out who it is that is taking the
place of Chambers and Bentley, and who is takmg the place of the
people in Government who helped bring into the official positions
•these Communist espionage people.

Senator Eastland. Of course, great work has been done to root
them out.

Senator Mundt. Especially in the State Department under Jack
Peurifoy. He has done a great job.

Senator Eastland. It has been done to root them out of all depart-
ments; but why is it that, rooted out of one, they show up in another
department?

Senator Mundt. There are very ardent crusaders. Somebody
manipulates them.

54 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Ferguson. You asked a question that has to be answered,
Senator. Bentley gave some indication of that answer: that they
had people in the various crucial departments and at the crucial points
who could see that these people were taken from one department to
another. We took some testimony on the Appropriations Committee
about 3 years ago about the State Department, and I would like to
try and make that available, at least in an executive session, to the
committee, showing how they operate.

Senator Eastland. The testimony showed that they had cells
which did not have contact with each other; groups that did not have
contact with each other; but yet, is it not perfectly plain that, when
you root them out of one department, they show up in another; there
is a directing head?

Senator Mundt. There is no question about it.

Senator Eastland. There is somebody with powerful influence in
the Government. I thought the editorial this morning — I do not
usually agree with one of the ncAvspapers here or any of them for that
matter — but I thought the Times-Herald had a very timely editorial
this morning on that subject. That has been my opinion for a long
time, and I think that that person has to be identified.

Senator Mundt. I think, Senator, the best conclusion — that no
realist can avoid — is that these people don't operate as an individual
agent. They operate as part of a team, part of a cell, part of a
network.

Senator Eastland. If there is such a person, he is the most
dangerous man in the United States; is he not?

Senator Mundt. Well, he and the fellow who operates under-
groimd directing him.

Senator Eastland. I say the directing influence. How would your
bill assist the Government in detecting those directing heads?

Senator Mundt. I think it would assist in this way. It will
require, as we were discussing earlier this morning, Senator, the
Communists to register a portion of their activities, their above-
ground activities. It will require them to register a portion of their
membership, that part which they authorize to operate above the
ground. It will provide a definite penalty against the person engag-
ing in espionage activities. It will provide a penalty against the
governmental official who helps bring them into the Government.
It will provide opportunity

Senator Eastland. What is the penalty there?

Senator Mundt, For those crimes, 10 years in the penitentiary
and $10,000.

Senator Eastland. For what crime?

Senator Mundt. Any crime involving espionage against the
Government.

Senator Eastland. Of course, the person who is guilty of espionage
against the United States and in the service of a power foreign would
be criminally liable, but what about the directing head who places
those agents in Government?

Senator Mundt. He would be criminally liable under the same
section of the bill, section 4.

Senator Eastland. What does it say? I would like to have that
just explained a bit. You need not read it.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 00

Senator Mundt. Conspiring to perform an act which would tend
to turn the control of this country over to a foreign dictatorship.

Senator Eastland. It is ah-eady a violation of the law.

Senator Mundt. No; not in peacetime.

Senator Ferguson. I am inclined to think with the Senator that
it is.

Senator Eastland. Yes; it is a violation of the law.

Senator Mundt. It is a violation if it is done by force and violence.
They are trying communism solely on the force-and-violence clause.

Senator Ferguson. Under the Smith Act.

Senator Eastland. WTiat about it, Mr. Attorney?

Mr. Young. I think Senator Mundt is correct on that.

Senator Eastland. It is no violation of the law?

Mr. Young. Unless there is force and violence, and then you have
a special penal statute which makes it a Federal crime to conspu-e to
overthi'ow the Government by force or violence.

Senator Eastland. This bill, then, in that particular, is needed;
is that right?

Mr. Young. I think it is; yes, sir.

Senator Ferguson. I thought you were asking about the force and
violence. I am of the opinion that force and violence is actually in
existence, but a very difficult thing to prove, as then- experience up
in New York indicates. It exists. There is no doubt about it. But
this would allow you to do the same thing and not prove force or
violence because they are going to set up a dictatorship.

Senator Eastland. I know; but, if I understand it, right now a
person in the service of the United States or a citizen of the United
States who places agents of a foreign power in the Goverimient of the
United States for the purpose of espionage today is not guUty of a
conspiracy to commit espionage? Is that what you say?

Senator Ferguson. Oh, I think they are guilty of conspu-acy. I
do not think there is any doubt about it.

Senator Eastland. I am trying to see if he has something that is
not already covered in the law.

Senator Ferguson. That part is covered as sure as anything, the
attempt or agreement to put somebody in employment to commit
espionage is certainly conspiracy.

Senator Eastland. I thiTik so, too. Our attorney says that is not,
and I would like that question to be checked.

Mr. Young. I believe that there are two different things: the one
that is in this bill and the thing that you mentioned. I believe that
is covered under the present espionage statutes.

Senator O'Conor. Is this not the situation, though, uncovered,
Senator Mundt. While today we grant to any citizen the right to
propose any change in the form of government by constitutional
amendment or otherwise, nevertheless you seek to make it unlawful
for persons with subversive tendencies to seek to change and bring
about such radical departure from our constitutional principles when
those suggestions are dictated by a foreign government?

Senator Mundt. That is correct.

Senator O'Conor. That is uncovered at the present time.

Senator Mundt. That is correct. You have the prevailing legis-
lative code on conspiracy, but that doesn't deal with the particular

56 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

problem of conspiring to destroy the sovereignty of this''Government
for deliverance to a foreign power. There have been convictions of
people who conspire to rob a bank or something of that kind, but you
cannot get a conviction in a case of this kind without pinning it onto
something. You have to show that it is definitely part of a plan and
a plot and a program. In wartime, when the espionage acts are
effective, of course you have considerably more protection than in
times of peace, the answer being that for a long period of years now
we have known of these espionage cases. We have even had them
coming in and reporting themselves, to the Department of Justice, as
long as 10 years ago, saying, "Look, I am guilty of spying against the
Government and I am guilty of espionage, and we have gotten no
convictions and have not even had a trial."

Senator Ferguson. Can you accomit for that?

Senator Mundt. You have either to assume that the Attorney
General's office is on the side of the spies or that the laws arc inade-
quate. I prefer to presume that the laws are not adequate.

Senator Eastland. I do not think the Attorney General's office is
on the side of the spies.

Senator Mundt. I think you have to assume one or the other of
them because the evidence of the espionage is clear-cut. It is a choice
of whether or not they are inadequate, and the Attorney General has
so testified. Attorney General Clark so testified when the bill was
before the House. They are handicapped by loopholes in the law.
Nothing specifically limits these particular crimes. It is very difficult
to tr}^ them now, to prove force and violence activity. Communism
has ceaselessly changed its tactics to try to keep about one-half inch
ahead of the law all over the world. They move in by espionage;
they move in by something else, rather than by the old force and
violence tactics.

Senator Eastland. I am gomg to be frank, Senator. I think we
should give serious thought to section 4 of the bill.

Senator Ferguson. That answers your question; does it not,
Senator O'Conor? It all depends upon the working of that section.
The two bills are substantially the same, except I think for the one
word "contributes."

Senator Mundt. In my bill, I put in the word "knowingly."
Certainly we want to make it read tight enough to insure that no
loopholes will remain.

I think we had finished discussing the section that deals with pro-
cedure. We will find in section 15 also judicial review. So that any
person or organization aggrieved has complete judicial review. The
full processes and procedures of the courts are made available to the
people coming within the purview of this act. Very few changes have
been made in penalties, although we have made a few. I pointed out,
for example, that 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 oftense. That was done at the
behest of the Attorney General, who said it was important to build this
thing up so that in case of definite violations they could make a rather
substantial case against a serious violation. We think the applica-
bility of the .Administrative Procedure Act appears in all the pre ^rious
bills, the one that passed the House and the ones that we have here.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 57

In general, that is what is done. It seems to me it puts every con-
cei viable safeguard that you can have around the fact that an innocent
organization or an innocent individual might be listed or publicized,
and it still does give the Government the right and the power and the
authority to protect itself so that we do not simplv become the victims
of people who misuse this free envhonment for the purpose of destroy-
ing it and making it just another Communist shivc camp.

Mr. Young. Senator Mundt, I would like to ask a question at this
point, if I may. I think you are almost through. You remember
last year we had the so-called Mundt-NLxon bill which passed the
House and was referred to this committee. We held extensive
hearings on that. That was H. R. 5852. \Mien that bill came over
to the committee, we submitted it to the eminent lawyers up in New
York— namely, Charles Evans Hughes, Jr., John W. Davis, former
Presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket, and also to Mr.
Tom Clark, the present Attorney General^ — for their constitutional
views on that bill. As a rule, they sent back to the committee three
briefs on constitutionality which were in the negative. I might also
m-ention that m that respect we had other constitutional briefs which
said the bill w^as constitutional. Mr. Robert ]Milham, chairman of
the Special Committee of the American Bar, stated that he believed
the bill was constitutional. We had briefs on both sides last year.

Senator Mundt. Donald Richberg, I think, too.

Mr. Young. Yes; Donald Richberg and also the special research
staff of the Library of Congress. We had legal briefs from eminent
authorities on each side of the question.

Senator Mundt. I recall that.

Mr. Young. We took those three briefs from New York and we
worked over that bill here in the closing days and tried to get rid
of the constitutional objections of these emment people up here in
NeW' York. I would like to know^ whether this new bill in your
opinion is constitutional m light of the objections of those gentlemen
last year.

Senator Mundt. I think so for this reason: As you know^, Congress-
man Nixon and I were afforded the courtesy to sit in with the sub-
committee and confer with these folks and many of the changes wdiich
this legislation now^ exemplifies over the Mundt-Nixon bill with those
that we worked out during that series of discussions late in the summer,
late in the session of the Eightieth Congress. I know that at that
time w^e had concluded the session we had no conclusion on it. It
w^as the opinion though of all the Senators and Congressmen involved
that w^e had met the objections of these thi-ee people who had raised
some constitutional questions. We have moved further in that
direction, as I say, in this bill, by including specific machinery for
guaranteeing to organizations and individuals improperly listed their
full constitutional right to go right to the commission and the courts
for their protection. It seems that there is no opportunity for any-
body to raise the questions w^hich have very understandably been
raised by people to prior bills.

Mr. Young. To your knowledge, do you know^ whether the gentle-
men I referred to in New York, Mr. Hughes, ^Ir. Davis, and the
Attorney General, have looked at the new bill in the light of the
changes that have been made and expressed any change of opinion?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Mundt. To my knowledge, unless they have written in
for a copy — we have had tremendous correspondence on this legisla-
tion from lawyers and so forth — but I think I probably would have
recalled their names if they had written. As far as I know they have
not secured from me copies of the bill. I have not sent them copies.
Perhaps your committee would like to consult with them. I certainly
have no objecion to their being consulted. I think we have fully
met the objections that they have raised.

Mr. Young. One other question. We have two bills here before us,
1196 and 1194, which are substantially similar. When you began
you started to point out the differences between the two and as you
got into the middle of your testimony I think you got so engrossed in
your own bill that we forgot to point out some differences. I have
a summary here of these two bills by sections in which I point out the
differences. I did not prepare it, but it was prepared on the bills.
I wonder if I could give that to you after the hearing is over and if you
agree with it we could make it part of the record to clarify the record.

Senator Mundt. I wish you would do that.

Senator Eastland. I think you ought to give each member a copy
of that.

Mr. Young. I will be glad to do that. Senator.

Senator Mundt. I will be glad to go through that with you. I
think that is very helpful.

(The document referred to follows:)

SUMMARY COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TWO BILLS ON SUBVERSIVE
ACTIVITIES, S. 1194 AND S. 1196 AS INTRODUCED

Subversive Activities Control Act,
1949, S. 1194

(Mundt, South Dakota, and Johnston,
South Carolina)

DEFINITIONS

"Communist political organization"
means a United States organization
having some, not necessarily all, usual
characteristics of a political party, which
is dominated or controlled by a foreign
government or foreign governmental or
political organization controlling the
world-Communist movement and which
operates primarily to advance objectives
of world-Communist movement.

' ' Communist-front organization"
means a United States organization
(other than Communist political organ-
ization and other than any lawfully or-
ganized political party not a Communist
political organization) which is under
the control of a Communist political
organization or primarily operated for
purpose of aid and support to any Com-
munist political organization, Com-
munist foreign government or world
Communist movement.

"Communist organization" means
Communist political organization or
Communist-front organization.

Subversive Activities Act, 1949,
S. 1196

(Ferguson, Michigan)

definitions

Same, except that provides for sub-
stantial foreign domination or control.

Same.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

CERTAIN CONSPIRACIES PROHIBITED

Prohibits conspiracy to establish
totalitarian dictatorship controlled by a
foreign agency.

Prohibits Federal employees' divulg-
ing information classified by the Presi-
dent to foreign agents or to Communist
organization members.

Provides maximum penalty of $10,000
fine and 10 years' imprisonment. At-
taches ineligibility to hold United
States position thereafter.

No statute of limitation would apply.

PRIVILEGES DENIED

Bars Comnmnist political organiza-
tion members from Federal appoint-
ment, but for this purpose no person
would be considered a "member" until
his name had been made public bj- the
Attorney General.

Bars passports to Communist political
organization members, but for this pur-
pose no person would be considered a
"member" until his name had been
made public by the Attorney General.

REGISTRATION AND ANNUAL REPORTS OF
COMMUNIST ORGANIZATIONS

Communist political and Communist-
front organizations are required to regis-
ter with the Attorney General, listing
officers.

Communist political organizations
would also list members.

Aliases of members and officers re-
quired in listing.

Attorney General would notify per-
sons that they are on list.

Upon request of those denying mem-
bership, he would conduct an investiga-
tion on accuracy of denial. If he does
not strike name from list within 6
months, the person might appeal to the
Subversive Activities Commission set up
by the bill.

Communist political organization
members must register themselves if
the political organization fails to list
them, under criminal penalty.

Membership in Communist political
organizations that fail to register upon
order of the Commission is illegal.

Two registers would be kept, one for
Communist political organizations and
members and the other for Communist-
front organizations. They would be
public, although individual names would
not be revealed until the persons were
notified and had opportunity to appeal.

Communist organizations are required
to keep accurate financial records and
report annually to the Attorney General.

CERTAIN CONSPIRACIES PROHIBITED

Substantially the same.
No comparable provision.

Same.

No comparable provision.

PRIVILEGES DENIED

Same except that does not include
comparable exclusionary definition of
"member."

REGISTRATION AND ANNUAL REPORTS OF
COMMUNIST ORGANIZATIONS

Same.

No comparable provision.

Same.

Persons denying membership could
file disclaimers with Attorney General
and he would note disclaimer on the list.
Investigation not provided.

No comparable provision.

Same.

A single Register of Communist Or-
ganizations, listing both Communist po-
litical and Communist-front organiza-
tions, would be kept and immediately
made public.

Same.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

BROADCASTS AND USE OF MAILS

Otherwise,

Radio broadcasts and publications of Includes television also.
Communist organizations mailed must the same,
be properly identified.

TAX DEDUCTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS

Corporate tax exemptions for Com-
munist organizations and income-tax
deductibility for contributions to such
organizations are denied.

SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES COMMISSION

Creates a new commission, consisting
of one representative each from State,
Commerce, and the National Military
Establishment.

Commission would be a quasi-judicial
agency to determine, on application of
Attorney General or of interested party,
whether any organization is a Com-
munist political or Communist-front or-
ganization, or whether any individual is
a member of a Communist political
organization.

Attorney General could file petitions
with Commission for an order requiring
the organization or individual member
of a Communist political organization
to register.

In determining whether the organiza-
tion is Communist political, the Com-
mission would consider, among other
things, the extent of Communist foreign
direction, financial aid, and control.

In the case of Communist-front or-
ganizations, the Commission would con-
sider, among other things, the identity
of its leaders, source of finances, and the
extent to which policy follows that of
Communist political organizations.

The Commission could order registra-
tion or deny the Attorney General's
petition.

Once a year Communist organizations
and individual members of Communist
political organizations could apply to
Attorney General for cancellation of
registration, and, if this is denied, they
could appeal to the Commission.

The Commission might hold hearings,
subpena witnesses, etc., in connection
with the appeal.

Hearings would be public with oppor-
tunity for rebuttal and cross-examina-
tion. If, on appeal, the Commission
decides that an organization or individ-
ual is not Communist, the Commission
might order the name stricken from the
registration list. The Commission also
is empowered to order registration.

Proceedings of the Commission to be
governed by Administrative Procedure
Act, except where more liberal procedure
is prescribed by this act.

TAX DEDUCTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS

Same.

SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES BOARD

Creates an independent Subversive
Activities Board of three members ap-
pointed by the President with senatorial
consent for 3-year overlapping terms.
Salary, $12,500 yearly.

The Board has similar functions, ex-
cept that there is no provision for deter-
mination of whether an individual is a
member of a Communist political or-
ganization.

Same, except no provision for indi-
vidual member of Communist political
organization.

Substantially the same.

Substantially the same ideas, but
spelled out more definitively.

Same,

Same except that no provision for in-
dividual members of Communist politi-
cal organizations.

Same.
Same.

Same.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Same appeal procedure, but limited
to organizations.

PENALTIES

Same:

1. Same, but no duty on Commvmist
political organization members to regis-
ter.

2. Same, but no duty on Communist
political organization members to regis-
ter. No similar definition of separate
offenses.

3. Same.

4. Same, but includes television.

5. Same.

Provides for appeal for organizations
and individuals to the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia and review of its decision by
the Supreme Court on certiorari.

PENALTIES

Penalties are $2,000 to $5,000 for or-
ganizations, and in addition, for indi-
viduals 2 to 5 years' imprisonment for:

1. Failure to comply with registration
orders of the Commission (organizations
and individual members of Communist
political organizations).

2. Willfully false or misleading state-
ments made by individuals having duty
to register or file statement (each name
and address deemed separate statement,
and each misstatement is a separate
offense) .

3. Knowing membership in Com-
munist political organization which has
not registered as required.

4. Violation of provision requiring
identification of publications and radio
broadcasts.

5. Violating passport and Federal
employment provisions of the act.

Senator Mundt. You will note that in establishing what is a
Communist-front organization on pages 25 and 26 there has grown up
a great amount of research and study b}^ the Committee on Un-
American Activities for a long time. I do not want to belabor the
committee by going into the background supporting these points
individually but if I may have consent to do so I would like to list
12 or 14 facts which characterize communism and the activities of
the Communist Party because 1 think these hearings will be rather
widely read, and in support of the definition I gave of Communism
on the opening day if 1 may have permission to do so I would like to
submit 12 or 15 short sets of facts demonstrating exactly what com-
munism is and how it operates. It will provide a background for the
reasons why we picked out these particular means of identifying the
Communist organizations.

Senator Miller. Mr. Chairman, I think that privilege should be
accorded Senator Minidt and not to limit it to that many if you can
find others.

Senator Eastland. Fine.

Senator Mundt. We can put in 12 or 15. If I understand I have
unanimous consent, I will prepare that.

(The information referred to follows:)

No. 1

One of the characteristics of the Communist Party of the United States is its
avowed aflSliation with the Communist International until by act of an emergency
convention on November 16, 1940, it did "cancel and dissolve its organizational
affiliation to the Communist International * * * for the specific purpose of
removing itself from the terms of the so-called Voorhis Act."

93357—49-

62 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

The real intention of this disavowal was to evade the act and was the only
reason given for the dissolution of the party as demonstrated by the Communists'
own language.

The Communist International was founded on March 2, 1919, in Moscow, by
decision of the Communist Part}' of the Soviet Union. The Communist Party
of Russia was the ruling party of the International until dissolution on May 30,
1943.

In a resolution dated November 16, 1940, the Communist Party of the United
States reaffirmed the "unshakable adherence of our party to the principles of
proletarian internationalism, in the spirit of its greatest leaders and teachers,
Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin;" The Soviet Government makes an avowal of
the fact that the teachings of the above-named four constitute the officially
accepted philosophy of the Soviet Union.

Thus despite the cancellations and resolutions the Communist Party of the
United States is still subordinate to the single governing body of the Soviet
Union, namely, the Communist Party. Its true nature is again clear.

No. 2

The Communist Party of the United States has received financial and material
support from the Soviet Union which has ranged all the way from money or jewels
shipped by confidential courier to the sending of voluminous prepaid cable dis-
patches, the latter practice being in force right up to the present time, according
to the sworn testimony of Louis F. Budenz, former managing editor of the Daily
Worker, official organ of the Communist Party, on November 22, 1946.

No. 3

The Communist Party of the United States is subordinate to directives from
representatives of the Communist heirarchy in the Soviet Union. A specimen
list of such directives was submitted in the committee's report. Mr. Budenz has
testified that he received such directives from Gerhart Eisler, Jack Stachel, Eugene
Dennis, and others.

No. 4

The Communist Party of the United States adheres to the statutes of the
Communist International which are still in force despite the alleged dissolution
of the organization.

No. 5

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union is accepted as the model party.

This can be substantiated by going to any of the book shops of the Communist
Party and purchasing a copy of its standard reference work. History of the Com-
munist Party in the Soviet Union. This work is prescribed for all Communist
study courses and schools. It is a bible of strategy and tactics for American
Communists.

No. 6

Delegates and representatives of the Communist Party of the United States
have been and are being sent to the Soviet Union for special instruction in sub-
versive activities.

No. 7

The Communist Party of the United States makes regular reports to the Soviet
Commissars in Moscow.

This is currently reflected by the first-hand information on America to be found
in the Moscow press and by espionage cases disclosing the transmission belt by
which security secrets of the United States Government are relayed to Russia by
way of American Communist in this country.

No. 8

The disciplinary powers over the American Communist leaders emanate from
Moscow. The removal of Earl Browder as general secretary of the Communist
Party of the United States at the suggestion of Jacques Duclos, former member
of the executive committee of the Communist International, is a good example of
this disciplinary power.

Mr. Budenz testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee that
Clarence Hathaway, editor of the Daily Worker, accepted a severe tongue lashing
from Gerhart Eisler without a murmur.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 63

No. 9

American Communist publications reprint the basic doctrines aiul major art)-;
cles from the Soviet press and Soviet leaders.

No. 10

Panegyrics and tributes to the Soviet dictator, Joseph Stalin, run all through
Communist literature in every language and in every country. ;

No. 11

The members of the Communist Party of the United States collaborate with
official representatives of the Soviet Government.

No. 12

Officials of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union supervise the work of the
Communist Party of the United States. This can be shown by a United Press
report for 1948: "Soviets Admit Fifth Column. Call Communists 'Defense Belt'."
Spokesmen for the Soviet bloc belabored the "imperialistic" aims of the United
States today, but tacitly admitted that Russia was building up a special "defense
belt" reaching around the world.

"A Moscow dispatch shed some light on Soviet global footholds and hitentions.
It reported an article in the Communist Party organ Pravada by Uya Ehren-
bourg, Russian newspaperman who found certain facets of American social life
so repulsive when he vistied the United States after the war.

"He said Russia had a special defense belt which 'extends not only along the
borders of our country, but exists in France, China, Greece. Italy, Mexico,
England — in all the countries where our comrades live, think, and struggle.'

"Thus Moscow gave implicit acknowledgement to the accuracy of charges
made repeatedly in the United Nations recently that the Russians had a fifth
column at work all around the world. United Nations spokesmen charged the
Communist Parties of each country were bent on undermining and toppling
all anti-Communist governments."

No. 13

Communism operates on an interlocking organizational relationship on such
formal matters as meinbership, transfer, attendance at conventions, and so forth,
with the Communist Parties of the world in an organic unity of a world party
dominated by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Only the Communists, of all of the polictidal groups in the world todaj^ have
an internationally organized mechanism with representatives in every civilized
country of the world, all moving in unison toward the single objective directed
and dominated from a central source, the Kremlin in Moscow,

No. 14

The Soviet Union is accepted as the Soviet fatherland.

Earl Browder on September 29, 1939, before House Committee on Un-American
Activities declined to answer the question as to where his allegiance would lie in
event of war with Russia. He did state "If the United States entered this war
on an imperialist basis, I would not support it."

During the past few months the Communist Party leaders throughout the
world have issued the statement to the effect that the Communists would not
fight against Russia in the event of war. The statement was issued by Thorez,
of France, on Frebruary 22, 1949; by Togliatti, of Italy, on February 26, 1949;
by Pollitt, of England, on February 27, 1949; by Grotwald, of Germany, on
February 28, 1949; and by our own Communist Party leaders on the United
States, namely, William Z. Foster and Eugene Dennis on March 2, 1949. Paul
Robeson also issued a general statement to the same effect on April 27, 1949, in
a meeting which was held in Paris. Since then, Robeson has gone even further
in proclaiming his preference for Russia.

No. 15

The Communist Party of the United States has since its foundation followed
the line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union without exception.

64 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

The research staff of the House Committee on Un-American Activities follows
the Communist press of the United States from day to day and can find no
important divergence between the American party and the Russian party on
every important question. There is never any significant deviation in the
Communist Party's Daily Worker in this country from the editorial policies of
all other official Communist papers in other countries.

Senator Mundt. I want to express my appreciation for being per-
mitted to take so much time to go through this legislation and to say
that if as the hearings progress, questions arise, as they well may, as
arguments are made by people opposing the legislation, on which you
would like to have the opinion of someone who believes that the
arguments are unsound, I should like to come back at any time you
wish.

Senator Eastland. Senator, you have made a very fine presenta-
tion, for which we thank you. I am sure that the committee would
welcome you to sit in with them and ask witnesses any questions you
desire. Would there by any objection on the part of the committee
to that?

Senator Ferguson. None whatever.

Senator O'Conor. Not only would there be no objection on my
part, I was just about to say that I think we ought not to let the
Senator from South Dakota leave without expressing very genuine
appreciation for the fine contribution he has made and really to
express public commendation for the very fine work he is engaged in,
the benefits of which we all will enjoy.

Senator Eastland. Do you not think we should give him the
privilege of sitting in with the committee and to propound any
questions he desires to witnesses?

Senator Miller. I concur in that, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ferguson. He has made a real contribution to this matter.

Senator Mundt. I will be glad to have the privilege. Thank you
so much, I certainly hope this is my swan-song appearance on com-
munism. I have been working on it for some 8 eight years and
I hope we can get some legislation after a while that will let the law
enforcement authorities proceed with full power.

I will be happy to do what I can. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. HOMER FERGUSON, A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee:
There .must be a reason for a'bill, before a committee should pass it
out as being proposed legislation; and I would just like to make some
remarks at the opening now, to indicate why in my opinion there is a
reason for this kind of legislation. Sometime later I would like to
discuss the constitutional question.

In presenting this bill, I have tried to take the best that the com-
mittee produced last year.

Senator Eastland. You are speaking of your bill, and not the
Mundt bill?

Senator Ferguson. They are so near alike that I think we can
talk generally about the two bills. The}^ propose to do practically
the skme thing.

Senator Miller. Is that 1194 and 1196?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 65

Senator Ferguson. Yes. They were filed on the same day. So
when I give this statement today, I have in mind the kind of legisla-
tion that is now before us, and not necessarily the words of either
particular bill.

I think we have to look at these bills in the light of what com-
munism m the world is today. In my opinion, it is a conspiracy. I
thmk it is aimed directly at representative government. I think it
is not an economic philosophy. It is much more than that. It goes
deeper into government than that. It is that thing which has caused
the cold war. It is that thing which prohibits Russia frorn allowing
anyone to see what is going on in Russia. It is that which causes
her to have agents all over the world.

Now, understand : not agents who are Russians, not agents who have
been brought up, nurtured, under the communistic rule and sent out
as Russia's agents, but people taken from nations where they have
been born and raised, and made agents of this Soviet communism.

At times, yes, they use then own agents; and I find that in our
foreign newspapers now in America they are importing agents. The
chairman of this committee has introduced a bill to deport such alien
agents, and some of the members of the committee spoke at the time
that was put in, because we have discovered that they are placing in
America propaganda agents. They deem that they can accomplish
then- purposes better with those foreign agents than they could if
they confined themselves to taking mdividuals here and made them
their agents.

So I think there is a reason for the bUl, and I have tried to analyze
it this morning. I hope I am not repeating anything that the Senator
from South Dakota has said; I am just trying to put it in a little
different light. After all, I think we wholeheartedly agree that this
is a conspiracy. And when you are talking about a conspiracy,
naturally you use some of the same language to show that it is a
conspiracy.

There is no doubt, as shown by the testimony day before yesterday
in the New York trial, that this communist movement was operat-
ing as a conspiracy, and that they have put their people into Govern-
ment.

In this connection, I just happened to see yesterday an item in the
Washington Daily News of May 3, about the results of the loyalty
tests conducted by the Government. It starts out with the headline,
"9,000 Lose jobs in loyalty tests."

Mr. Chairman, I would like to put that item in the record because
I think it is very important in showing that these people were used
as espionage agents.

(The newspaper article referred to is as follows:)

[From the Washington Daily News, Tuesday, May 3, 1949]
9,000 Lose Jobs in Loyalty Tests — Old Police Records Cause Firings

(By Tony Smith)

Soviet spies, exburglars, thieves and sex offenders have been unearthed by the
Federal Government's employee loyalty investigation program, it was learned
today.

The search for subversives in the Government and among those seeking jobs
with Uncle Sam yielded 141,400 sets of fingerprints that matched those kept in
the FBI files.

06 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

FBI Director J. Ed^ar Hoover reported to Congress that 5.5 percent of the
2,537,843 persons checked had previous police records. As a result, 8,881 per-
sons have been dismissed from the Government service by the Civil Service Com-
mission, Mr. Hoover said.

MANY IN STATE DEPARTMENT

The program turned up 21 "live" Soviet espionage suspects, 45 Communists
and 108 suspected subversives in the State Department alone, it was reported.
All of those subjected to spy investigations have resigned or been dismissed, it
was said. The same is true of those known to be members of the Communist
Party. Some of them moved on to the jobs in American agencies of the United
Nations, Government records show.

Many of the former law violators brought to light by the loyalty check were
minor offenders who had served their sentences. Others, convicted of major
crimes, were found to be loyal. Some had been rehabilitated, the records showed.
A few were still at their old tricks. These were reported to the heads of the depart-
ments in which they worked. Some were fired.

EMPHASIS ON ESPIONAGE

Throughout the check the emphasis was on employes and officials of the Gov-
ernment suspected of espionage activities. Here are excerpts from reports on
some State Department workers:

"Mr. 's file reflected that he is a close associate of suspected Soviet

agents. Most of the derogatory information on him was developed in late 1946.
There is nothing m the file to indicate he has discontinued working for the
Department."

GREATEST SECURITY RISK

"Mr. . This former employee's file is the largest in the Civil Service

Administration. It reflects that he furnished material to known Soviet espionage
agents and that he has had consistent contact with a long list of Communists
and suspected Soviet agents. This subject was in all probability the greatest
security risk the Department of State has had. He was first recommended for
dismissal July 24, 1946. He finally resigned voluntarily December 13, 1946.

"Miss . Her file shows that she signed Communist Party election peti-
tions on a number of occasions. The Security Committee of the State Department
..decided she was not a security risk on April 15, 1947. It later decided she should
be dismissed on grounds of being an undesirable employee. The subject resigned
April 25, 1947. This case shows that the Security Committee is inclined to accept
a 'change of heart'."

THIS FELLOW WAS BUSY

"Mr. . Confidential informant reported him to be a member of the

, Communist Party; a sponsor of the Washington Chapter of the American Peace

Mobilization Committee; an attendant at the Communist Youth Internationale

in Russia in 1934; an active member of American Civil Liberties Union; a member

• of a central Communist group spearheading an attack on J Edgar Hoover; an

associate of four known members of the Communist Party."

Senator Ferguson. One of the subheads reads: "Many in State
Department," — and that portion reads:

The program turned up 21 "live" Soviet espionage suspects, 45 Communists,
and 108 suspected subversives in the State Department alone, it was reported.

That gives us some indication.

Some may ask: How will this registration bill — I will call it a
registration bill — help to unearth these? I think it will do this:
As these people join this organization, become Communists, their
names will be listed, and we will be able to follow them better in the
future. They do take jobs in the State Department and become
Communists tomorrow. That is not the way they do business. They
have to have a certain amount of training. And I think the Senator

CONTROL OF SUBAERSIVE ACTIVITIES 67

will agree to that. They have to be trained. We will be able to
discover who these trained Communists are.

Getting back to the theory of conspiracy that underlies this move-
ment: The bill, S. 1196, which I introduced in the Senate on "March 8,
has a simple objective. It is aimed at exposing the vast conspiracy
of communism with which the Soviet Union has surrounded us. It
would apply equally to any other conspiracy, including a Fascist
conspiracy, to establish a totalitarian dictatorship in the United States
under alien control.

I should, at the outset of my statement, say that while it has been
said here that Senators or Congressmen were not going to be asked
the question as to whether or not they were Communists — I want
to state now that I am not a Communist. I have never been a
Communist, and I shall never be a Communist. I state that so that
there can be no doubt as to my answer to that specific question.

This bill would apply equally to any other conspiracy, including a
Fascist conspiracy, as I said, to establish a totalitarian dictatorship
in the United States under alien control.

I might say that the chairman has just shown me now a telegram
from Flint, Mich., indicating that because I have sponsored this bill,
I must of necessity be a Fascist. I want to now say that I am not a
Fascist, that I have never been a Fascist, and that I shall never be a
Fascist.

Senator Eastland. You would not deny a charge leveled at you by
a Communist, would you?

Senator Ferguson. Here is what we are running into, in a bill like
this: The minute you propose to do something against the Com-
munists, you are called a Fascist. If you propose to do something
against fascism, they are inclined to call you a Communist. I want
to start out by saying that the bill is aimed at both Fascists and Com-
munists, if they would establish a totalitarian dictatorship in the
United States under alien control.

In my statement, I wish to place particular emphasis on the word
"conspiracy," for that factually describes what communism and the
Communist way of life represent.

And that was forcibly brought to my attention during the last
hearings that we had here, and particularly was it brought to my
attention in the testimony before the Executive Expenditures Com-
mittee of Elizabeth Bentley and by the other witnesses in that par-
ticular case.

I think we would be on weak legal grounds to place serious re-
strictions upon the Communist Party and its nefarious fronts if that
were not the case; that is, if it were not a conspu-acy, if it were not
dictated by some alien foreign group.

It is therefore essential that there shall be no question of the nature
of communism, and in this statement I shall attempt to make clear
that beyond any doubt, communism is a consphacy dii'ected against
our form of Government, and is in fact directed by an alien regime
whose hostility is manifest.

Accepting that premise, we are still confronted with the need for
adequate measures for controlling that conspiracy, which is an existing
thi-eat to our institutions. The essence of the method proposed in
Senate bill 1196 is one of exposure, so that all loyal Americans may be
put on their guard.

68 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

I do not think it would serve any piu"pose to discuss in great detail
the theories and practices of communism. I think these arc already a
matter of open public record, and have come to the attention of
practically every one of us. It will suffice merely to point to one or
two of the accomplishments of communism wherever it has been able
to gain power.

Few institutions are more sacred to the Christian world than the
churches. Regardless of our religious beliefs, all of us consider
religion to be a force of strength and inspiration, a guide which governs
not only our own lives directly, but our relationships with other people.
It is upon religions that our practice of tolerance and democracy
is based.

No wonder, then, that the first goal of communism is the church;
that is, to dominate the church and to do away with it.

The recent kangaroo court trial of Cardinal Mindzenty in Hungary
and the equally unprincipled prosecutions of the Protestant clergymen
in Bulgaria have given us a startling picture of the destruction of
religion under communism.

We accept this as the natural accomplishment of free government.
We accept this as our system of democracy. Under communism
there would be no more free elections.

Senator Eastland. Right there, Senator, let me ask you a question.

Senator Ferguson. Yes?

Senator Eastland. This has nothing to do with this bill.

Our courts are free. A country must not let anyone attempt to
intimate or influence a court. How is it that the Communist Party
is able to picket a United States court in the city of New York that
is trying the 11 Communist leaders of this country for treason?
Where do they have the authority to attempt to intimidate a court of
the United States.

Senator Ferguson. I want to answer that by saying that in my
opinion that court has full authority and power under the inalienable
right which it posseses to punish for contempt each and every one of
those people.

Senator Eastland. Then what is wrong with a United States
judge who does not see that they are cited for contempt, and not per-
mitted to parade around in front of the building and attempt to in-
timidate people, and attempt to influence that court in its decisions?

Senator Ferguson. I think you and I have a right to talk about
this subject of the action of the court in this particular kind of a case.
I think this judge has tried hard, at the beginning, to control this
trial. At times it is apparent that it is out of control. I have seen
times when it was apparent that the lawyers in the case were in con-
tempt of court.

But we cannot always judge what is going on unless we sit on the
bench as the judge. From the outside, however, it certainly appears
that he has allowed himself to lean backwards and to try to complete
the trial without giving any semblance to the public of an indication,
as fa'- as American justice is concerned, that there is a mistrial, or
that he has been unfair. So in doing that he allows these men to be
outsiae. I think it would be proper for the proceedings to be stopped,

CONTROL OF SUBYERSIVE ACTIVITIES 69

even though it was a mistrial, and have contempt proceedings against
those who are attempting ot intimidate the court from outside.

Senator Eastland. I am not criticizing the judge. His reasons
might be sound. I cannot conceive how they are. But how in the
workl woukl it be a reversable error to prevent any group, Communist
or any other group, from attempting to intimidate the court in the
discharge of its duty?

Senator Ferguson. I do not think it woukl be a mistrial, but I
think he senses that it might be a mistrial.

Senator Eastland. I do not think that in any city in the United
States, except the city of New York, people could get by with such
conduct. I do not think any other court in this country woukl per-
mit it, except the com-t in New York. And the Senator knows as
well as I do that there is tremendous Red influence in the city of
New York. I attribute it to that.

Senator Miller. Mr. Chairman, let me interpolate right there, for
a moment, for what it is worth.

It has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court of the United States,
as many of you will recall, that to prevent picketing is to prevent
freedom of speech. If that is the case, which we must assume it is,
the exercise of the authority involved, to hold that that act of picket-
ing was contempt would be a violation of freedom of speech.

If, in connection with that, there might be some overt act which
carried with it possibly some semblance of violence, then probably
it could be done. But as long as it was picketing, I think that court
would be absolutely violating the statutory rights of those who were
engaged in picketing, under the bill of rights.

Senator Ferguson. I do not think, Senator Miller, that this may
be classed just as picketing. These people are carrying banners, as
I understand it, and the picketing is not directed to trying to accomp-
lish something, but trying to influence the jury.

Senator Eastland. Certainly.

Senator Ferguson. And to influence the court.

Senator Eastland. And intimidate it.

Senator Ferguson. And it is a direct attack upon the court. It is
an mtimidation of the court.

Senator Eastland. Yes. It is an attempt to intimidate that
court.

Senator Ferguson. But I still think the judge is leaning backward
to avoid any semblance of any injustice^ so that he does not have a
mistrial.

Senator Eastland. I think so too.

Senator Ferguson. I have felt very regretful of many things that
have happened there, and yet I think he is trying to do his duty.

Senator Eastland. I think so too. Aiid I think he has gone to
great lengths. I think he has given the accused the benefit of every
cioubt. But I do not think that any group in any trial should be
permitted to attempt to influence a court, to attempt to intimidate
a court. You strike at the very roots of democracy when you do that.

I do not know but what the Senator might be correct. I just
disagree with him.

Senator Miller. Of course, that judge is probably, as yon used
the term, leaning over backwards when it comes to seeing to it that
the individual rights, or the rights or those who are participating, are

70 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

absolutely preserved; and in accordance with that he would 2:0 a long
way to see that that was done. Because he would be laborini^; under
the impression that if that was not done, and if tliere was a violation
of any right under the Bill of Rights, wliicb of course would be a
matter of freedom of speech, then, of course, he would have committed
an error that would result in a mistrial. And that he would be very
fearful of, I imagine.

Senator Ferguson. I know that the other day he left the bench,
in my opinion, to avoid a contempt case. He merely walked off the
bench. I suppose that every judge who has ever sat on a bench for
any number of years has had occasions when he thought it was better
to recess the court.

Senator MiiiLER. He might regard it as better to turn his back
on it rather than face it.

Senator Eastland. I think he has been very patient. I have been
very favorably impressed that he is doing a good job, and I understand
he is a very able man. Still I do not think that any group should be
permitted to attempt to influence a court.

Senator Miller. I do not either.

Senator Eastland. His reasons might be sound. I do not know.
I am certainly not criticizing him.

Senator Ferguson. I certainly feel that he is demonstrating not
only to the people of America, but to the world that he is doing every-
thing that is humanly possible to give these people a fair trial, and
that while there are certain things that they are doing which really
make it an unfair trail for the people, he is willing to waive action on
those matters in order that no one can ever criticize him for not giving
the defendants a fair trial. Whether that will do sonie harm to our
administration of justice in the future is another question.

Senator Eastland. A fair trial has nothing to do with third parties
out on the street picketing the court, though.

Senator Ferguson. I think he has the power, but just does not
choose to exercise it.

Senator Eastland. Runningjthem in would not, it seems to me,
deprivejthe accused of any rights that they have.

Senator Miller. Mr. Chairman, at this point I suggest that we
recess until some later date.

Senator Eastland. We will recess until Friday at 10 o'clock, if
that is satisfactory to the subcommittee.

I Whereupon, at 11-55 a. m., the hearing was recessed to reconvene
at 10 a. m., Fridav, May 6, 1949.)

CONTKOL OF SUBVEKSIVE ACTIVITIES

FRIDAY, MAY 6, 1949

United Spates Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a. m., in room 424
Senate Office Building, Senator Bert H. Miller, presiding.

Present: Senators Eastland (chairman of the subcommittee),
Miller (presiding), Ferguson, and Donnell.

Also present- Robert Barnes Young and John Mathews, professional
staff members.

Senator Miller. The hearing will come to order, please.

Mr. Young. Will the representative of the AMVETS take the
stand, please?

(No response.)

Mr. Young. He has left the room.

TVill Mr. Williamson, the representative of the YFW, take the standi
please?

Before you take the stand, Mr. Williamson, we w^ould like to admin-
ister the oath. Will 3^ou raise your right hand, please. Do you
solemnly swear or affirm that in the proceedings before this subcom-
mittee you will tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?

Mr. Williamson. I do.

Mr. Young. For the benefit of all the witnesses who are here I
think that it would be in order to read once the message which the
chairman of the subcommittee put out the first day of the hearings.

Attention should be directed to the policy and rule laid down by the
subcommittee concerning the relevancy of proposed testimony. To
be more specific, I would like to read a short paragraph once this
morning which will apply to all w^itnesses, and we will know how the
procedure will go. This is from the first day's hearing on Friday,
April 29, 1949, a statement by the subcommittee chairman, Mr.
Eastland.

The committee has determined whether or not a person is a member of a
Communist Party now or has been a member of the Communist Party is a relevant
question. It is something that we should know to be able to evaluate the testi-
mony before the committee. It is a material question. We expect to ask the
witnesses whether or not they are members of the Communist Party, whether or
not they have been members of the Communist Party, and if any witness should
refuse to answer that question, then the committee will not be interested in any
testimony from that witness. We do not think that it is right for a witness to
come before the committee, refuse to give us his background and select which
questions he shall answer and which questions he shall not answer. So that will
be the rule in the conduct of the hearings.

72 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

You may proceed, sir.

Senator Miller. Should we wait until we get a quorum?

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Chairman, I had not completed my
statement last week.

Mr. Young. I apologize, Senator; that is my fault.

Senator Ferguson. I have about 16 pages left. We can make it a
part of the record or put it in later after we hear the other witnesses.

Senator Miller. Before you came in we thought there were some
witnesses here whose testimony would not be very long, and you can
sit here anyway, I guess.

Senator Ferguson. I will until about 11 o'clock. Then I have
another hearing, but I will be glad, which may be a good thing, to
wait until later after we hear this other testimony, for what I have to
say. We heard Senator Mundt in the beginning. After the testi-
mony gets in, I can finish my statement, and then I have some remarks
to make about the testimony.

(Senator Ferguson did not finish his statement. The complete
statement is printed below:)

S. 1196, which I introduced in the Senate March 8, has a simple objective. It
is aimed at exposing the vast conspiracy of communism with which the Soviet
Union has surrounded us. It would apply equally to any other conspiracy, in-
cluding a Fascist conspiracy, to establish a totalitarian dictatorship in the United
States, under alien control.

In my statement I wish to place particular emphasis on the word "conspiracy,"
for that factually describes what communism and the Communist way of life repre-
sent. I think we would be on weak legal grounds to place serious restrictions
upon the Communist Party and its nefarious fronts if that were not the case. It
is, therefore, essential that there shall be no question of the nature of communism
and in this statement, I shall attempt to make clear that beyond doubt com-
munism is a conspiracy directed against our form of government and is, in fact,
directed by an alien regime whose hostility is manifest.

Accepting that premise we are still confronted with the need for adequate
measures of controlling that conspiracy which is an existing threat to our institu-
tions. The essence of the method proposed in S. 1196 is one of exposure, so that
all loyal Americans may be put on their guard.

I do not think it would serve any purpose to discuss in great detail the theories
and practices of communism. I think these are already a matter of open public
record, and have come to the attention of almost everyone of us. It will suffice
merely to point to one or two of the accomplishments of communism wherever it
has been able to gain power.

Few institutions are more sacred to the Christian world than the churches.
Regardless of our religious beliefs, all of us consider religion to be a force of strength
and inspiration, a guide which governs not only our own lives directly, but our
relationships with other people. It is vipon religious faith that our practice of
tolerance and democracy is based. No wonder, then, that the first goal of Com-
munists is the church.

The recent "kangaroo" court trial of Cardinal Mindszenty in Hungary, and the
equally unprincipled persecution of protestant clergymen in Bulgaria, have given
us a startling picture of the destruction of religion under communism.

Let me bring up another point. In our country we have periodic political
contests in which all parties are free to participate. The limits upon electioneering
exist only within the realm of good taste. We accept this as the natural accom-
paniment of free government. We accept this as our system of democracy.
Under communism there would be no more free elections. There would be no
campaigning. There would be no political parties. There would be only the
Communist steam roller grinding down into the dust the rights of the individual
and the political freedom of the Nation.

A few days ago a Hungarian Communist newspaper carried one of the many
propaganda articles published by newspapers behind the iron curtain. The
writer is comparing elections as they were held in the past and as they are to be
held under the Communists:

"The difference," he states, "will mainly consist in that this time there will be
no competing parties, no separate lists. * * * Today it is evident that we

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 73

could have spared ourselves much trouble had those proposals of ours been
accepted (sooner)."

This one statement summarizes the cynicism of the Communists, their disre-
gard for truth, and freedom, and the rights of individuals.

Elections — free elections — are the essence of free government. To set them
aside with the cynical statement that they are too much troul)le is conclusive proof
that communism is determined to destroy constitutional government everywhere.

The Communists in America have attempted to prey on our traditional tolerance
for the most widely divergent political philosophies by attempting to pass them-
selves off as a normal legal political party comparable to the two great parties
which exist at this time.

Many Americans have accepted this piece of fiction, and it is not surprising in
the light of our democratic history and our history of freedom that they should
have done so. It is our nature, it is our desire, to accept people as persons of good
will until they have proven themselves otherwise. There can be no question that
the Com.munist Party has proven itself otherwise.

A complete refutation of the character which the Communist Party would
assign to itself and the most concise description of communism that I have read
comes from J. Edgar Hoover, the distinguished Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, who has long been aware of the true nature of communism and has
sought to inform the public accordingly. He has said:

"Communism * * * jg ^ot a political Party. It is a way of life — an evil
and malignant way of life. It reveals a condition akin to disease that spreads like
an epidemic, and like an epidemic, a quarantine is necessary to keep it from infect-
ing the Nation."

The Communist Party is in fact a tremendous conspiracy directed from Mos-
cow, aimed at the destruction of all free governments, and particularly the free
government of the United States of America. We have been chosen as the No. 1
target of this conspiracy because our countrj- stands today, and has stood for many
decades, as a powerful bulwark of freedom. If they succeed in destroying us, they
will find their way to world conquest open.

The compliant adherence of the American Communist Party to the dictates of
Moscow is already a matter of public record. Louis F. Budenz, one-time man-
aging editor of the Daily Worker, and now a professor of Fordham University,
made this declaration under oath:

"Never throughout its history has the Communist Party found one defect of
any kind in any leader of the Soviet Union who was endorsed by the Kremlin.
You can search the Daily Worker or anj^ other Communist publication from be-
ginning to end for 25 years and you will find that always the Soviet leadership is
100 percent perfect in those pages. * * * They have godlike qualities that
prevent anj' flaw being found in them. Secondly, this movement follows Moscow
in every detail. Examinations of the official Communist press will confirm this,,
that the policies desired by the Kremlin are followed out servilely by this organi-
zation and its leadership. That stamps it immediately as something set off from
the rest of America, as a Quisling organization as much under the heel of the Krem-
lin, or at the behest of the Kremlin, as the Nazi Bund was the agent of Hitler's
Germany. =(= * * j realize that this was not the party it represented it to be,
but a puppet apparatus of the Soviet Government."

I would like to recall here a quotation which was given by the distinguished
Senior Senator from Nevada about a week ago, when he introduced a bill to deport
Communist aliens. The quotation comes from the program adopted by the Sixth
Congress of the Communist International in 1928 and it states in unequivocal
terms the revolutionary character of the Communist philosophy.

"The successful struggle of the Communist International for the dictatorship
of the proletariat presupposes the existence in every country of a compact Com-
munist Party, hardened in the struggle, disciplined, centralized, and closely linked
up with the masses.

"The party is the vanguard of the working class and consists of the best, most
class-conscious, most active, and most courageous members of that class. It in-
corporates the whole body of experience of the proletarian struggle. Basing
itself upon the revolutionary theory of Marxism and representing the general and
lasting interests of the whole of the working class, the party personifies the unity
of proletarian principles, of proletarian will and of proletarian revolutionary
action. It is a revolutionary organization, bound by iron discipline and strict
revolutionary rules of democratic centralism, which can be carried out thanks
to the class-consciousness of the proletarian vanguard, to its loyalty to the revolu-
tion, its ability to maintain inseparable ties with the proletarian masses and to its

74 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

correct political leadership, which is constantly verified by the experiences of the
masses themselves."

The Communist Party in this country is part of this general pattern of world
revolution. It has a record of complete adherence to the Communist Party line
and to Communist Party tactics throughout its entire history.

Former Attorney General Francis Biddle, who can certainly not be accused
by even the most rabid Communist of being a "reactionary," made a finding as
far back as 1942 which is of particular interest and significance in this hearing.
Mr. Biddle stated:

"That the Communist Party of the United States of America, from the time
of its inception in 1919 to the present time, is an organization that believes in,
advises, advocates, and teaches the overthrow by force and violence of the
Government of the United States.

"That the Communist Party of the United States of America, from the time
of its inception to the present time, is an organization that writes, circulates
distributes, prints, publishes, and displays printed matter advising, advocating,
or teaching the overthrow by force and violence of the Government of the United
States.

"That the Communist Party of the United States of America, from' the time
of its inception to the present tiine, is an organization that causes to be written,
circulated, distributed, printed, published, and displayed printed matter advising,
advocating, and teaching the overthrow by force and violence of the Government
of the United States,

"That the Communist Party of the United States of America, from the time
of its inception to the present time, is an organization that has in its possession
for the purpose of circulation, distribution, publication, issue, and display, printed
matter advising, advocating and teaching the overthrow by force and violence
of the Government of the United States."

Former Ambassador Bullitt, whose knowledge of Communist tactics has made
him one of the leading authorities on the subject made the following statement
which adds his own knowledge to this subject:

"Here our Communist Party, like all other communist parties, is subject to
orders from Moscow. It follows the party line laid down in Moscow with extreme
care. We are all familiar with the manner in which the American Communist
Party has followed faithfully the line laid down in Moscow and has shifted its
position in accordance with every shift of Soviet foreign policy. The party is, in
the first place, an agency of the Soviet Government for the purpose of weakening
the United States for the ultimate assault that the Soviet Government intends to
make on the United States.

"* =■ * I should consider the Communist Party of the United States com-
posed, in the first place, of potential traitors, since certainly, if the United States
were in war with the Soviet Union, the members of the American Communist
Party would do all they could to help the Soviet Union and to injure their own
country. In the second place, I should consider it a conspiracy to commit
murder on a mass scale."

We have the words of the leaders of American communism themselves to
substantiate these statements. For example, Earl Browder, former head of the
Communist Party, told the Eighth Convention of the Communist Party in the
United States that:

"The task of our party today, the tasks of this convention, have been clearly
and systematically set forth in the documents before us for adoption, especially
the theses and decisions of the thirteenth plenum of the executive committee of
the Communist International * * *_ My report has been for the purpose
of further elaborating these fundamental directives and discussing some of our
central problems concretely in the light of these directives."

His admission was echoed a few years later by William Z. Foster, the present
chief of the Communist Party and a member of the presidium of the Communist
International. He admitted that he accepted the program of the Communist
International and he quoted its manifestos extensively in his book Toward a
Soviet America.

It was, in fact, Mr. Foster who was most instrumental in revealing to me the
true nature of the Communist movement in this country. Under examination
by me in a hearing before this committee last year, Mr. Foster made it clear that
his politics did not, and would not, deviate from those of the movement's parent
country, Russia. His testimony was paralleled a year later in a joint statement
with Eugene Dennis, secretary of the American Communist Party, in which they,
in effect, said that Communists everywhere owe a superior loyalty to Russia

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 75

which would preckide supporting the war efforts of their own country in event of
a conflict with the Soviet.

The latter statement was dramatic in its timing as it came simultaneously with
similar puppet-like performances of the Communist leadership in other countries
throughout the world. The text of the American Communists' statement and
a summary of the statements by other non-Russian world Communist leaders
was inserted by me in the Congressional Record of March 8. Those statements
would appear to me sufficient proof in themselves of the treasonous and con-
spirational nature of communism.

What are the methods by which communism hopes to achieve its ends? Again
we need only to search the declarations of the Communist leadership and the
Communist parties for the answer. And, as we do so, let us recall the lesson of
Mein Kampf. In Mein Kampf, Adolph Hitler detailed the aspirations and even
the plans of nazism. Communism's plans and aspirations for world revolution
are similarly blueprinted, if we will but read them and, more importantly, heed
them.

We are now, Mr. Chairman, coming to the very heart of my argument and,
that is, direct evidence on the conspiratorial nature of communism and its methods
whereby it attempts to overthrow the legally constituted Government in this
country and every other country of the world.

Lenin himself has provided the foundation upon which Communist activity is
based when he said "it is necessary * * * to use any ruse, cunning, unlawful
method, evasion, concealment of truth."

The program of the Sixth Convention of the Communist International, which
was held in Moscow, contains this significant declaration:

"The transition from the world dictatorship of imperialism to the world dictator-
ship of the proletariat extends over a long period of proletarian struggles with
defeats as well as victories; a period of continuous general crisis in capitalist
relationships and the maturing of Socialist revolutions, i. e., of proletarian civil
wars against the bourgeoisie; a period of national wars and colonial rebellions
which, although not in themselves revolutionary proletarian Socialist movements,
are nevertheless, objectively, insofar as they undermine the domination of im-
perialism, constituent parts of the world proletarian revolution; a period in which
capitalist and Socialist economic and social systems exist side by side in (peaceful)
relationship as well as in armed conflict."

An examination of the meaning of the revolutionary Comintern Congress
leaves no doubt but that its basic technique consists of force and violence, I quote
from this program:

"The conquest of power by the proletariat does not mean peacefully 'capturing'
the ready-made bourgeois state machinery by means of a parliamentary majority.
The bourgeoisie resorts to every means of violence and terror to safeguard and
strengthen its predatory property and its political domination. Like the feudal
nobility of the past, the bourgeoisie cannot abandon its historical position to the
new class without a desperate and frantic struggle. Hence the violence of the
bourgeoisie can be suppressed only by the stern violence of the proletariat. The
conquest of power by the proletariat is the violent overthrow of bourgeois power,
the destruction of the capitalist state apparatus (bourgeois armies, police, bureau-
cratic hierarchy, the judiciary, parliaments, etc.) and substituting in its place new
organs of proletarian power, to serve primarily as instruments for the suppression
of the exploiters. * * *

"The dictatorship of the proletariat is a continuation of the class struggle
under new conditions. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a stubborn fight,
bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, pedagogical
and administrative, against the forces and traditions of the old society against
external capitalist enemies, against the remnants of the exploiting classes within
the country, against the upshoots of the new bourgeoisie that spring up on the
basis of still existing commodity production."

In addition to its program the Communist International adopted a resolution
entitled "The Struggle Against Imperialist War and the Tasks of the Com-
munists." The resolution was based upon a report by Palmiro Tagliotti, the
present head of the Italian Communist Party. This resolution throws revealing
light upon the tactics of the Communists.

"But the overthrow of capitalism is impossible without force, without armed
uprising and proletarian wars against the bourgeoisie. In the present epoch
of imperialist wars and world revolution, as Lenin has stated, proletarian civil
wars against the bourgeoisie, wars of the proletarian dictatorship against bour-
geois states and against world capitalism, and national revolutionary wars of
the oppressed peoples against imperialism, are inevitable and revolutionary." ■•

76 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

With unexpected honesty the Sixth Congress of the Communist International
asserted that the Communists "openly declare that their aims can be attained
only by forceable overthrow of all the existing social conditions."

These, Mr. Chairman, are a few, only a very few, excerpts from the official
recognized declarations of the Communist Party. These declarations, manifes-
tos, and orders bear the same significance to Soviet policy as Mein Kampf was
the official policy of Adolph Hitler. .Yet is it difficult for us to transform these
utterances into the realities of Communist attacks upon us. We have all too
long considered ourselves beyond the reach of this type of conspiracy. It has
been only in recent years that the American public has begun to pay attention
to the dangers with which we are now faced. Communism has obtained a strong
foothold in our country. Literally hundreds of Communist-controlled organiza-
tions have existed, and many of them continue to exist today. Operating as they
do behind the multifarious disguises which their conspiracy has been able to
devise, they have been able to establish themselves in our midst and to gain
support and financial assistance.

It is our task in this Congress to provide legislation which will strip from the
Communist conspiracy, this mask, this disguise. The farflung organization
which the Communists have been able to establish is, to a large extent, evident
from the tremendous financial resources which they have been able to corral for
its purpose.

The actual financial condition of the party is a closely guarded, military secret;
and, Mr. Chairman, I use the term "military" advisedly because the Communist
Party is a part of the Soviet military machine. We do, however, have a frag-
mentary knowledge of this subject from the unbelievable outpouring of pro-
paganda material with which the Communist Party is attempting to pollute the
intellectual life of our country. The amount of money which the Communists
are able to spend run into millions of dollars per year. As far back as 1937, when
the Communist finances were considerably weaker than they are today, the party
financial secretary listed an income of $260,000 from membership fees alone with
an additional $1 17,000 in donations and income from party activities.

This, Mr. Chairman, is only the amount publicly admitted by the party itself.
It does not include the literally millions of dollars which have been collected by
the hundreds of Red fronts, and by the various Communist Party enterprises.

The Daily Worker, official organ of the Communist Party, receives tens of
thousands per year and puts on an annual drive averaging $50,000 to $100,000 to
wipe out its deficits. Special defense financing has been established with a poten-
tial income running into hundreds of thousands. In order to defend the 12
Communists presently on trial, a defense drive for a quarter of a million dollars
was launched. The International Labor Defense — which was branded by Attor-
ney General Biddle "as the legal arm of the Communist Party" — has collected
hundreds of thousands of dollars for the defense of Communists and the Communist
Party, and it is now a matter of public record that much of this money has been
embezzled for propaganda and subversive activities. The work of the Interna-
tional Labor Defense is still going on under the auspices of its successor, the
so-called Civil Rights Congress.

Much of the money collected by the Communists has been poured into iron
curtain countries and is undoubtedly part of the war chest which finances con-
spiratorial activities against us. Let me cite only one instance. Borba, the
official organ of the Yugoslav Communist Party, admittel not many months ago
that millions of dinars are annually pouring into Yugoslavia from this country.
The total income from American sources is close to $20,000,000. In addition to
that, the Communists of Europe receive tremendous quantities of gifts such as
trucks, refrigerators, and medical supplies, from the United States. Borbans,
has evalued shipments during recent months of an amount close to a million
dollars. The extent of the financial resources directed against our system of
government is equally evident from the existence of the network of more than 50
Communist periodicals and newspapers which are currently published in the
United States, plus millions of pieces of propaganda literature, leaflets, and pam-
phlets which are distributed annually. In the foreign-language field alone, there
are at least 25 newspapers under Communist domination. I refer to foreign-
language Communist newspapers because this is one of the serious problems which
my own State of Michigan faces. In order not to give this committee a false
impression, let me say categorically — just as I stated on the fioor of the Senate
last week — that the foreign-born citizens who constitute a large segment of the
industrial workers in our country, are as loyal as other citizens, are as willing to
contribute their lives and their labors in defense of America as other citizens,

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 77

but we are now dealing with a conspiracy which is directed at us from a foreign
country by foreign agents.

AHen Communist agents have been especially active in the propaganda field.
A number of Communist foreign-language newspapers have been successfully
established and maintained for a number of years. The names of these papers are
fairly well known, and include the Bulgarian Norodna Volya, the Polish Glas
Ludowy, the Rumania Romanul-American, and others. It is significant in this
connection to recall that the editors and staff of these Communist newspapers have
frequently been aliens imported into this country for that special piirpose. I say it
is significant because it indicates clearly to me that the average immigrant does not
support Communist enterprises and will not lend himself to this job.

Because the tenets, the teachings and the practices of communism are so alien
to American institutions, traditions and principles I believe it is a fair conclusion
that a substantial portion of those who support Communist enterprises in America,
who are deceived by their publications, who are brought into Communist fronts
by deception, would not do so if they were aware of their conspirational and
traitorous nature.

It follows, as I have remarked earlier, that exposure and identification are the
most effective weapons against the Communist movement in America. That,
as I indicated at the outset, is the essence of the legislation which is before you.

The purposes, and in fact many of the provisions of S. 1196 are not unfamiliar
to members of this committee. It is based on conclusion arrived at following
hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Eightieth Congress on H. K.
5852, known as the Mundt-Nixon bill. As the result of exhaustive study by
members of the committee last year, of whom I was one, it accepts many of the
basic propositions set forth in H. R. 5852. It also contains numerous departures
from that bill, based on considerable reflection.

Cardinal features of S. 1196 are as follows:

1. It establishes that "the recent demonstrations of Communist objectives and
methods throughout the world 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 to prevent it from accomplishing its purposes in the
United States."

2. It provides heavy fine and imprisonment for a conspiracy to attempt to set
up in the United States a totalitarian dictatorship under foreign control, and speci-
fies characteristics of a totalitarian dictatorship.

5. It defines a Communist political organization in the United States as one
having characteristics of a political party but substantially dominated or controlled
by the foreign government or foreign political organization controlling the world
Communist movement and operating primarily to advance the political objectives
of the world Communist movement; and it defines a Communist-front organiza-
tion as one under the control of a Communist political organization or operating
primarily for the purpose of giving aid and support to a Communist political or-
ganization, a Communist foreign government, or the world Communist movement.
Both are referred to in the bill as "Communist organizations."

4. It requires registration with the Attorney General of Communist organiza-
tions and a filing of a list of officers and a report on the source and expenditure of
funds.

5. It requires Communist political organizations to file a list of members,
and makes knowing membership in an unregistered Comrnunist political organiza-
tion illegal.

6. The Attorney General is required to notify all individuals listed as officers
of a Communist organization or members of a Communist political organization
and such individuals, if erroneously listed, may file a disclaimer with the Attorney
General which shall be made a matter of record.

7. It denies governmental employment and passports to members of a Com-
munist political organization.

8. It requires identification of broadcasts or publications circulated through the
mails whenever sponsored by a Communist organization.

9. It removes tax exemptions for Communist organizations and removes income
tax deductibility provisions on contributions to them.

10. It establishes a Subversive Activities Board which may issue orders, fol-
lowing public hearings and a determination that an organization is a Communist
organization, requiring that organization to register. The Attorney General may
petition the Board for such an order. Orders and findings of the Board are re-

93357—49 6

78 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

viewable by United States courts of law. The Board would consist of three
individuals, appointed by the President with the ap})roval of the Senate.

It is important that this bill be read in proper context.

It is important that it be related to the premises which establish a world Com-
munist conspiracy as I have described it.

It is essential also that it be recognized that sincere and conscientious effort
has been applied to exclude from the bill any feature which could be reasonably
construed as persecution of any organization which by its nature does not con-
stitute a real threat to American security and American institutions. Particular
effort has been made to avoid any possible use of the bill's provisions to smear
any individual by any erroneous or unfair implication with a subversive organi-
zation.

It is not a thought-control bill. It outlaws no group which is willing to sub-
ject its true character to the bright light of public scrutiny. It is a measure
requiring the identification of certain types of activity so that the public may
not be deceived as to its nature.

This is no time for hysteria and this bill is not a product of hysteria. The
conclusion that the Communist movement constitutes a threat to the security of
the United States and its free institutions is not a cry of alarmists.

It may be contended that the existence of such a threat is exaggerated in view
of the recent negotiations on the Berlin blockade. For those who would place
a premium on the conciliatory attitude which the Soviets have demonstrated
there I would refer to the penetrating article "Stalin on Revolution" which
appeared in the January issue of Foreign Affairs Quarterly.

The lesson of that article, which is a review of Communist doctrine in the
form of Stalin's writings, stands out vividly in the pages of history: Communist
tactics may shift and change to befit strategy, but objectives never alter.

As never before in our history this is a time for clear thinking. It is, more-
over, in the face of a challenge which possesses the simplicity and clarity of
fanaticism, a time for hard thinking.

With due regard to the spirit of our national Bill of Rights and our legal
system the peoj^le and the Congress of the United States must address themselves
to an obvious and present danger.

S. 1196 is presented as a reasoned, effective means of facing up to that danger.

Senator Ferguson. I will be here every day. To me it is not a
matter of coming here merely to testify.

Senator Miller. Senator Eastland will not be here for a while this
morning. I did not loiow about Senator Donnell or Senator O'Conor.

Mr. Young. They are coming.

Senator Miller. Give yom- name to the reporter, sir, if you have
not done so.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN C. WILLIAMSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN
WARS OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. Williamson. My name is John C. Williamson. I am the
assistant director of the national legislative services, Veterans of
Foreign Wars of the United States.

Mr. Young. Before you start, sir, may I ask the usual questions?
I would like to ask that in the light of the policy which we just read.
Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Williamson. No, I am not and I have never been.

Mr. Young. Are you now or have you ever been a member of or
affiliated in any way with any organization which has been cited by
any governmental agency as a Communist organization, a Com-
munist-front organization, or one substantially controlled, dominated,
or infiltrated by Communists?

Mr. Williamson. No, I have not.

CONTROL OF SUBA'ERSIVE ACTIVITIES 79

Mr. Chairman and Senator Ferguson, I appreciate this opportunity
of expressing the views of the 1,500,000 overseas veterans who are
members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, in
regard to the bill S. 1194.

Senator Ferguson. Have you gone over both bills? Is this just
the one bill that you are talking about?

Mr. Williamson. No, we have gone over both bills. We have
gone over the analysis of two bills.

Senator Ferguson. This statement will apply to both of them.

Mr. Williamson. Absolutely, it will, sir.

Senator Ferguson. That is all right.

Mr. Williamson. The subject matter of this bill was considered at
great length by the Americanism committee at our last convention held
in St. Louis in September 1948. Two resolutions were subsequently
adopted by unanimous vote of the delegates present.

One of the resolutions, No. 291, endorses in principle the Mundt-
Nixon bill of the Eightieth Congress, with a certain reservation which
I shall discuss later; and the other, No. 469, relates to the strengthen-
ing of our antiespionage laws designed to deter the conveying of
information affecting the security of the United States to any agent
of a foreign power.

Both of these resolutions are submitted for the record.

(The resolutions referred to follow:)

Resolution No. 291 to Endorse Mundt-Nixon Bill

Whereas there is presently pending before the Congress of the United States
a bill designated as H. R. 5852, the Mundt-Nixon bill, which is designed to
control subversive activities within the United States; and

Whereas it is becoming increasingly evident that there exists within this
country a Communist Party and certain Communist-front organizations which
are dominated by a foreign power and whose objectives are inimical to the welfare
of the United States; and

Whereas there are other organizations of the native Fascist type whose objec-
tives would be to deny to many citizens of the United States the rights guaranteed
them by the Constitution; and

Whereas this * Mundt-Nixon bill would serve to expose the identity of such
individuals and such organizations: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Forty-ninth Anmtal Encampment of the Veterans of Foreign Wars
of the United States, That this convention endorse the principles contained in
the Mundt-Nixon bill insofar as it does not confer dictatorial powers upon any
person nor abridge the freedoms of the American people.

Resolution No. 469, to Strengthen the Antiespionage Laws

Whereas the loyal patriotic citizens of the United States have recently experi-
enced the shocking realization that presumably trusted officers of our Government
have conveyed information relating to our defenses to agents of a foreign power;
and

Whereas many private citizens in addition to officers of the Government have
consorted with and otherwise given comfort to agents of a foreign power — and
particularly a foreign power the government of which is dominated by an ideology
which seeks the overthrow of our American form of democracy by force and
violence; and

Whereas existing laws relating to treason and espionage, although they were
appropriate to cope with the imperialistic ventures of nations in the preindustrial
era, are inadequate to cope with the dynamisms of totalitarian ideologies in this
atomic age; and

80 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Whereas despite the victory of our arms in World War II, the forces of democ-
racy are still being challenged by formidable forces all over the world: Now,
therefore, be it

Resolved by the Forty-ninth National Encampment of Veterans of Foreign Wars-
of the United States, assembled in St. Louis, Mo., August 29-September 3, 1948,
That the Congress and the President of these United States be petitioned to enact
legislation amending that part of the Criminal Code relating to espionage activities
of foreign powers so that any person knowingly conveying to an agent of a foreign
power or to any person known to be employed by agents of a foreign power, any
mformation relatin,:!; to the national defense and security of the United States,
shall if convicted be sentenced to imprisonment of not to exceed 20 years, or in
time of national emergency as proclaimed by the Congress of the United States-
or the President, the sentence may be death or life imprisonment; and be it
further

Resolved, That for the purposes of this statute information relating to the
national defense and security shall include:

1. Any information classified as confidential, secret or top secret by any agency
of the Government of the United States.

2. Any information relating to industrial production, plant location, stock
piling, results of experiments and developments in atomic energy, electronics,
bacteriological warfare, and jet and rocket propulsion.

Mr. Williamson. The United States, representing by far the
strongest bulwark of western civiHzation, today faces the greatest
challenge in its history. It is a challenge that faced all the great
civilizations of the past. These civilizations from that of the early
Egyptian down through the Hellenic, the Roman, Chinese, and Islamic
failed to heed the implications of that challenge and their downfall
was inevitable.

Precisely, what is the challenge? It is that of adjustment to a
changmg environment, a changing world, not of technology but of
ideology. We somehow fail to grasp the impact of ideas on our civ-
ilization.

The two wars of this generation have nurtured the ideas of a world
system of communism which holds forth the vision of a classless-
society after a thousand years of subjugation. However, as we face
this foreign totalitarian idea of twentieth century vintage we confront
it w4th an eighteenth century weapon. The Supreme Court of the
United States has enunciated time and time agam that the Constitu-
tion is a living organism and that the Constitution in the 1789 environ-
ment is not the same instrument as in the 1949 envkonment.

We ask, therefore, that the Congress start with this premise :.
That the power to defend the Constitution is implicit in that instru-
ment. We stress this point, well realizing that the opponents of this
measure, regardless of their motives, fail to differentiate between the
preservation of freedom and the protection of that freedom.

In the opinion of our organization the bill S. 1194 is a proper
vehicle for effectively meeting the challenge imposed on us by the
presence within our midst of a dynamic Communist movement con-
trolled and directed by a foreign power. The aim of that movement is
clear and its pattern of conquest is even clearer. It is best that the
pattern of control as set forth in this bill be as clear.

The bill S. 1194 meets the reservation of our convention in endorsing
the Mundt-Nixon bill, by providing appropriate safeguards and
appellate review so that the misguided and those who are being used
as fronts would be protected. In fact, the bill woidd further protect
these by exposing at least to them the folly of their apathy and com-
placency in adhermg to the fringes of communism.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 81

It has been pointed out that the danger of such a bill as S. 1194 is
that it would drive the Communists underground. The answer to
that is this: The ones we have to worry about have always been under-
ground. The leaders of the Communist Party and those who pull
the strings on the Communist-front organizations seem to exhibit a
passion for publicity as though to beguile us into thinking that is all
there are. Those already underground are the cells — the so-called
fractions — that argue long and vote late in group meetings ; and others
who patiently and sometimes successfully weave their way into the
confidences of Government officials and oftimes not only in the con-
fidences of those officials but in their very chairs.

Of course, this bill if enacted might force these further under-
gi'ound — too far underground to be of any effect.

Om- second resolution is amply covered by section 4 (a) of the
bill and we commend it along with the rest of the bill to your early
and favorable consideration.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Williams, I noticed yesterday Henry
Wallace made a reference to these hearings in this language as a
footnote to liis memorandum. He said:

And now freedom of thought itself is again under attack as the Senate Judiciary
■Committee rushes hearings on the 1949 version of the Mundt thought-control bill.

Do you find any provisions in this bill that would control thought?

Mr. Williamson. No; we don't. Actually, this bill would just
permit our Government and the Congress to keep a check on people
who follow a line set do^vn by a foreign government and who in time
of emergency would very likely be avowed enemies of the United
States.

Senator Ferguson. Eliminating section 4 for the time being, I want
to ask you whether or not this bill does any more than register an
organization composed of foreign agents.

Mr. Williamson. Precisely that is what the bill does.

Senator Ferguson. It registers foreign agents. We have a bill
today which registers individually foreign agents, but now when they
combine themselves into a so-called political party, the Communist
political party, and the front organizations, it merely compels the
registration of the organizations rather than the individuals, and then
the listing of the members of the one organization which is the political
organization. Is that not true?

Mr. Williamson. That is correct. It also has another purpose in
that it would act as a deterrent to many of the misguided who have let
themselves be used.

Senator Ferguson. By a registration of the Communist-front
organization which is controlled by foreign agents and therefore in
effect is a foreign agent.

Mr. Williamson. That is correct.

Senator Ferguson. Have you any doubt, Mr. Williamson, that
the thought of the Communists themselves is controlled thought?
Mr. Wallace described this bill as controlling thought in America.
I wonder whether you have an opinion that thought can be any more
controlled than the Communist Party controls* thought? Apparently,
while Mr. Wallace is not a Communist himself, much of his thought is
controlled by the Communist organization. Do you find that to
be true?

82 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Williamson. We certainly recognize the fact tliat there is a
thought control running through the whole Communist Party.
There is no question about that because of the manner in which the
party line shifts, and a person who is affiliated with the Communist
Party can passionately advocate one thing and when the party line
suddenly changes in the Kremlin he thinks differently. There is
no question but that that is thought control, and it is a much more
sinister one than even if one were to think by stretch of the imagina-
tion that this were a thought-control measure.

Senator Ferguson. Yes. In other words, it appears to some of
these left-wingers and those who are following the party line, that if
thought control is control by the Communist Party, that is perfectly
all right, but if it is the United States Government doing it, then it is
claimed that that is thought control. Do you not think that to be
true?

Mr. Williamson. Yes; that is the line. This bill actually aims at
the registration of people who are members of organizations that are
foreign-dominated. The thought behind, shall I say, pure communism
is nothing new in this country. There have been communistic
experiments in this country, but that is something different. In other
words, the thought behind the ideology of communism certainly
isn't controlled, but the activities of those who are foreign-dominated
is controlled.

Senator Ferguson. Did not Marx and Engels in their manifestos
and their writings attempt to lay down a thought control as far as
the proletariat was concerned?

Air. Williamson. Yes; they would have to. There would have to
be thought control because of the rigid discipline necessary to bring
about the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Senator Ferguson. A Communist may be said to be a Socialist
in a hurry. Is that not about what he is? We might say that a
Socialist is a slow-moving picture of a Communist.

Mr. Williamson. That is right. Wlien you talk about com-
munism by itself, without any domination of a foreign power, it isn't
very difRcult to argue somebody into the position that communism by
itself, pure communism, is the perfect form of democracy, because
one could argue and say that it is the basis of Christianity; all men
live like brothers and there will be no requirement of a state; there will
be no laws. That isn't the great evil of communism. It is this dic-
taborship of the proletariat that can go on forever. Certainly nobody
in his right mind would think that the objective of the present govern-
ment in Russia is to bring about a society in which the state would
wither away. They will always have a state and it will be a plenty
tough one. The great evil of communism is this dictatorship of the
proletariat which will subjugate the people and people's minds forever.

Senator Ferguson. Section 4 in the present bill is entirely different
from that, in the Mundt-Nixon bill, and it is also the same in S. 1196
and 1194. Section 4 starts out:

It shall be unlawful for any person to combine or conspire with any other person
to perform any act which would substantially contribute * * *

That is the way it is used in 1196.
In 1 1 94 there is used —

which would substantially facilitate or aid * * *_

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 83

The language in 1196 is —

would substantially contribute to the establishment within the United States of
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, with intent to assist in the establish-
ment within the United State^ of such totalitarian dictatorship.

Then it proceeds. Of course, that part does not attempt to control
thought, because it attempts to control a conspiracy to do a particular
act. Is that not correct?

Mr. Williamson. That is correct. That is the interpretation we
have.

Senator Ferguson. Have you found anything in this bill which
would carry out what Mr. Wallace has said to the Foreign Relations
Committee, that this was a thought-control bill?

Mr. Williamson. No; we have not, and we insist that it is not a
thought-control bill.

Senator Ferguson. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
ask those questions.

Senator Miller. I guess that is all, Mr. Williamson, and we thank
you for your contribution.

Mr. Young. Mr. McLaughlin of AMVETS? Will you take the
stand, please?

Before you sit down, sir, would you raise your right hand. Do you
solemnly swear or afhrm that in the proceedings before this subcom-
mittee you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?

Mr. McLaughlin. I do.

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT E. McLAUGHLIN, NATIONAL LEGISLA-
TIVE DIRECTOR, AMVETS

Mr. McLaughlin. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
my name is Robert E. McLaughlin. I am national legislative direc-
toV of AMVETS.

Mr. Young. Before you start I would like to ask the two opening
questions. Air. McLaughlin, in line with the policy read in the
beginning of these proceedings. I ask you, are you now or have you
every been a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. McLaughlin. No.

Mr. Young. Are you now or have you ever been a member of or
afhliated in any way with any organization which has been cited by
any governmental agency as a Communist organization, a Commu-
nist-front organization, or one substantially controlled, dominated, or
infiltrated by Communists?

Mr. McLaughlin. No.

Mr. Young. Proceed, please.

Mr. McLaughlin. AMVETS— American Veterans of World War
II — was incorporated by act of Congress of July 23, 1947, and since
its inception, has been actively opposing communism and Com-
munist agitation in this country. Article IV of our national consti-
tution specifically provides:

No person who is a member of, or who advocates the principles of, any organiza-
tion believing in, or working for, the overthrow of the United States Government
by force, and no person who refuses to uphold and defend the Constitution of the

84 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

United States, shall be privileged to become or continue to be a member of this
organization.

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

In February 1948, the national commander of AMVETS appeared
before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and asked
that Congress take the following measures toward controlling the
Commmiists in this country:

1 . That any person who is a member of the Communist Party or any organiza-
tion, 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 political propa-
ganda 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 candiadte for any elective office or
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 responsible for the
registration of their groups under the existing Voorhis Act requiring registration
of groups under foreign control aimed at overthrow of the Government by force.

Moreover, the 1948 National Convention of AMVETS called upon
the Congress to —

enact the Mundt-Nixon bill requiring the registration of all Communists, Com-
munist-front organizations, and all other people or groups advocating the over-
throw of the United States by force or by subversion.

These measures have been substantially mcorporated in the bills
under consideration by the committee, and AMVETS wishes to be
placed on record as strongly supporting such a measure.

The constitution and rules of the International Communist Party
reveal conclusively that the so-called American Communist Party is
only a section of the international and directly governed by the
executive committee of the International Communist Party, the
ECCI. According to their constitution the ECCI "gives instruction
to all sections (parties) and controls their activities." In equivalent
language, the said constitution provides that the decisions of the
ECCI are obligatory for all sections; that the ECCI has the right to
annul or amend decisions of party congresses and central committees
of individual parties and make decisions which are obligatory for them;
that ECCI has the right to expel entire sections, groups, and individual
members of sections; that ECCI has the right to send their representa-
tives to the various sections, to participate in their meetings, speak in
opposition to the central committee of a given section, and send in-
structors to the various sections.

The international control division has power —

to investigate matters concerning the unit of the sections * * * -^he conduct
of the individual members * * * to examine complaints against the actions
of the central committees * * * ^nd concerning members * * * ai^j
audit the accounts of the Third International.

The central committees (of the various parties) must send the ECCI minutes
of their meetings and reports * * * resignation from offices jg * * *

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 85

disruption * * * leading posts in the party do not belong to the occupant
but to the Communist International * * * elected members may resign
only with the consent of the ECCI. Resignations accepted by the central com-
mittees of sections without the consent of the ECCI are invalid.

Under paragraph 33 of the constitution I was speaking of the inter-
national imposes taxes upon every Communist Party; and under
paragraph 37, no member of the Communist Party may leave this
country without the consent of the central committee, and if he changes
domicile he is compelled to join the party in the country to which he
moves.

The set-up of the Communist International and its operations in
the United States through Communists and through Communist-
controlled organizations, is not only an affront to the Government of
the United States, but is a clandestine type of warfare perfected and
scientifically developed for the purpose of overthrowing that Govern-
ment by any and every illegal and ignominious means available.

Chief Justice Stone in his dissent in the case of Bridges v. Wixon
(326 U. S. 135, at p. 168), said the Supreme Court did not challenge
the findings of the examiner to the effect that

the Communist Party of the United States and the Marine Workers Industrial
Union were, at all relevant times, each an organization which believed in and ad-
vocated the overthrow by force and violence of the Government of the United
States, and that the Communist Party also wrote, circulated, distributed, printed,
publislied and displayed printed matter advising, advocating or teaching the ovei-
throw by force or-violence of the Government of the United States.

It is clearly defined principle of constitutional law that political
questions, such as those involved in treating with the Communist
Party, are of such nature that the courts generally cannot entertain
jurisdiction without legislative pronouncements.

Justice Sanford, in the case of Gitlow v. New York (268 U. S. 652),
said:

A single revolutionary spark may kindle a fire that, smoldering for a time,
maj' burst into a sweeping and destructive conflagration. It cannot be said that
the State is acting arbitrarily or unreasonably when in the exercise of its judgment
as to the measures necessary to protect the public peace and safety, it seeks to
extinguish the spark without waiting until it has enkindled the flame or blazed
into the conflagration. It cannot reasonably be required to defer the adoption
of measures for its own peace and safety until the revolutionary utterances lead
to actual disturbances of the public peace or imminent and immediate danger of
its own destruction; but it may, in the exercise of its judgment, suppress the threat-
ened danger in its incipiency.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could ask
a few questions?

Senator Eastland. Yes, sir. You m.ay proceed, Senator.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. McLaughlin, j^ou spent som.e tiro.e on this
question of communism, in America and its acts as well as communism
in the world. I will ask you whether you fmd anything in the Com-
munist principles which controls thought?

Mr. McLaughlin. Yes, sir. I agree entirely \vith the testimony of
my predecessor, Mr. William.son, on that point.

Senator Ferguson. In other words, they do control thought. I
noticed in Mr, Wallace's statement yesterday he referred to this as a
"thought control bill." Have you found anj^thing in this bill that
would control thought?

Mr. McLaughlin. I don't see those aspects in the bill at all,
Senator.

86 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Ferguson. You are a lawyer?

Mr. McLaughlin. Yes, sir.

Senator Ferguson. You have studied the bill?

Mr. McLaughlin. Yes, sir.

Senator Ferguson. You find nothing in the bill that controls
thought?

Mr. McLaughlin. No, sir.

Senator Ferguson. But you do find in communism itself and what
is known as following the party line a clear control of thought?

Mr. McLaughlin. Yes, sir; I believe that is their dangerous
principle.

Senator Ferguson. That thought is controlled by a foreign power?

Mr. McLaughlin. Yes, sir.

Senator Ferguson. In section 4 of both of these bills it prevents a
conspiracy to do particular things. That would not be a control of
thought. There mast be a combination of people. As I understand
the law on conspiracy, it has never been contended that to try to
stop a conspiracy to commit a crime is the controlling of the thought
of the people that they are trying to control. Have you found that?

Mr. McLaughlin. No, sir. The crime is embodied in the com-
bining.

Senator Ferguson. In the combining, the joint action, in other
words.

Mr. McLaughlin. Yes, sir.

Senator Ferguson. That isn't control of thought of each Individ aal
at all, but it is controlling the combination of thought to do an unlaw-
ful act.

Mr. McLaughlin. Yes, sir. It is controlling the combination.

Senator Ferguson. Yes, rather than the thought of each individual.

Air. McLaughlin. That is right. Senator.

Senator Ferguson. That is all I have.

Senator Miller. No questions.

Senator Eastland. That is all, thank you.

Mr. McLaughlin. Thank you.

Mr. Young. Will Mrs. Ada Jackson, from the Congress of Ameri-
can Women, please take the stand?

Mrs. Jackson, before you sit down will you raise your right hand,
please. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that in the proceedings
before tliis committee you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mrs. Jackson. I do.

TESTIMONY OF MRS. ADA B. JACKSON, CONGRESS OF AMERICAN

WOMEN

Mr. Young. Now, Mrs. Jackson, having directed attention to the
policy or rule laid down by the subcommittee concerning the rele-
vancy of the proposed testimony, I would like to ask you the following
two questions, if I may.

First, are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist
Party?

Mrs. Jackson. T have not.

Mr. Young. Second, are you now or have you ever been a member
of or affiliated in any way with any organization which has been cited

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 87

})y any governmental agency as a Communist organization, a Com-
munist-front organization or one substantially controlled, dominated,
or infiltrated by Communists?

Mrs. Jackson. No.

Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, in the light of these two answers I
would like to read a short statement from this pamphlet here, if I may.

Senator Eastland. What is the pamphlet?

Mr. Young. The pamphlet is entitled "Citations by Official
Government Agencies of Organizations and Publications Found to
be Communist or Communist Fronts," dated December 18, 1948,
prepared and released by the Committee on Un-American Activities,
United States House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

Senator Fkrguson. Before you read that

Senator Eastland. I think the witness is qualified under the ruling,
and I think she should be permitted to testify. Then, of course,
when she concludes we can put that in the record.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Chairman, I just w^anted to ask one thing
in view of the fact that these questions may be double-barreled or
triple-barreled. Your answer to each and every one of them is
''No," is that right? Have you ever been or are you?

Mrs. Jackson. No. I answered the first one. The combination
that he gave about being cited by the Government — I would like to
ask what he means by "cited by the Government." I want to be
clear on that.

Senator Ferguson. I want to be clear and I want you to be clear.
Was it because the question was asked in its form that you answered
"No"?

Would you repeat each one of the questions?

Mr. Young. I think the second question is rather complicated.

Senator Ferguson. It is a triple-barreled question .

wSenator Eastland. Let me ask you, which organization do j'ou
belong to?

Mrs. Jackson. I am here for the Congress of American Women.

Senator Eastland. But what other organization do you belong to?

Mrs. Jackson. What other organizations? I belong to the schools
council of Bedford in Williamsburg; the Brooklyn chapter of the
National Council of Negro Women; I am a board member of the
Brooklyn TWCA; I belong to the Bethany Baptist Church. I don't
remember what other organizations I belong to, community organ-
izations.

Senator Eastland. I think she is qualified.

Mrs. Jackson. I am a member of the Congress of American Women.
But I want clarification on that second combination.

Senator Ferguson. You do want clarification?

Mrs. Jackson. I want him to clarif}^ that.

Senator Ferguson. Could he do that now?

Senator Eastland. Certainly.

Senator Ferguson. Were they ever listed by the Un-American Ac-
tivities Committee as a Communist-front organization?

Mrs. Jackson. Not to my knowledge.

Senator Eastland. They were by the Attorney General.

Senator Ferguson. Were they by the Attorney General?

Mrs. Jackson. Not to my knowledge.

Senator Ferguson. Did you never hear that they were?

88 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mrs. Jackson. No. Were they cited by the Government?

Senator Ferguson. I am just asking you what you know.

Mrs. Jackson. ]Not to my knowledge.

Senator Ferguson. You never heard that any organization that
you ever belonged to was cited by any Government agency, either
Congress or the Attorney General, as being a subversive organization?

Mrs. Jackson. I know the National Negro Congress someone said
was one listed in the subversive list.

Senator Ferguson. Are you a member of that?

Mrs. Jackson. There is no longer a National Negro Congress. It
was dissolved some years ago.

Senator Ferguson. What is its name now?

Mrs. Jackson. There isn't a National Negro Congress.

Senator Ferguson. Has it changed its name?

Mrs. Jackson. No. The organization was dissolved.

Senator Ferguson. Were you in any way ever affiliated with any
Communist organization?

Mrs. Jackson. Not to my knowledge.

Senator Eastland. In other words, what you say is that if the
Congress of American Women was cited as a Communist-front organ-
ization, you did not Iviiow?

Mrs. Jackson. No.

Senator Eastland. I think she should be permitted to testify.

Senator Ferguson. Yes.

Senator Eastland. The organization w^as cited by the Attorney
Genera] in letters to the Loyalty Review Board released June 1, 1948,
and September 1, 1948, and it was cited by the California committee
on un-American activities in its 1948 report, page 229 to 231, as —

one of the most potentially dangerous of many active Communist fronts. Incor-
porated in January 1945, the national headquarters is in New York City. It is
an American branch of the International Democratic Womens' Federation,
which was formed at a Paris convention in November 1945 at the call of the
international Communist forces.

We want to let every one testify. This bill is based on the finaings
that communism is an international conspiracy to overthrow the
United States Government, that it is controlled by a foreign power.
The reason you were asked why you had been a member of the Com-
munist Party is that a Communist can shed more light on the thing
that this bill is based on, that it is a party controlled by a foreign
power. That is the reason that we asked the question. You have
qualified, and you can proceed with your testimony.

Mrs. Jackson. There is one question I would like to ask, when you
talk about "potential."

Senator Eastland. I cited from the report of the un-American
activities committee of the State of California.

Mrs. Jackson. Was it that it was one or was potential?

Senator Eastland. There is no point in arguing.

Mrs. Jackson. I am not arguing but I want to be clear on that
point.

Senator Eastland. They were cited bj^ the Attorney General of
the United States, your organization.

Mrs. Jackson. Whether it was or was potential.

Senator Eastland. As a Communist-front organization. You tes-
tified you did not know that.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 89

Senator Ferguson. I would like to ask this question, if I may,
Mr. Chairman. If you had known that it was cited by the President
as a Communist-front organization, would you have remained a
member?

:\Irs. Jackson. Well, I think I would have remained a member due
to the fact that there are so many things now that are called Com-
munist that I have worked in all my life and I know that they are not.

Senator Ferguson. That is what I mean.

Senator Eastland. Wliich are they, now?

Mrs. Jackson. The Parent Teachers Association gi'oups, the Brook-
lyn branch or the national branch of the National Association for the
Advancement of the Colored People.

Senator Eastland. They have all been charged with being Com-
munist?

iVIrs. Jackson. The national office hasn't, but it has been said that
some of their affiliates, branches, have been. They have not been
cited by the Government but they have been labeled. So there is a
difference between what a thing really is and what people say about it.

Senator Ferguson. When the Attorney General lists this organiza-
tion as being a Communist-front organization, if you had known that,
you would still have remained a member. And I will ask you this
question: Would you also want to appear here for that organization
even though you know it is cited by the Attorney General of the
United States under an Executive order as a Communist-front
organization?

Mrs. Jackson. I believe in the principles and policies of the consti-
tution of the Congress of American Women, and certainly as an
American citizen, which I have been all my life, I have not observed
anything in the constitution or the bylaws, in their meetings whatso-
ever, that has not been in the best interests of the people.

Senator Ferguson. So then you would appear knowing that.

Mrs. Jackson. Knowing what I know about the congress?

Senator Ferguson. Yes and knowing

Mrs. Jackson. They would have to convince me and would have
to explain to me what the congress had done, what was in its principles
that was not in the best interests of the people. I would have to be
convinced of that point.

Senator Eastland. Let us proceed with her testimony.

Mrs. Jackson. I appear before your committee today in behalf of
the Congress of American Women to urge upon you that you do not
report out the two Mundt bUls, S. 1194 and S. 1196, which are now
before you for consideration. These two bills, like last year's Mundt
bill which begot them, are diabolically designed to establish in the
United States the very totalitarianism which they pretend to prevent.

The Congress of American Women asks that you carefully consider
this legislative proposal to put into the hands of a subversive activities
commission the power to judge, to suppress the opmions and to penalize
the affiliations and activities of all Americans. We want to ask:
From what point of view wUl it judge our opinions and activities?
From what point of view of the 14,000,000 American Negroes? The
practice of racial and religious discrimination in the United States, in
the opinion of many millions of Americans of all races and creeds, is a
form of totalitarian dictatorship. Will those practicing discrimination
or encouragmg it, or condoning it, be adjudged subversive under this

90 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

bill? Of course not. "What is more likely to happen is that those who
combat discrimination and work for its elimination will, under this
bill, be subjected to harassment and wholesale penalization, on the
ground that their activities coincide with those of the Communist
Party.

We, in the Congress of American Women, like millions of women
throughout the country, are alarmed about tlie talk of war which has
become all too ciuTcnt, and about what we consider to be policies
which might lead to war. We are doing what we can to persuade our
Government to alter some of its policies. We intend to continue our
efforts. It is our right and we consider it to be our duty. Is legisla-
tion to be adopted which would take from us the right of petition, the .
right to join with others in a common endeavor? We believe that the
trend in the direction of militarism, if persisted in, would facilitate the
establishment of dictatorsliip. Many good Americans of all races and
religions believe likewise.

Is this bill aimed at this threat to our free institutions- — or it it aimed
rather at frustrating the efforts of those, who, aware of the danger,
attempt to arrest it?

There can be little question about the answer to these questions.
■Wliite supremacists will not be bothered by legislation of this kind.
They will not be found pursuing policies which parallel those of the
Communist Party. No vigilant champion of that great democratic
institution, the filibuster, will be hampered in his activities by this
legislation. No eager advocate of an early atomic war will be gagged
by this legislation. No landlord's organization, ready to take full
advantage of the recent rent regulations, will find anything to worry a
about in this legislation.

But every citizen or group of citizens who seek to combat grasping
landlords or hide-bound racists or war-minded jingoists are certain to
find this legislation used against them. If this were not the case,
why does not this Congress set these bills aside and write legislation
to curb racists? Why has the Un-American Activities Committee
concentrated in its efforts over the years at hampering and smearing
the activities of liberals, progressives, and radicals, and paid practically
no attention to the activities of Facists, anti-Semites, pro-Nazis, and
lynchers?

The Communist label has been pinned on every advocate of decent
race relations and social progress in the last decade or so. To pass this
legislation is to convert the label mto a pair of handcuffs, a gag, and
prison bars. It is to say finis to further progress. It is to say "nothing
doing" to the prayer for peace. It is to say jail to the protest against
the rope and the"^ fagot. We as American women, organized into
the Congress of American Women, will never accept such a fate. We
will fight for the things we believe in. We will fight this legislation.

Senator Eastland. Did you write this prepared statement?

Mrs. Jackson. It was prepared at our executive office.

Senator Eastland. By whom ?

Mrs. Jackson. By whom? Stella Allen.

Senator Eastland. Who is she?

Mrs. Jackson. Executive secretary.

Senator Eastland. Any questions?

Senator Miller. Where was this prepared, here or somewhere else?'

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 91

Mrs. Jackson. It was prepared at our national headquarters, 232
East Twenty-thhd Street, New York City.

Senator Ferguson. Can you account for the fact that you, as a
member of this organization, did not k^arn about what the Attorney
General had said about your organization?

Mrs. Jackson. I never saw the list. I never knew it was cited as
a Communist-front organization.

Senator Ferguson. What is your ofRce in this organization?

Mrs. Jackson. M}' office' — I take care of the child commission for
all Brooklyn.

Senator Ferguson. Do you hold any other office?

Mrs. Jackson. Not for the moment.

Senator Ferguson. Had you never heard in the organization itself,
among its people, that the Attorney General had cited yom- organi-
zation as subversive? A Communist-front organization?

Mrs. Jackson. No.

Senator Ferguson. Would j^ou feel that something was wrong
if you had a fair trail before a board or a commission as to whether
or not your organization was a subversive or Communist organi-
zation and then be registered? Is there anything wrong about that?

Mrs. Jackson. Anything ^^^•ong with it being registered?

Senator Ferguson. Yes.

Mrs. Jackson. That depends on how far this registration is going
to go. When you say that

Senator Ferguson. Have you ever read the bill?

Mrs. Jackson. Read the bill? I read last year's bill. I have had
an anah^sis of the present one.

Senator Eastland. Prepared by svliom?

Mrs. Jackson. The American Labor Partv. I read their analysis
ofthebUl.

Senator Ferguson. Have you got a copy of their analysis?

Mrs. Jackson. Not with me.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think. Madam, that you can advise
the committee on this bill not having read it and just takuig the
analj'sis of some Am.erican labor party?

Mrs. Jackson. There is direct quotes from the bill.

Senator Ferguson. What do you find? Wliat specific provision
are you against in the bill?

Airs. Jackson. I am against the labeling of organizations that have
been active in the mterests of the people as being subversive.

Senator Eastland. Suppose they are found to be subversive?

Mrs. Jackson. If they are found that, but I think that when we
say a thing is subversive, we ought to give reasons.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think that if an organization follows
the Communist line there is anything v\Tong about registering it?

Mrs. Jackson. When you talk about the Communist line, I don't
know all the Communist line, but certainly if a Communist was to
say that it is wrong for landlord to go up on his rent, and I would
think it was wrong, too, w^ould that m.ake me a Communist because I
said that?

Senator Ferguson. No.

Mrs. Jackson. If the spoke out against discrimination, against the
inhuman acts perpetrated against Negro people, and I believed the
same thing?

92 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Ferguson. That would not be subversive.

Mrs. Jackson. In an association you accept people on their — you
don't always know their background. You accept them on their face
value, what you know about them.

wSenator Ferguson. You believe in courts and believe in trials?

Mrs. Jackson. Of course I do.

Senator Ferguson. So if there is a board set up where you have a
fair hearing to determine whether or not your organization or an
organization is controlled by the Communists, you would see nothing
wrong about that procedure?

Mrs. Jackson. If it was a fair hearing.

Senator Ferguson. Do you know that that is just what this bill
does?

Mrs. Jackson. I doubt seriously whether it is a fair hearing.

Senator Ferguson. Wliy would you question the fairness of the
hearing?

Mrs. Jackson. I have listened to hearings and they weren't always
fair.

Senator Eastland. Hearings here, you mean?

Mrs. Jackson. No, not here, but I have sat in court rooms and
listened to hearings that weren't always fair.

Senator Eastland. Then you have been to court?

Mrs. Jackson. I say the people in the court go in to win, they
don't go in for justice. You don't always get it.

Senator Eastland. Would that not be a reason to have the machin-
ery set up in this bill?

Mrs. Jackson. So much can be read into these bills. We have laws
against discrimination and yet it is the policy of every State in the
Union to discriminate.

Senator Eastland. This is not a State matter. Here is the Ferguson
bill and here is the Mundt bill. Just tell us which sections you oppose.

Mrs. Jackson. I think it was section 4.

Senator Ferguson. Section 4 is on page 8. Do you think there is
anything wrong about making unlawful a conspiracy —

which would substantially contribute to the establishment within the United States
of a totalitarian dictatorship the direction and control of which is to be vested in,
or exercised 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?

Mrs. Jackson. I don't believe in any foreign powers controlling or
governing or dictating to the Government here in America, but I do
believe that we ought to let our own form of government and democ-
racy work in America, and that we have not done.

Senator Ferguson. You and I agree on that.

Senator Eastland. I want to hear her objections. I would like to
have the witness give us the section and exactly what she objects to.

Mrs. Jackson. The main thing that I digested out of this bill

Senator Eastland. Wliich bill, 1194 or 1196?

Mrs. Jackson. 1194.

Senator Eastland. 1194, all right. Wliich section?

Mrs. Jackson. We have gone by the statement of general principles
as a whole.

Senator Eastland. As a matter of fact, you have not read that bill.

Mrs. Jackson. 1 have not read this bill.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 93

Senator Eastland. You do not know the provisions of a single sec-
tion of the bill.

Mrs. Jackson. I read the last year's bill, I told you.

Senator Eastland. Last year's bill?

Senator Ferguson. This is so much different, Madam, I would feel
that you ought to read this one. It is a conspiracy here that we are
prohibiting.

Mrs. Jackson. And it is not based on last year's at all?

Senator Eastland. You cannot point out a thing in that bill that
you object to, is that right?

Mrs. Jackson. I haven't had a chance to read the bill. I said we
have discussed the bill and we have gone by the general statement.

Senator Eastland. Any further questions. Senator Ferguson?

Senator Ferguson. No.

Senator Eastland. There are no further questions?

Senator Ferguson. Is there anything more you want to add? We
want to have a fuU and complete hearing.

Mrs. Jackson. No, I haven't anything more.

Senator Miller. You had better take those.

Senator Ferguson. Yes, you had better take those copies of the
bill.

Mr. Young. Is there a representative of the Civil Rights Congress
in the room? They are scheduled to testify.

Air. Thomas G. Buchanan, Jr. (Civil Rights Congress, Washington,
D. C). I am scheduled to testify for the Civil Rights Congress, but
we were not notified that we were to appear today. I have not pre-
pared any written statement.

Senator Eastland. If he wants to appear later, that will be all right.

Mr. Young. Mr. Benjamin C. Sigal, representing the Americans
for Democratic Action and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Before you sit down, Mr. Sigal, will you raise your right hand,
please? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that in the proceedings
before this subcommittee j^ou will tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?

2vlr. Sigal. I do.

TESTIMONY OF BENJAMIN C. SIGAL, ATTORNEY, WASHINGTON,
D. C, REPRESENTING AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION
AND THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

Mr. Young. Please sit down. Give us your name, address, present
occupation, and what organizations you represent, please.

Mr. Sigal. My name is Benjamin C. Sigal. My office address is
1025 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, D. C. I am a lawyer. I
am here representing the Americans for Democratic Action and the
American Civil Liberties Union.

Mr. Young. Mr. Sigal, I would like to ask you two questions, if I
may. First, are you now or have you ever been a member of the
Communist Party?

Mr. Sigal. No.

Mr. Young. Second, are you now or have you ever been a member
of or affiliated in any way with any organization which has been cited
by any governmental agency as a Communist organization, a Com-

93357—49 7

94 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

miinist-front organization, or one substantially controlled, dominated^
or infiltrated by Communists?

Mr. SiGAL. The only part of that that I can answer definitely is the
Attorne}^ General's list, which I have examined. I have never been
a member or affiliated with any organization listed on that list. As
to the rest of that I am in no position to answer. It is much too
general. If you more specifically state it I will be glad to answer.

Mr. Young. That is all right.

Senator Eastland. Do you want to ask him any questions?

Senator Ferguson. I just wondered, what is too general about the
question: Are you now or have you ever been connected with any
organization that is dominated by Communists?

Mr. SiGAL. I said "No."

Senator Ferguson. That is what I mean.

Mr. Sigal. The question was any organization cited by any agency
of the Government anywhere.

Senator Ferguson. Have you ever heard that any of the organiza-
tions of which you were a member were listed by either the Attorney
General or the Un-American Activities Committee?

Mr. Sigal. The latter part, I cannot say that I am familiar with
every organization ever listed by the Un-American Activities Com-
mittee as subversive, but so far as I know, I have not been a member
of any such organization.

Senator Ferguson. That is the question.

Senator Eastland. Do you have smj questions?

Senator .\1iller. No.

Senator Eastland. You may proceed.

Mr. Sigal. I should say that I am. appearing here in opposition
to bothS. 1194 and S. 1196.

The Americans for Democratic Action and the American Civil
Liberties Union are unalterably opposed to communism, but we are
equally opposed to any denial of the basic civil rights and liberties.
It is our conviction that the two measures pending before this com-
mittee are unconstitutional, that they seriously curtail rights of free
speech and thought, that they will, in effect, materially aid the
Communists, drive them underground and greatly enhance their
chances for success.

I will consider both bills together without maldng any distinction
between the two.

Senator Eastland. All right.

Mr. SiGAL. First, as has already been stated, the bill would have
the inevitable effect of driving the Communists' movement under-
ground. Communists have aheady announced that they would not
comply with the provisions of this bill. Such noncompliance would
then, of course, compel Communists to seek refuge in underground
activities.

Senator Ferguson. Do I understand that, as a lawyer, you say
that if people say they will not abide by a law, that is one reason why
it should not be passed?

Mr. Sigal. Oh, no. That is simply a comment on the general
situation. I will explain as we go through this.

Senator Ferguson. Do you know of any criminal statute that does
not have the effect of causing the people who want to commit the
crime to trv to conceal the commission of that crime?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 95

Mr. SiGAL. No, of course.

Senator Ferguson. They all do, do they not?

Mr. SiGAL. Unquestionably^ The problem here, if I may, I will
attack in regular order.

Senator Miller. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

Senator Eastland. Yes, sir.

Senator Miller. This might be the best place to ask it. You
state here that both bills seriously curtail the rights of free speech
and thought. Will you amplify that just a little as to how they do
that?

Mr. SiGAL. I will be glad to. Senator. This whole statement is
directed to that, and if I may proceed in an orderly fashion, I will be
glad to answer any questions before that or any way 3'ou like, but the
statement is directed to explaining that approach.

Senator Eastland. I want to be enlightened, frankly, on how the
law can control Jmman thought.

Mr. Sigal. I am sorry, I didn't get your question.

Senator E.astland. How a statute can control human tiiought.

Mr. Sigal. By making it a penalty to entertain given thoughts.

Senator Ferguson. Does it do that in this bill?

Mr. Sigal. I think so, gentlemen, and I will elaborate if I may in the
course of this statement.

Senator Eastland. I will be very interested to get it.

Mr. Sigal. We believe that there are adequate laws now on the
statute books to combat any "clear and present danger" from com-
munism, which is all the proponents of this bill seek to safeguard
against, that is as we understand it. WTiile we are strenuously
opposed to the views of those who would be immediately affectad by
S. 1194, 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 S. 1194 were to become law, those
who furthered the Communists' program would be penalized.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Sigal, as a la\\nirer, you say that the Com-
munists are only condemned because their motives are suspected?
Is that the only reason why Communists are condemned in America?

Mr. Sigal. We might state it differently. Of com"se, then- program
is objected to, certainly.

Senator Ferguson. Yes.

Mr. Sigal. There is no question about that.

Senator Ferguson. You say that yoirr two organizations violently
oppose then- program.

Air. Sigal. Certainly.

Senator Ferguson. Then you would say that there is reason for
suspicion, is there not?

Mr. Sigal. I think there is raason for objecting to their program.

Senator Ferguson. Yes.

Mr. Sigal. Yes. The question of course is whether or not there is
in the first place a clear and present danger and in the second place,
whether the mechanics adopted here will do more damage to the
Nation as a whole, to our democratic institutions in the course of
trying to eliminate what is considered to be this peril.

Senator Ferguson. All right. The United States Goverimient are
trying 1 1 men in New York City. You are in full sympathv with that
trial?

96 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. SiGAL. I would like to discuss that trial separately, if you
please.

Senator Ferguson. And your organization is in full sympathy with
that trial?

Mr. SiGAL. I don't think that is pertinent, Senator. .

Senator Eastland. I think it is a pertinent question.

Senator Ferguson. Why is it not?

Mr. SiGAL. I am perfectly willing to give you my personal opinion.
I am not trying to avoid giving you my personal opinion. Your
question was what position the organizations have taken on this.

Senator Ferguson. Do you know?

Mr. SiGAL. I am not aware of specific positions taken by either of
these organizations on this particular trial.

Senator Ferguson. Do you know what their general idea is?

Senator Eastland. I would like to have an answer to the Senator's
question.

Mr. SiGAL. There is some question as to whether or not

Senator Eastland. Are you in sympathy with those trials?

Mr. SiGAL. May I explain. I think there is considerable question
whether or not the acts or whether the indictment there states a
crime under a constitutional law of this Nation. I think there is
considerable constitutional question. If that law is constitutional and
the indictment is properly framed in accordance with the law, then
certainly I am in sympathy with the matter. If you ask me as a
lawyer as to whether or not there is any question about it, I think
there is question certainly on the constitutional aspects of the whole
proceeding.

Senator Ferguson. Suppose that they have been guilty of a con-
spiracy to overthrow this Government by force. Do you not think
that that is a proper thing for the law to prohibit?

Mr. SiGAL. If there is a clear and present danger established.
Under the constitution as the Supreme Court has interpreted it, that
kind of act is a crime and it is properly held to be a crime if there is a
clear and present danger of execution of the plan or the program.

Senator Ferguson. That was under another statute. Do you not
think that the United States Congress can pass a law making it illegal
to conspire to overthrow this Government by force or violence?

Mr. SiGAL. There is no question of that.

Senator Ferguson. No doubt of it.

Mr. SiGAL. No doubt about that; no, of course not.

Senator Ferguson. Has either of these organizations taken any
stand as far as this trial in New York is concerned?

Mr. Sigal. I cannot answer.

Senator Ferguson. You do not loiow?

Mr. Sigal. I do not laiow. I can't answer. I was going to say
my impression is that they have not, but I am not certain.

Senator Miller. You express yourself to the effect that you have
doubts as to the constitutional phases of the prosecution that is
going forward. That is due entirely to inadequacies of law, is it not?

Mr. Sigal. If it is unconstitutional?

Senator Miller. Yes.

Mr. Sigal. That may be ; yes.

Senator Miller. You would say so as a lawyer?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 97

Mr. SiGAL. I would qualify that. If the law and the indictment
as drawn up under the law fail to state the kind of crime which may
constitutionally be penalized, then it isn't merely a failure of the law.
It is a limitation of the constitution.

Senator Miller. You think, then, that that would be a failure or
inadequacy probably of the charge contained in the indictment.
Is that it?

Mr. SiGAL. Partly so. I think it is clear

Senator Miller. Let me ask you: Do you figure that we would
have an adequate law in the instant case, that is, of these particular
prosecutions, in the event it was properly charged?

Mr. SiGAL. Let me answer it in this way: If the evidence estab-
lishes that the acts of the defendants constitute a clear and present
danger to the Government of the United States, then there can be
no question of the validity of the prosecution and the constitutionality
of the proceeding.

Senator Miller. That is true, but in order to bring about a con-
dition of that kind and arrive at a decision such as you have suggested,
it would be necessary in the first instance, would it not, to have an
adequate law upon which to base a prosecution?

Mr. SiGAL. Oh, unquestionably.

Senator Miller. If this act does that very thing, what could there
be harmful about it?

Mr. SiGAL. If I might be permitted to give my statement, I will
give my reason for thinking it is not an adequate law.

Senator Miller. Very well.

Mr. SiGAL. May I proceed, Mr. Chairman?

Senator Eastland. You may proceed.

Senator Ferguson. One more question: Do you not think that
the people of America have a right to suspect the motives of the
Communists?

Mr. SiGAL. Oh, I think so; but people are not penalized for motives.
People are penalized for criminal acts.

Senator Ferguson. Do you know what the Communist Party
line is?

Mr. SiGAL. Well, I know what I read in the papers and what other
information I get. I think I have a general knowledge of the Com-
munist Party line on basic principles, basic issues.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think it is a world-wide conspiracy to
overthrow capitalism and governments such as the United States of
America?

Mr. Sigal. Whether I would use the term "conspiracy" in a
technical sense, I am not certain. I think it certainly is a movement
the basic principles of which would look toward the elimination of
capitalism and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat,
yes.

Senator Eastland. Do you think that movement is controlled from
Moscow?

Mr. Sigal. I think so far as the Communist movement as such,
Moscow certainly exercises a dominant influence.

Senator Eastland. Do you think they control the Communist
Party of the United States?

Mr. Sigal. I can't say. I would say from what I observe that I
certainly think they exercise a dominant influence over the basic

98 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

policies of the organization, judging by the line that the American
party takes when you compare it with the line that the Soviet Union
takes on basic political principles.

Senator Eastland. Do you think the Soviet Union controls the
Communist Party in the United States?

Mr. SiGAL. I have give the best answer I can. I think it exercises
a dominant influence over it.

Senator Eastland. Then the program is to overthrow our Govern-
ment by force, by violence, and to establish this governmental
control which itself is controlled by a foreign government.

Mr. SiGAL. I am willing to accept for the sake of argument that that
is the eventual objective.

Senator Eastland. That is what we are attempting to combat in
this legislation.

Senator Ferguson. Do you not think that is un-American?

Mr. SiGAL. I think it is opposed certainly

Senator Ferguson. I am interested in your answer.

Mr. SiGAL. Insofar as it proposes to overthrow this Government by
force and violence, it is clearly un-American.

Senator Ferguson. Clearly un-American.

Mr. SiGAL. Right.

Senator Ferguson. And the people have a right to suspect it.

Senator Eastland. Do you think a movement is un-American that
is controlled from abroad and that seeks to place the control of this
country in the hands of a foreign power?

Mr. Sigal. I certainly object to it, whether you call it un-American
or not.

Senator Eastland. Is it un-American?

Mr. Sigal. I think all Americans would object to it. I think the
term "un-American" is a very vague one. I object to it and I think
most Americans would object to it certainly.

Senator Ferguson. Do you not think it should become illegal and
should be penalized, as you say?

Mr. Sigal. I think it should be illegal to make any present attempt
to achieve it. The question of whether or not persons entertain the
idea that sometime in the future that is a desirable objective is not
something under our Constitution which shoidd be made a crime.

Senator Eastland. It goes further than that. You have a move-
ment and you have overt acts this day to execute the program.

Mr. Sigal. The overt act itself is not sufficient. Under the Supreme
Court decisions there must be some clear and present danger that the
objective will be achieved.

Senator Eastland. Would there be a clear and present danger when
representatives of that organization hold important places in this
Government?

Mr. Sigal. I don't think that m itself constitutes a clear and present
danger, dependmg on what places they hold, of course. The fact
that they hold jobs in the Government would not in itself constitute
a clear and present danger. '

Senator Ferguson. Air. Sigal, there has been testimony before this
committee so far, in which Mr. Mundt has testified, that a young man
from Detroit was sent over on a scholarship to Russia and he studied
and was given the location of water works and other vital places in
Detroit, and was taught how to sabotage, street fightmg, and all, to

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 99

overthrow this Government and to destroy property and Hves in the
city of Detroit. The evidence indicates that and shows that. Would
it not be true that the people had a right to say that that was un-
American and that the acts of that kind of people here in America
under that kind of consphacy should be penalized and made illegal?

Mr. SiGAL. I can restate it, Senator, if you wish.

Senator Ferguson. Wliat do you say about that?

Air. SiGAL. The fact that one man has studied such things I don't
think constitutes a clear and present danger to the Government of
the United States.

Senator Eastlaxd. You have hundreds of acts like that.

Senator Fergusox. Hundreds of them have been taught this same
thing.

Senator Eastlaxd. Do they all create a clear and present danger?

Mr. SiGAL. May I point out, if I am permitted to do so, that this
law does not apply simply to acts? It applies to thought, if I may
be allowed to elaborate.

Senator Fergusox. It does not, but you may elaborate on it. It
is the conspiracy, the combination of such people. Noel was this boy's
name. The combination of those people coming back to America.
Do you not think there is a present danger in hundreds of those people
aU over America?

Mr. SiGAL. If there were enough of them and if it approached close
enough to execution of the plan, that is another thing, Senator.

Senator Ferguson. Then do you say that America ought to wait
until they are just built up to the point where they can overthrow
before we pass a law?

Mr. Sigal. No, of course not, but I say it is not the job of Congress
in a declaration of findings to convict these people in advance. That
is one of the deficiencies of this law. It does not leave it to a court
to decide whether or not there is a clear and present danger of such
thing. The Congress makes certain findmgs, there are certam very
vague and general criteria set up which we believe are in themselves
unconstitutional because of theu- vagueness, and then the crime
consists, at least in part here, of failing to register and so forth.

Senator Fergusox. Do you think that Communists should be
registered in America?

Mr. Sigal. I think that Communists as Communists should no
more be registered or should be registered to the same extent as
Democrats as Democrats and Republicans as Republicans. The
question of registration as such for the sake of expressing an opmion
we think is unconstitutional under the decisions of the Supreme
Court.

Senator Ferguson. Should people who are agents of foreign
governments be registered in America?

Mr. Sigal. There is a law to that effect now.

Senator Fergusox. You believe in that?

Mr. Sigal. That is the law. I do.

Senator Fergusox. If a Communist is an agent of a foreign power,
why should not his association be registered?

Mr. Sigal. Assummg that association — Well, to start initially, to
say that every person who may be found to be a Communist under the
provisions of this law doesn't necessarily make that person an agent
of a foreign country.

100 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Ferguson. Wait a minute. You did not answer my
question, but there is no doubt in your mind that Communists are
agents of a foreign power.

Mr. SiGAL. If you say individual Communists, I am not prepared
to say that every person who has joined the Communist Party' — —

Senator Ferguson. You do not have to say every one. I am ask-
ing you now whether or not Communists in America are not agents
of a foreign power.

Mr. SiGAL. I am prepared to believe that a number of Communists
in this country are agents, may be considered agents, of a foreign
power.

Senator Ferguson. All right. When they form an association
known as the Communist Party, why should they not as an organiza-
tion be registered and the Government know who its officers are and
who its members are, because that party is an agent of a foreign power?
Why should they not be registered?

Mr. SiGAL. It has been the basic prmciple of American law, at
least up to this time, that guilt is personal, that no man should be
convicted of a crime because of his association with somebody else
who may have committed a crime. Just because the ofhcers of a given
organization, which by administrative procedures, found to be a
Communist-controlled organization, failed to register, should not,
we think, under American principles be convicted of a crime because
certain other persons failed to comply with the law.

Senator Ferguson. Let us say that the officers of this organization
are Communists, and they are foreign-dominated. What is wrong
about registering that association?

Mr. SiGAL. I think the whole context in which that appears in this
laW' — If I may I say, Senator, you cannot consider separate provisions
in this law apart from the total effect of the law and its purposes.

Senator Ferguson. Forget this law for a moment. I give you
the general principle: You and I know that Communists are foreign
agents, that they have a party line, and that they follow it. \^'e
start out with that premise. We know that there are Communists in
America who are foreign agents. We know that, do we not?

Mr. Sigal. Yes, sir.

Senator Ferguson. All right. Let us say the next thing is that
those Communists organize and call themselves the Communist
political party. What is wrong about the registration of that party?

Mr. Sigal. If you take it apart from all other considerations

Senator Ferguson. Yes.

Mr. Sigal. And if you establish and postulate the assumption
that every person who is a member is an agent of a foreign country,
I see no objection to the group as such being required to register.

Senator Ferguson. All right.

Mr. Sigal. If you make all these other assumptions

Senator Ferguson. Suppose some innocent person is in there.
You register corporations. States require them to give a list of all
their stockholders. What is wrong about that? What is wrong about
registration?

Mr. Sigal. I have said if every person in the group is an agent of a
foreign country

Senator Ferguson. But suppose they are not. Suppose there are
a few in there who are not, what is wrong about the registration of the
association and the listing of the members?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 101

Mr. SiGAL. Because it becomes a crime under this law for a person
not to register, for the officers not to register, and for a person to
belong to an organization, whose officers have not registered.

Senator Ferguson. And knowingly remains a member?

Mr. SiGAL. Over whom he has no control, over whom he may have
no control. You are making it a crime for this person who may have
absolutely nothing to do with what the officers of the organization
are doing.

Senator Ferguson. But the officers of the organization are supposed
to register, and if a man remains in the organization a certain number
of days after he laiows the officers failed to register, after a final order
is issued by a board or commission, and they don't get out, why
shouldn't they be penalized?

Mr. Sigal. I think the question, Mr. Senator, is why should they
be penalized?

Senator Ferguson. If you believe in communism.

Mr. Sigal. I do not believe in communism, but you are postulating
the assumption that this person is not a foreign agent. All right, with
that assumption, I ask you why should they be penalized if you assume
from the start that they are not agents of a foreign country.

Senator Ferguson. If a group of foreign agents are organized into
an association, and 90 percent of them are foreign agents, the law
requires them to register. Why should not the Government know all
of the members of that organization?

Mr. Sigal. It is not merely a matter of knowing. Senator Ferguson.

Senator Ferguson. That is all this does.

Mr. Sigal. I beg your pardon. It goes much further. If I may
be allowed to state my ideas in some logical form, I will answer your
questions, I think.

Senator Eastland. You may proceed and then we will ask ques-
tions, if that is all right.

Senator Ferguson. That is all right.

Senator Eastland. Proceed, Mr. Sigal.

Mr. Sigal. Chief Justice Hughes some time ago, in De Jonge v.
Oregon, made this statement:

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 oppoitunity for free political discus-
sion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and
that changes, if de.-ired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the
security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government.

Senator Eastland. Do you not believe that that is what is in this
bill, what it seeks to do?

Mr. Sigal. No ; I think not, Mr. Senator.

Senator Eastland. It seeks to uphold exactly what Chief Justice
Hughes has said.

Mr. Sigal. I think not, and I thmk I will come shortly to my
reason.

Senator Eastland. The attempt of this bill is to safeguard the
right of free speech, do you not think so?

Mr. Sigal. No.

Senator Eastland. Do you have free speech in any country domi-
nated by Communists?

102 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr, SiGAL. It appears certainly that the purpose is to repress it.
It is not the intention to propagate them, to permit them to promote-
their ideas. The intention is to make it as uncomfortable as possible
to promote those ideas, to promote this kind of political discussion.
That is the objective of the bill as I read it.

Senator Eastland. Is it not the objective of the bill to prevent a
foreign country from taking over the United States through its agents
in this country and are we not trying to repress that movement?

Mr. SiGAL. The question is, Do you in the course of carrying out
that objective seriously damage the fabric of our constitutional govern-
ment? I think that is the basic issue. If you cause more damage in
the effort to stop this than good that you can accomplish, then I think
this thing is objectionable.

Senator Eastland, The object of the bill, as I understand it — and
frankly I have not made up my mind about the bill — is to safeguard
American institutions and to maintain this Republic. It is to maintain
the system that gives us freedom of speech and freedom of the press
and freedom of assembly, the very things that Communists take away.

Air. SiGAL. If I may use a rather homely

Senator Eastland. It is, further, to the end that Chief Justice
Hughes stated in what you cited —

that the Government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes,
if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means.

This bill attempts to protect those rights, does it not?

Air. SiGAL. Senator, it may certainly be the objective to protect
those rights, but I think in the course of protecting them we are
seriously impairing and damaging those rights. I think that is the
basic issue here, as to whether or not these constitutional freedoms will
be suppressed by the force of repression exercised, to such extent that
people will be afraid to discuss unorthodox ideas.

Senator Eastland. I am going to thoroughly agree with you in the
next sentence in your statement: "These words," you mean there the
Chief Justice's, "have apt application to the present problem." I
want to thoroughly agree with you in that statement,

Mr. SiGAL, The question is the application.

Senator Eastland. Correct.

Mr. SiGAL. If it be true, as S. 1194 declares, 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.

Senator Ferguson. Air. Chairman, I cannot help but ask a question.

Senator Eastland. Go ahead.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think that you can discuss our free
institutions with Communists?

Air. Si GAL. You mean do I think they will listen?

Senator Ferguson, Yes.

Mr. SiGAL. They may listen, but the question is, how many Ameri-
cans will listen to what they have to say? Should we be afraid of
what they say? Are Americans not sufficiently sold on our demo-
cratic institutions to ignore them so that the threat is of no conse-
quence?

Senator Eastland. The test is not what a man says in a speech he
makes or what he writes. As I understand, the test here is conspbacy,

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 103

an organization that conspires to destroy this country and to dehver
this country into the control of a foreign power. That is the test.

Mr. SiGAL. That is the general statement which the bill has made,
yes, but that I think is not in itself sufficient to warrant this kind of
procedure set up here.

Senator Eastland. I think this is a very intelligent and very
shrewdly drawn defense of communism in the next paragraph. That
is what it means.

Mr. SiGAL. I disagree. I must disagree violently. May I point
out the very next statement of Justice Jackson that we quote:

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.

Senator Eastland. Correct. I agree, and I base my statement
that this is a shrewdly drawn defense of communism on the statement
above and that very quotation right there. Of course you have a right
to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order, but has
a man got a right to take part in a conspiracy to destroy's his country's
independence and to deliver his people to the control of a foreign
power? Are we not dealing in reality with treason?

Mr. SiGAL. In treason, if I may point out, Senator you require
proof of definite overt acts of the individual. In the most serious
crime that our Constitution establishes, very special safeguards are
set up to protect a man. There must be personal guilt. There must
be proof of an overt act.

Senator Eastland. I understand that.

Senator Ferguson. Not personal guilt if there is aconspiracy.

Mr. SiGAL. I appreciate personal guilt leading to an overt act or
more than one overt act m treason. The question is the overt act.
There is not a single overt act required by this law so far as I read the
law. I may conspire. Under the ]\Iundt bill it so merely an agree-
ment, without a single overt act which would constitute the crime.
I just don't see how you can

Senator Ferguson. Are you familiar with the attempt of China, for
instance, through General Marshall, to consolidate the Nationalist
Government of China with the Commimists, and are you familiar
with what happened in Czechoslovakia in trying what you call free
political discussions of another government with the Communists?

Mr. SiGAL. I am generall}^ informed on those things.

Senator Ferguson. You would say there is no chance of a free
political discussion, would you?

Mr. SiGAL. May I point out that the situation here. Senator, is not
what it is in China. It is not what it was in Czechoslovakia at the
time the seizure took place. We now have a democracy which we
think the great majority" of our people want to preserve.

Senator Eastland. That is right.

Senator Ferguson. That is correct.

Senator Eastland. Is that not what we are doing, preserving it?

Mr. Sigal. I think not. I think if this is adopted it will seriously
endanger those very things which you say the bill tries to protect.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think if a group of Fascists, which this
bill prohibits, too, under section 4

Air. Sigal. I don't recognize that. Senator.

Senator Ferguson. You do not?

104 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. SiGAL. No.

Senator Ferguson. You do not think that is totahtarian?

Mr. SiGAL. No, no. What I mean is I don't know what you have
in mind when you say that the Facists are covered by the law, what
foreign country would be involved. Certainly it is clear that under
this act home-grown totalitarianism is not a crime. Even though a
group may get together and do all these various things that is perfectly
all right.

Senator Ferguson. That is true.

Mr. SiGAL. Even though the fabric of our government would be
endangered to exactly the same extent, nevertheless, if there is no
showing of any connection with a foreign group, that apparently is
not objected to in this law.

Senator Ferguson. Is it not the idea of the foreign government
or foreign power that makes it something that this government must
defend itself against?

Mr. SiGAL. Would you say this government should not defend
itself agamst a threat to overthrow the government by violence if the
violence is occasioned by home-grown Fascists?

Senator Ferguson. Yes.

Mr. SiGAL. This law says nothing about that. If it is merely a
question of^

Senator Ferguson. Do you think that ought to be prohibited?

Mr. SiGAL. Of course I do. Why does the law make a distinction?

Senator Eastland. If you think it should apply to home-grown
Fascists, why should it not apply to agents of a foreign power?

Mr. SiGAL. I think the laws on the books right now are perfectly
adequate to take care of the situation. Nobody would claim that
it is legal to overtlu*ow the Government of this country by force and
violence. Nobody would support that contention. We say that
the provisions of this law, and I will give my reasons more in detail
as I go along, are a much greater danger to the democratic principles
which all of us want to uphold than the present threat of 75,000
Communists or whatever there may be in this country.

Senator Ferguson. Could I ask you how you came to come here?
Did you have a board meeting?

Mr. SiGAL. I was asked by both of these organizations to come.

Senator Ferguson. Who asked you?

Mr. SiGAL. I was asked by the national office of the Americans for
Democratic Action, which have then office here in town, and also 'by
a representative of the ACLU.

Senator Ferguson. Did these bodies ask you to give your opinion,
or is this their opinion?

Mr. SiGAL. This is their opinion, and it is my opinion.

Senator Ferguson. But did you write it or do they write it?

Mr. SiGAL. This statement which you have before you is not my
own drafting.

Senator Ferguson. It is not your drafting.

Mr. SiGAL. It is not my own drafting. May I point out,
Senator

Senator Ferguson. Whose drafting is it?

Mr. Sigal. May I finish my statement? We were given 2 days'
notice. We got a wire on Wednesda}^ for both organizations to come
here today, and there was no time to prepare an adequate statement

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 105

in that short time. What we did was simply throw together a state-
ment as quickly as we could and come here today. I didn't have the
time.

Senator Ferguson. You have many members?

Mr. SiGAL. Yes, indeed.

Senator Ferguson. Is this the action of the board of directors of
each of these organizations?

Mr. SiGAL. Which do you mean, this statement?

Senator Ferguson. This statement you have.

Mr. SiGAL. The principle. Both organizations have taken excep-
tion to the Mundt bill.

Senator Eastland. Wlio are they?

Mr. SiGAL. The national convention of the Americans for Demo-
cratic Action was held only a month ago in Chicago, and adopted a
general statement of principle in opposition to the Mundt bill, the
basic principles of it. Do you want to know their names?

Senator Eastland. No; I do not care about that.

Mr. SiGAL. So far as the American Civil Liberties Union is con-
cerned, do you want to know their names?

Senator Eastland. Yes.

Mr. SiGAL. Mr. Roger Baldwin is the executive head of the Ameri-
cans for Civil Liberties L^nion.

Senator Eastland. Roger Baldwin. He used to be with the
Govermnent.

Mr. SiGAL. Never, not to m}' knowledge, no. This is Roger
Baldwin who has been associated with the Civil Liberties Union for 30
years.

Senator Ferguson. Who else is in that organization? I am not
familiar with it.

Mr. SiGAL. Morris Ernst is one of their counsel. I think he is
now the general counsel of the organization. If you wish I can
provide you mth the names of the board of directors.

Senator Eastland. Would you please tell me, Mr. Sigal, who
prepared this statement?

Mr. Sigal. This particular statement was prepared in the national
office of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Senator Eastland. By whom?

Mr. Sigal. I think their house counsel is a man by the name of
Lev}^ I think his first name is Herbert.

Senator Eastland. What is the connection, the ADA and the
American Civil Liberties Union?

Mr. Sigal. There is no formal connection. They are organizations
both of which think along similar lines on the issues of civil liberties.
I happen to belong to both. That is why I have been asked to repre-
sent them and speak here. I am president of the Washington chapter
of the Americans for Democratic Action.

May I proceed?

Senator Eastland. Yes, sir.

Mr. Sigal. The bill has two major objectives. It imposes criminal
sanctions for a large number of activities; it seeks to compel the regis-
tration of certain kinds of Communist organizations. Before consider-
ing the provisions of the bill in detail, we wish to point to two under-
lying aspects which in our opinion render most of its provisions un-
constitutional: (1) The definitions of the bill; and (2) the fact that

106 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

determination of the basic issue in regard to the character of the or-
ganization is left to the Subversive Activities Commission rather than
to the courts.

There are two basic terms in the ])ill: "Communist pohtical organi-
zation," section 3-3, and "Communist-front organizations;" neither
is defined with sufficient precision.

Senator Fergttson. Do you think you could define them?

Mr. SiGAL. I think I would have a great deal of difficulty. I would
have at least as much difficulty as the drafters of the bill have had.

Senator Ferguson. Then is there any reason why something
should not be done just because it is impossible to take an organiza-
tion with all its ramifications and all its ebbs and flows and be able
to define it?

Mr. SiGAL. Under the Constitution, Senator, if you want to make
an act a crime, you have to define it with reasonable certainty so that
people who might be covered can be informed.

Senator Ferguson. All right, I will give you a crime: Gross negli-
gence in the operation of an automobile. That is a crime in many
States. Will you tell me how definite gross negligence is? It has been
sustained by the courts.

Mr. Sigal. Obviously I can't tell you how definite that is.

Senator Ferguson. Will you look it up and come in and say whether
or not that is more definite than what these bills do?

Mr. Sigal. I have cited here cases which are much closer to the
question.

Senator Ferguson. Are you familiar with that, though?

Mr. Sigal. Yes, of course I am familiar with that, and of course
there is a vast body of law which defines negligence and which defines
gross negligence. So we cannot say at this stage that persons are un-
familiar with what gross negligence in the driving of a car may con-
stitute. I think it is not quite the same.

Senator Ferguson. Will you give us your opinion later?

Mr. Sigal. You have my opinion. I can cite you many cases on
the question.

It would appear that a finding could be based on any one of the
criteria set forth in section 14. In the case of "political" organiza-
tions, the criterion is control by a foreign government or political
organization, plus operation "primarily to advance the objectives of
the world Communist movement."

Either criterion can be determined on the basis of a series of con-
siderations set forth in section 14, many of them wholly unrelated and
entirely lawful. There is a typographical error in the statement.
It should be "lawful" instead of "unlawful."

Senator Ferguson. Are any of them unlawful?

Mr. Sigal. Some of them would be unlawful, but some of them
would be entirely lawful, and there is no distinction in the act as
between those that are lawful and unlawful. Among those mentioned
are the extent of nondeviation of its views and policies from those of
foreign Communist governments and organizations and the extent
to which the organization resists the efforts to obtain information
with regard to its membership. Included also are matters more
directly connected with control by a foreign government.

In the case of "front" organizations, the criterion is either control
by "Communist political organization" or a finding that the suspected

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 107

■''front" is primarily operated to give aid to a "Communist political
organization," a Communist foreign government or the "world Com-
munist movement."

Either of these criteria can be established on the basis of the identity
of persons active in management, the sources or use of funds and the
positions taken by the organization on matters of policy.

"We submit that such catch-all definitions transgress the require-
ments of certainty imposed by the due-process clause and operate as
■a serious impairment of freedom of speech and association.

The case cited there is one of the most recent cases on the determina-
tion of what constitutes definition of certainty in any criminal law.

Mr. Young. That is the "Winters case, ]Mr. Sigal.

Mr. Sigal. Yes.

Mr. Young. You are also familiar that in the "Winters case you
iind the following statement, that in any bill "the entire text of the
statute or the subject dealt with may furnish an adequate standard."
That is also in the "Winters case. Ai-e you familiar with that?

Mr. Sigal. Oh, yes; that is true. Despite all that, in that case the
statute was declared unconstitutional.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Sigal, are you famihar with any front
organization?

Mr. Sigal. I know the names of organizations that are called
Communist-front organizations.

Senator Ferguson. ^Vould you know how they act?

Mr. Sigal. "VYhat do you mean, how they act?

Senator Ferguson. "What their pm-pose is and how the Communists
take them over, and all.

Mr. Sigal. I laiow what is generally said of organizations that are
supposed to be Communist-front organizations.

Senator Ferguson. Ai^e they not dominated by the Communists?

Mr. Sigal. I am not prepared to agree to that, Senator. I don't
Jaiow all of them.

Senator Ferguson. If you do not know that, how can you say they
should not be required to register?

Mr. Sigal. It seems to me the burden is to establish that they
should be required to register, not why they shouldn't be required to
register. You are singling out certain people. It seems to me you
should estabHsh why those people should be dealt with differently
from anybody else.

Senator Ferguson. Does not the bill do that?

Mr. Sigal. I think not properly. I give you my reasons. The
question of how you define such an organization we think is so indefi-
nite that many types of political organizations may well be requned
to register and be penalized if they do not register.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think that the United States Govern-
ment has no right to register, for instance, foreign agents of a govern-
ment?

Mr. Sigal. I didn't say that. Senator. I don't think that is true.
The individual. If a given individual fails

Senator Ferguson. If they combine themselves into an association,
why should not the association be required to register?

Mr. Sigal. If you start with the assumption that every individual
is admittedly a foreign agent, then I certainly w^ould not object to

108 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

saying that the organization of which all of them are members ought
to register. That is not the situation here.

Senator Ferguson. I cannot get your argument that if some are not,
the organization should not be registered.

Air. SiGAL. Previously the point is how do you determine whether
or not a given organization should register. We have said here that
the criteria established are so vague and general that you may very
well bring into the scope of the coverage of this law organizations
which certainly do not fall within this category.

Senator Ferguson. Suppose you say that if Communists organize,
they should be required to register and file reports. You know that
the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have to file reports
■which requii'cs registration.

Mr. SiGAL. They file reports of their expenditures.

Senator Ferguson. Yes.

Mr. SiGAL. They are not required to file statements of their mem-
bers, the names of their members, or the people who vote Republican
or the people who vote Democratic.

Senator Ferguson. But the States require that you register at the
time. You have to say what ballot you want in all primary elections.

Mr. SiGAL. In order to vote.

Senator Ferguson. Yes.

Mr, SiGAL. Then the Communists, presumably, and any other
political organization is required to do the same thing. To that ex-
tent everybody is on an equal level, and there is no discrimination
between one group and another.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Sigal, do you really compare the Com-
munist Party in America with the Republican Party and the Demo-
cratic Party?

Mr. Sigal. I am not.

Senator Ferguson. Do you want to compare them?

Mr. Sigal. For purposes of political action. The question is, are
you going to single out a given political group?

Senator Ferguson. This is not for political action.

Mr. Sigal. Of course, it isn't for political action. The question i&
on this particular section we were discussing and the criteria which the
act sets up for the purpose of determining whether or not a given
organization is a Communist political organization or a Communist
front. We say they are so very indefinite

Senator Ferguson. Suppose the definition just included Com-
munists who organized.

Mr. Sigal. But the definition does not say that, Senator, and we
are now talking about the bill we have before us. The bill we have
before us is so vague and general that it may cover a score, hundreds,
thousands of people who never dreamed that they were Communists
or had any sympathy with Communists. Your illustration certainly
has no pertinence to the way this particular bill or your bill is drafted,
because it is so very vague.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think that you cannot tell from those
bills who are required to register?

Mr. Sigal. Absolutely not. If I may go on, I will indicate in
more detail.

Senator Ferguson. If you can point that out.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 109

Mr. SiGAL. As to the next point in what I have said: The foregoing
is rendered even more objectionable by the fact that the Government
may be able to avoid offering proof before a judge and jury that the
suspected organization comes within the category of the law. For
the bill in its registration provisions compels action by an organiza-
tion designated as coming within the scope of the law by the sub-
versive activities commission under the administrative provisions of
section 14. The failure of the organization to register is then a crime.
It is not clear whether it is criminal to fail to register before a formal
designation is made.

Senator Ferguson. I would say it is clear in the bill that it is.

Mr. SiGAL. I think it could be interpreted one way or another. I
think it is not quite certain. That is just an aside.

Senator Ferguson. It is after the Commission or the Board enters
an order.

Mr. SiGAL. I think it is not quite so clear. That is a smaller point.

Membership in an organization that has not registered is then also
a crime. 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.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think that is wrong?

Mr. SiGAL. The decision in Thomas v. Collins had declared it un-
constitutional, I think.

Senator Ferguson. You know now^ that all political parties are
required to give who sponsored the program and who paid for it.
Even a billboard must designate who pays for it. You know that.

Mr. Sigal. It is not made a crime to refuse

Senator Ferguson. Will you look at the statute and see?

Mr. Sigal. May I finish, please?

Senator Ferguson. Yes.

Mr. Sigal. It is not made a crime to use the mails without identi-
fying the nature of the organization.

Senator Ferguson. No, but it is made a crime not to desigate on
the information sent through the mail as to who is sending it.

Mr. Sigal. That applies to everybody, Senator.

Senator Ferguson. No, no; just to the two political parties.

Mr. Sigal. I say it applies to everybody who comes under the
designation "political party."

Senator Ferguson. What is wrong about this?

Mr. Sigal. What are you pointing to?

Senator Ferguson. Compelling them to register or to say who is
giving the radio program, if they are Communists?

Mr. Sigal. Insofar as it distinguishes those from anybody else
who does it. That is No. 1. No. 2, the Supreme Court in Thomas v.
Collins, I submit, has declared that it is unconstitutional to require
anybody to obtain a license before he can deliver a speech. I think
whether it is a speech or radio address, it is the same thing. You are
licensing the right to talk. I think that is not constitutional as the
Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution.

Since it is contempated that the Subversive Activities Commission
will determine which organizations are withm the scope of the law,,
the Government may contend that in a prosecution under the law
that they need only show failure to register, failure to label speeches

93357—49 8

110 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

or prmted matter or continuance of membership, and that the order
of the Subversive Activities Commision, if upheld on appeal, is con-
chisive. That we submit is in violation of the provisions of the sixth
amendment which guarantees trial by jury and a right of confronta-
tion of witnesses.

Section 4 creates criminal penalties wholly independent of the two
types of organizations we have been discussing. Any conspiracy or
agreement to perform any act which would substantially facilitate
or aid in the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship is punished
by a possible fine of $10,000 or imprisonment for 10 years, plus in-
eligibility for public office, 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 act of
violence and to overt acts at all. For the section expressly punishes
an agreement to do any act which would substantially facilitate or
aid the establishment of such a dictatorship.

Senator Ferguson. There is a little difference in each bill on that.

Mr. SiGAL. Yes, I appreciate that. One leaves out the "or agree."

Senator Ferguson, One says conspire and combines to facilitate.

Mr. SiGAL. Yes, I appreciate that. One says "agree."

Senator Ferguson. Do you think there is any difference in the
language?

Mr. SiGAL. There is difference in the language. I don't think
there is any difference in the constitutional disability as to each.

Senator Ferguson. You do not think there is any difference?

Mr. SiGAL. I think obviously the Mundt bill is wider and to that
extent is more objectionable in this provision, but I think that the
same thing is true in 1196 as in 1194.

There is now a definition as such of what constitutes a "totalitai-ian
dictatorship," lacing in last year's Mundt bill, and I, of com-se, agree
that there is a little difference in the definition of both in each act.
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 phrases broader than those used as a method of
criminal liabilit}^ except perhaps the phrase used in last year's bill,
that is, "in an^^ manner" to facilitate or aid, and so forth.

Again referring to Winter's v. Neio lork, the court said:

A statute so vague and indefinite, in form and as interpreted as to permit
within tlie scope of its language the punisliment of incidents fairly within tlie
protection of the guaranty of free speech is void on its face.

Mr. Young. Mr. Sigal, in the light of that Winters case, which you
are maldng so much of, let's look at the decision in Screws v. United
States. In upholding a criminal statute against a charge of uncer-
tainty in that case, the court said 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 conduct is within its pro-
hibition."

You are acquainted with that also? The Screws case is one of a
long line of decisions in cases, which say that under the fifth amend-
ment statutes have to be definite. The question is whether or not
this bill here is definite enough; is that right?

Mr. Sigal. That is the point we make. As to the rest of section 4,
it is so vague that one would not know with any certainty what actions

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 111

Avoiild subject one to criminal liability. What exactly is prohibited
in the injunction against —

knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree with any other person to perform any
act which would substantially facilitate or aid in the establishment of a totali-
tarian dictatorship.

Senator Ferguson. Do you not think that is clear?

Mr. SiGAL. May I finish the statement? The next is an example:
If a group files a brief amicus in the trial of the Communist leaders in
New York and helps secure their acquittal, is this an agreement or
■combination which would aid such an establishment?

Senator Ferguson. Do you think it is?

Mr. SiGAL. That is the question.

Senator Ferguson. I am asking you.

Mr. SiGAL. I don't know under the language of this law.

Senator Ferguson. Do you know it is not? How would that be
substantial aid?

Mr. SiGAL. If you start out with the assumption that these people
are Communists.

Senator Ferguson. It is privileged. You know that as a lawyer.

Air. SiGAL. That is not the point.

Senator Ferguson. That is the whole point.

Mr. SiGAL. I don't think so. That isn't the point ^of what we say
here. Legal aid is given.

Senator Ferguson. Yes.

Mr. SiGAL. Not what it says in the brief, but the act of giving legal
aid. That is the example given. Is the act of giving legal aid to
persons known to be Communists one which facilitates?

Senator Ferguson. The act of a lawyer to give legal aid to a crim-
inal, when he knows that the legal aid he is giving him is criminal, is a
crime. A lawyer isn't protected from that.

Mr. SiGAL. No; of coiu-se not.

Senator Ferguson. If a lawyer goes into a conspiracy to tell a wit-
ness not to tell the whole truth, he may say that is legal aid, that will
get him out of the crime. He is still liable for the conspiracy to ob-
struct justice. Would he not be?

Mr. SiGAL. In the example you gave, certainly. There is no ques-
tion. But we raise this question and don't say we have an answer,
Senator.

Senator Ferguson. Suppose he files a brief, just merely a legal
brief, there wouldn't be any liability, but if he conspires

Mr. SiGAL. Wliat certainty is there to that, Senator?

Senator Ferguson. You know what is going on up in New York
now.

Mr. SiGAL. Oh, no. I say what certainty is there that under the
language of law as it is now written that a lawyer who gives legal aid
to persons known to be Communists is not facilitating? I,i tl is
example he would not be the lawyer for the defendants. He wouli
only be filing a brief amicus which does not make him the lawyer ior
the defendants.

Senator Ferguson. The court would not accept such a brief. Why
would the court accept the brief of a man who was not a lawyer?

Mr. SiGAL. He is not the lawyer representing the defendants, I said.

112 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Ferguson. Then he would have to have consent of the
court to file the brief. If he had, it would be privileged. He would
not be aiding in carrying out the conspiracy.

Mr. SiGAL. We raise the c^uestion: This law may be so vague that
it would destroy that privilege.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think that lawyers ought to be able to
enter into a conspiracy with Communists who are charged with a
crime, that they ought to be able to enter into a conspiracy with them
to substantially aid in overthrowing this Goverimient or the courts?

Mr. SiGAL. Of course not, Senator.

Senator Ferguson. No.

Mr. SiGAL. The question I raise here is this example, all we raise
and give you as an example. We say the law is so vague and uncer-
tain that even under this example you and I cannot agree whether or
not the law would cover it.

Senator Ferguson. I can agree.

Senator Eastland. We will recess now. We have to go to the
Senate, and there is no chance to finish this statement. Suppose he
finishes the rest of section 5. It will take just a minute.

Mr. Sigal. Note that there is not even a rec^uirement of intent.
It is sufficient if the agreement aids the establishment. Is an attorney
who defends a Communist — — •

Senator Ferguson. Just a minute. In bill S. 1196 there is. I
would not say about 1194.

Mr. Sigal. Yes, but not in 1194, though.

Senator Ferguson. There is an intent in 1196.

Mr. Sigal. Let's examine it.

Senator Ferguson. Yes, let's examine it. Line 12:

with intent to assist in the estabhshment within the United States of such
totahtarian dictatorship.

A brief by some lawyers may assist and may be intended to assist
in the establishment.

Mr. Sigal. S. 1194 does not contain that.

Senator Ferguson. S. 1196 does.

Senator Eastland. Do you desire to file the rest of your statement
or do you desire to appear next Friday?

Mr. Sigal. Next Friday?

Senator Eastland. You may do either.

Mr. Young. We need at least a week's time to inform the out-of-
town witnesses. Some of them have expressed a desire, one in par-
ticular, to come from California, and we should give them at least a
week's advance notice.

Mr. Sigal. I can't tell you now. Senator, because I don't know
what my schedule is. I can let you know later.

Senator Eastland. You may take your choice.

Mr. Sigal. Thank you.

Senator Ferguson. It is nice seeing you again.

Senator Eastland. The meeting is adjourned.

(Thereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee recessed until 10 a. m.,
Friday, May 13, 1949.)

(Mr. Sigal's complete statement appears in the appendix.)

CONTROL OF SUBYERSIYE ACTIVITIES

WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1949

United States Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a. m. in room 424,
Senate Office Building, Senator Herbert R. O'Conor, presiding.

Present: Senators McCarran (chairman), O'Conor (presiding), and
Miller.

Also present: Senator Johnston; and Robert Barnes Young, and
-John Mathews, professional staff members.

Senator O'Conor. The meeting will please come to order.

The subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee will proceed now to
further consideration of S. 1194 and S. 1196. Numerous witnesses
have been invited to appear or have requested to appear and we shall
be pleased to give opportunity to those individuals to be heard.

The first witness on the list is Mr. Harry V. Ha}' den who will intro-
duce ]\Ir. Green. I may say at the outset that in conformity with the
procedure that has been adopted by the subcommittee, I will ask the
counsel if he will proceed to administer the oath and make the regular
statement.

Mr. Young. Mr. Hayden, will you raise your riglit hand, please.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that in the proceedings before this
subcommittee you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Hayden. I do.

ISIr. Young. You may proceed to introduce Mr. Green.

TESTIMONY OF HARRY V. HAYDEN

Mr. Hayden. Chairman O'Conor, the record of the American
Legion since its inception more than 30 years ago is too well known
in guarding the country from enemies from without as well as within.
We have had in our national organization an organization known as
the National Americanism Commission which has jurisdiction over
and directs the Americanism program of the Legion. The chairman
of that commission, which has membership from all of the States in
the Union for the past 3 years has been an outstanding Legionnaire
who served as commander of the largest post of the American Legion,
Omaha Post No. 1, with some 25,000 members. He has served as
chairman of this Americanism commission for the past 3 years. He
had an outstanding record serving his country for 5K years in World
Warn.

I know of no one better qualified to represent the American Legion
■on this important legislation than the witness whom I am proud to

113

114 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

present today, National Americanism Chairman James F. Green, of
Omaha, Nebr.

Mr. Young. Mr. Green, will you stand and raise your right hand,
please? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that in the proceedings
before this subcommittee you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Green. I do.

Mr. Young. For the benefit of all witnesses who are here, I think it
would be in order to read once the message of the chairman of the
subcommittee given during the first day of the heairngs.

Attention should be directed to the policy and rule laid down by
the subcommittee concerning the relevancy of proposed testimony.
To be more specific, I should like to read a short paragraph once this
morning which will apply to all witnesses that we may know the
procedure. This is from the first day's hearing on Friday, April
29, 1949, a statement by the subcommittee chairman. Senator East-
land:

The committee has determined whether or not a person is a member of a
Communist part}" now or has been a member of the Communist party is a relevant
question. It is something tlaat we should know to be able to evaluate the testi-
mony before the committee. It is a material question. We expect to ask the
witnesses whether or not they are members of the Communist Party, whether or
not they have been members of the Communist Party, and if any witness should
refuse to answer that question, then the committee will not be interested in any
testimony from that witness. We do not think that it is right for a witness to
come before the committee, refuse to give us his background, and select which
questions he shall answer and which questions he shall not answer. So that
will be the rule in the conduct of the hearings.

Mr. Green, will you state your name, address, and present occupa-
tion, please.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES F. GREEN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL AMERI-
CANISM COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION, OMAHA, NEBR.

Air. Green. James F. Green, Omaha, Nebr. I am an attorney.

Mr. Young. Would you give us the organization that you represent
now or any other organizations that you might represent?

Mr. Green. I represent only the American Legion.

Mr. Young. Now, Mr. Green, I should like to ask you two ques-
tions.

First, are you now or have you ever been a member of the Commu-
nist Party?

Mr. Green. I am not and have never been.

Mr. Young. Second, are you now or have you ever been to the best
of your knowledge, a member of any organization which has been
cited by a governmental agency as a Communist organization or
a Communist-front organization?

Mr. Green. I am not and have never been.

Mr. Young. Please proceed.

Mr. Green. Thank you very much.

Senator O'Conor. It is our understanding, Mr. Green, that joxt
have a prepared statement.

Mr. Green. I do.

Senator O'Conor. It is perfectly agreeable for you to proceed to
read the statement and then make any supplemental remarks that
you may desire.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 115

Mr. Green. I suppose I should supplement it at the start by not
accepting Harry Hayden's introduction. I should like to blush
modestly and lead you to believe that it is true. I am telling you at
the outset it is a lot of "bunk," but letting that pass for the moment^
I shall, with your permission, proceed with the statement.

I do not believe it is necessary for me to consume time in a recitation
of the many resolutions adopted by national and department conven-
tions of the American Legion in support of legislation to expose and
control Communist activity and legislation of the type being con-
sidered in particular. Nor would it serve any useful purpose to re-
count the years of faithful activity by the organization I represent in
vigilant opposition to the spread of liberty-destroying, atheistic com-
munism. Many of the resolutions heretofore have been introduced
at hearings before this committee and before the House Committee on
Un-American Activities. They are a part of the record. The history
of American Legion activity is too favorably known to be improved
by words of mine.

S. 1194 and S. 1196 are identical in their general purpose, differing
only in detailed mechanics. For that reason I will treat them as one
in this discussion except to point out portions of one which might be
preferable to portions of the other.

The legislation is intended to implement the present law" and to
provide specific controls to prevent and stop a real present danger to
the security of the United States.

At this late date extended argument as to the nature of the Com-
munist conspiracy is not required. In times past we have had to look
to Communists' own doctrines, interpretations, and declarations of
intent to show the party's true nature as the slavishly obedient, willing
instrument of a foreign power. That is no longer necessary. Today
in the files of this committee, the House Committee on Un-American
Activities, and in the domain of public knowledge, there is an increasing
record of acts and betrayals in attempted fulfillment of the conspiracy.
The Chambers-Hiss incident has more closely associated the ''pump-
kin" with spies and stolen secrets than with the traditional observ-
ances of Halloween and Thanksgiving.

Those who lament this legislation as an intrusion upon fundamental
American rights or free speech and free assembly completely ignore
the nature of communism. Communism is not an idea. Communism
is not a club. Communism is not a political party. It is an organized
international consphacy. It is dhected from AIoscow according to a
central plan based upon Stalin's version of Lenin's version of Karl
Marx' 101 year old plan of world conquest. American Communists
are bound by iron discipline to carry out the orders given them from
abroad. They are not formulating ideas. They are carrying out
orders. They are not expressing ideas. They are handing out Soviet
propaganda. Won't ideological legal obscurationists learn that they
are not dealing with individual thoughts or individual ideas or indi-
vidual acts. They are dealing with a criminal conspu-acy. These
are not the free ideas of individuals. They are the imposed ideas of
foreign schemers. Unquestioning acceptance is a condition precedent
for party membership. Those who join the party surrender individual
status. They accept puppet status intentionally and knowingly.
They become a part of a foreign intelligence corps to carry out the
orders of their commanders. This is not a debating society for
expressing ideas in the public forum. It is a conspiracy criminal in

116 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

its nature and damnable in its intent. The principle of free speech
is nowhere involved. We are not dealing with the expression of
thoughts or ideas. At the risk of being redundant, please let me point
out again this is conspiracy in execution. Acts pursuant to the con-
spiracy are ordered acts. Thoughts pursuant to the conspiracy are
ordered thoughte. They are imposed; not freely conceived.

Those who would argue otherwise ignore compelling recent evidence.
Only recently French Thorez and Italian Togliatti, obedient to their
orders, blithely announced that another war would find France's
Comxnunists and Italy's Communists teamed with their Bolshevik
compatriots on the side of Russia. The sound of their voices had
scarce been stilled when the American stooges in Stalin's international
act obediently picked up the theme and meekly echoed in effect, "We,
too, will play with Russia." Let us quit kidding ourselves. We
cannot permit ourselves to be confused. We can't afford to be mis-
taken. Communists, their aides and dupes, are not welfarers seeking
to correct the world's ills. They are not debaters arguing abstract
ideas. They are coldly scheming revolutionists and betrayers; bent
upon a mission of liberty destruction; lured by a dream of personal
power.

Free speech is of the essence of freedom. It must be protected,
true. But you cannot permit it to be prostituted. Argument against
these bills in the name of free speech is not argument to protect free
speech. It is argument to extend it. Again let me repeat we are
dealing with a conspiracy, not with a debating society. Eight hundred
millions of enslaved peoples covering one-fifth of the worlds' surface
are strong argument for us not to be mistaken. Paraphrasing Mr.
Justice Jackson's learned statement in his recent Supreme Court
decision, we should not convert the Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.

That specious argument about driving Communists underground is
so frivolous as to deserve no rebuttal. In its nature this conspiracy
is underground. Witnesses in New York who were underground with
it testify to the fact that only the false facade of pretended American
loyalty shows. The rest is hidden. Schemes of betrayal are laid in
secret. Acts are executed in stealth. Stolen secrets are handed over
in darkness. What is above ground now? The Mundt and Ferguson
bills are calculated to expose, not to conceal.

Exposure is necessary. Organizations should be identified. Liter-
ature should be marked. The migration of international contact men
and messengers should be stopped. We cannot permit Americans to
be victimized. Again we are not dealing with idea salesmanship.
Were we, fears could be set at rest. Communism would be over-
whelmingly rejected. The selling of Communists is the criminal sales-
manship of confidence men and crooks. Americans are entitled to be
protected from such fraud just as they are protected against offers of
fraudulent securities.

One word about limitations upon employment. No man has an
inalienable right to be employed in government. Government, like
the individual, has a right to select its employees. Employees of
government, who in the course of their daily work are entrusted with
the intimate affairs of government, must be absolutely reliable and
trustworthy. We have already had too much proof that Communist
adherents and sympathizers are not. Sound judgment dictates that
they be barred from such employment. No legal right is being

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 117

abridged. I might say — this is an attempt to at humor — that mil-
hons of Americans do not even recognize the right of Republicans
to be employed in Government. I know of no reason why tears
should be shed over Communists being deprived of the opportunity.
It seems laughable that they want so much to earn their bread at
the expense of the Government to which they admit no obligation of
fidelity.

Legislation like S. 1194 and S. 1196 is needed. To argue that laws
now on the books which heretofore have proved inadequate are suffi-
cient is to ignore the fact that until now conspirators have escaped
penalty for their participation in the conspiracy. Even known Com-
munist spies have escaped indictment though they have been tried
and convicted in other lands. The Mundt or Ferguson bill or a
combination decisions of them should be adopted,

I wonder if, in addition to the prepared statement, Senator, I
might have your permission to consider just one or two points in the
specific bills.

Senator O'Conor. We shall be glad to have you do so.

Mr. Green. This is not pretended to be a learned examination but
an amateur comparison. There are parts of one bill which seem
prefereable to parts of another.

Referring, first of all, to section 7, subparagraph (5), on page 14,
to my mind that is a desirable addition which this bill has and leaves
it preferable to the Ferguson bill, in that it specifically takes cogni-
zance of the fact of the passing of information and adds individuals
to those included within the purview of the act. It is, to that degree,
a stronger measure.

The only other point that I would like to make concerns itself with
section 15 of Senate 1194, as compared with its counterpart section
14 of Senate 1196.

Senator O'Conor. That is "Judicial review," section 15, page 30.

Was there any comment specifically, Mr. Green, that you desired
to make on that?

Mr. Green. Yes. It seems to me that that section 14 of vSenate
1196 is the desirable provision inasmuch as it does not attempt to
abridge the scope of the investigation which may be conducted by
a reviewing court. Neither does it provide standards for the adjudi-
cation or evaluation of evidence. I would consider an attempt to
impose standards for accepting or adjudicating or evaluating the
evidence undesirable inasmuch as it might open that provision to
assault in judicial procedure. It seems to me that the brief statement
of Senate 1196 which simply authorizes the use of the process of
justice already established in this country is the more desirable.

Senator O'Conor. Senator Miller, have you any questions?

Senator Miller. Can you give me the name of the case you just
mentioned with respect to the recent Supreme Court decision?

Mr. Green. That was the Terminiello case decided day before
yesterday.

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Green, you mentioned the decision of the
Supreme Court Monday which decided by a 5-to-4 decision the case
of Arthur Terminiello v. The City of Chicago. You quoted the language
of Mr. Justice Jackson that under certain conditions the Bill of Rights
might be converted into a suicide pact. Without in any sense
expecting you to be critical or to make a critical analysis of the opinion

118 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

or opinions of the Court, isXthere anything further that you would
desire to say?

Mr. Green. With reference to that case?

Senator O'Conor. Yes,

Mr. Green. I think it is important to point out with reference to
that case and some other authorities which have been cited before
this committee that they are not germane to the subject being con-
sidered. Remember, in the unfrocked Father Terminiello you have
an individual that is accused of conduct which was alleged to have
made him a disturber of the peace, as I recall it. It is the act of an
individual, the thought or expression of an individual, and it was that
distinction I was attempting to make in this statement.

Senator O'Conor. The reason I asked you the question is that you
very forcefully mentioned the desirability, of course, of the exercise
of free speech.

Mr. Green. Absolutely.

Senator O'Conor. Certainly it is not your intention to have it
unnecessarily abridged in any manner at all. Wliat have you to say
with respect to the majority opinion, wdiich of course interprets the
law and must be accepted as the law of the land unless and until it is
overruled?

Mr. Green. Frankly, I do not think the majority opinion has
any bearing upon this subject. If you would care to have me do so,
I shall be happy, after leaving here, to prepare and submit to you a
legal brief. But you have to make this one distinction in dealing
with communism and its nature. You are not talking about the free
ideas of an individual. This is a conspiracy, a combination in which
ideas are insisted upon; they are imposed forcibly upon those who
belong. Whatever Father Terminiello may have been expressing, he
was not a part of an international conspiracy, as these people are;
and, in the sense that the Supreme Court of the United States or of
any of the States failed to make their distinction, they are making an
artificial and arbitrary imposition of law which to my mind is not
protecting free speech but attempting to extend it.

Senator O'Conor. Fine. In that connection, because you have
put your finger on a vital point, we should like to advei^t to the two
opinions of the Supreme Court just handed down 48 hours ago. I
have here both the majority opinion ^vl'itten by Mr. Justice Douglas
and the minority opinion written by Mr. Justice Jackson. I first
should like to read one little portion of the minority opinion. It
says this:

Before giving the first and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution this
effect we should recall that our application of the first amendment to Illinois
rests entirely on authority which this Court has voted itself. The relevant parts
of the first amendment —

with emphasis applied —

reads "Congress —

and that is italicized —

shall make no law —

"no" is italicized—

abridging the freedom of speech." This restrains no authority except Congress,
and read as literally as some would do, it restrains Congress in terms so absolutely
that no legislation would be valid if it touched free speech, no matter how obscene,
treasonable, defamatory, inciting or provoking.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 119

Mr. Green. Right.

Senator O'Conor. That is Mr. Justice Jackson.
I should hke to read this other point. The majority opinion states
this:

Mr. Justice Douglas. Accordingly, a function of free speech under our system
of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose
when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as
they are, or inspires people to anger.

Continuing further down:

There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view, for the
alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts,
or dominant political or community groups.

Mr. Green. First of all, I do not recognize that case as being ger-
mane to this legislation, but let us go into this business of free speech.
To simply consider words as being things in themselves is to ignore
the fact that legally — and this is a well-established rule of evidence —
words may be a part of an act, a verbal part of an act. You will
recall it in reference to the exceptions of the hearsay rule. Mere
words spoken, mere arguments, in public places certainly are not a
conspiracy, but words as part of a conspiracy, words that have been
dictated, that are not the arguments of the speaker or the writer but
rather are the orders or words spoken in carrying out those orders
certainly have no reference. They are the verbal part of a conspiracy
which is being executed by those acts. If we fail to make that dis-
tinction,' then we are going to create the body of law that is so foolish
as to do just what Mr. Justice Jackson predicted might have been
done. I do not think you can ignore the central fact that you are
not dealing with the exchange of ideas. We have no objection to
anyone going into market place or any forum of ideas in this country and
expressing any thought he may have, but don't you see this funda-
mental thing? If we are dealing with a group acting in concert, not
expressing their ideas, nor theorizing opinions, but carrying out
orders to do this, to do this with an end that is known, with an end is
testified to strongly by acts already performed in this country within
the last late months, then we are absolutely taking this principle of
freedom of speech and we are extending it to God knows what wind,
extending it to protect God knows what things to the point of which
singing "Sweet Adeline" on your corner when you are trying to sleep
would no longer be disturbing the peace.

To my mind you can extend these things ad infinitum. Protection
is one thing. This would constitute extension; not protection.

Senator O'Conor. Any further questions. Senator Miller?

Senator Miller. Mr. Green, on page 2 of your statement you
speak of ideological legal obscurantists who are dealing with- a
criminal conspiracy. Now, I was just wondering if I can quite agree
with 3^ou that it is conspiracy and it may be that the explanation you
have just made would be the groundwork for your stating that it
was a criminal conspiracy.

Mr. Green. It was.

Senator Miller. Without that explanation, I would have some
hesitancy probably to adopt that statement. I could see there would
be a conspiracy all right, but the element of criminality might be
wanting.

120 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Green. If you are talking about a legal restriction of criminality
under existing law?

Senator Miller. Yes.

Mr. Green. It is not intended to convey any such impression as
that.

Senator O'Conor. We are grateful to you for your very intelligent
presentation.

JVIr. Green. Thank you, Senator, I am delighted to be here.

Senator O'Conor. The next \vitncss is a representative of the
American Jewish League against Communism, Inc. We shall be
pleased to accord the opportunity to Rabbi Benjamin Schultz to be
heard.

Mr. Young. Will you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly
sweai' or affirm in the proceedings before the subcommittee you will
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?

Rabbi Schultz. I do.

TESTIMONY OF RABBI BENJAMIN SCHULTZ, EXECUTIVE DIREC-
TOR, AMERICAN JEWISH LEAGUE AGAINST COMMUNISM, INC.,
NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mr. Young. First, I should like to ask you two questions, if I may.

Rabbi Schultz. Yes.

Mr. Young. Rabbi Schultz, are you now or have you ever been a
member of the Communist Party?

Rabbi Schultz. I am not and I have not been.

Mr. Young. Secondly, are you now or have you ever been, to the
best of your laiowledge, a member of any organization which has been
cited by a governmental agency as a Communist organization or
Communist-front organization?

Rabbi Schultz. I am not and I have not been.

Mr. Young. Please proceed.

Rabbi Schultz. I happen to be executive director of the American
Jewish League Against Communism, Inc., 220 West Forty-second
Street, New York City, and the former rabbi of Temple Emanu-El
of Yonkers, N. Y. I am also a member of the Central Conference of
American Rabbis. I am here speaking for myself, as an individual
American citizen concerned about the security of his country, which
is being menaced by the new-style war against it- — the internal war of
infiltration- — that is, of Communist aggression against our democratic
institutions. This internal war is waged by persons of Communist
sympathies who are trained to seem to be what they are not.

In reality, these persons are the conscious or unconscious agents of
the Cominform, though they uniformly appear in the guise of "demo-
crats" and "pure Americans."

The Mundt-Ferguson bills are designed to smoke these people out,
and to smoke out the organizations — innocent-appearing^ — through
which they work. I concede these bills represent a new departure
in American life. But so does the war of infiltration represent a new
departure in the totalitarian fight against democracy. "Infiltration"
and the "united front" were invented by the German Communist Willi
Muenzenberg, who sold the idea to Stalin in the early thirties. It has
been very successful in the LTnited States.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 121

Besides speaking as an American, I am speaking also as a Jew and
a rabbi. My people have found a wonderful refuge in this country.
"When this country is menaced, the greatest haven for Jewry is men-
aced. Without American democracy, American free enterprise and
our present form of government, there would be no welfare or pros-
perity for the 5,000,000 Jews in the United States or their millions of
Jewish beneficiaries in Europe and Palestine.

As a Jew, I am conscious of increasing anti-Semitism in Communist
Eiu-ope. Bolshevism camiot stand a Jew, who represents individual-
ism and liberty in bis very history. The Moscow synagogue has
the constant presence of the secret police.

If I may interpolate, my organization is publishing a pamphlet this
week called Soviet Russia and the Jews, which documents all these facts.

Thousands of Jewish leaders and Zionists languish in Siberia. We
don't want that here, through a clever war of infiltration or any other
form of Stalinist victory.

American liberty, now endangered, is the creation of the Judeo-
Clmstian ideal of individual liberty and the sanctity of man's soul.
The roots of the American ideal are found in the ancient Hebrew
prophets, as well as the Books of Moses. As a religious leader and a
rabbi, therefore, I favor these bills to spotlight the enemies of American
God-rooted democracy, who are servants of an atheistic and enslaving
dictatorship.

The accusation that these bills are "Fascist" or "antifreedom of
speech" is as specious as it is largely insincere. All that is needed
is a reading of these bills. A Communist front must be labeled as.
such. Certain norms are set up for the labeling of an organization
as Commmiist. An elaborate system of appeals from any decision
of the Attorney General is established. There is instituted a Sub-
versive Activities Commission appointed by the President, to hear
arguments. I believe the name of the Subversive Activities Com-
mission is part of the Mundt bill, and I think the Ferguson bill has
the same thing under a different name. Provision is made for cross-
examination of witnesses, and also for public hearings. Finally, there
is permitted judicial review by the United States court of appeals.
Not oidy will an organization which has gone thi'ough this mill, and
remained with the label "Communist," justifiably be considered Com-
munist by the public; but there will not remain the slightest doubt
that the procedure has "leaned backward" in the interests of democ-
racy, being at the same time devised for the security of America.

The plain truth is that the Mundt-Ferguson bills are a great tribute
to democracy. They are based on a conviction — which was also the
conviction of the founding fathers — that if you "let the people know,"
if you place all the facts before the public, the public will know what
to do. There is no "enforced silencing" in this bill. There are no
restrictions on speech. There is only an insistence that the pubhc
has the right labels.

These bills are repressive if the pure-food laws are repressive.
Pure-food laws protect the public by preventing fraudulent labels.
These bills are the pure-food laws of the American intellect. They
insist on truthful labels for groups and persons.

And I repeat, there is a faith underlying these bills — a faith that
you don't really need anything more than to let the people know. It
is the same faith which authored the Bill of Rights.

122 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Most of the harm of Stahnist infiltration is caused by the unaware-
ness of the American people about what is going on. The opponents
of these bills would like that unawareness to continue, because ex-
posure is the greatest enemy of communism. These bills aim at
exposure.

Most of us — Christians and Jews — ^are worried about om- youth.
Many of these are comifig under pro-Soviet influences. In the New
York area, mud) of the strong intellectual influence is subversive.
This influence permeates, to large degree, the flower of our youth.
It is especially dangerous because it has not been sufficiently exposed,

I am amazed, for instance, at the indift'erence in high places to the
fact that a leading spirit at the important Union Theological Semin-
ary, the Methodist Dr. Harry F. Ward, professor emeritus of theology,
is a leading pro-Communist. He has taught numerous clergymen.
It is a fact that he opposed American help to the Allies during the
Hitler-Stalin Pact, but as soon as Hitler attacked Russia he became
ardent in the "democratic" cause. He conducted a column in the
New York Daily Worker, official Communist organ. In 1945, he spoke
with Earl Browder at a Lenin memorial meeting. He has written
articles in the Worker praising Marxism. Unfortunately, he and his
many pupils have wide influence on our younger "progressive" genera-
tion. This is no implication that either Dr. Ward's church or the
Union Theological Seminary is Communist.

Instances could be multiplied. Some intellectual and even religious
leaders are dangerously allied with subversive movements. Not the
majority of them. But is it not the powerful minority that has
betrayed one democratic country after another?

We are worried about our youth. It seems that almost nothing can
be done about another man of wide influence in New York — an assist-
ant professor of English at the large public-supported Brooklyn
College— Dr. Frederick Ewen.

May I say to all intents and purposes that he is boss of the English
department. I have that from official sources.

There has been trouble with some of the vociferous "pink" students
at Brooldyn College. Much of the trouble from this loud minority
may be traced to influences like Dr. Ewen. He is the chairman of the
notorious School for Jewish Studies in New York, which is not Jewish
at all, but Communist, and has been labeled as Communist by the
Department of Justice. It was under his direction that courses in
Marxism were instituted at this school. In 1948 it was announced
that this school, headed by Dr. Ewen, was giving a course in "imperi-
alism", to expose nefarious American institutions regarding the Mar-
shall plan and Truman doctrine. Here and there, a course in some-
thing Jewish is announced, but this is camouflage. The school is
reviled by the Jewish community.

At a dinner for Professor Ewen 5 months ago, at the Henry Hudson
Hotel, greetings were extended from the Jefferson School, also labeled
as Communist by the Department of Justice. The toastmaster was
Maurice wSchappes, the Communist convicted of perjury by the Rapp-
Coudert Committee investigating subversion in the city colleges.

We know what atheistic communism teaqhes about the capturing
of the young mind at any and every opportunity. And it should be
more widely known that the people are taking an awesome risk in the
department of English at Brooklyn College, Unfortunately, that great

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 123

American and anti-Communist, President Harry Gideonse of Brooklyn
College, is powerless in the situation.

President Gideonse has been harassed by a member of the board of
higher education (which supervises city colleges). This member is
Ira A. Hirschmann, who recently wanted charges entertained against
Dr. Gideonse for opposing Communist teachers. Hirschmann's term
exphes next month. Reports are that Mayor O'Dwyer may reap-
point him, but I cannot believe it. Hirschmann is a leading pro-
Soviet agitator, who has recently written a book showing that we are
always wrong and Russia is always right. That book is called The
Embers Still Burn. He claims that the "iron curtain" countries are
perfect, while anti-Communists are reactionary and Fascist.

In line with these views, Hu'schmann has demanded that the in-
dictment of the 12 Communist Party leaders in New York be dropped;
he has been associate chairman of a pro-Communist dinner. Save the
Voice of Freedom, at the Park Central Hotel, together with Vito
Marcantonio and Johannes Steel. He opposed "American meddling"
in the Italian elections in 1948. These are only some of his activities.
We are worried about the possible reappointment of Mr. Hirsch-
mann — though some veterans' organizations are beginning to take
action — because we are worried about our young students, who are
under the jurisdiction of the board of higher education. The situa-
tion in New York, of course, is partly alleviated by such sterling anti-
Communists as Professor Sidney Hook, of New York University.
There should be more like him.

France was overrun by Hitler in 1940 largely because of a previ-
ously unpublicized gap in the famous ]\Iaginot line — a little, fatal
opening near the border of Belgium. The gap in our Maginot line
is the upper intellectual segment of our population. It is Stalinist
technique to try to capture it, and thereby to confuse and weaken
our country from above, so that its military strength may be nullified.
We spend millions on fighting communism in Europe, We arm our
soldiers to the teeth. But our battle is lost unless the gap in our
Maginot line is repaired.

I favor the Mundt-Ferguson bills because the names of the Wards
and the Hirschmanns, and persons of this kind, would be revealed.
The public would know their connections; and, therefore, the public
would make its opinion felt, and the people w^ould win.

My faith that this will occur is equivalent to my faith in the Ameri-
can democratic process.

Senator O'Conor. Senator Miller, do you have any questions?

Senator Miller. No questions.

Mr. Young. I should like to ask Rabbi Schultz, who has made a
great study of communism and who is quite an expert on it, what
proportion of the Jewish people in his opinion subscribe to the theory
of communism. We know it is a very small percent, but the Com-
munist line is that the Jewish people are sympathetic toward it.

Rabbi Schultz. The Communist line is that all minorities, so-
called, are sympathetic toward it. The Jews are 98 percent non-
Communist. They are subject to Communist propaganda in the
same proportion that the American people are subject to Communist
propaganda; and, just as the average American non-Communist is
influenced by Communist propaganda, going down the line without
his knowing that he is being influenced by Communist propaganda,

124 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

SO the average Jew, the average Cathohc, the average Protestant,
and average Negro is sometimes influenced by Communist propa-
ganda without knowing it.

I happen to be a Jew, and I am interested in the Jewish angle,
but we all have our own houses to clean. I favor the establishment
of an American Protestant League Against Communism, an American
Catholic League Against Communism, and an American Negro
League Against Communism. By the way, George Schuyler, a well-
known Negro, told me that he favored an American League Against
Communism along the line of my league. I was greatly flattered.

We had a War-Savings-bond campaign when I was up in Yonkers.
There was a War-Savings-bond committee in the Knights of Colum-
bus. There was a War-Savings-bond committee in the House of
Jewish Women. There was a War-Savings-bond committee in the
Sons and Daughters May Arise, and so forth. I favor an anti-
Communist committee in every walk of American life, because there
is not a walk in American life that the Communist does not try to
penetrate through the use of techniques skillfully designed to appeal
to that particular walk of life.

I resent the fact that the Communist Party has a Jewish section.
It was largely because they raised the Jewish issue that my organi-
zation was founded.

I hope I have answered your question.

Mr. Young. Yes; you have. Thank you.

Senator O'Conor. We are grateful indeed for your contribution.

The next witness on the list is a representative of the American
Labor Party.

Mr. Young, will you proceed, please.

Mr. Young. Mr. Schutzer, will you raise your right hand, please?
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that in the proceedings before the
subcommittee you will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Schutzer. I do.

Mr. Young. Give us your name, address, and present occupation.

TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR SCHUTZER, STATE EXECUTIVE SECRE-
TARY, AMERICAN LABOR PARTY, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mr. Schutzer. My name is Arthur Schutzer. I am state execu-
tive secretary of the American Labor Party, which is New York
State's progressive party. The address is 570 Seventh Avenue, New
York City.

Mr. Young. Will you tell us what organization or organizations
you represent here today?

Mr. Schutzer. I appear here in behalf of the American Labor
Party of New York State.

Mr. Young. Thank you.

I would like to ask you two questions, please. First, are you now
or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Schutzer. Sir, I came here today to testify. I assumed that
the purpose of these hearings before this committee was to afford
representatives of independent organizations as well as individuals to

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 125

present their \aewpoints concerning the very important legislation
under consideration.

Senator O'Conor. Air. Schutzer, I will interrupt you just to say
that before you can make a statement to the committee, we would
like to have the question answered categorically.

Mr. Schutzer. I am replying to that question.

Senator O'Conor. That answer can be given "Yes" or "No," and
we would prefer to have it categorically.

Mr. Schutzer. Will you permit me to explain for a minute?

Senator O'Conor. I will not permit you to do any such thing.

Senator Miller. The rule, however, is that if he answers "Yes"
or "No," he can explain his answer.

Senator O'Conor. That is right. You are privileged to make any
explanation you desu-e, but we are not interested in having your views
if you are not willing to state categorically your answer to that
question.

Mr. Schutzer. May I finish this sentence?

Senator O'Conor. You may not finish anything further. You
may answer the question "Yes" or "No," or we will not be interested
in hearing anything from you.

Mi". Schutzer. You realize that the very putting of the question
imposes a political test on the right of a citizen to testify before a
Senate subcommittee?

Senator O'Conor. We are here to listen to you if you desne to
answer the question.

Mr. Schutzer. Why not permit me to present my statement first
and we will take up any questions concerning any test?

Senator O'Conor. I ask you whether you are prepared to answer
the question "Yes" or "No""?

Mr. Schutzer. I am trying to explain to you if you will be courteous
enough to give me 1 minute of your time.

Senator O'Conor. Repeat the question.

Mr. Schutzer. I know what the question is, su".

Mr. Young. Mr. Schutzer, I ask you the first cjuestion: Ave you
now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Schutzer. That question seeks to impose a political test on
my right to testify before a subcommittee.

Senator O'Conor. We will not hear further from you unless you
answer that question categorically. Will you answer it?

Mr. Schutzer. For me to answer that

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Schutzer, you will leave the stand.

Mr. Schutzer. It is a violation of the Constitution and also it is
a violation of the Legislative Reorganization Act.

Senator O'Conor. The next witness will be a representative of the
National Lawyers Guild. Is he present? Step up, please, sir.

Mr. Young. Will you raise 3'our right hand, please? Do you
solemnh' swear to affirm that in the proceedings before the subcom-
mittee you will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?

Mr. DuRR. I do.

Senator O'Conor. Proceed.

93357 — 49-

126 CONTROL OF SUBVERSR'E ACTIVITIES

TESTIMONY OF CLIFFORD J. DURE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

LAWYERS GUILD

'Mr. Young. Would you give us your name, address, and your
present occupation, Mr. Durr?

Mr. Dure. My home address is R. F. D. 2, Seminary, Mexandria,
Va. My business address is 1625 K Street, NW., Washington, D. C.

Mr. Young. Mr. Durr, will you tell us what organization you
represent, please?

Mr. Durr. I represent the National Lawj^ers Guild.

Mr. Young. Mr. Durr, you were here and heard the announce-
ment at the beginning of the hearing and I should like to ask you two
questions, if I may, sir.

Are 3"0u now or have you ever been a member of the Communist
Party?

Mr. Durr. I am not and I have never been a member.

Mr. Young. Are you now or have jou ever been, to the best of your
kiiowledge, a member of a,nj organization which has been cited by a
governmental agency as a communistic organization or Communist-
front organization?

Mr. Durr. The National Lawyers Guild has received mention from
the House Committee on Un-American Activities along with hundreds
of other organizations including, as I recall, the League for Nonpartici-
pation in Japanese Aggression, the chairman of which was Henry L.
Stimson, the vice chairman Admiral Yarnell; the Council Against
Intolerance in America, the YMCA, and other organizations.

Senator O'Conor. I may just interrupt. When you say it has
received mention, do you mean to say it has been classed as a Com-
munist or Communist-front organization?

Mr. Durr. The classification is somewhat vague. I think it is
mentioned in a pamphlet that the Un-American Committee got out.
I do not have that before me. I do not recall exactly what was said
about it but I might add that the National Lawj^ers Guild is not on the
Attorney General's list.

Senator O'Conor. It is not? I see. You have answered the ques-
tion, so we shall be very happy to have you proceed.

Mr. Durr. As I said earlier, I am now practicing law in the District
of Columbia. Until June 1948, I was a member of the Federal
Communications Commission. At the time of my appointment to
the Commission l)y President Roosevelt, I was an assistant general
counsel of RFC and general counsel of Defense Plants Corporation.

I am president of the National Lawyers Guild and appear here on
behalf of that association.

Senator O'Conor. May I ask, sir, whether you have a prepared
statement and, if so, whether you desire to present that first or whether
you desire just to make your comments with regard to any specific
provisions of the proposed legislation?

Mr. Durr. I have a prepared statement which has been distributed.
I should like to follow that very closely because we are trying to make
a legal analysis of the bill. I should like to have that as a guide before
me. Some points I think I can skip which are merely for the docu-
mentation of points I want to make.

Senator O'Conor. Very well, we shall be very glad to have you do
so and any part you do not read in full will be placed in the record.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 127

Mr. DuRR. Thank you.

The National Lawyers Guild is opposed to the passage of these two
bills involved, that is. S. 1194 and S. 1196, because it regards them as
dangerous and far-reaching encroachments on the fundamental
liberties of the American people, including freedom of speech, press,
assembly, and the guaranty against punishment without the due
process of law. It believes that if these bills or any of them are en-
acted, it m411 go far toward destroj^ing the very foundations of our
democratic system.

As I understand it, the proponents of those two bills assert that ther
bills do not infringe on constitituional liberties. There are two rather
l)asic contentions made by them.

First, it is contended that the bills do not restrict any person's
right to speak or assemble as he pleases; that they merely require
him to disclose his identity and to speak and assemble under his true
colors. It is also claimed that the bills do not outlaw any organization.

The second basic contention is that the bills apply only to persons-
or groups seeking to establish in this countrj^ a totalitarian dictator-
ship controlled by a foreign government or "the international Com-
munist movement," which is described in section 2 of the bill.

The provisions of the bills, however, we think contradict these
assertions. We shall attempt to demonstrate this by examining the
detailed provisions of the ^Iundt bill, S. 1194, in some detail. Sen-
ator Ferguson's bill, S. 1196, is so nearly identical that the observa-
tions we make witli reference to the Mundt bill have general applica-
tion to Senator Ferguson's bill as well.

Section 4 (a) of the bill makes it unlawful for persons knowhigly to
conspire or agree "to perform any act which would subtantially
facilitate or aid in the establishment Avithin the United States of 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."
"Totalitarian dictatorship" is defined as a nonrepresentative form of
government characterized by the existence of a single pohtical party,
which is for all pra-ctical purposes identical with the government, all
other parties being prohibited.

The crime created by this subsection does not, as is the case in
many conspiracy statutes, require an overt act but only an agreement
to perform an overt act. The punishable agreement extends not to
an agreement to establish, or even to facilitate, a totalitarian dictator-
ship itself, but extends as well to an agreement to perform an act
which will substantially facilitate or aid in the establishment of such
a dictatorship.

Now the phrase "any act which would substantially facilitate or
aid" is without clear meaning. We do not believe that an average
citizen could know what acts or agreements the courts might sa^^
would come within the meaning of that phrase. However, in the light
of the bill's preamble and the definitions in section .3, it seems clear
that one objective of the subsection is to punish cooperation or agree-

128 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

mcnts to cooperate in any way with the Communist Party, or any
other group which may be subject to the provisions of this bill.

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Durr, do you object to being interrupted?

Mr. Durr. No, sir.

Senator O'Conor. If you do, we shall be very pleased to have you
conclude, but I thought it might help in the understanding of your
position if we were to ask questions as you go along.

In connection with what you have said, this sentence in the bill
introduced by Senator Mundt and Senator Olin Johnston of South
Carolina simply states:

It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree
with any other person to perform any act which would substantially facilitate
or aid in the establishment within the United States of 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.

Now, do you for a second, Mr. Durr, oppose such a provision as that?

Mr. Durr. This implies knowledge of the act, which he does not
have; not to the consequences of his act.

Senator O'Conor. If people combine and agree together to over-
throw the present Government in this country and do that under
the domination or control of a foreign government, do you not think
that ought to be prevented and ought to be punished?

Mr. Durr. If anybody is trying to overthrow the Government,
certainly I think they should be punished.

Senator O'Conor. This merely makes a crime of the combination
or conspiracy knowingly when those persons would agree to do things
which would facilitate or aid in the establishment of a totalitarian
dictatorship, which of course is different from what we have here,
when that movement is under the domination of a foreign govern-
ment. Now why should w^e permit or allow to go on in this country
such a movement unmolested when it is dictated by a foreign govern-
ment to establish another form of government in our country?

Mr. Durr. I think you misunderstood my point here. The
point I was trying to make is that he may knowingly commit a certain
act but he might be wholly innocent as far as the consequences of the
act is concerned, and be unware of the consequences of the act that
he is committing.

Now if he acts with the intention and knowledge of the consequences,
then you have a different kind of situation.

The Chairman. Would it not be well for you to answer the chair-
man's question?

Mr. Durr. I was trying to do that, sir I was making an effort
to answer the question.

The Chairman. No; you are avoiding the question entirely.

Mr. Durr. I was not intending to avoid it.

The Chairman. Answer it.

Mr. Durr. If a person knowingly conspires to overthrow the
Goverimient, then something should be done about it, but I say
a person might engage in an act, intending to engage in that parti-
cular act, but being wholly unaware of the consequences of the act
he does not know or intend the consequences.

Senator O'Conor. Is it not a well-accepted legal authority that a
person is presumed to have intended the natural and probable con-
sequences of his act?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 129

Mr. DuRR. If yo\i get the question of enactment and probable
consequences of the act, you have that in your

Senator O'Conor. A person knowingly enters into a conspiracy
to do these things that the Mundt- Johns ton bill prohibits. Are you
still saying that the law should not be placed on the statute books?

Mr. Dure. Here is the point I am trying lo make. You might
cooperate with someone and knowingly cooperate with them in an
action which you think is all right, but the other person may have
an end result which he attempts to accomplish that you are wholly
unaware of.

Senator O'Conor. I do not think you have a proper understanding
of conspiracy. That would not be conspiracy.

Mr. ]3uRR. The "knowingly" here applies not to the knowledge of
the act conmiitted; the "knowingly" used here applies to the act
committed and not to the knowledge of the results contemplated.

The Chairman. If an individual representative of a foreign
government that was intent upon breaking down or destroying this
form of government entered into the spirit of that arrangement,
would you support him?

Mr. Durr. I think if an individual is consciously entering into a
conspiracy to overthi-ow the Govermnent, certainly I think something
should be done about it. I think he should be tried and, if found
guilty, should be punished in court.

Mr. Young. Without force and violence?

Mr. Dure. Without force and violence. I think you have to draw
a distinction between the advocacy of a change in our form of govern-
ment as an abstract political philosophy and the advocacy of force
and violence to bring about that change.

Certainly, if you get into the question of abstract political philoso-
phy, you could have Jefferson, Lincoln, and many of our great heroes
who would bo in trouble. They made very strong statements. They
are contained in our Declaration of Independence, for that matter.

Senator O'Conor. You are losing sight of the very important
provision that the Mundt-Johnston bill has, that is, that these
conspiracies are punishable when they are under the domination and
control of a foreign government. Certainly, you cannot talk of
Jefferson and other patriots in that light?

Mr. Durr. Going back and reading, I expect at the time the charges
were made, as I recall, that Jefferson really was under the domination
of the French revolutionists.

Senator Miller. Irrespective of whether or not this person knew
what the consequences would be, as you mentioned, would it not be
sufficient if he aided, abetted, counseled, and advised in connection
with the matter? Would that not constitute the offense whether it
was an overt act or not?

Mr. Durr. He might be participating in some act that is perfectly
legitimate and perfectly proper on its face but there may be some
others who have very different intentions from his o^^^l; they want to
accomplish things he does not want to accomplish at all.

Senator O'Conor. W^ill you proceed?

Air. Durr. I think the point I was trying to make there is that we
do not believe the average citizen could know that actual agreement,
the court might say, would come vvithin the meaning of the phrase
"substantially facilitate or aid." However, if you take the bill's

130 CONTROL OF SUBVERS'lVE ACTIVITIES

preamble, as I said that appears to be directed at any kind of coopera-
tion with the Communist Party even though it might be cooperation
on a particular measure and not with the ends of the Communist
Party.

By the bill's definitions in sections 2 and 3, the Communist Party
and the other proscribed groups seek to establish a totalitarian
dictatorship in the United States or function primarily to that end
of establishing such a dictatorship. Hence, any cooperation with
them in furtherance of common objectives, including acts which are
constitutionally protected, is readily construable as an act or agree-
ment to commit an act which "would substantially facilitate or aid"
the establishment of a dictatorship.

In other words, you might have a person very much interested in
witlening the franchise in this country, for example; his only objective
would l)e to \viden the franchise in the interest of a broader repre-
sentative type of government. You may have some in the Com-
munist Party say; "We want to v.iden the franchise because we get
people in at the lower economic level. We think there would be a
better chance of those people voting Communist."

Last year the Senate Judiciary Committee called upon three
distinguished lawyers, recognzed by the committee as experts in
constitutional law, for their opinion of the constitutionality of last
year's Mundt-Nixon bill. I understand that Senator Mundt has
testified before this committee that their objections to the bill have
been met in S. 1194. Here is what these thi'ee experts said on the
corresponding provisions of the old bill:

Chairman Evans Hughes, Jr., said:

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.

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 attemjot "any act" with intent to facilitiate or aid
that purpose. Manifestly, this would include attempts to bring about such
result by expression of opinions through speech or publication, or by participa-
tion in peaceable assemblies, designed to bring about changes in the Government
through orderly processes 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. Lowry, 301 U. S. 242, 249-250, 255, 260-261
(1937). See Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, 137-138 (1943)).

Senator Johnston. Would you consider it orderly process if they
come in here and try to upset our Government by force?"

Mr. Dure. I would say not.

Senator Johnston. Is that not what the Communists advocate?

Mr. Dure. That is one of the issues that is for decision in the
courts today. I do not know that I am qualified to give the answer.

Senator Johnston. The reason I raise that point is that you dis-
tinguish what we are trying to do under our bill with that decision
you quoted. That is the reason I raise that point.

Mr. DuEE. When you attempt to bring it about by speech or
publication, then you run into the first amendment to the Constitution
short of the clear and present danger where you have an immediate
danger. Certainly, a speech might move into the realm of action if
you have a milling mob that is armed and someone gives them direc-
tion to move immediatel}" upon the State capitol or courthouse or
what have you. Then you have yom* clear and present danger

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 131

involved. But the Supreme Court has said short of that the first
amendment guarantees absohite freedom to speech.

Then the Attorney General, Tom C. Clark, last year said:

From the language of the bill, it appears uncertain whether mere membership
in a Communist organization as defined in section 3, would constitute a violation
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. * * *

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.

Then Mr. John W. Davis said:

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 paragraplis
(1) and (2) seems to create more confusion than it removes. * * * it is not
at all clear what acts are contemplated in the second paragrajih beyond those
embraced in the first. If, for instance, the advocacy of a constitutional amend-
ment changing the form of government would be such an act as paragraph (2)
envisages, it is at once apparent that constitutional questions based on the first
amendment would be presented.

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.

I do not know whether Air. Richardson, President of the Loyalty
Review Board in the Civil Service Commission, gave his statement
upon the request of the committee or whether it was volunteered, but
he had some observations, also. I quote him:

I am inclined to the view that before section 4 of the act can bo 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 violence and by unconstitutional procedures.

That was the point I was trying to make earlier, the question of
whether you are usmg constitutional or unconstitutional measures to
accomplish the results. It seems apparent, therefore, that, despite
contentions of the sponsors of these bills, section 4 (a) is at least as un-
constitutional now as it was a year ago.

Section 4 (b) relates to the unauthorized communications by officers
or employees of the Government of classified information. Except
for the proposal contained therein to abolish the statute of limitations,
we find nothing seriously objectionable m this subsection. If there is
any clarification needed, it seems to us it might be more appropriate
to deal with that in the espionage statute than here.

Although section 4 is highly objectionable, the major vice of these
bills lies in the remainder of their text, which deals with the registra-
tion of organizations and individuals.

132 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator O'Conor. Wliy should thoy have tax exemption? If an
organization is composed of members who are seeking to overthrow
the Government and who are un-American, why should they enjoy
tax exemption?

Mr. DuRR. If that determination has been reached with reference
to an organization, I certainly agree with you.

Senator O'Conor. Do you not agree that the Communist organiza-
tion has been proven to be un-American in its essence?

Mr. Durr. I do not agree with the Communist Party.

Senator O'Conor. I did not ask you that. I asked you whether or
not you do not think it has been demonstrated that the Communist
Party is un-American.

Mr. Durr. I do not know what that term ''un-American" means.

Senator O'Conor. All right, if you do not, you are about the only
one in the room who does not understand it. So you can go ahead.

Mr. Durr. I think this question of whether they advocate the
overtlirow of government by force and violence is determined by the
courts.

Senator O'Conor. The political parties in this country are required
to go through certain registrations and make certam reports.

Mr. Durr. I think they should.

Senator O'Conor. You come here and you are espousing the cause
of Communist front organizations by oppoisng the registration of those
organizations.

Mr. Durr. I want to make it clear that I am not espousing
Communist organizations.

Senator O'Conor. I meant to the extent that you are arguing they
should not be required to undergo registratiojti.

Mr. Durr. I say they should be certainly subjected to the require-
ments of all other political organizations; then if it is proven in court
proceedings after considering the evidence in accordance with the safe-
guards guaranteed by the Constitution, and they reach certai.n con-
clusions with reference to them, we should act accordingly. I think
these matters ought to be determined by the com'ts upon evidence
after a fair trial. I am concerned here only with what seems to me
to be a very basic provision in our Bill of Rights and not with protect-
ing any particular organization, because once we let out these safe-
guards I think we all become exposed.

But the legal disabilities, as sovere as they are, are mild compared
to the unexpressed social and eco.nomic consequences which will befall
the members of a registered organization. A registered organization
is, under the bill's definition, conspiratorial, disloyal, and seditious.
In other words, an organization by registering is entering a plea of
guily to a charge amounting to sedition or treason. It is quite obvious
that any organization which either voluntarily publicly describes
itself in such terms, or is so described by govermnental action, is
subject to intense public odium, as are those persons hardy enough to
remain members therein.

It is perfectly apparent that no organization can or will voluntarily
register under these provisions. I do not believe they will do that
and Attorney General Clark pointed that out. He said:

It can be assumed that no organization would confess guilt by registra-
tion * * *

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 133

The simple fact is that the mere act of registration would cause an
organization either to disappear or to become an illegal, "under-
ground" society. No organization could retain open membership and
support if it either voluntariW registered or was ordered to do so by
official govermnental action requiring disclosure of its membership.
Its officers, members, and contributors must either depart from the
organization or be subject to the most onerous, and increasingly
family sanctions of public odium, including loss of employment, social
stigmatization, expulsion from "legitimate" organizations, and perhaps
mob violence. Even resignation would not wholly save the victims
because the names must be filed of all those who were members at any
time in the preceding year. ^Yliat is more, if they do actually register,
then they may find themselves subject to prosecution under section
4 (a) of the bill. I refer to the Attorney General's opinion on this
question which is contained on page 423 of the hearings.

Accordingly, it seems to us that the case of the bill is misstated when
it is asserted that the bill merely performs disclosure functions and
does not outlaw any organization. The fact is that the bills envisage
not that any organization will register but rather that individuals will
be relentlessly prosecuted for belonging to organizations which have
failed to register. It seems to us that the bill does effectively outlaw
all the organizations within its scope.

Our next point is that the scope of the bill is unconstitutionally
broad and vague, that it includes organizations who merely exercise
constitutional rights, and that its standards are irrelevant to the
opprobrious conclusions on the basis of which registration is requu-ed.

Take a look at the scope of the bill. It is apparent that the general
definition of "Communist political organization" contained in section
3, subsection (3), is vague. That provision refers, first, to an organi-
zation which has "some, but not necessarily all, of the ordinary and
usual characteristics of a political party." "What such characteristics
are and how many are "some" is neither explained nor self-explana-
tory. It is, we assume, an "ordinary and usual characteristic" of a
political party that it has a treasury and distributes literature. Every
organization practically does the same thing. In addition, the terms
"dominated or controlled by" and "operates primarily to advance the
objectives" of the "world Communist movement" are obviously
vague, as is the definition of those objectives in section 2.

The vagueness of this general definition is aggravated, rather than
removed, by the eight criteria given for its application in section 14
(e). First of all, there is no indication as to how many of these criteria
must be present to support a finding that the definition is met.
Secondly, each of the criteria begjns with the words "the extent to
which," without any indication of the extent which is to be deemed
significant. Thirdly, most of the criteria have no relevance to the
general definition, vague as it is. Fourthly, the criteria themselves
employ many vague terms of no defined or commonly understood

meaning.

Thus, the first criterion refers exnressly to the formulation and
carrying out of the policies and activities of the organizations. Clearly,
therefore, the mere expression of ideas comes within the criterion, if
they are found to have been formulated and carried out to "effectuate
the policies of the foreign government" or organization referred to in

134 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

section 2. Then again, this phrase "to effectuate the policies" is a
most elastic concept. Since there is no requirement of showing of
intent, presumably the purpose may be inferred from the character of
the policies carried out. In that case, the first test would be sub-
stantially indistinguishable from the second test, which is discussed
below and which is subject to the same objections. Moreover, the
policies being "effectuated" may have no connection whatever with the
objectives of the "world Communist movement" referred to in section
2, and indeed may have no relevance to the establishment of "totali-
tarian dictatorship," in this country.

The second criterion expressly makes "views and policies" a test
wliich, of course, refers to ideas and expressions. This criterion con-
tains no requirement whatever that a totalitarian dictatorship under
foreign control shall be advocated. There is no indication of what
views and policies are to be deemed significant, as long as they coincide
with the views of the prohibited group. In any case, the section aban-
dons the traditional American creed that ideas are to be tested on their
merits, in favor of the notion that they are to be spurned because of
a governmental attitude toward others Avho may advocate the same
views.

The third criterion, relating to the extent to which the organization
'receives financial or other aid, directly or indirectly, from or at the
direction of such foreign government or foreign organization," seems
to us to have no necessary relevance to the establishment of a totali-
tarian dictatorship under foreign domination. The reference to the
receipt of " aid" "indirectly" is obviously a loose standard. An organ-
ization may not even know that it is "indirectly aided" by a foreign
source. The whole organization and its membership is penalized be-
cause its support in an unspecified amount comes to it indirectly and
possibly for perfectly laudable purposes from one of the prescribed
sources. If an organization includes among its members Communists
or members of other prescribed groups, it could, under the loose defini-
tions in sections 2 and 3, be said to receive support indirect!}^ from a
foreign group. It seems to us that these criteria are subject to the
objections which talk about subsection 6.

The fourth criterion relates to the organization's sending of repre-
sentatives to any foreign country for instruction or training in the
principles of "the world Communist movement." That imposes pen-
alties for taking steps to secure information concerning political and
economic ideas which are prevalent in large parts of the world. That,
it seems to us, has the effect of stigmatizing what may be no more than
educational eft'orts to studj' and understand, irrespective of agree-
ments. If an organization sends a delegate to attend any foreign
international conference and Communists should take part in that
conference, it might be held that the delegate was sent for a prohibi-
tive purpose. This might be true even though the instruction received
was wholh' unrelated to the establishment of a dictatorship in this
country.

The fifth criterion is the extent to which the organization "reports"
to the foreign government or organization. A mere exchange of com-
munications, no matter how inocuous, can be taken as an element of
reporting. Furthermore, the reporting may have no connection with
the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship in this country. Pre-
sumably, the reading of a resolution or report at an international con-

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 135

ference iii which foreign Communists might be participating could be
construed as faUing within this test of the report.

The sixth test is "the extent to which the organization's principal
leaders or a substantial number of its members are subject to or recogn-
ize the disciplinary power of such foreign government or foreign or-
ganization or its representatives." It is not explained who qualifies
as a "principal leader" or how many is a "substantial" number, ^'\Tiat
is the meanmg of the terms "subject to" and "recognize the disciplin-
ary power of such foreign government?" That question has to be
resolved. It does not seem to us that these words have a very clear
meaning. It is not apparent how such criteria could prove that the
organization as a whole is controlled by the foreign government or
movement, and "operates primarily to advance the objectives of the
world Communist movement."

Senator Johnston. Are you reaUy afraid of that in this bill?

Mr. DuRR. Yes; I am afraid of an extension of this idea of guilt
by association and getting people involved who are no more than
exercising their constitutional rights.

Senator Johnston. How could it do any harm to let people know^
that is Communists and non-Communists, who he happens to be?

Mr. DuRR. What you have here, first, is a declaration saying that
some types of organizations are in effect treasonable in themselves.
Then you are not going to get your registration because anybody who
registers there would be pleading gudty to the things that the pre-
amble of the bill says about the organization itself. You put a person
in a position where he really has a brand on himself, the "Scarlet
Letter." He may be perfectly satisfied in his own mind that his own
objectives and motives are entirely proper in accordance with Ameri-
can tradition but he may find himself caught under a construction.

Senator Johnston. Just how would you handle the situation in
which we find ourselves in America at the present time?

Mr. DuRR. First, if a person violates the laws adopted in accord-
ance with our Constitution, I would try him in accordance with es-
tablished procedures and if I found him guilty, I would send him to
jail or impose whatever penalty was prescribed.

Senator Johnston. Is that not what the Government is trying to
do now and they are finding themselves handicapped in not having
proper laws on the statute books?

Mr. DuRR. I do not agree with that, I think we do have abundant
laws on the statute books. I think in the Voorhees Act you have
this provision for registration that goes awfully far. It seems to me
that that does cover the question of registration.

Senator O'Conor. Do you refer to registration of foreign agents?

Mr. DuRR. Yes, but the definition of foreign agents in section
23,866, title 18 of the United States Code, is as follows:

Every organization subject to foreign control which engages in political activity-
must be registered; every organization which engages both in civilian, military
activity and political activity; every organization subject to foreign control which
engages in civilian, military activity and every organization, the purpose or aim
of which or one of the purposes or aims of which, is establishment, control, con-
duct, seizure, or overthrow of government or a subdivi?ion thereof by the use of
force, violence, militaryjmeasures, or threats or any one or more of the foregoing.

I do not know of any prosecution that has taken place under that
provision. It seems to me if you have a problem there, the solution

136 COXTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

is possibly to call on the Attorney General to enforce this law that is
ah-eady on the books.

Senator O'Conor. I might say that the Senate is due to go in
session in about 15 minutes. I did not know whether you desired to
summarize, and then to submit your statement.

Mr. DuRR. I will try to move a little faster, if you will. I was
pointing out the sixth test which tends to bring all organizations into
suspicions, because some of their members may belong to organiza-
tions which are under suspicion.

The seventh test is the extent to which it resists or fails to make
disclosure of membership lists, and so on. If you have got any kind
of organization that you have secret meetings from time to time, and
you use the test that is applied, there is one that is certainly of aid.

It is also common for all kinds of groups to exclude nonmembers
from their meetings on some occasions. Those secret meetings, are
they within the definition or are they not?

The last test relates to which leaders or members of organizations
subordinate their allegiance to the United States. Again you get
into the question of what is subordination of allegiance to the United
States.

I recall an attack made several years ago by the Chicago Tribune
on some Government officials and Members of Congi-ess who had been
educated at Oxford University. Some were Rhodes scholars, and they
claim that as the result of having received money from the Rhodes
Trust, they were under the domination in effect of the British
Government, and part of a scheme to bring the United States back
into British Empire.

We can get into some pretty fantastic ideas once you get started
on that .

Then if you get to the definition of Communist organization,
which gets very vague, and we do not think meets the test of reason-
ably ascertainable standard of guilt for the purposes of the fifth
amendment to our Constitution, there are four criteria for determina-
tion whether the group falls within the dsfinitions, and they are set
forth i.n section 10 (f). None of these four tests has any necessary
connection with the domination by a foreign government or the world
Communist movement, since the finding of control by an organization
which is found to be a Communist political organization is all that
is required.

We have many problems of what constitutes control when we talk
in tsrms of ownership of corporations, what stock ownership, what
connection, what constitutes control, and when you begin to apply
that to the criminal statutes, you got ijito a very vague realm that
it is very difficult for a perso.a to know when he acts whether he has
subjected himself to the penalties of the criminal law\

The first of these tests relates to the ability of the active members.
It does not say what characteristics of the members are to be taken
into accou.nt, or how many of those are active in an organization
must be bad people, and the vague term of what is active manage-
ment, especially as people might be active not necessarily have to
have oflacial position in the organization.

You have the test that relates to the som-ces from which we get
part of the organization's support, financial and otherwise, are derived,
what kind of support and what extent of support is necessary.

CONTROL or SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 137

The third test relates to the use made by the organizations of its
funds, but it does not tell what use is condemned. Suppose a fifth
is used for piuposes that are bad, and the rest is used for purposes
entirely loyal. It might involves a member of the organization
subjecting himself to penalties of the act. That might involve.

The fom'th test refers to the extent to which position is taken or
advanced on matters of policy do not deviate from the positions
taken by any Communist political organization. I just do not see
how practically any test of that kind would ever be applied. It would
take a detailed study of all positions taken by the Communist Party,
all positions taken by organizations which is found under the definition
to be a Communist political organization, and a comparison and check
there which would be endless. The fact that the definition and
criteria for both Communist political organizations and Communist
fronts are so vague and hrelevant, and thi'eat of totalitarian dictator-
ship that the Commission coidd requhe registration of ahnost any
organization without discretion.

For example, the Progressive Party, which got about a million
votes last year, could be determined to be Communist political
organization by these tests. It disapproves of the IVIarshall plan,
the Trimian doctrine, aid to Franco Spain, and support of the Chiang
Kai-shek government, opposes compulsory military service. It might
be construed that the taking of these positions to effectuate the
l)olicies of Russia that they were, because the positions happen to
coincide.

As for Communist-front organizations, the power would be there,
and the discretion to include a very large number, if not virtually all
of the labor unions of the country because some of their active members
also may contribute funds who are Communists or members of the
Progressive Party or members of other organizations which are
alleged to be Communist-front organizations.

So we think that the bdl is unconstitutional, to sum up. Sections
5 and 6 of S. 1194 deny the right of employment or holding nonelective
office in the United States, the right to obtain passports merely for
membership in proscribed organizations.

Section 10 makes mere membership a crime under certain conditions,
and in addition to the actual legal penalties, the drastic social and
economic consequences for belonging to a proscribed organization is
very severe. The individuals involved are made second-class citizens
in practical effect. They become branded, and in effect outcasts from
society.

It seems to us that you have here a very clear application of the
unconstitutional doctrine of guilt by association, and under our law
guilt is personal. Our courts have recognized that members of organ-
izations notoriously do not adhere to all of the tenets of the organiza-
tion.

Then organizations may be for all practical purposes completely
destroyed by members subjected to legal, social, and economic be-
cause of views, regardless of how peaceable their conduct may be.

Thus it seems to us that the first amendment, which guarantees
freedom of speech and assembly is clearly violated.

The registration standards impose punishment upon organizations
on the basis of vague standards which we think violate the due process
clause of the fifth amendment.

138 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Then the mere fact of registration by an organization may invite
tlie prosecution of its members under section 4 (a). Hence, you have
a requirement, the requirement of registration in effect compels self-
incrimination, in violation of the fifth amendment.

Again, I would like to refer to Mr. Hughes' statement last year in
last year's record. He said, and I quote him:

In my judgment, the definitions in section 3 of the organizations against which
organs, the members of which the sections are directed are permeated with even
greater vagueness and ambiguity than those of section 4.

And Mr. John W. Davis expressed a similar view.

A special observation should be made with respect to the provisions
of section 11. It seems to us you have a clear abridgment of freedom
of speech and of the press, since you reqiiire all speeches and writings
to be invidiously labeled regardless of what their content may be,
merely because the organization which communicates them has been
brought within the ban. It seems clear that that is an abridgment
of the Constitution safeguards of speech and the press, not only
against denial but against any kind of abridgment. Certainly no
periodical could be expected to obtain mail subscribers if it con-
tained — if it was enclosed in a wrapper which labeled it vu"taally as a
treasonable document.

We think too that this legislation is wholly unnecessary. There are
many statutes already on the books which we feel are more than ade-
quate to deal with the problem. I referred earlier to the registration
provisions of the Voorhees Act which is section 2386 of title 18 of the
United States Code, but we have innumerable statutes dealing with
these problems. Senator Johnston, I believe, said we had no peace-
time espionage statute. We have chapter 37 of the United States
Code, sections 791 through 797 of title 18 that deal with espionage.
Maybe those laws should be tightened up. I have no suggestion about
what should be done in that line, but it seems to me that the appro-
priate way to deal with the problem of espionage would be under the
espionage statute.

Senator O'Conor. I might say that the Senate just by that signal
has gone into session. I wonder with your statement so carefully
prepared — it does show a great deal of work — and whether you would
desire to file the rest, or would you desire to return?

Mr. DuRR. I don't want to impose on yom- time, and I am perfectly
agreeable, unless you have questions, to putting the rest of this into
the record.

Senator O'Conor. We want to afford you every opportunity you
wish. It is very obvious you have given a lot of time and thought to
the information, for which we are thankful, and I assure you that it
will be read and included in the record, if that is agreeable to your
wishes.

Mr. Durr. If I may, I would like to state my own personal basic
phUoso]:>hy behind this biU. I feel very strongly that the guaranties
of our BiU of Rights are essential to the functioning of om- whole form
of government. Our form of government is based upon certain
premises, and I think one of the basic premises is confidence in people,
in their ability to deal with ideas, to discuss ideas, and to work out
their own destiny, provided only they are given full access to all infor-
mation and ideas so that they can make a choice. They are given

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 139

freedom to assemble, and to vote, so that tliey might make their
choices or some synthesis of their choice effective.

It seems to me" if jQii reject that premise, you reject our form of
government, and you are in danger of moving into something else.
Our form of governriient is a goveriunent of risk, and you place a
gamble on this idea that if people are given free access to ideas and
information, why, they can work it out. You cannot very v.^ell sepa-
rate the good and bad and apply those principles. It is a gamble.
It is a government-calculated risk, as I say, in that respect, and we
either take those risks, or we don't have that particular form of gov-
ernment. We move into something else and something that I would
not like to see us move into.

There is always the temptation to tear down these safeguards a
little bit to get at some individual or some group or idea that we don't
like. It seems particularly abhorrent at the particular time, but when
once you do that, then you expose everybody, the barriers are down,
and you can't let it down for some ideas and keep it up for others very
effectively.

We have had these periods when we did get very concerned about it,
a period of the alien sedition laws, coming along in the late nineties.
We were very much concerned with the French Revolution. Napoleon
was demonstrating his military genius and his lust for conquest, and
we got pretty disturbed when we had the alien sedition laws, and we
got over that period. And then we had it following World War I.
People fomid it quite difficult to make distinctions between Com-
munists, anarchists, Socialists, and even labor unions, because in
many parts of the country labor vf as a new idea — ^labor organizations,
that is — and people were getting petty excited about it, and there
were some pretty cruel things done during that period, and a lot of
suppression. We came tlu'ough that again.

I am just afraid that we may be moving into the same kind of thing.
I think that our basic American idea is strong enough and powerful
enough to do more than hold its o^vn in the market place. I think
that when people violate the law and resort to methods other than
speech arid exchange of ideas, then they ought to be tried under the
legal procedures laid down by our Constitution.

Senator O'Conor. You have stated that clearly to us, and we
certainly have your opinion on that.

Mr. DuRR. That is the only effective wa}^ of getting at these
things — in a court trial, subject to all of the constitutional safeguards.

Senator O'Conor. Thank you very much. We certainly under-
stand your views, because you have stated that before and very
clearly!^ We shall insert your entire paper in the record at this point.

(The statement is as follows:)

Statement of Clifford J. Durr, President of the National Lawyers Guild,
ON the Mundt-Fergtjson Bills (S. 1194 and S. 1196)

My name is ClifTord J. Durr. I am an attorne\- admitted to the bars of Alabama,
Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. Until June 30, 1948, I was a member of
the Federal Communications Commission. At the time of my appointment to
the Commission by President Roosevelt I was an assistant general counsel of
RFC and general counsel of Defense Plants Corporation.

I am president of the National Lawyers Guild and appear here on behalf of that
association.

The National Lawyers Guild is opposed to the passage of these bills because it
regards them as dangerous and far-reaching encroachments on the fundamental

140 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

liberties of the American people, including freedom of speech, press, assembly,
and the guaranty against punishment without the due process of law. It believes
that these bills if enacted will go far toward destroying the very foundations of
our democratic system.

The proponents of S. 1194 and S. 1196 assert that, the bills do not infringe
constitutional liberties. They make two basic representations concerning them:

First, they say that the bills do not restrict any person's right to speak or
assemble as he pleases; that they merely require him to disclose his identity and
to speak and assemble under his true colors. It is claimed that they outlaw no
organization.

Secondly, they say that the bills apply only to persons or groups seeking to
establish in this country a "totalitarian dictatorship" controlled by a foreign
government or "the international Communist movement," described in section 2
of the bill.

The provisions of the bills, however, contradict these assertions. This we shall
demonstrate by examining in considerable detail the provisions of Senator Mundt's
bUl, S. 1194. Senator Ferguson's bill, S. 1196, is so nearly identical that the
same observations will have general application to his bill as well.

UNLAWFUL AGREEMENTS

Section 4 (a) of the bill makes it unlawful for persons knowlingly to conspire or
agree "to perform any act which would sUbstantilly facilitate or aid in the estab-
lishment within the United States of 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."
"Totalitarian dictatorship" is defined as a nonrepresentative form of government
characterized by the existence of a single political party, which is for all practical
purposes identical with the government, all other i^arties b=^ing prohibited.'

The crime created by this subsection doe? not, as in the usual case of conspira-
cies, require an overt act, but only an agreement to perform an overt act. The
punishable agreement extends .lot to an agreement to establish, or even to facili-
tate, a totalitarian dictatorship itself, but only an agreement to perform an act
which substantially facilitate j or aids the establishment of such a dictatorship.

In short, this subsection would punish a person for conduct which was not
intentionally in aid of totalitarian dictatorship and which would not involve
otherwise unlawful conduct, if only a court should find that an innocently done
act in fact contributes to the establishment of the dictatorship. There is no
requirement of the use or agreement to use or even of advocacy of any unlawful
means to facilitate a dictatorship. All that need be shown is that two or more
people agree to do something which a court might find aids substantially in the
result.

The phrase "any act which would substantially facilitate or aid" is without
clear meaning. We do not Ijelieve that an average citizen could know what acts
or agreements the courts might say would come within the meaning of that phrase.
How"ever, in the light of the bill's preamble and the definitions in section 3, it
jeems clear that one objective of this subsection is to punish cooperation or agree-
ments to cooperate in any way with the Communist Party, or any other group
which may be subject to the provisions of this bill. By the bill's definitions in
sections 2 and 3, the Communist Party and the other proscribed groups seek to
establish a totalitarian dictatorship 'n the United State or functioia primarily to
that end. Hence any cooperation with them in furtherance of common objectives,
including acts which are constitutionally protected, is readily construable as an
act or agreement to commit an act which "would substantially facilitate or aid"
the establishment of a dictatorship.

The subsection, then, under its comprehensive wording and its apparent
objectivr would threaten criminal puni hment for, say, agreement-^ or cooperation
with the prosciibed groups to support common candidates for oflice, to join in
demonstrations or picketing activities, or to support defense activities in legal
cases, as for instance, the current trial of the Communist leaders. In addition
to thus including within its scope the activities of non-Commimists, it even more
clearly encompasses the activities of Communists no matter how innocuous.
Members of the Communist Party by merely agreeing to pay dues, to solicit
subscriptions to the Daily Worker and other Communist periodicals, to meet

• The Ferguson bill omits the words "or agree." However, there is no real difference between "agreeing'
and "conspiring" in the context of this sction. The word "conspire" means merely plot or scheme or
agree.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 141

with each other, to hold mass meetings and the hke could by such activities subject
themselves to the reach of the subsection.

Unless the first amendment of the Constitution is to be reduced to a mockery,
these activities must be protected. Under the bill, however, they carry punish-
ment up to 10 years' imprisonment and a fine up to $10,000, together with the
denial under subsection (c) of the right to hold public office or any position of
trust or profit created by the laws of the United States.

This subsection also contains words other than "substantially facilitates or
aids," which have no clearly defined meaning, such as "direction and control of
which is to be vested in, or exercised by or under the domination or control
Qf * * * " What are the exact boundaries of the term "representative form of
government"? What does "characterized by" mean? Must the form of govern-
ment advocated have all of the three characteristics of "totalitarian dictatorship"
as that term is defined in section 3, or will it be sufficient if only one or two of
these characteristics are indicated?

The present subsection is in our opinion more oppressive than the ocrrespoad-
ing provision of last year's Mundt bill (H. R. 5852). Last year the same numbered
subsection had four parts. The second standard of the former section 4 (a) was
"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 dic-
tatorship." This provision is identical with the present clause except that now
S. 1194, in contradistinction to S. 1196, requires no proof of intent. Thus greater
proof was required under section 4 (a) of the former bill than under S. 1194.

In the light of the foregoing analysis, subsection 4 (a) is unconstitutional for
the following reasons:

1. Under the guise of punishing attempts to establish a totalitarian dictatorship
in the United States dominated from abroad, it permits the punishment of peacefiil
advocacy and assembly as distinguished from acts and incitements threatening
the immediate destruction of our Government. Accordingly, it violates the first-
amendment, which denies to Congress the power to make any law abridging
freedom of speech or assembh".

2. It violates the due process clause of the fifth amendment because it defines
a crime in terms so vague and indefinite that an ordinary citizen cannot know
from reading it what conduct is prohibited.

Last year the Senate Judiciary Committee called upon three distinguished
lawvers,' recognized by the committee as experts in constitutional law, for their
opinion of the constitutionality of last year's Mundt-Nixon bill. I understand
that Senator Mundt has testified before this committee that their objections to
the bill had been met in S. 1194. We have already shown that no material change,
except for the worse, has been made in subsection 4 (a). Here is what these three
experts said of that subsection of the old bill:

Charles Evans Hughes, Jr., said:

"The question of the validity of this bill turns principally on that of its com-
patibilitv with the first and fifth amendments to the Constitution.

"In niv opinion, section 4 of the bill offends both of these princples. That sec-
tion 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.
Manifest! V, this would include attempts to bring about such result by expression
of opinions through speech or publication, or by participation in peaceable assem-
blies, designed to bring about changes in the Government through orderly proc-
esses of amendment of the Constitution. Statues which spread as wide a net
as that violate the first amendment {Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359 (1391);
Hemdon v. Lowry, 301 U. S. 242, 249-250, 255, 260-261 (1937). See Schneiderman
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 * * * 'vested in, or
exercised bv or under the domination or control of, any foreign government,
foreign organization, or foreign individual,' and 'any movement.' Interpretation
of these phrases receives onlv the slightest aid from the legislative declarations in
section 2, because the latter relate to a particular 'Communist totalitarian dic-
tatorship' and to a 'wond Communist movement,' whereas .section 4 denounces
attempts to establish any totalitarian dictatorship controlled by 'any' foreign

93357 — 49 10

142 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

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" (p. 416 of hearings on H. R.
5852 j.

Attorney General Tom C. Clark said:

"From the language of the bill, it appears uncertain whether mere membership
in a Communist organization as defined in section 3 would constitute a violation
of section 4. The priiicijilc that a criminal statute must be definite and certain
in its meaning and application is well established; a principle which may not be
satisfied bv the definitions and criteria of the bill {Connally v. General Conslruclion
Company (269 U. S. 385); Lanzetta v. New Jersey (306 U. S. 451).

"It is also doubtful Avhether 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. Manley v. State of Georgia (279 U, S. 1 (1929)"
(p. 424 of hearings on H. R. 5852).

John W. Davis said:

"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 anv 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. * * * 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 amend-
ment changing the form of government would be such an act as paragraph (2)
envisages, it is at once apparent that constitutional questions based on the first
amendment would be presented.

"It ma}' well be that some or all of the evils with which the bill ]nirports to deal
are not susceptible of more precise description. But that which cannot be
defined cannot be criminally punished under our conception of law." (P. 421 of
hearings on H. R. 5852.)

While I do not know whether Seth Richardson, president of the Loyalty Review
Board in the Civil Service Commission, was so honored by the committee's
request, his objections to this subsection should be interesting to this committee.
He said: "I am inclined to the view that before section 4 of the act can be deemed
a proper exercise of the pov.'er of the Congress to protect the country against
threatened danger, the bill should provide that efi'orts to establish a totalitarian
dictatorship must be accompanied by force and violence and by unconstitutional
procedures." (P. 444 of hearings on H. R. 5852.)

It therefore seems perfectly apparent that, despite the contrary contentions of
the sponsors of these bills, section 4 (a) is at least as unconstitutional now as it was
a year ago.

UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Section 4 (b) relates to the unauthorized communication by officers or employees
of the Government of classified information. Except for the proposal contained
therein to abolish the statute of limitations, we find nothmg seriously objectionable
in this subsection. However, w^e cannot see any valid reason for mcluding such
a provision relating to espionage, in this bill which has no connection whatever
with that subject matter. If revisions are needed in the espionage laws, they
should be made within the context of sections 793-797 of title 18 of the United
States Code. While we do not express here any opinion on the merits of the
revisions to those sections proposed by the Attorney General and contained in
S. 595, which I understand has already been reported favorably by this commit-
tee, with certaiii amendments, it presumably contains the revisions of the espionage
laws which the whole Judiciary Committee thought necessary or appropriate.
Certainly there can be no justification for eliminating the statute of limitations.
However, I will not discuss this provision as I understand youl* committee has
already indicated its disapproval of this harsh clause.

THE REGISTRATION PROVISIONS

Although section 4 is highly objectionable, the major vice of these bills lies in
the remainder of their text, which deals with the registration of organizations and
individuals.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 143

It is apparent that registration carries with it severe consequences for the
organization which has registered and for its members and supporters. Some of
these consequences are expressly pro^•ided for in the bill itself. Thus an organi-
zation which is required to register must, under pain of severe penalties, publicly
divulge its members and financial affairs. Its literature and radio and television
broadcasts must, under section 11, be invidiously labeled. The organizations
are denied tax exemptions and contributions to them are not tax deductible
(sec. 12). Members of organizations ordered to register as "Communist political
organizations" have additional disabilities. Thus they maj' not hold nonelective
Federal office, must reveal their membership when seeking elective Federal office,
and cannot obtain passports (sees. 5 and 6).

But these disabilities, severe as they are, are mild compared to the unexpressed
social and economic consequences which will befall the members of a registered
organization. A registered organization is, vmder the bill's definition, conspira-
torial, disloyal, and seditious. Obviously any organization which either volun-
tarily publicly describes itself in such terms, or is so described by governmental
(including judicial) action, is subject to intense public odium, as are those persons
hardy enough to remain members therein.

It is perfectly apparent therefore, that no organization can or will voluntarily
register under these provisions. Attorney General Clark pointed this out. He
said: "It can be assumed that no organization would confess guilt by registra-
tion * * *" (p. 424, hearings on H. R. 5852). The simple fact is that the
mere act of registration would cause an organization either to disappear or to
become an illegal, "underground" society. No organization could retain open
membership and support if it either voluntarily registered or was ordered to do
so by official governmental action requiring disclosure of its membership. Its
officers, members, and contributors must either depart from the organization or
be subject to the most onerous, and increasingly familiar sanctions of public
odium, including loss of employment, social stigmatization, expulsion from "legit-
imate" organizations, and perhaps mob violence. Even registration would not
wholly save the victims because the names must be filed of all those who were
members at any time in the preceding year. What is more, they may all be
subjects for prosecution under section 4 (a) of the bill. (See the Attorney General's
Opinion to the same effect, p. 423 of hearings.)

Accordingly, the sponsors of the bills misstate the case when they assert that
the bill merely performs disclosure functions, and does not outlaw any organiza-
tion. The fact is that the bills envisage not that any organization will register,
but rather that individuals will be relentlessly prosecuted for belonging to organ-
izations which have failed to register.

The bill then, effectively outlaws organizations within its scope. Our next
point is that this scope is unconscionably broad and vague, that it includes
organizations who merely exercise constitutional rights, and that its standards are
irrelevant to the opprobrious conclusions on the basis of which registration is
required.

Let us examine the scope of the bill — that is, its definitions of "Communist
political" and "Communist-front organizations."

It is apparent that the general definition of "Communist political organiza-
tion," contained in section 3 (3) is vague. It refers first, to an organization which
has "some, but not necessarily all, of the ordinary and usual characteristics of a
political party." But what such characteristics are, and how many are "some",
is neither explained nor self-explanatory. It is, w^e assume, an "ordinary and
usual characteristic" of a political party that it has a treasury and distributes
literature, but so does virtually every organization of any kind. In addition, the
terms "dominated or controlled by'" and "operates primarily to advance the
objectives" of the "world Communist movement" are obviously vague, as is the
definition of those objectives in section 2.

The vagueness of this general definition is aggravated, rather than removed, by
the eight criteria given for its application in section 14 (e). First of all, there is
no indication as to liow many of these criteria must be present to support a find-
ing that the definition is met. Secondly, each of the criteria begins with the
words "the extent to which," without any indication of the extent which is to be
deemed significant. Thirdly, most of the criteria have no relevance to the general
definition, vague as it is. Fourthly, the criteria themselves employ many vague
terms of no defined or commonly understood meaning.

Thus the first criterion refers expressly to the formulation and carrying out of
the policies and activities of the o:'ganizations.' Clearly, therefore the mere

2 This subsection i£ identical with the former sec. 3 (3) (B).

144 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

expression of ideas comes within the criterion, if they are found to have been
formulated and carried out to "effectuate the pohcies of the foreign government"
or organization referred to in section 2. Tlae phrase "to effectuate the policies"
is a most elastic concept. Since there is no requirement of showing of intent,
presumably the purpose may be inferred from the character of the policies carried
out. In that case, the first test would be substantially indistinguishable from the
second test, discussed immediately below and subject to the same objections.
]\Ioreover, the policies being "effectuated" may have no connection whatever
with the objectives of the "world Communist movement' referred to in section
2, and indeed may liave no relevance to the establishment of "totalitarian dictator-
ship" in this country.

The second criterion expressly makes "views and policies" a test which, of
course, refers to ideas and expressions. "^ This criterion contains no requirement
whatever that a totalitarian dictatorship inider foreign control shall be advocated.
There is no indication of what views and policies are to be deemed significant.
In any case, the section abandons the traditional American creed that ideas are
to be tested on their merits, in favor of the notion that they are to be spurned
because of a governmental attitude toward others who may advocate the same
views.

The third criterion, relating to the extent to which the organization "receives
financial or other aid, directly or indirectly, from or at the direction of such
foreign government or foreign organization," * again has no necessary relevance to
the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship under foreign domination. The
reference to the receipt of "aid, indirectly" is obviously a loose standard. An
organization may not even know that it is "indirectly aided" by a foreign source.
Moreover, the whole organization and its membership is penalized because support
in an unspecified amount comes to it indirectly, and possibly for perfectly laudable
purposes, from the source mentioned. If an organization includes among its
members Communists or members of other proscribed groups, it could, under the
loose definitions in sections 2 and 3, be said to receive support indirectly from a
foreign group. This criterion thus is subject to the same objections mentioned
below in connection with subsection 6.

The fourth criterion which relates to the organization's sending of representa-
tives to any foreign country for instruction or training in the principles of "the
world Communist movement," ^ imjDOses penalties merely for taking steps to
secure information concerning political and economic ideas which are prevalent
in large parts of the world. It thus has the noxious effect of stigmatizing educa-
tional efforts. If an organization sends or authorizes a delegate to attend any
foreign or international conference, and Communists take part therein, it might
be held that the delegates were sent for the prohibited purpose. And this is true
even though the "instruction" received is wholly unrelated to the establishment
of a totalitarian dictatorship in this country.

The fifth criterion is the extent to which the organization "reports" to the foreign
government or organization.^ A mere exchange of communications, no matter
how innocuous, can be construed as reporting. Furthermore, the reporting may
have no connection with the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship in this
country. Presumablj^ the reading of a resolution or report at an international
conference in which foreign Communists participate could be construed as falling
within this test.

The sixth test is "the extent to which [the organization's] 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."^
It is not explained who qualifies as a "principal" leader, or how many is a "sub-
stantial" number. What is the meaning of the terms "subject to" and "recognize"
the disciplinary power of such foreign government?" These are words with no
clear meaning. It is not apparent how such criteria could prove that the organ-
ization as a whole is controlled by the foreign government or movement, and
"operates primarily to advance the objectives of the world Communist move-
ment"? Some labor unions have democratically elected Communist leaders, and

3 In the old bi'.l the corresponding test (3-3(c)) was the "extent to which they are the same as those of such
foreign government or foreign organization." The current bill refers to "the extent to which its views and
policies do not deviate from those of the foreign government or movement. We see no distinction between
the two versions.

* This test is identical with the old sec. 3 (3) (E).

5 This test is identical with the former sec. 3 (3) (F).

9 This test is identical with the former 3 (3) (O).

7 The same as the former 3 (3) (H) excejit that the word "principal" is now inserted before the word
"leaders" in the former bills and the words "a substantial number of its" are inserted before the word
"members."

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 145

some may include a substantial number of Communist members. In view of the
bill's "finding" in section 2 (5) this fact, in itself, would under the sixth test
proscribe the union even though neither it nor its leaders have done anything
related to the establishment of a dictatorship. It is equally clear that a majority
of the members of a group may be branded as foreign agents under this test
merely because of the way a minority of their group are alleged to feel about a
foreign Government or mo\^ment. This is guilt by association with a vengeance.

The seventh test has to do with the extent of the resistance or failure of a group
to make disclosure of its membership lists, records or other information, the
extent to which its members (in unspecified number) refuse to reveal their mem-
bership, and the extent to which meetings or other functions are secret.^ Certainly
under this section it is unnecessary to prove any action toward subordinating our
Government to any other, or that the organization operates in any way to advance
the objectives of anj^ foreign government or movement described in section 2.
Most trade-unions have opposed disclosure of their membership lists and financial
or other records. In some parts of our country to be known as a member of a
trade-union, or of the XAACP, or of the Progressive Party is to be visited with
social ostracism, loss of employment, and even physical violence. Everywhere,
to be known as a Communist, even though the Communist Party is a legal organ-
ization in the United States, is to meet severe penalties, usually involving at the
least, the loss of the means of earning a livelihood. Failure or refusal to make a
disclosure is thus explicable merely by the natural interest in self-preservation.
It has no logical or reasonable connection with foreign domination.

It is very common for all kinds of groups to exclude nonmembers from their
meetings on certain occasions. Are these secret meetings? For the same reasons
that membership lists are not disclosed, meetings of members are often not dis-
closed. But we cannot see how the effort to avoid the consequences of commu-
nity intoleraiice, which usually meets those who support unpopular causes, shows
foreign domination. Accordingly, to permit a finding of such foreign domination
h)ased upon such "evidence" is to violate the most elementary principles of justice
and due process of law, and to subject lawful groups to suppression for the mere
exercise of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

The eighth and last test relates to the extent to which some leaders or members
of the organization subordinate their allegiance to the United States.* The
terms "allegiance" and "as subordinate to their obligations, etc.," are most
indefinite, and can be measured only by purely subjective standards. For
example the Commission might consider that a person has subordinated his
allegiance simply because he believes that a particular policy of a foreign govern-
ment like opposition to the Marshall plan and the North Aila-itic Pact, is more
conducive to world peace and is therefore preferable to the policy of our State
Department. If that could be deenied proof of superior allegiance to a foreign
government, this provision is substantially indistinguishable from subsection (6)
discussed above, and is therefore subject to the same objections. In any case an
organization could be branded as a foreign agent, and part of an international
criminal conspiracy, merely because some of its principal leaders and a minority
of its members are found to have certain feelings regarding a foreign government
or movement, although no act has been performed or even any view expressed
which is logically or reasonably germane to the finding to be made.

The definition of a "Communist front organization" in section 3 (4) is no more
satisfactory. It includes an organization which is controlled by or operated
primarily for the support of a "Communist political organization." Accordingly,
all the objections to the vagueness, irrelevancy and scope of the definition a
"Communist political organization" are automatically carried over to the defini-
tion of "Communist front organization." The specific criteria which are to be
considered by the Commission do not remedy the faults of this general definition.

Four criteria for determining that a group falls under this definition are set out
in section 14 (f).i° None of these four tests has any necessary connection with
domination by a foreign government or the world Communist movement since a
finding of "control" by an organization found to be a "Communist political
organization" is all that is required.

The first of these tests relates to the "identity" of active members. It does
not say what characteristics of the members are to be taken into account, or how

8 This is identical with the former 3 (3) (I).

' This corresponds to the former 3 (3) (J) . The only change is the samei change made in subsec. 6, discussed
above.

10 The first three are identical with the first three criteria used in last year's bill (sec. 3 (4) (A) (B) and (C)).
The fourth criterion is identical with the former (D) except that the words "does not deviate from" are
substituted for "the same as." We have already seen that there is no difference between these two phrases.

146 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

many of those active in the organization must be "bad people." What is the
meaning of the term, "active in its management," especially' as the people in-
volved need not hold any office in the organization, according to the test? Again
it is clear that the group is to be stigmatized because of the associations or views
of a few ac'tive people who are not to the liking of a commission. Freedom of
speech and association is thus abridged and the doctrine of guilt by association
s applied. It is impossible to see how this test bears any necessary relation to
domination by a "Communist political association" or t?ie "world Communist
movement."

The second test relates to the sources from which an "important part of the
organization's support, financial or otherwise, is. derived." What sources of
support are deemed significant? How much is an important part? \^'hat is the
meaning of support other than financial? There is no reciuiremtnt that it be
shown that the group knew that the support W8.s coming from the unspecified
"bad" source, or that the group shall have done any act logically indicating
support for a "Communist political association" or the "world Communist
movement."

The third test refers to "the use made by the organization of its funds, resources,
or personnel."

What use is to be condemned? Suppose it uses one-fiftieth part of its resources
for purposes deemed "bad," is that enough? Clearly, the use can be and un-
doubtedly is primarily the facilitation of the expression of views, and the organi-
zation of meetings and publi -ations and broadcasts to express views. Accordinglj',
in addition to extraordinary vagueness, the penalties provided may attach merely
for exercise of speech, press, and assembly.

The fourth test, referring to the extent to which the position taken or advanced
* * * on matters of policj' does not deviate from the position taken by any
"Communist political organization" is identical with subsection 14 \e) (2) dis-
cussed above except for the substitution of the words "Communist political organ-
ization," for the words "such foreign government or organization," and subject to
the same objections.

The fact is that the definitions and criteria for both "Communist political
organizations" and "Communist fronts" are so vague and irrelevant to any threat
of totalitarian dictatorshij:) that the Commission could require registration of
almost any organization in its virtually unfettered discretion.

For example, the Progressive Party, which obtained more than a million votes
in the last election, could readily be determined to be a "Communist political
organization" by these tests. Because it disapproves of the Marshall plan, the
Truman Doctrine, aid to Franco Spain, aid to Chiang Kai-shek, compulsory
military service, et ;., the Commission could, if it desired to do so find that its
policies and activities "effectuate the policies" of Russia and that its "views and
policies do not deviate" to a sufficient extent from those of Russia. In addition,
the Commission could find that some of its leaders and a "substantial number" of
its members are Communists (and thus, by the "findings" in sec. 2 (5) and 2 (9)
are persons who recognize th(j "disciplinary power" of Russian Communists or
who owe Russia a "superior allegiance"). Furthermore, the Progressive Party
would undoubtedly resist, for purposes of self-preservation, efforts to obtain
information as to its membership, and very likely some members of that party
(like members of the Democratic or Republican Party) often meet in closed,
unpublicized ("secret") meethigs.

As for Communist fronts, these can include virtually all labor unions and pro-
gressive organizations, because for example, some of their active members who
may also contribute funds, are Communists or members of the Progressive Party
(already shown to be a likely candidate for designation as a Communist political
organization). They may take policy positions which do not deviate from
certain policies of the Communist or Progressive Party.

The foregoing analysis demonstrates that the registration provisions of the
bill are unconstitutional for the following reasons:

1. Sections 5 and 6 of S. 1194 deny the right of employment or of holding non-
elective office under the United States and the right to obtain passports, merely
for membership in a "Communist political organization." Section 10 makes
mere membership in such organization a crime under certain conditions. These
penalties and the drastic social and economic conseciuences of belonging to a
prosecuted organization apply without regard to any action, fault or wrongful
intent on the part of the individual. The individuals affected are thus made
second-class citizens. They are branded and made to suffer disabilities on the
assumption that they are agents of a foreign government or political group,
although not the slightest proof is required that in fact they are anything of the

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 147

kind. This is the clearest application of the unconstitutional doctrine of guilt by-
association. Under our law, guilt is personal, and our courts have recognized that
members of an organization notoriously do not adhere to all of its tenets.

2. Organizations may be destroyed and their members subjected to legal social
and economic disabilities merely because of the views thej^ advocate, regardless of
how peaceable their conduct. Thus the first amendment, which guarantees
freedom of speech and assembly is violated.

3. Registiation imposes severe punishment on the organizations and their
members. This punishment is imposed en the basis of vague standards, and hence
violates the due process clause of the fiftli amendment.

4. Registration ma}- readily subject the organization and its members to
prosecution under section 4 (a). Hence, the requirement of registration compels
self-incrimination in violation of the fifth amendment.

Our views as to the unconstitutionality of these bills are supported by the
opinion of the lawyers whom this committee last year recognized ls constitutional
experts. Their comments were made with respect to H. I>. 5852, but these bills
have not removed the defects they noted. We have already indicated the incon-
sequential changes made in section 14. The other changes ii are equally without
significance in relation to the constitutional questions involved.

Charles Evans Hughes foimd the criteria for determining "Communist organi-
zations" in sec. 3 of the old Mundt bill (now contained in sec. 3 and 14) to be
clearly unconstitutional for vagueness. He said:

"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 ambiguitv than are those of section
4." (P. 417 of hearings on H. R. 5852.)

John W. Davis expressed a similar view. He said:

"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 thinii that because of its indeP.nite-
ness and uncertainty the bill fails to meet the constitutional requirement of due
process.

"Section 3 purports to define 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 themselves vague and uncertain
that uncertainty must vitiate the act throughout." (P. 420 of hearings on
H. R. 5852.)

There follows a detailed analysis of each of the criteria for determining which
organizations must register, after whicli Mr. Davis concluded:

"I cannot withhold the opinion which I have above expressed, namely that
H. R. 5852 is violative of the Constitution * * *." (P. 421 of hearings on
H. R. 5852.)

A special observation should be made with respect to the provisions of section
11. This section is a clear abridgment of freedom of speech and of the press since
it requires speech and writings to be invidiously labeled regardless of their con-
tents merely because the organization which communicates them has incurred
governmental displeasure. It is obvious that the labeling requirement is an
effective restraint on the dissemination of information. Thus no periodical
could expect to obtain mail subscribers if it is contained in a v^rapper which
labels it as a virtualh' treasonable document.

Concerning this section, Charles Evan-S Hughes had the following comment:

"There is a separate constitutional question as to whether section 11 of the bill
is an abridgment of freedoin of speech and of the press in violation of the first
amendment.

* * * ^ :ii * H=

"There is no question of vagueness or indefiuiteness here, because the section
applies only to an organization which is registered or as to which there is in effect

" Former sec. 5, relating to loss of citizenship by persons violating sec. 4, has been omitted. Sec. 8
of the present bill, providing for the registration of members of "Commimist political organizations" is new,
but it is subject to the same objections as are applicable to sec. 7 providing for the registration of organizations
and hence requires no separate treatment.

Apart from the foregoing omission and r.ddition to the old bill, the principal changes effected arc that the
determination as to those who are obliged to register under the bill is now to be made by a Commission of
three rather than by the Attorney General; the penalties and obligations now arise only after a final order
has been made by the Commission, and, in the case of penalties applicable to members, the order must be-
known to the individuals concerned.

148 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

a final order of the Attorney General requiring it to register. But there may well
be a question whether under Thomas B. Collins (323 U. S. 516 (1945), supra)
such a requirement is not an undue abridgment, Ijccause 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. With respect to 'Communist-front organizations,' which might, within
the definition, exist chiefly for relief or other humanitarian purposes, the obliga-
tion to label themselves as 'Communist organizations' appears particularly
onerous." (P. 419 of hearings on H. R. 5852.)

Indeed the entire principle of requiring registration as a condition to the exer-
cise of freedom of speech or assembly even when done only for the purpose of
identification without invidious characterization is violative of the Bill of Rights.
As the Supreme Court said in Thomas v. Collins (323 U. S. 516), "As a matter of
principle a requirement of registration in order to make a public speech would
seem generally incompatible with an exercise of free speech and free assembl}'."

THIS LEGISLATION IS UNNECESSARY

What is the justification offered for the introduction of these repressive bills?
It is said that such legislation is needed "to preserve the sovereignty of the United
States" (sec. 2 (11)).

If, as the preamble to the bill claims, there exists a conspiracy in this country
seeking to destroy our national security and subject us to a foreign dictatorship,
then such activity can be prosecuted under existing criminal legislation, which is
adequate for that purpose. Aside from numerous State statutes, there are
Federal criminal statutes which punish the following activities among others:

Acting as agent of a foreign government without notification to the Secretary
of State (18 U. S. C, sec. 951) ; private correspondence with foreign government
with intent to influence relations with the United States or to defeat measures of
the United States (18 U. S. C, sec. 953); possession of property in aid of foreign
government for use in violating any penal statute or treaty rights of the United
States (18 U. S. C. sec. 957); espionage activities (18 U. S. C. sees. 793-797); in-
citing or aiding rebellion or insurrection (18 U. S. C, sec. 2383); seditions con-
spiracy (18 U. S. C. sec. 2384) ; advocating overthrow of the government bv force
(18 U. S. C. sec. 2385); treason (18 U. S. C. sec. 2381); misprision of treason (18
U. S. C. sec. 2382); undermining lovalty, discipline or morale of armed forces (18
U. S. C. sec. 2387); sabotage (18 U. S. C. sees. 2151 2156) ; importing literature ad-
vocating treason, insurrection or forcible resistance to any Federal law (18 U. S. C.
sec. 552); injuring Federal property or communications (18 U. S. C, sec. 1361);
conspiracy against the constitutional rights of citizens (18 U. S. C. sec. 371); con-
spiracy to impede discharge of Federal officer's duties (18 U. S. C. sec. 372).

In addition, organizations engaged in civilian military activity, subject to for-
eign control, affiliated with a foreign government, or seeking to overthrow the
Government by force, are subject to registration requirements under the Voorhis
Act (18 U. S. C. 2386). While some of these acts would punish mere advocacy
of ideas and are, therefore, unconstitutional, they do not differ in that respect
from this proposed bill. If some of these acts have technical deficiencies these
can be remedied by technical amendments. ^^

The purpose and effect of the Mundt-Nixon bill, however, is not to avert danger
to our Government and democratic institutions. Instead, it is, as appears from the.
foregoing analysis, designed to suppress or punish dissenting political expression
or assembly under the pretext that such expression or assembly constitutes a con-
spiracy to establish a totalitarian dictatorship under foreign control. This pur-
pose the bill would accomplish by permitting an administrative determination of
a treasonable status on the basis of standards and proofs which are relevant not to
treasonable activities but to the expression of dissenting opinion.

ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS AND COURT REVIEW

We have shown that the condemnation of an organization imder the provisions
of this bill is tantamount to destruction. It is also true that a finding that an
organization must register is equivalent to conviction for "special types of odious
and dangerous crimes." U. S. v. Lovett (328 U. S. at 216). Yet under the pro-
visions of this bill condemnation would result from the finding of a mere commis-
sion composed of political appointees. Thus the requirement of judicially compe-

'2 Last year the Attorney General suggested certain technical revisions which this year were embodied in
S. 595. He then said: "I do not believe that sweeping new legislation is required." (P. 424 of hearings.)

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 149

tent proof beyond a reasonable doubt before a court of law and an impartial jury,
which is essential under our judicial system for even the most innocuous mis-
demeanors, would be avoided in cases involving thousands of individuals, perhaps
hundreds of organizations, and their fundamental civil liberties.

The fact that court review is available for the Commission's findings does not
mitigate the vices inherent in the bill. If the standards are vague and improper
for the purpose of administrative determinations, then the same standards are
vague and improper for the purpose of judicial review. Furthermore, the Com-
mission's findings of fact are conclusive if svipported by a preponderance of the
evidence (substantial evidence only under the Ferguson bill) .

THE BILLS THREATEN .SELF-GOVEBXMENT

It is the essence of our democracy that the people shall govern themselves.
Their only hope of doing so wisely lies in the collective wisdom derived from the
fullest possible information, and the fair presentation of differing opinions. With-
out such information our people cannot find their way intelligently to the policies
and candidates who suit their wishes and needs and our Government cannot be
made respon,sive to their will.

Because in a democracy the people must have the right to choo.se the good from
the bad ideas, no governmental authority "can prescribe what shall be orthodox
in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion." "* * * au-
thoritv * * * if^ to be controlled bv public opinion, not public opinion by
authority" (Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 641, 642). Indeed, the
Supreme Court has said, "The very purpose of the first amendment is to preclude
public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public's mind through regu-
lating press, speech, and religion. In this field every person must be his own
watcliman for truth, because the forefathers did not want any government to
separate the truth from the false for us" (Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. oil, 545).

This freedom to speak, to write, to hear, to choose, without governmental inter-
ference, must carry with it the effective right to persuade to action. "The first
amendment is a charter for government, not for an institution of learning. 'Free
trade in ideas' means free trade in the opportunity to persuade to action, not
merely to describe facts" (Rntledge, J. In Thomas v. Collins, supra, p. 537). And
"freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That v/ould
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." (Jackson J., in Board of
Education v. Barnette, supra, p. 642).

If these democratic principles are to be made effective, the people must be free
to organize into associations, whether political, religious, or economic, without
governmental restraint. For it is only through such associations, that the will
of the people can be brought to bear upon the market place of ideas, and upon the
governmental authorities.

Because these bills would deny that freedom of association and expression to all
■\A-ho fail to meet the criteria of political orthodoxy which they prescribe, the bills
strike at the very foundation of democratic government in the United States.

Adherence to democratic principles has made America great — has made it
possible for our country to progress in the face of gigantic trials and vast changes
in the condition of life in the United States and the rest of the world. Our
national interest, and the welfare of every American, requires that this heritage of
freedom and democracy shall be cherished by us all, and vigilantly safeguarded
against every threatened inroad.

For the reasons we have indicated, we regard these bills as a threat of unprece-
dented magnitude to the most basic essentials of our democratic institutions. For
they sweep within their ambit the liberties of all Americans, making the exercise
of liberty subject to the constant surveillance of a governmental commission
clothed with almost limitless power.

There is a painful incongruity between these bills and the principles of freedom
for which our representatives at the United Nations and in many foreign lands
purportedly stand. We had a leading part in sponsoring the universal declaration
of human rights which has been approved by the General Assembly of the United
Nations. Article 2 of the declaration states: "Everyone is entitled to all the
rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without discrimination of any
kind, such as * * * political or other opinion. * * *" Article 19
declares: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Article 20 provides in part: "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful

150 COXTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

assembly and association." In our view it is inijjossible to square these bills with
our moral obli,<>;ations under the universal declaration of human rights.

If you are not now to take inspiration from the universal declaration we sin-
cerely hope that you will at least take warning of the dangers inherent in these
bills, from another source. The following are some of the laws and decrees en-
acted by the national socialist government of Adolph Hitler:

On July 26. 1933, a law was passed (Reichsgesetzblatt. 1, 538) which provided:
"Conduct violating the duty to loyalty against the Reich and People will be found
particularly if a German assists in the hostile against Germany or if he has tried
to insult the prestige of the measures of the National Government."

On May 26, 1933. the following law (Reichsgesetzblatt, 1, 293) was passed:
"Section 1:1. The supremo authorities of the State 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 organizations, as
well as the property and rights used or destined for the advancement of Commimist
endeavors."

And 6 weeks later, the Nazis passed another law (Reichsgesetzblatt, 1, 479,
July 14, 1933):

"The provisions of the law regarding the confiscatioii of Communist property of
May 26, 1933 (RGBI, 1, 293) are apphcable to property and the rights of the
Social Democratic Party and its auxiliary and substitute organizations, as well as
to propertv 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."

Bv the charter annexed to the agreement establishing the tribunal for the trial
of war criminals (The Nurnberg Trial, 1946, 6 Fed. Rules Decisions 73-202, 76)
certain acts were held to be punishable as crimes against humanity. Among these
were "persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds * * *" (supra,
p. 78). The judgment of the tribunal which recites the methods by which the
Nazis consolidated their power, lists among them:

By "a series of laws and decrees" (supra, p. 81), hostile criticism, "indeed any
criticism of any kind, was forbidden, and the severest penalties were imposed
on those who indulged in it" (supra, p. 83).

CONCLUSION

It is our conclusion that the enactment of these bills would make possible
the introduction in the United States of a despotism abhorrent to American
tradition, and destructive of democratic government. They, accordingly deserve
to be emphatically rejected by this Committee.

Senator O'Conor. There remain other witnesses who have come,
and whom we would be very glad to hear. Of course, it being under-
stood that they will testify under the conditions that have been men-
tioned. The Senate now being in session, we will hear Senator
Johnson, and then recess for the day.

Mr. DuRR. Thank you.

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Durr said he is perff^ctly willing to have you
proceed with your statement as coauthor of this proposal, and we
would be very pleased to have the benefit of 3'our views in connection
with it.

STATEMENT OF HON. OLIN D. JOHNSTON, A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Senator eToHNSTON. I think that Senator Mundt has explained the
bill in detail already, but I did want to call to the attention of the
committee just a few things that I consider of vital issue at the present
time.

There is a certain faction in America that immediately denounces
anyone who seeks to curb the insidious activities of the communistic
consphators who seek to overthi'ow our Government, but I am willing
to subject myself to abuse, if need be, in order that we might enact

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 151

legislation that will protect this country from further encroachment
of traitors, traitors who know no allegiance except to the bloodthirsty
Russian dictatorships.

T remember too well the hearings conducted last year on the Mundt-
Nixon bill, and for the information of the committee, we studied those
hearings and tried to write a better bill and present it to Congress,
which we think that we have done at the present time.

Throngs swoop down upon Capitol Hill denouncing Communist-
control legislation. I fully realize the difficulties involved in drafting
such legislation and at the same time to maintain the fundamental
rights gtiaro.nteed under our Constitution. However, I am in no way
willing to sacrifice our constitutional liberties in an ill-informed and
misdirected effort to preserve them. I .^m of the opinion that this
legislation fully protects the rights of the innocent, while on the other
hand it exposes and provides punishment for those who seek to destroy
us and our form of government.

As my colleague, the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, has
so well put it, there is no desire on the part of anyone to persecute
anybody. "We do not want to dam the stream of liberty in the
United States. But it is very important to keep the stream pure; pure
from the conspu-ators- who seek refuge behind the shield of constitu-
tional freedom. We are compelled to bring them into the open, as I
see it. No legislation should by force retard the development of
political parties or the inalienable right of every citizen to his or her
views on political issues. Fundamentally it does not matter how
much we differ with our fellow men on political issues, but communism
is more than a political party. It is an organized movement striving
for monopolistic control of the world, without regard for the ways or
methods by which that purpose is attained. The Communist Party
member is so blinded by party loyalty that he subordinates his
familv, his friends, his career, his relatives, his fortune, and everything
that we as Americans have been taught to cherish and love. Marxist
theories advocate an international network of governmental systems
from the Kremlin, placed at the top to serve as an intelligence bureau
for the communistic measures. If these theories are ever realized,
and God forbid, it will be just like a puppet show with the leader
behind a curtain pulling the strings for the members connected by the
central svstem to move at the slightest command.

Mr. Chairman, we are compelled to deal with such persons with our
present outmoded statutes. How can we expect to do justice to the
people of America?

To illustrate the need for such legislation, I point out that in the
Chambers-Hiss instance, with all of the threat to our safety and
security involved therein, the grand jury could only indict as to
perjury, since we have no law dealing specifically with peacetime
espioncge. It is unnecessary to pass judgment on the innocence or
guilt of Alger Hiss, Chambers, Miss Coplon, Miss Bentley, or others
who have been under trial or suspicion for practices dangerous to the
security of America. I have faith in the ability of the legal profession
and the judiciary of this country to protect the rights of the individual.
I fear for the ability of our law-enforcement agencies and the court to
preserve our way of life and our form of governm ent wdth the laws now
existing for the control of subversive activities and subversive agents
in this country, or the lack of laws.

152 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

The new legislation proposal provides a tougher series of penalties,
outlaws peacetime espionage, makes the statute of limitations m-
applicablc to treasonable acts in time of peace, and requires the regis-
tration and publication of names of all members of the Communist
Party in America. If we, the American people, continue to attempt
to cope with the Connnuuist Party in this country with our present
statutes, I fear we will find ourselves confronted with the same political
entanglements which now face many of the European countries.

Section 4 of the biU of which I am cosponsor specifically outlaws
certain un-American practices. Section 4 states:

It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree
with any other person to perform any act which would substantially facilitate or
aid in the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship,
the direction and control of which is to be vested in and exercised by or under the
domination or control of any foreign government, foreign organization or foreign
individual.

It vests authority in the Attorney General of the United States to
keep specific records of all persons or suspected members of any
subversive organization. The bill has been clarified so that no honest
opponent or misguided critic can allege that it is a thought-control
measure, that it deprives any political party of its constitutional
rights, that it denies any loyal citizen the complete exercise of his
citizenship privileges.

The act would establish a Subversive Activities Commission com-
prised of three members appointed by the President, one each from
the Department of State, Department of Commerce, and the Military
Establishment, whose duty would be to work with the Attorney
General in enforcing and administering the provisions of the law.

The bill outlaws peacetime espionage, and requires the Communist
Party to sever its ties with Russia or refrain from acts, I repeat, or
refrain from acts designed to establish totalitarianism in this countrv.

It waives the present 3-year provision of the statute of limitations
on crimes of this type.

The proposed bill requires the registration of all members and
officers of all Communist organizations, but also provides for specific
safeguards for innocent people falsely listed, and sets up the machinery
for such individuals to avoid publication of their names. This pro-
vision will eliminate the name-smearing campaigns which were
prevalent during the past session of Congress.

The bni also prohibits the Communist Party or any subversive
organizations the use of the mails and instrumentalities of interstate
or foreign commerce. This in effect will tend to curb some of the
vicious propaganda now being circulated and disseminated by the
Communist Party.

The act also specificallj^ denies tax deductions, you will remember,
that is deductions for Federal income taxes now allowed under section
101 of the Federal Revenue Code. Mr. Chairman, I call that to your
attention, the United States Govermnent has spent and will spend
biUions of dollars for each fiscal year 1048, 1949, 1950, and 1951 for
ECA. Do you think America would have speni all of this money
if she had not feared the spread of communism? Then if we are willing
to spend all of these billions to check the spread of communism
abroad, how much more important is it to us to see that we have the
necessary laws on the statute books to properly protect us at home.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 153

The immediate need for this bill was borne out a few weeks ago
by the statement of Paul Robeson, so-called American citizen, when
he said that if Russia and America were to meet in armed conflict,
the members of his race would not bear arms against Communist
Russia. Are we as Americans going to tolerate such a bold declara-
tion of policy? I do not think the American people are so lost in their
democratic ideals and principles that they will let such a traitor go
unpunished and continue to enjoy all of the benefits of this great
Nation.

Under the present laws, howevar, we must grin and bear it. That
is all we can do under the present laws. We have disregarded the
necessity of this legislation, as I see it, long enough. Now is the
time to analyze our statutes and if we need them revised, then do so.
We have given this problem enough of lip service, as I see it. Now
is the time for definite action.

Although I am the coauthor of a bill that we have given a great
deal of study to, this Senate 1194, I want to tell the chairman of this
committee that the main thing that I am trying to preserve is our
American way of life, without being interfered with from any outside
influence, and if this bill is not properly drawn, I am not fussing over
details, but I do lealize that something must be done in America to
tighten up our statutes in regard to matters of this kind, and for that
reason I urge that all of the consideration that you can possibly give,
with all of the rest that you have, with so many matters on you at
the present time, that you try to work out something that will be
beneficial and helpful, to all of America.

Senator O'Conor. Senator Miller, have you any questions?

Senator Miller. No questions.

Senator O'Conor. We are indeed grateful to you, and assure you
that this legislation will receive our very earnest and conscientious
consideration.

Senator Johnston. Thank you.

Senator O'Conor. The Senate now being in session, we will recess
this hearing, and the hearing to be resumed tomorrow morning at
10 o'clock.

(Thereupon at 12:10 p. m., a recess was taken until Thursday,
May 19, 1949, at 10 a. m.)

CONTEOL OF SUBYEESIYE ACTIVITIES

THURSDAY, MAY 19, 1949

United States Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a. m., in room 424^
Senate Office Building, Senator Herbert R. O'Conor presiding.

Present: Senators Eastland (chairman of the subcommittee),
Miller, O'Conor, and Ferguson.

Also present: Robert Barnes Young and John Mathews, profes-
sional staff members.

Senator O'Conor. The hearings will be opened.

As the first witness we have Mr. Harris from the CIO.

May I state at the outset that our counsel will announce the policy
of the subcommittee which is applicable to all witnesses, and which is
the result of consideration by this Senate Judiciary Subcommittee by
unanimous vote. Mr. Young, would you be kind enough to announce
the policy, please?

Mr. Young. For the benefit of all the witnesses who are here, I
think it would be in order to read once the message of the chairman
of the subcommittee given during the first day of the hearings:

Attention should be directed to the polic}- and rule laid down by the subcom-
mittee concerning the relevancy of proposed testimony. To be more specific, I
should like to read a short paragraph once this morning which will apply to all
witnesses that we may know the procedure.

This is from the first day's hearing on Friday April 29, 1949, a
statement by the subcommittee chairman, Senator Eastland:

The committee has determined whether or not a person is a member of a
Communist Party now or has been a member of the Communist Party is a relevant
question. It is something that we should know to be able to evaluate the tes-
timony before the committee. It is a material question. We expect to ask the
witnesses whether or not they are members of the Communist Party, whether or
not they have been members of the Communist Party, and if any witness should
refuse to answer that question, then the committee will not be inteiested in any
testimony from that witness. We do not think that it is right for a witness to
come before thv committee to refuse to give us his background, and select which
questions he shall answer, and which questions he shall not answer. So that wiU
be the rule and the conduct of the hearings.

Mr. Harris, will you stand and raise your right hand? Do you
solemnly swear or affirm in the proceedings before this subcommittee
you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?

Mr. Harris. I do.

155

156 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS E. HARRIS, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUN-
SEL, CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, WASHING-
TON, D. C.

Mr. Young. I should like to ask you two questions, if I may.
First, are you now or have you ever been a member of the Com-
munist Party?

Mr. Harris. I am not and have never been.

Mr. Young. Secondly, are you now or have you ever been to the
best of your knowledge a member of any organization which has been
cited by a governmental agency as a Communist organization or a
Communist-front organization?

Mr. Harris. I am not and never have been a member of any such
organization.

Mr. Young. Please proceed, sir.

Senator O'Connor. Air. Harris, I understand you have a prepared
statement. Would you have any desire to complete it, or would you
object if in going along any questions which occurred to the subcom-
mittee members, that they might ask 3^ou?

Mr. Harris. I think it would be much better if the subcommittee
would ask any questions as they go along.

Senator O'Connor. Very good. Sometimes witnesses have no
desire on that. We will be very glad to act accordingly. All right
Mr. Harris, just proceed, then, and give us the benefit of your views.
I might say the two bills, of course, S. 1194, introduced by Senator
Mundt for himself and Senator Johnston, and 1196. introduced by
Senator Ferguson, if you do have specific references to either of the
bills, it would be helpful if you would make that plain as you go along.
Mr. Harris. Yes, sir,; I will.

Senator O'Conor. You may proceed in your own way.
Mr. Harris. My name is Thomas E. Harris. I am Assistant
General Counsel of the Congress of Industrial Organizations. I
appear on its behalf.

The CIO opposes both the Mundt and the Ferguson bills. Our
reason for opposing these bills is not because we have any sympathy
for communism. We believe that the Communist movement, in
whatever country it operates, is oriented toward Moscow; and we do
not agree with or defend the tenets of the Communist Party. On the
contrary, the CIO and its national officers are strongly opposed to
communism, and have fought it both inside and outside the labor
movement.

Senator Ferguson. WTiat do you mean by the words "oriented
toward Moscow"?

Mr. Harris. I think its policy is derived from there.
Senator Ferguson. You think it is really controlled from there?
Isn't your present fight, or let us say argument with certain members
of your own union that they are controlled from Moscow, rather than
controlled from the interests of the labor movement in America.

Mr. Harris. That is certainly

Senator Ferguson. In other words, Mr. Murray has the same
problem today that we are having in Government. How can you
get them out of the labor movement in America, being controlled by
a foreign power? He is doing what he can and everything he can

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 157

to do that, and the first thing I understand he has to do is to get
them identified, and then after he gets them identified as leaders in
various unions, the next thing is he has to get them out. Would this
not help him to do that if we could register all members of the
Communist Party?

Mr. Harris. I don't think that we have found that the identifica-
tion is any great problem.

Senator Ferguson. You do not think so?

Mr. Harris. No. Wlierever an individual follows, wherever his
policies follow precisely those followed in Moscow, why, we can
either assume that he is a Communist or that his policy so closely
follows that it does not make any dift'erence.

Senator Ferguson. Well, then, you think that it has been known,
and it has not been a difficult job even for the CIO to identify these
Communists in their own organization? I thought that was a
difficult job.

Mr. Harris. No, Senator, I don't think it is.

Senator Ferguson. All right. I am glad to have your opinion.

Mr. Harris. I think it is well understood in the labor movement
who follows what belief.

Senator O'Conor. Following Senator Ferguson, why is there so
much opposition to the registration on the theory that it would
drive them undererround?

Mr. Harris. If you would let me go ahead, Senator, I think I will
get to that.

Senator O'Conor. So long as Senator Ferguson touched that
point, I agree entirely.

Senator Ferguson. I thought this word "orient" hardly describes
the real thing, does it, that they are dominated, they are controlled?

Mr. Harris. Well, certainly their policy either derives from Moscow
or derives from a common source, because there is no dift'erence in the
policy of the American Communist and the policy of Moscow.

Senator Ferguson. And the one in Italy and France and England,
wherever he may be, Japan or China, is that correct?

Mr. Harris. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. They are one.

Mr. Harris. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. So it must have a fountainhead, a thought; is
that correct?

Air. Harris. Yes.

vSenator Ferguson. That thought is controlling.

Mr. Harris. The reaon that I pause at the word "control", the
showing od direct control from Moscow of the Ainerican Communist
Party is a matter of some difficulty. The Government is perhaps
attempting such a showing in the present trials in the southern dis-
trict of New York, but I would not say that it had been directly
shown. It may be inferred from the exact coincidence of policies of
the American party and Moscow.

Senator Ferguson. Circumstantial evidence has always, you as a
lawyer and I as a lawyer, and others here understand that you can
prove certain facts by circumstantial evidence, and you can prove
beyond reasonable doubt; isn't that correct?

Mr. Harris. Surely.

93357 — 49 11

158 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Ferguson. Therefore, if all of these policies are the same
in ail of these countries, a reasonable man would draw the conclusion
that they are dominated from one source.

Air. Harris. Or that they come from one source.

Senator Ferguson. Come from one source; yes.

Mr. Harris. That is right.

Senator O'Conor. That is right. Just proceed, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Harris. The CTO, for example, supports the European re-
covery program and the North Atlantic Pact, both of which are
anathema to the Communists. Only about 2 wrecks ago, on May 5,
Mr. James B. Carey, secretary-treasurer of the CIO, appeared before
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to endorse the North
Atlantic Pact.

Nevertheless, we oppose the Miindt and Ferguson bills, for the
following reasons:

(1) Those bills would substantially curtail civil rights guaranteed
to every American by the Constitution. Liberty is indivisible and
repression contagious. Unless the civil rights of Communists are
protected, those of others will not be. Indeed, we think the language
of these bills is so broad that they could be used to imperil the exist-
ence of all labor unions.

(2) We believe that any threat to the security of this countiy which
the Communist movement poses is adequately met by existing statutes.

(3) Despite the evil intentions of the American Communists, we
do not believe that they constitute or will ever constitute an}^ sub-
stantial threat to an America which continues to cherish its demo-
cratic traditions and which provides its people with the opportunity
to make a decent livelihood.

Senator Ferguson. Does not your own organization feel that they
are a menace and threat to the labor movement in America?

Mr. Harris. We have no question that we will be able to take
care of them inside the labor movement.

Senator Ferguson. Is that not your purpose that you feel today
they are a threat and that your present action, and I am aU for it,
I am back of you on it, is to get them out of the labor movement,
so that the labor movement may do the thing and carry on the pur-
pose for which it is created and should carry on? Do you not find
that it must be a menace or you would not be doing what is going on
in this very city today?

Mr. Harris. We don't find that it is any menace which we can't
take care of ourselves. We don't ask for any assistance from a govern-
ment by a statute to take care of it. We don't think that it should
be taken care of that way.

Senator Ferguson. Do you not think that if you had a list and
laiew all of the Communists in America, and knew of the Communist
fronts, that it would be beneficial to the CIO so that they could keep
them out of their organizations? Do you not think that would be of
value? Has not the Attorney General's listing been of value to you?

Mr. Harris. We have never paid the slightest attention to it,
Senator.

Senator Ferguson. You have not? You do not think it is of any
value whether or not a movement is a Communist movement for you
to know that?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 159

Mr. Harris. We are able to judge these people by how tliey
conduct themselves inside the labor organizations, and that is what
is of concern to us.

Senator Ferguson. Then you are not concerned how they might
conduct themselves outside of the labor organizations.

Mr. Harris. I should say that there is nothing in the constitution
of the CIO at the present time which prevents a Communist from being
a member of its affiliated national or international unions.

Senator Ferguson. Well, do you not think that in all of your
work, you ought to know whether a man is a Communist, whether
he is^the president, vice president of a local, or treasurer, or anyone
else, if he is a steward? Is that not important to you?

Mr. Harris. We haven't found any difficulty in figuring out the
political viewpoints of people in the labor movement.

Senator Ferguson. Then I understand

Mr. Harris. Every day of the world there is an occasion for them
to show what then viewpoint on various issues are and there is no
difficulty about it.

Senator Ferguson. Then as I understand it, your union knows
them, all that are in the union.

Mr. Harris. We may not know them all, but if any man in a
prominent position where he takes a stand or where his views make
a difference, why, certainly the people in the union know what they are.

Senator Ferguson. You know that he is a Communist or a fellow-
traveler, which as you say is J!.:st the same if he follows the party line.

Mr. Harris. If he follows the party line, w^e certainly know it.

Senator O'Conor. Proceed.

Mr. Harris. Even if the (ganger to our democratic system from the
American Comnmnist movement is graver than we think, we do not
see how democracy can be protected or preserved by destroying the
very freedoms which are its essential attribute.

At the outset, we would like to call attention of this subcommittee
to the specific provisions of the Mundt bill which, in our judgment,
violate constitutional rights of freedom of speech, press, and assembly.
These specific comments are directed only to the Mundt bill and not
the Ferguson bill.

Senator Ferguson. Before you start in on that, I wonder whether
I could ask to be excused for a short time. I have an appropriation
meeting, and I have promised to be there.

Senator O'Conor. If you can come back, we would certainly like
to have you.

Senator Ferguson. I may want later, if you and I could sit down
after I read this and talk over some of the things. I would want
your view^s on the record. Would that be all right with you?

Mr. Harris. Fine.

Senator Ferguson. You as a member of your organization and I
as a Member of the Senate, we have no dispute between ourselves.
It is merely how we can solve some of these problems for the benefit
not only of all of the people, but even your particular union, because
I laiow you are interested in just personally what I am interested in;
if communism is a menace, if it is going to do harm to the American
institutions, we do not want that. I take for granted that you under-
stand that the union, and I understand it too, is an American institu-

160 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

tion, and we have to protect that the same as we do our other institu-
tions, because they are all part of our system.

If I may be excused.

Senator O'Conor. We would like to have you back if you can come
back. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Harris. For the sale of brevity this specific analysis will taKe
up only the provisions of the Muiidt bill. For the most part, how-
ever, those provisions are paralleled in the Ferguson bill.

The bill regulates opinion, not conduct. A very basic objection to
both of these bills is that their purpose is to police and regulate not
action or conduct, but thought and expression. Under these bills,
organizations and individuals are punished, restrained, and regi-
mented solely on the basis of pohtical opinions, rather than on the
basis of overt acts of disloyalty.

It has been traditional in this country, and in other democratic
countries, to allow the widest possible freedom of thought and expres-
sion. Belief and speech hostile to the existing system of government is
not only tolerated, but is protected by our Constitution, unless it takes
■the form of advocating some course of conduct in circumstances such
as to make it probable that unlawful action will in fact ensue. What
T have reference to is the clear and present danger doctrine. In
the language used by Mr. Justice Holmes in first enunciating what
■has been since known as the clear and present danger test, freedom
of speech can be restricted only if —

the words 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 the
Congress has a right to prevent —

(Schenck v. United States (249 U. S. 47, 52). More recently, in
Bridges v. California (314 U. S. 252), the Supreme Court said (p. 263):

What finally emerges from the "clear and present danger" cases is a working
principle that the substantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree
of imminence extremely high before utterances can be punished.

And still more recently, in Thomas v. Collins (323 U. S. 516, 530):

Only the gravest abuses, endangering paramount interests, give occasion for
permissible limitation.

I do not find that either of these attempts to meet or comply with
these standards.

In the Eightieth Congress, the sponsors of the Mundt-Nixon
bill, which was similar to these bills, sought to justify its restriction
of freedom of thought, speech, and assembly on the ground, among
others, that the bill proceeded only against organizations, and did not
prevent individuals from maintaining or advocating abstract views
concerning the subjects dealt with in the bill. But if freedom of
thought and freedom of speech has any meaning, particularly in the
political field, it must necessarily include the right to create and work
through organizations. For, under the political systems which have
been developed in the democratic countries, effective political action
means group action — action through political parties, labor unions, and
other associations.

The right to create, to solicit others to join, and to act through such
organizations is, therefore, protected by the Bill of Rights. It is
the form which the freedom of assembly of earlier times takes in
a more populous country and a more complicated society. Such

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 161

groups often afford the only effective vehicle for the exercise of free
speech. The Supreme Court has specifically held that the right to
solicit others to join organizations is protected by the first amendment.
It said:

It was not by accident or coincidence that the rights of freedon im speech and
press were coujaled in a single guaranty with the rights of the people peaceably
to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances. All these, although not
identical, are inseparable. They are cognate rights, * * * and therefore are
united in the first article's assurance {Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 530.)

If, therefore, the restrictions which this bill places upon freedom of
thought, speech, and assembly can be justified under our Constitution,
or reconciled with democratic principles, it cannot be on the basis that
organizations rather than individuals are regulated. The only justi-
fication would be some overwhelming necessity for the legislation.
To that issue we will come later.

I turn now to the specific provisions of the Mundt bill.

Senator O'Coxor. Before you leave that, inasmuch as you did refer
to the dissenting opinions in the well-known cases, I was wondering
whether you had opportunity to read the opinion in the decision
handed down on Monday of this week bj' the Supreme Court of the
United States in the Terminella case.

Mr. Harris. No; I have only read the newspaper accounts of it.

Senator O'Coxor. I have here both the opinion of Justice Douglas
and the dissent of ]Mr. Justice Jackson. Of course in the dissent, just
one or two of these references have been published quite prominently
in the press, but this paragraph probably sums it up. Justice Jackson
says this:

This Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means
the removal of all restraints from these crowds and that all local attempts to
maintain order are in impairment of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not
between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order, and anarchy without
either. There is danger that if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic
with a little practical wisdom it will convert the Constitutional rights into a
suicide pact.

Have you any comment to make on that, whether or not the
tendency as indicated by Mr. Justice Jackson, without attempting
to criticize the Court, I do not ask j'ou to do that, but rather to
whether you have any comment on the observation.

Mr. Harris. I do not think that an3^one would disagree with the
language of Justice Jackson. The question always is whether the
facts of the particular situation fit the language. But the general
principles which he states I think there would be no disagreem^ent
with them.

Senator O'Coxor. All right. Proceed.

Mr. Harris. The bill threatens the existence of all progressive
organizations. The bill deals with two types of organizations: Com-
munist political organizations and Communist front organizations.

It starts out in section 3 dealing with definitions. Subdivision 3 of
section 3 defi.nes the term "Communist political organizations."

A "Communist political organization" is defined in section 3 (3) as
having "some, but not necessarily all, of the ordinary and usual
characteristics of a political party," and which (a) is controlled by the
foreign government or organization controlling the world Communist
movement, and (b) operates primarily to advance the objectives of
that movement. However, we are at a loss as to why this definition

162 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

is included in the bill, since it does not seem to be controlling for any
purpose.

For section 13 (a) of the bill creates a Subversive Activities Com-
mission, which is to determine whether an organization is a "Com-
munist political organization." In making this determination, the
Subversive Activities Commission is not referred to the definition of
section 3 (3) but is to ''take into consideration" a long list of factors
enumerated in section 14 (e).

Why we have this definition in the act, we therefore do not know.
The criteria that the Subversive Activities Commission is to take into
account includes such things as whether an organization's policies are
formulated to eflectuate the policies of the foreign government or or-
ganization controlling the world Communist movement, the extent to
which its views and policies do not deviate from those of such foreign
movement or government, the extent to which it sends members to
any foreign country for instruction in the principles of world commu-
nism, the extent to which it fails to disclose or resists efforts to obtain
lists of its mem^bers, and so on and so on.

There are eight of these numbered paragraphs, and some of them
have subdivisions. The Commission is directed to take all of these
factors into consideration, but it is not told what weight it shall give
to anj^ particular factor, or even that it must find the existence of a
certain number of these elements before concluding that an organiza-
tion is a Communist political organization.

It is therefore perfectly apparent that an organization labeled as
Communist political organization solely on the basis of ideals and
opinions, rather than on the basis of illegal acts.

The provision in the bill that resistance to efforts to obtain mem-
bership lists is a hallmark of a "Conununist political organization" is
particularly objectionable to labor organizations, which have learned
through long experience that the submission of such lists is the first
step to a blacklist through which an organization may be completely
destroyed.

A "Communist-front organization" is defined in section 3 (4) as
any organization which is either under the control of a "Communist
political organization," or is primarily operated for the purpose of
giving support to a "Communist political organization," a Commu-
nist foreign government, or the world Communist movement. This
definition also seems to be meaningless, since the Subversive Activities
Commission is again, in section 14 (f), further furnished with a list
of entirely different criteria which it is "to take into consideration"
in determining whether any organization is a "Communist front
organization."

These criteria are the identity of the persons active in the manage-
ment of the organization "whether or not holding officer therein";
the sources of its support, financial and otherwise; the uses made by
it of its resources and personnel; and the extent to which the position
taken by the organization from time to time on matters of policy
does not deviate from the position taken by any Communist political
organization. Here again the Commission does not have to find that
all or any stated number of these factors exist.

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 Subversive

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 163

Activities Commission that the organization is a "Communist front
organization."

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 by a labor organization of objec-
tives also supported by Communists, such as the abolition of the poU
tax, enactment of an adequate housing program, and the protection
of civil rights, could, under the standards proposed in the bill, furnish
the basis for the conclusion that the organization is a Communist
front.

Under these provisions, not only labor organizations but other pro-
gressive organizations could be branded as subversive and destroyed.
The CIO is familiar with the indiscriminate use of such terminology
by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Both CIO and
CIO-PAC have been repeatedly and wrongfully denounced as "Com-
munist," "Communist front," and "totalitarian" organizations. In
its 1944 report, the House Un-American Committee denounced CIO-
PAC as representing "a subversive Communist campaign to subvert
the Congress of the United States by its totalitarian program." There
is no particular reason to suppose that the Subversive Activities Com-
mission set up in this bill will be any more responsible or any less
reactionary than this congressional committee has been.

The bill is not just another routine measure. This bill is in funda-
mental conflict with our constitutional form of government and with
the premises of a democratic society.

The penalty provisions are vague, oppressive, and unconstitutional.
The Mundt bill requires Communist political organizations and Com-
munist-front organizations to register as such, and to file certain infor-
mation with the Attorney General. The bill requires both types of
organizations to file a list of all officers and full financial statements
of receipts and expenditures. In addition, "Communist political or-
ganizations" are requned to submit a full list of members, and any
member whose name is not submitted is required to register himself.
All of this data is to be available for public inspection.

Senator O'Conor. I was wondering what your opinion was as to
this, while you have pointed out very forcibly the possible dangers
which, in your opinion, confront an organization in being classified as
Communist front, do you not think that the other provisions of the
bill for review and for appeal both administratively and judicially
safeguard the interests of patriotic and American organizations, as
distinguished from Communist and other subversive organizations?

Mr. Harris. No, Senator; I do not. The extremely loose and
dangerous standards to w^hich I have referred are those that are to
control the Subversive Activities Commission, and if there is an appeal
to the courts from the finding of that Commission, the courts are still
given just these same standards. Under those standards, I do not
suppose there is a progressive organization in America that could not
be labeled as a Communist-front organization.

On these penalty provisions, both Communist-political organiza-
tions and Communist-front organizations, are required by the bill to
label all mail intended for more than one person as "Disseminated by
(blank), a Communist organization. They are also requu-ed to initi-

164 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

ate all radio broadcasts which they sponsor with this announcement:
"The following program is sponsored by (blank), a Communist organi-
zation."

You are thus requiring these people to label themselves as Com-
munist organizations. I recall that some years ago the National
Labor Relations Board, when that first got under way, had a form of
order in which it directed employers found guilty of violating the act
to post a notice that they would cease and desist from doing so, and
so and so and so. The employers objected that by this form of notice
they were required to acknowledge guilt that they didn't merely say
that they had been ordered to do this; they said that they would
cease and desist from doing it, thus admitting that they had been
doing it.

Judge Learned Hand on the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, a most famous and distinguished judge, pointed out that and
said in his judgement it was unconstitutional. The Labor Board
without attempting to take the issue to the Supreme Court, decided
that he was right, and they then abandoned that form of order, and
thenceforth only required employers to post notices that they had
been ordered to cease and desist from doing so and so.

Senator O'Conor. That is a pretty good indication that judicial
review is certainly very helpful in protecting the rights of innocent
persons.

Mr. Harris. We have never questioned that.

Senator O'Conor. That is why I asked you before whether you
did not think the provisions of the bill granting such review and sev-
eral reviews, in fact do not safeguard the interests of innocent persons.

Mr. Harris. I don't think the provisions of the bill safeguard
them at all. The Constitution might.

Senator O'Conor. I meant in setting out the steps which can be
taken in order to have the matter brought under review.

Mr. Harris. I don't find in the bill any standards that would
govern the courts any more than they govern the Subversive Activities
Commission.

Mr. Young. The Senator is making reference to the procedural
parts of the bill, and not the substantive.

Mr. Harris. As to the procedural thing that I will come to later,
or I can deal with it here in very brief form. It sets up a bureau, it
calls it a commission, it does not even appear to be an independent
commission, it is a bureau of three Government employees, who are
to act under the basis of these very loose standards that were given
them by the bill. Then there is an appeal from that to the Court of
Appeals in the District of Columbia, which acts under the same stand-
ards. There are none of the safeguards of trial before a jury, trial in
a Federal district court here. Inevitably this bureau of three Gov-
ernment employees would be completely dominated by the depart-
ment heads. It is not even an independent commission. To punish
people even before an independent commission is contrary to Anglo-
Saxon traditions of law. We believe that a man should be tried in a
court and before a jury. He does not get that here. And the appeal
provisions give him very little, since they are under the same stand-
ards.

Mr. Young. He is not being punished before the bureau or com-
mission. They are to determine the face whether or not he is a mem-

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 165

ber of one of these groups. There is no punishment involved at that
stage of the procedure.

Mr. Harris. Which will come to that point a little later. We say
that that determination does subject him immediately and directly to
criminal punishment.

In the Eightieth Congress the sponsors of the Mundt-Nixon bill,
which was the predecessor of this bill, argued that it was a mild
measure because it did not outlaw organizations labeled as Commu-
nist political organizations or Communist-front organizations. Such
a claim is completely misleading. There can be no question that the
registration requirements amount to destruction. This is so for the
obvious reason that organizations which are made to register are sub-
ject by legislative fiat to the stigma of disloyalty. Anj claim that
this bill does not destroy these organizations reduces itself to the
assertion that the bill compels them to commit suicide, rather than
destroys them outright.

The blaclvlist which would result from registration would in itself
be sufficient to destroy an organization. For there can be no question
but that persons listed as members of Communist political organiza-
tions would thereafter be unable to secure, or have great difficulty in
securing, jobs. Indeed, the labeling last year of certain Hollywood
writers as Communists led their employers to breach written employ-
ment contracts. Such a blacklist would likewise be possible in the
case of a Communist-front organization, even though such organiza-
tions are not required to submit membership lists, since they are
required to disclose the sources of their funds, and that information
would serve to identify contributors to the organization.

Here I would like to interpolate in commenting on the Mundt bill
last year. The Department of Justice pointed out that it would
destroy the organizations which it covered, that it would destroy,
certainly destroy the organizations required to register, that it would
drive those organizations either out of existence or underground,
because the penalties provided are so heavy.

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, "knowingly"
to conspire with any other person "to perform any act which would
substantiafiy facilitate" the establishment in this country of a "totali-
tarian dictatorship" under foreign domination. A violation of this
section is punishable by fines up to $10,000, imprisonment up to 10
years, or both. There is no period of limitations for crime under the
provisions of this statute. OlTenses under this provision may be pros-
ecuted at any time without regard to any statutory limitations.

The broad sweep of this bill, and the use which could be made of it
to punish all sorts of activities, whether or not treasonable, is nowhere
better illustrated than by this provision.

Suppose, for example, that the United Steelworkers of America, in
bargaining collectively with the United States Steel Corp., requests a
reasonable wage increase — one needed by the workers to maintain a
decent standard of living — and the directors of the corporation reject
the request. Certainly it could be said that the rejection of such a
request "would substantially facilitate" the estabhshment of a Com-
munist regime in this country by depriving the workers of a decent
standard of living, and creating hostility between labor and capital.

166 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

The directors of the United States Steel Corp. could thus be indicted
and sent to jail under this provision for rejectinfj; the union's demand.

Mr. Young. You missed the element there of forcipi domination.

Mr. Harris. I felt that we were assuming that the Communist
movement was under foreign domination.

Mr. Young. I mean when you mention that the directors refuse this
wage increase, you say they would be liable under section 4. In order
to be liable under that, you have to be dominated by a foreign
political

Mr. Harris. Not at all. That isn't at all what that provides. It
makes it illegal for any person to perform any act which would sub-
stantially facilitate the establishment of a Communist regime in this
country. "It would substantially facilitate" is the language of the bill.

Senator O'Conor. But right there do you not have in mind that
the provisions of the bill in one sentence says this —

It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree
with any other person to perform any act which would substantially facilitate or
aid in the establishment within the United States of 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?

All of those elements must be present before the crime is committed.

Mr. Harris. There is no indication that the accused committed the
act in question for that purpose. The statute says if he knowingly
does any act which will substantially facilitate the establishment in
this coimtry of what we may briefly call a Communist dictatorship,
then he is guilty of a crime. The language which you have read is in
effect part of a definition of a Communist dictatorship. That is, it
requires that it be under foreign control. But I understood that we
were assuming that it was. So that any act that will strengthen the
Communist movement in this country would literally come under the
provisions of this statute, and would be a crime.

The same way if the union puts forward a demand which could be
regarded as unreasonable, it could just as well be convicted under this
statute on the theory that that demand might tend to create industrial
strife, and therefore strengthen the Communist Party.

The difficulty with this provision of the bill is, of course, that it
does not require that the action which would aid the Communist
movement be undertaken for that purpose or with that intention,
but only that it be done "knowingly." "Knowingly" in criminal
statutes has sometimes been interpreted as requiring only a conscious
act, and under the strictest construction means only that the defendant
contemplated, or should have contemplated, the consequences of his
action; that the actor must foresee or perhaps should have been able
to foresee the consequences of his act; nothing more. It does not
require any evil purpose, any evil intention.

This provision is like one in the Mundt bill. In the last half of
section 4 (a) it adds a definition, but that definition does not help
very much. It defines that rather peculiarly as a form of government
not representative in form, characterized by three enumerated factors.

That, however, is not by any means the only objection to this
provision. The Mundt-Nixon bill, which contained a similar pro-
vision, was criticized because it failed to define "totalitarian dictator-
ship." A definition has now been added, but it doesn't help much.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 167

It defines "totalitarian dictatorship" as a form of government "not
representative in form," characterized by three enumerated factors.

Now, the Soviet Government is "representative in form." It has
all of the forms of a democracy; it is only the reality that is lacking.
The communists describe themselves as the only true democrats,
and are fond of boasting that the Soviet Constitution is the most
democratic in the world. And maybe it is if we do not look behind
the form to the reality. For example, the Soviet Constitution pro-
vides for universal adult suffrage, as contrasted Avith restrictions on
voting which prevail in many American States. Of course this
universal suffrage means nothing, because there is never more than
one slate of candidates. But the Soviet Constitution does not pro-
vide that there shall be only one slate.

Thus, this provision of the bill appears to play right into the hands
of the Communists, making form rather than substance decisive.

On the other hand, it would be very difficult to frame a provision
which did accomplish what was meant, and nothing more. If the
phrase "not representative in form" were eliminated from the defini-
tion, it then would be too broad. The Government of this country
during, say, the presidency of James Monroe, was characterized by
all of the elements listed in the definition for identifying a "totali-
tarian dictatorship." For the Government of this country during
that period was characterized by (1) the existence of a single political
party, the Democratic Party; (2) such identity between that party and
its policies and the Government and govermnental policies as to
render the party and the Government indistinguishable for practical
purposes; and (3) it was characterized by the abolition of all other
political parties, the Federalist Party having disappeared, and the
Whig Party not yet having arisen.

The reason for these difficulties in drafting is that the bill is not
aimed at acts or conduct, which are capable of precise definition.
Rather it is the irtention of this section to punish as a crime mere
advocacy, argument or persuasion, whether or not calculated in the
circumstances to lead to the immediate commission of overt illegal
acts. As we have already stressed, the Supreme Court has consistently
ruled that mere advocacy of ideas, however odious, cannot, under our
Constitution, be restramed or punished. From the year 1816 until
1832 there was only one party in this country.

Senator O'Con or. Do you find anything in the bill which specifically
says that mere belief shall be considered unlawful and punishable?

Mr. Harris. I do not find that it specifically states that, but the
factors listed for identifying a Communist political or Communist-
front organization are factors which deal with, belief or doctrine.
They don't deal with acts.

Senator O'Conor. But there is nothing specific which says that
mere belief is punishable.

Mr. Harris. The bill does not say so in terms, but I think that
that is its effect.

It should ba noted, moreover, that the very act of registration by
an organization will lay the foundation for a charge against its officers
and members that they are in violation of the provision dealing with
totalitarian dictatorships. For once an organization is labeled as a
"Communist political organization" or a "Communist front organi-
zation," membership or payment of dues to such an orgamzation would

168 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

no doubt be regarded as aiding in the establishment of a "totahtaiian
dictatorship." If, under the compulsion of criminal penalties, the
officers of an organization register it, they subject themselves and
their members to additional criminal charges of violating the ex-
tremely broad provisions of the section of the law, section 4, dealing
with totalitarian dictatorships. Such a statute plainly violates the
constitutional protections against self incrimination.

Since writing this I have read the letter that the Attorney General
filed with the vSenate committee last year on the Mundt bill. He
makes precisely those points that the act of registration would be
subjecting members to criminal punishment under section 4, and
would violate the constitutional privileges against self incrimination.
In our statement I next deal with the procedures of the bill. I think
I will skip that as well as the summary.

Senator O Conor. You have, of course, stated your position in
regard to that.

Mr. Harris. The bill's procedures ignore common law safeguards.
One would expect that a bill which imposes such drastic penalties
upon organizations 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 pro-
visions for fan trial on the issues before a judge and jury and the appli-
cation of the usual rule that a defendant in a criminal case is presumed
innocent until proved guilty and must be convicted upon evidence
establishmg guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This bill disregards these and other important safeguards. In the
fu'st place, under this bill, certain types of organizations are condemned
as illegal by congressional fiat instead of by judicial trial. Instead
of laying down the 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 w^ith respect to who is
guilty of the crime, and provided penalties for such guilt. Such pro-
cedure has been repeatedly condemned by the Supreme Court as a
bill of attainder in violation of constitutional guarantees.

If 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 pro-
ceeding, but through an administrative proceeding, to impose the
bill's brand on them. Under these administrative procedures the
Subversive Activities Commission is authorized to make an admin-
istrative finding, after a hearmg, that the organization involved is a
"Communist political organization" or a "Communist-front organi-
zation."

The Commission's hearing, like all administrative hearings, is with-
out 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 a board of Federal employees, who would inevitably
be subject to control by their respective Departments.

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 domg so, he is a,uthor-
ized by the law to subpena the books and records of the organization
and to compel testimony. Such a provision would, of course, permit
the Attorney General a vntually unlimited power of search over the

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 169

internal affairs and membership lists of such organizations as labor
unions.

The bill provides that the findings of the Subversive Activities Com-
mission that an organization is illegal, within the meaning of the bill,
may be appealed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
within 60 days. Such a review, of course, would consider only
questions of law.

Legislative findings upon which the statute rests, the trial procedure
and the review procedure make a mockery of our constitutional guar-
anties which have been developed for the protection of defendants in
criminal cases.

In summary, the Mundt bill is a serious threat to our most cherished
constitutional safeguards.

It imposes penalties upon association and opinion rather than upon
overt actions.

The bill is so loosely drawn that it coidd impose a black-out upon
the civil rights of thousands of individuals who would be driven from
progressive organizations out of fear that the vague provisions might
be made applicable to them.

Penalties and disabilities are imposed upon individuals, not 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 the blacklist, so obnoxious to our traditions.

The bill wipes out the fundamental protections for defendants in
criminal cases. It substitutes administrative procedure for due
process of law. It embodies the unconstitutional principle of a bill of
attainder and violates the constitutional safeguards against self
incrimination.

The definitions of the bill would make it possible for the Attorney
General to proceed against labor organizations, and the vague character
of the bill's standards would make possible a tremendous expansion of
its scope.

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 Stromberg 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 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 sj^stem. 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 (333 U. S. 507), 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 expres-
sions, protected by the principles of the first amendment, violates an accused's
rights under procedural due process and freedom of speech or press.

There can be no question that the Mundt bill is so pervasively
vague as to impose broad pressures and restraints upon the exercise
of rights of political expression. Moreover, as the Supreme Court
has repeatedly pointed out, vagueness in a statute involving civil rights
lays the basis for discriminatory and unfair application. Such dis-

170 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

driniination is easily directed ag:ainst minority groups, who, more than
other groups, need the shield of constitutional protection.

From the strong pressure in both the Eightieth Congress and the
present to pass a bill like those now before this subcommittee, one
might suppose that there were no existing law dealing ^vith supposed
danger, or that the statutes now on the books were in fact inadequate
to meet the supposed peril.

Such is not the case.

Since 1790 this country has had on the books a law defining and
punishing treason. It was one of the first bills passed when the First
Congress met after the adoption of the Constitution. While this law
defines treason narrowly, it is worth remembering that that narrow
definition was written into the Constitution itself by men who were
familiar with the oppressive use which had been made of the treason
laws by the British Government. Our Constitution was adopted only
6 years after this country had secured its independence, and at a time
when it was surrounded by a hostile British Empire to the north, and
a hostile Spanish Empire along the entire southern and western
frontiers, l^owerful Indian tribes within our frontiers were not yet
subdued. Even in that perilous situation our forebears preferred to
define treason narrowly, and take the chance that this Nation would
defend itself against enemies from within, rather than risk the oppres-
sion by government which British experience showed might stem from
a broader treason law.

From the bills which are proposed in this Congress, one might
suppose that this Nation had grown smaller, weaker, and less secure
since 1790 — or else that our devotion to freedom and civil liberties is
less than that of our ancestors.

The criminal statutes also have sections dealing with "rebellion or
insurrection", "conspiracy to overthrow * * * or to destroy" the
Government by force, and a very broad provision making it criminal
to advocate or teach the desirability or propriety of overthrowing the
Government "by force or violence."

It is under this last provision, which is known as the Smith Act,
and was enacted as part of the Alien Registration Act that the Com-
munist leaders are now being tried in New York. If the Government
is successful in that case, it is most difficult to see how there can be
any possible need for the present legislation.

The report of the House Un-American Activities Committee last
year, reporting out the Mundt-Nixon bill, stated that existing legis-
lation was inadequate because the Communist Party operated secretly.
This statement is a non sequitur. Secrecy may increase the problem
of detection, but can hardly be met by passing more laws. Moreover,
the FBI does not seem to have found it impossible to penetrate- the
Communist Party.

Only yesterday an FBI agent took the stand in the trial, an agent
who the night before had attended a meeting of the Communist Party.

The Smith Act also makes it criminal to print or circulate written
matter advocating or teaching the desirability of overthrowing the
Government by force or violence, or to organize any society or group
or assembly of persons to teach or advocate that doctrine.

Finally, the Criminal Code contains elaborate provisions requiring
the registration of certain organizations. These organizations include

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 171

"every organization subject to foreign control," which is defined as
including any organization which —

accepts financial contributions * * * or support of any kind, directly or
indirectly, from, or is affiliated, directly or indirectly, with, a foreign govern-
ment, or * * * a political party in a foreign country, or an international
political organization.

It requires the registration of any organization which engages both
in political activity and in "civilian military activities," the latter is
defined as including, among other things, any —

form of organized activity which in the opinion of the Attorney General constitutes
preparation for military action.

It requires the registration of every organization the purpose or aim
of which is the "overthrow" of the Government by force or violence.
Failure to register is punishable by a fine of $10,000 and an imprison-
ment of 5 years.

These provisions obviously cover exactly the same subject matter as
do the proposed bills, and even utilize approximately the same mech-
anism. If the existing provisions are in any particulars defective, it
would appear that the appropriate course would be to amend them,
not to enact a new law, in part duplicating, and in part conflicting with
the existing legislation.

That I also have discovered since writing it is approximately what
the Attorney General said last year in connection with the Mundt
bill. In the report of the House Un-American Activities Committee
on the Mundt bill, dealing with the question of inadequacy of existing
legislation, they say:

The Attorney General pointed out some technical weaknesses in these acts in his
testimony before the committee, and his recommendations have been incorporated
in the registration provisions of the committee bill.

Then they say :

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.

I submit that that is a gross misstatement of what the Attorney
General said. I would request you gentlemen to read the report that
the Attorney General did file last year.

Senator O'Conor. We have that opinion.

Mr. Harris. He made certain suggestions for minor amendments.
He said no major new legislation was necessary, just the opposite of
what the committee report says.

Mr. Young. Is that the House committee?

Mr. Harris. He says at the same time:
I do not believe that sweeping new legislation of this type is required.

Mr. Young. Could you tell me whether that was the House com-
mittee report that you read from?

Mr. Harris. The House committee report.

Mr. Young. And the Attorney General's letter was addressed to
the Senate Judiciary.

Mr. Harris. It is addressed to the Senate. I assume he sent the
same letter to the House.

Mr. Young. You are not certain of that?

172 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Harris. I am unable to get the House report, because they did
not have enough to circulate. I mean the House hearings, not the
House report. They did not even have them last year.

(House Un-American Activities Committee did not hold hearings
in connection with H. R. 5852. Attorney General's testimony is thus
not in point on H. R. 5852, 80th Cong.)

Mr. Young. You do not know what the Attorney General said in
the House hearings on which that report was based.

Mr. Harris. I have no reason to suppose that he sent a letter other
than one identical with this. The Department of Justice normally
sends the same letter to both Houses. This is all that we have been
able to get.

T would like to make it clear that we are not endorsing all of the
legislation that is already on the books. Much of that legislation,
and the Smith Act in particular, is objectionable because it prohibits
advocacy without regard to the clear and present danger test. All
that we are saying is that with such provisions already on the books,
there is no occasion for additional legislation.

Senator O'Conor. Inasmuch as you have concluded on that point,
may I ask your opinion on this question. Without in any sense pass-
ing on the merits of the Alger Hiss case or indicating any opinion about
it Vfhatsoever, do you think that the fact that it was found necessary for
indictment merely for perjury was returned indicates the apparent lack
of adequate legislation at the present time for peacetime espionage?

Mr. Harris. I have not made a close study of that matter, Senator,
but it was my assumption that the reason he could be indicted only
for perjury was that the statute of limitations had run on the subject
of crime.

Senator O'Conor. Would that indicate that if otherwise it should
have been prosecuted, that the statute of limitations ought to be
changed, or that there was found need at least for the change if the
Department felt it was necessary to prosecute him on the other charge?

Mr. Harris. It would indicate that. But I did not understand
that the difficulty was that there was no law that he could have vio-
lated. I understood it w^as just a question of the statute of limitations.
There is before Congress now, a bill to amend the espionage-sabotage
laws in various respects and that bill would eliminate the statute of
limitations. This bill of course would not deal with that anyway.

Senator O'Conor. I was just referring to the adequacy of legislation
in general. I understand that.

Mr. Harris. I would like to say a word or two about the question
of the seriousness of the Communist threat in this comitry.

As stated, we believe that the American Communists take their
guidance from Moscow, and we hold no brief for them. But we do
not believe that these Communists possess such power as to make
them a real danger, or that they will, except in the possible circum-
stance of war, ever constitute any real threat to an America which
is prosperous and democratic.

There is no indication that the Communist movement in America
is gaining strength, and every indication that its power is receding,
and has been ever since 1933. In Presidential elections, the Commu-
nist Party and its predecessors increased their strength from 33,000
ifl 1924 to 49,000 in 1928 and 103,000 in 1932. That was their high-
water mark. By 1936, however, the Communist vote declined to

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 173

80,000, and in 1940 it was down to 49,000. The Communists liave
not run their own candidate for President since 1940, but have en-
dorsed candidates of other parties, so that no figures are available as
to the vote polled by the Communists in 1944 or 1948. However,
there would seem to be little question that the strength of the party
in this country has continued to weaken throughout that period, due
to increasing prosperity here, more widespread understanding of the
nature of the Communist movement, and, in recent years, to in-
creasingly bad relations between this country and Russia.

This situation certainly does not seem to call for sweeping new anti-
Communist legislation which would deny civil rights not only to
Communists but to everyone else. The proposed legislation would
not only result in the outlawry of the Communist Party, but would
joepardize the existence of every progressive organization to which
the government in power might be hostile. This is a country where
the Communists are steadily losing strength, and where they consti-
tute no conceivable threat except in the possible eventuality of war
with Russia. Such an eventuality would unquestionably be met as
such eventualities have in the past — by internment. The bills under
consideration are not needed and would not cope with that situation.

That this country should be considering legislation so repressive of
political and civil rights at a time when it is in no real danger from
the Communist movement in America, is surely little to our credit.
Our fears, and the lengths to which it is suggested we should go to
soothe them, present an unflattering contrast to the recent conduct
of France and Italy. In those nations, which have no such continu-
ous tradition of democratic government as we have, the local Com-
munist Parties possess real strength, or did a short time ago. The
Russian armies were and are close indeed to the borders of those
nations. Yet neither France nor Italy resorted to any such extreme
measui'e as outlamng the Communist Party or passing repressive
legislation of any sort. Today the democratic forces in those coun-
tries, with the aid of ERP, have gained greatly in strength, while the
local Communist movements have lost adherents. If those countries,
gravely threatened, could show such devotion to democracy, surely
it is not necessary for this Nation, of all countries the most secure,
to turn away from its democratic tradition.

Senator O'Conor. Just in connection with that last observation,
you \vould not, of course, contend that it would be necessary to wait
until their strength had assumed very sizable proportions before
legislating against subversive organizations, would you? In other
words, you start out with the contention, and you have franldy ad-
mitted, that there are evil intentions, and that is the language you
employ very properly, and we agTee. But you would not after making
that admission and recognizing that, at least, you would not of course
assum.e that the country should wait until the Communists did become
a greater threat than they are now, if in fact they are hostile to Ameri-
can institutions.

Mr. Harris. I would employ approximately the same tests,
Senators, as that which the Supreme Court has often enunciated, clear
and present danger test. A situation is conceivable when the local
Communists might constitute such a clear and present danger to the
overtlu-ow of the Government of the United States. I don't think it
constitutes any such thi'eat now. I think that their power grows less

93357—49 12

174 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

every day. I think they reached their peak in 1933 and have been
going downhill ever since, and I hope and believe that they will con-
tinue to go downhill. In that situation I would not pass any new
laws. I would let them alone.

Senator O'Conor. All right, Mr. Harris. Any other questions?

If not, we thank you.

Air. Harris. Thank you.

Senator O'Conor. The next witness listed is Mr. David Scribner.

Mr. Young. I have a telegram which just arrived from Mr. Scribner,
in which he states that he is unable to be here today and requests per-
mission that his statement be made part of the record.

Senator O'Conor. The next witness is Miss Ritter, representative
of the United Office and Professional Workers.

[Not present.]

Senator O'Conor. Is the witness here representing the Young
Progressives of America?

TESTIMONY OF REV. JOHN DARR, JR., NEW YORK 25, N, Y.

Mr. Young. Will you stand, please, and raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm in the proceedings before the sub-
committee you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Darr. I do.

Mr. Young. State your name and address, and present occupation.

Mr. Darr. My name is John W. Darr, Jr. My address is 200 West
One Hundred and Seventh Street, New York City 25. I am a Con-
gregational minister, and I am here on behalf of the Young Progressives
of America, as their spokesman, and not as an individual.

Mr, Chairman, I wonder if I could raise a question of procedure at
this point.

Senator O'Conor. Did you hear the statement made, which quoted
from the comment by Senator Eastland, the chairman of the subcom-
mittee, as to the general policy of the subcommittee? If you did
not hear it, we will again read it.

Mr. Darr. I heard that. That was why I wanted to raise two
questions of procedure, if I maj^.

Senator O'Conor. What are the questions?

Mr. Darr. In the first place, I am here as a spokesman for a group.
This statement has been made up by that group, and while I contrib-
uted to the statement, it is not just my own statement. I am not here
as an individual, and therefore I feel that it would be improper before
I read this statement to answer any questions as to my personal
political convictions or activities. After the statement I think it
might be appropriate, but not before the statement.

Senator O'Conor. Very 'true. The committee has established a
policy that in order that the identity of the witness may be known,
and that we can properly evaluate his testimony, whether or not he is
a member of the Communist Party or has been, or is identified with
any Communist front organization, we should first have it made clear
on the record what his identity is with any such organizations, so I
will now ask the counsel — —

Mr. Darr. May I put the other question?

Senator O'Conor. Yes, indeed.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTR'ITIES 175

Mr. Dark. The second one is this: As I understand it, my private
poUtical views are protected by the first amendment of the Constitu-
tion, so that it is miproper for a Government body to ask me pohtical
questions. I would be wilhng to answer such questions if this body
will adjourn, and we can ask them informally, but I cannot in good
conscience answer such questions.

Senator O'Conor. We will now proceed, and the counsel will pro-
pound the questions to you, and you are at liberty of course, you come
here, I assume, at your own invitation.

Mr. Darr. At the invitation of my organization.

Senator O'Conor. In other words, your organization's request is
that you appear.

Mr. Darr. Yes.

Senator O'Conor. You have therefore come, and ask the committee
to hear you. We want to know who you are and with what organiza-
tions you are identified. Inasmuch as those organizations desire —
we have not asked them to come, to be heard — -we have a right to know
who they are and what they represent. So I will now ask counsel to
propound the questions to you. You of course are at liberty to refuse
to answer or answer as you see fit.

Mr. Young. Reverend Darr, are j^u now or have you ever been a
member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Darr. I cannot answer that question in good conscience.

Mr. Young. Are you now or have you ever been to the best of your
knowledge a member of any organizations which have been cited by
a governmental agency as a Communist organization or a Communist-
front organization?

Mr. Darr. I cannot answer that question in good conscience.

Senator O'Conor. I wish to just read the comment by Senator
Eastland, the chairman, as indicating the attitude of this committee
again:

The committee has determined whether or not a person is a member of a
Communist Party now or has been a member of the Commimist Party is a relevant
question. It is something that we should know to be able to evaluate the testi-
mony before the committee. It is a material question. We expect to ask the
witnesses whether or not they are members of the Communist Party, whether or
not they have been members of the Communist Party, and if any witness should
refuse to answer that question, then the committee will not be interested in any
testimony from that witness. We do not think that it is right for a witness to
come before the committee to refuse to give us his background and select which
questions he should answer and which questions he shall not answer. So that
will be the rule in the conduct of the hearings.

That statement of policy as amiounced by Senator Eastland and
subscribed to by all of the members of the committee will be applicable
in this instance, and we will therefore ask you to excuse yourself,
because we will not be interested in hearing your testimony.

Mr. Darr. All right.

Senator O'Conor. The next witness is a representative of the Civil
Rights Congress.

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS G. BUCHANAN, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
CIVIL RIGHTS CONGRESS, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. Young. Will you rise, please, and raise your right hand? Do
you solemnly swear or affii^m in the proceedings before the subcom-

176 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

mittee you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so liel]) you God?

Mr. Buchanan. I do.

Mr. Young. Will you state your name, address, and present
occupation.

Senator O'Conor. I might say that there were statements passed
around by the Reverend John Darr, Jr., to members of the committee,
and inasmuch as the committee is not interested in hearing from the
witness, the statements will be returned.

Mr. Young. I wall repeat the question.

Mr. Buchanan. Thomas G. Buchanan, Jr. I am a legislative
director of the Civil Rights Congress, and my home address is Park
Lane Apartments, Washington, D. C.

Mr. Young. Will you tell us what organization or organizations
you represent here today?

Mr. Buchanan. I represent exclusively the Civil Rights Congress.

Mr. Young. I would like to ask you two questions, please.

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist
Party.'

Mr. Buchanan. I w^ould like at this point to ask the same privilege
that Mrs. Jackson of the Congress of American W^omen and Mr.
Siegel of the ADA, and the American Civil Liberties Union asked,
that is to say, the right to assert clarifying questions so that I may
fully understand the import of the question, the two questions here
made a prerequisite to testify.

Senator O'Conor. Did you hear the statement?

Mr. Buchanan. I heard it. The point is that while I have heard
the statements like the previous witness, I am not certain that I
understand the full import of the questions, and therefore I want to
be sure that I answer these questions in full knowledge of the signifi-
cance of the questions.

Senator Miller. By that do you mean that you do not know"
whether you are a Communist?

Mr. Buchanan. No, sir; that is not what I mean. If I may be
permitted to e?^plain, I believe that the Senator from Idaho has
already answered my first question at yesterday's hearing, but I did
not fully understand the reply made to the Senator of Idaho by the
Senator from ]Maryland, and consequently I wish to know if the
position of the committee is the position expressed by the Senator
from Idaho.

The first question I have to ask is whether if any w^itness answers
either of these two questions in the affirmative he will be permitted to
testify.

Senator O'Conor. I see no reason, Mr. Buchanan, for any mis-
understanding on your part, because it is was clearly stated yesterday
that if the witness answers the question, he may proceed with any
explanatory statement he desires.

Mr. Buchanan. That clarifies that point.

The other point is, if any witness shall answer either or both of these
questions in the affirmative, woidd such a witness be subject to prose-
cution under any existing law?

Senator O'Conor. The committee will certainly not undertake to
pass on that, Mr. Buchanan. That is of course for the witness with
advice of counsel or otherwise to determine for himself or herself.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 177

Mr. Buchanan. The chairman reahzes that I am not asking the
question with regard to any possible subsequent testimony I may make,
simply as to the simple answer of "Yes" to either or both of these
questions.

In other words, I am sure that the committee does not intend that
any witness shall here incriminate himself under any existing law.
I want to make certain that is not the case in the case of affirmative
answer.

Senator O'Conor. As I said before, Mr. Buchanan, we do not
imdertake to tell the witness what he or she should or should not do,
and what the consequences of their statements would be. The com-
mittee is concerned with the identity of the people who appear before
them at their request, and who ask us to hear their opinions. They
are free to come or to stay away, as they please. But when they come
and appear before the committee, we have a right to know, we think,
who the witnesses are and what they represent. vSo the questions
will be propounded to you, and if they are answered in the affirmative
or otherwise, but if they are answered directly as to your connection
with the organizations, you may then proceed to make any explana-
tion you desire.

Mr. Buchanan. Is the chairman saying in effect that there is such
an existing law?

Senator O'Conor. The chairman is giving you no advice at all as
to the existing law.

Mr. Buchanan. The chairman is aslang witnesses here to answer
this question without knowledge as to whether they are incriminating
themselves thereby.

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Buchanan, we have stated our position.
The counsel will now propound the questions. You are free to answer
them or not to answer them, as you please, and if you do not desire
to state your identity, we are not interested in hearing your testimony.

Mr. Young. Mr. Buchanan, are you now or have you ever been a
member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Buchanan. The position of my organization is that we will
answer this question providing we are certain

Mr. Young. Please answer "Yes" or "No."

Mr. Buchanan (continuing). — We are not subjecting our repre-
sentative here to incrimination.

Senator O'Conor. Will you please answer the question "Yes" or
"No," and then after answering it you may explain.

Mr. Buchanan. The conditions under which I am authorized to
answer this question, I am stating that — —

Senator O'Conor. Will you answer that categorically?

Mr. Buchanan. Not without lvno\\^ng what it is.

Mr. Young. You have a right to stand on your constitutional
rights and say that you decline to answer the question, in that it
will violate or tend to incriminate you or violate the Constitution.

Mr. Buchanan. I do not think—- —

Mr. Young. That is one answer you may make.

Air. Buchanan. I do not take that position. I do not believe that
an affirmative answer to either question would incriminate me. I
am asking if the prosecuting authorities — • —

Senator O'Conor. Just a minute. Please desist. Please desist.
Do you or not desire to answer the question?

178 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Buchanan. 1 do not at this stage. I do not feel that T can
inteUigently answer that.

Senator O'Conor. We do not desire any explanation from you at
all, and we therefore will ask you to leave the stand.

Mr. Buchanan. It is my position— —

Senator O'Conor. "We are not interested in having any comment
from you, and no statement will be included in the record. We do
not desire that. If you desne to remain in the room, you will be
quiet. Otherwise leave the room.

Senator O'Conor. The next witness is the representative of the
Communist Party, Mr. Ai-nold Johnson.

TESTIMONY OF ARNOLD JOHNSON, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
COMMUNIST PARTY, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mr. Young. Will you stand, please, and raise your right hand.
You do solemnly swear or affirm in the proceedings before this sub-
committee you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Johnson. I do.

Mr. Young. State your name, address, and present occupation.

Mr. Johnson. Arnold Johnson, 35 East Twelfth Street, New York,
legislative director. Communist Party, United States.

Mr. Young. Will you tell us what organization or organizations
you represent presently?

Mr. Johnson. Communist Party.

Mr. Young. I would like to ask you two question, sir.

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist
Party?

Mr. Johnson. The laughter sort of indicates that it is a rather
redundant question, apart from the constitutional question, repre-
senting the Communist Party.

Senator O'Conor. Answer, please.

Mr. Johnson. I think that is sufficient identification.

Senator O'Conor. I desire you to answer the question.

Mr. Johnson. Well, isn't that

Senator O'Conor. We are not concerned about any explanation
from you. Just answer the question. One word will do it.

Mr. Johnson. You see. Senator, allow me to indicate there is a
great constitutional question — —

Senator O'Conor. W"e are not going to be interested in that.
You have indicated your answer. Just state it for the record.

Will you repeat the question, please?

Mr. Young. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the
Communist Party?

Mr. Johnson. I think the answer is obvious, both from identi-
fication — — •

Senator O'Conor. Will you please answer?

Mr. Johnson. It is in the statement; sir.

Senator O'Conor. We have not read the statement. We have not
any statement from you officially.

Mr. Johnson. I certainly

Senator Miller. You can answer that "Yes" or "No."

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 179

Mr. Johnson. I have to protest that kind of questioning because
it seems to me it has such an obvious question here.

Senator Eastland. Will you please answer the question?

Mr. Johnson. My membership is a matter of record all of the
time. In that sense it seems to me

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Johnson, we have asked the question
polititely, and the tlu'ee members of the subcommittee have asked it
of you. We wiU not have any testimony or any further statement
from you unless you do, as every witness here is to be required to do,
including the Members of Congress.

Will you read the question again?

Mr. Young. Mr. Johnson, are you now or have you ever been a
member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Johnson. I intend to get this testimony into the record.

Senator O'Conor. We will not put any testimony in the record until
that question is answered.

Mr. Johnson. Therefore, it provokes a great deal of levity. It
appears ridiculous to ask the question, and provide with the viewpoint
of my membership. I say it is well known that I speak as a member
of the Communist Party.

Senator O'Conor. Is your answer therefore "yes"?

Mr. Johnson. I think you would draw that inference.

Senator O'Conor. Is your answer therefore "yes"?

Mr. Johnson. This testimony just must get into this record.

Senator O'Conor. You are free to make any statement explanatory
of it after you have answered the question. But we will not have any
testimony from you, and we will not permit any comments from you
until that question is answered. Just make your own decision. You
are here at youi* own request. Make your decision as to whether or
not you want to answer it.

Mr. Johnson. I want to protest any effort to get me

Senator Miller. Just a minute. Just a minute. That is not
before you at the present time.

Mr. Johnson. I am expressing that protest, and the answer is
"Yes."

Senator O'Conor. Read the second question.

Mr. Young. Secondly, Are you now or have you ever been to the
best of yom* knowledge a member of any organization which has been
cited by a governmental agency as a Communist organization or as a
Communist-front organization?

Mr. Johnson. I stated I represented the Communist Party. That
answers that question.

Senator O'Conor. That party has been cited.

Mr. Johnson. By whom?

Mr. Young. The question is. Are you now or have you ever been to
the best of your knowledge a member of any organization which has
been cited by a governmental agency as a Communist organization
or a Communist-front organization.

Senator Eastland. I think he has answered that question when he
said he was a member of the Communist Party. I think he is qualified
to testify.

Senator O'Conor. Very well.

Mr. Johnson. My name is Arnold Johnson.

Senator O'Conor. Just proceed, Mr. Johnson.

180 CONTROL OF SUBVERSrV'E ACTIVITIES

ATr. Johnson. I am secretary of the national legislative, com-
mittee of the Communist Partv. I am here to testify in opposition
to the Mundt bill (S. 1194) and the Ferguson bill (S. 1196) and to
urge their rejection in toto by the Senate Judiciary Gommittee.

The bills under consideration here are virtually identical. They
differ only in minor detail from the Mundt-Nixon bill (H. R. 5852,
80th Coiig.). And like the Mundt-Nixon bill, the ]Mundt and
Ferguson bills would nullify the Bill of Rights, cripple the trade-
unions, and advance the establishment of a full-fledged Fascist dic-
tatorship in the United States by outlawing the Communist Party.
These unconstitutional measures are aimed particularly against the
growing peace movement in our country, and seek to advance Wall
Street's preparations for war by destroying every democratic right
cherished by the American people.

This contention is amply supported by the provisions of S. 1194
and S. 1196. Moreover, witnesses have already appeared here to
testify that these bills adversely affect wide circles, including groups
which have no connection or sympathy with the Communist Party.

I now call your attention to section 4 (a) of the Mundt bill, which
is practically the same as a similar provision of the Ferguson bill.
This section would make it unlawful for persons knowingly to con-
spire or agree to perform any act which would substantially facilitate
or aid in the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian
dictatorship to be directed or controlled by a foreign government,
foreign organization, or foreign individual.

Since the preamble giving the so-called necessity for these bills, to
these bills arbitrarily declares that the Communist Party and other
proscribed groups seek to estalbish a totalitarian dictatorship under
foreign control, any agreement entered into by them or their members
would automatically become punishable as a crime.

Senator Eastland. Mr. Johnson, does the Communist Party desire
to establish dictatorship in the United States?

Mr. Johnson. The sense in which it is used here and in the declara-
tions, certainly not, no. The answer is "No."

Senator Eastland. Well, in what sense does it — —

Mr. Johnson. In no sense.

Senator Eastland. Does the Communist Party desire to set up

Mr. Johnson. In no sense. I want to identify two things. First,
I want to say that the definitions placed in this whole section of the
bill are completely false views, have no relation to the truth/ There-
fore, I say that in that sense, I, likewise in any other sense see, that
is the point of my answer to it. One answer and then the other.
You will note that all the way through it is based upon this

Senator Eastland. Is there any connection between the American
Communist Party that you represent, and the world Communist
movement?

Mr. Johnson. There are no organizational connections between
the United States Communist Party, the Communist Party of the
United States, and any Communist Party outside of the United States,
in the sense that there is a body of literature which everybody reads,
whether it is mathematics or science or anything. Communists and all
others read and follow the basic literature, basic ideology; the basic
philosophy which we hold is a philosophy that is very scientific in
every sense, very helpful to the American people, grows out of the

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 181

American scene, as well as out of every scene, in this sense there is
no organizational political ties to a political party anywhere else,
and it is not tied in that sense at all.

Senator Eastland. Is there any connection between the Com-
munist Party organization which you represent and the Communist
Party of Russia, or the Government of Russia?

Mr. Johnson. No.

Senator Eastland. Have you been in Russia?

Mr. Johnson. I was in the Soviet Union on a tour in 1930 together
with Senator Barkley and a number of others.

Senator Eastland. Did you ever attend the Lenin Institute?

Mr. Johnson. No.

Senator Eastland. In Moscow?

Mr. Johnson. No ; I was a tourist.

Senator Eastland. Do you know Hans Eisler?

Mr. Johnson. Hans Eisler; no.

Senator Easland. Do jou know Gerhard Eisler?

Mr. Johnson. I had seen Gerhard Eisler in meetings speak; yes.

Senator Eastland. Did you have any dealings with him?

Mr. Johnson. No.

Senator Eastland. Did you know that the Eislers represented the
Russian Government in the United States?

Mr. Johnson. They did not.

Senator Eastland. Have the official representatives of the world
Communist Party of the Government of Russia ever had any authority
or ever held a place of authority with the American Communist Party?

Mr. Johnson. There are two factors there. In the first place, there
is a certain stage in the development of the Communist movement,
there was a Communist International. I think it was in the year 1940.

Senator Eastland. Did that Communist International send funds
to the American Communist Party?

Mr. Johnson. No.

Senator Eastland. Did your party— now, wait just a minute.

Mr. Johnson. That is not in existence now.

Senator Eastland. Wait just a minute, please.

Did your party ever secure any funds from abroad?

Mr. Johnson. No.

Senator Eastland. How does it secure its funds?

Mr. Johnson. By appeals to the American people, constantly
making fimd drives. That is really a constant thing.

Senator Eastland. Then all of your finances are raised by sub-
scription from the people of the United States.

Mr. Johnson. Subscription in the sense of a general solicitation
of funds; yes.

Senator Eastland. No funds have ever come from the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics?

Mr. Johnson. None.

Senator Eastland. And you have no connection, your organization
has no connection with the party?

Mr. Johnson. That is right, none.

Senator Eastland. Did you ever have any connection with, that
is, your party ever have any connection with the Russian consulate
in the State of New York?

jMr. Johnson. No.

182 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Eastland. Any contact with the Russian Embassy in
the city of Washington?

Mr. Johnson. No.

vSenator Eastland. Who is J. Peters we read about in the news-
papers?

Mr. Johnson. J. Peters? You mean, I think that is a question
of identification of individuals. In a sense hke this, you would start
from there, you start out and sa}^ "Wlio is who?" I want to present
my statement in regard to this particular legislation.

Senator Eastland. I do not want

Mr. Johnson. And the case of J. Peters is a matter of public
discussion, public knowledge. Everything that has appeared in the
newspaper is just about the way people hear it.

Senator Eastland. I understand. The questions are responsive
to your statement here about your totalitarian dictatorship. If any-
one can throw any light on the allegation in this bill that the Com-
munist m.ovecnent is a conspiracy t3 set up totalitarian dictatorship
under foreign control, you should be able to do that. Your party
should be able to do that. That is the reason I want to ask

Mr. Johnson. That is the reason I want to get in this fall statement.

Senator Eastland. You will be given plenty of time.

Wlio is J. Peters. That is why I want to have you answer that
question. Do you know him?

Mr. Johnson. You see. Senator, if from this you conceive the pur-
pose of appearing at a Senate hearing to stop me from presenting my
statement

Senator Eastland. I do not want to stop you. I am not trying to
stop you. I want you to present your statement. I want to give you
adequate time to present it. I just asked you a question.

Senator Miller. What is that name, please?

Senator Eastland. J. Peters.

Senator O'Conor. There is no disposition to stop you, as Senator
Eastland has stated. His question is addressed to your acquaintance-
ship, if that be so, with a certain individual.

Senator Eastland. He is said to be a representative of the Russian
Government. He says there is no tie-up between his party and the
Russian Government. He says that in his statement.

Mr. Johnson. I would definitely say that is not true.

Senator Eastland. Then who is J. Peters? If you do not want to
answer the question, that will be all right. I will withdraw it, and
let you proceed with your statement.

Mr. Johnson. You see, there is a fundamental point. I prefer
that you withdraw for a very simple reason, that is, that I do not
intend to proceed into a so-called explanation and discussion of a
whole series of individuals. I want to proceed with my statement.

Senator Eastland. I know, but when you appear as a witness
before the committee, you are here for all pm-poses, and subject to
questions, that is, from the committee, if you are here in good faith.
I am going to w^aive that. I am going to withhold that question for
the minute and let you proceed.

Senator O'Conor. Just along that line, you have answered that
there is no organizational connection, I understand, between the Com-
munist Party of America and the world Communist Party. Did I
correctly understand you?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 183

Mr. Johnson. That is right.

Senator O'Conor. Are any instructions or advices received' from
Moscow by the American Communist Party?

Mr. Johnson. No.

Senator O'Conor. From the Cominform?

Mr. Johnson. None.

Senator O'Conor. Has there been to your knowledge any sugges-
tions as to what the attitude of your membership should be in the
event of any conflict with Soviet Russia?

Mr. Johnson. I was going to submit, which I think would help to
aid in answer that very question proposed now, a statement by William
Z. Foster, and Eugene Dennis, in reply to a question, and then a
further statement, an open letter to President Truman, which deals
likewise with this question, and a twisting of the question that oc-
curred when the President charged the leadership of the Communist
Party as being treasonous. If you want I would just read it right
in at this stage

Senator O'Conor. Do you have it there?

Air. Johnson. To have it complete. It is a pretty lengthy state-
ment.

Senator O'Conor. Could I see it?

Mr. Johnson. This is the fu'st statement which is continued over
here. This is the second statement, continued here.

Senator O'Conor. Very well.

Mr. Johnson. Because it answers it a lot more in an official way,
answers it more thoroughly as far as an expression is concerned.

Senator O'Conor. Right in that connection, Mr. Johnson, in
your opinion what would be the attitude of the members of the
Communist Party in the event of conflict with Soviet Russia, that is,
of war between the United States and Russia? To which country
do you think the allegiance of the Communist Party would be?

Mr. Johnson. In the first place, I think you are asking a question
that deserves the kind of an answer that is a political answer, and a
full explanation of the Communist position in regard to war.

At the outset I want to say that as Communists we maintain the
most vigorous struggle for peace, we maintain that peace is the
essential need of the American people and the peoples of the world, and
in stating that, we would struggle for peace at all levels at all times.

We hold also that war between the United States and the Soviet
Union is not inevitable and that peace can be achieved and that two
social systems can peacefully coexist.

In this sense we also start from the premise that there is no such
thing as a preventable war, and features of that character which
some of the advocates of war try to advance. I also hold that as
far as where does war danger come from, I say the war danger arises
from the imperialist policies of Wall Street, that the war danger does
not arise from the Soviet Union or a Socialist country, that a war
danger cannot arise from a Socialist country, that that is part of the
history of Socialist countries, and from the viewpoint of likewise, on
the other hand, part of the history of capitalist countries.

In this sense, too, I would say that a war between the United States
where the United States would conduct a war against the Soviet Union,
I would say that would be a very unjust war, and that such an unjust
war would have to be opposed as being contrary to the interests of the

184 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

American people. I would hold that our loyalty is to the' American
people at all times, and, therefore, would constantly struggle against
such a war.

Senator O'Conor. But in the event

Mr. Johnson. And thus seek the most rapid termination. And
my feeling is very frankly that the mass of the American people would
oppose such a war, not desire it, struggle against it, and really impose
peace. And in that sense to conduct this fight for peace.

Senator O'Conor. Very well. My question, may I ask the ques-
tion then, but in the event that such a war were declared, where would
the allegiance of the Communist Party be, to the United States?

Mr. Johnson. To the American people.

Senator O'Conor. Or to Russia?

Mr. Johnson. To the American people, expressed in the struggle
for peace.

Senator Eastland. What you say is this, and correct me if I am
wrong; that the first loyalty of your party is to the American people,
that under any conditions the best interests of the American people
could not be served by war with Russia; therefore, if war should be
declared, regardless of the cause, your first loyalty would still be to
the American people. The war, you say, would be against their inter-
ests, and, therefore, you would refuse to defend this country, is that
right?

Mr. Johnson. Therefore, I would consistently struggle

Senator Eastland. Answer my question.

Mr. Johnson. For the imposition of peace, and the establishment
of peace.

Senator Eastland. Answer my question. Would you refuse to
defend this country?

Mr. Johnson. You see

Senator Eastland. I want a "Yes" or ''No" answer, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Johnson. You are asking for a political answer to a political
question, and you know it.

Senator Eastland. I want you to answer regardless of what I
know; I want you to tell us whether or not you will defend this coun-
try? Is it your country?

Mr. Johnson. This country belongs to the people, doesn't it?

Senator Eastland. Is this your country?

Mr. Johnson. This country belongs to the people, and it is on that
basis I say very categorically that the people's interests have to be
preserved at all times.

Senator Eastland. Would you defend this country?

Mr. Johnson. I do not say that a person has to answer a question
like that which becomes the kind of a question that only serves to
create strength to those who would try to advance a war program
within this coimtry.

Senator O'Conor. The question is a very simple one and it is
directly in line with the question I propounded as to where your
allegiance would be in the event of a conflict, in war between the
United States Government and the Soviet Government, and Senator
Eastland's question is a direct one and we would like to have your
answer as to whether you would or would not refuse to defend the
United vStates Government in the event of armed conflict withXthe
Soviet Union.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 185

Mr. Johnson. On that kind of a question, Senator, I stated that
the question has to be answered with all of the policy involved.

Senator Eastland. I want a "yes" or "no" answer to my question.
Would you defend this country? Would your party's policy be the
defense of this country?

Mr. Johnson. Our party policy is constantly in defense of the
interests of the American people and that is where it rests.

Senator Eastland. Would you defend the United States?

Mr. Johnson. I would further add to that that in doing so, pur-
suing my policy, I would be pursuing a similar policy advocated by
Abraham Lincoln against the unjust war against Mexico.

Senator Eastland. You attempt to draw a distinction between the
American people and the Government of the United States. Now I
will ask you if war, regardless of cause, arose, would you defend the
Government of the United States?

Mr. Johnson. You see, Senator, that is exactly why I was saying
that this' statement should have been, perhaps, incorporated in full
into the sentence because then you get a full statement of it.

Senator O'Conor. Just a minute.

Senator Eastland. Wait just a minute.

Mr. Johnson. Despite the efforts of the peace forces of .A.merica in
the world. Wall Street should succeed in plunging the world into war,
we would oppose it as unjust, aggressive, imperialist, as undemocratic
and antisocialist party destructive of the deepest interests of the
American people and all humanity.

Senator Eastland. Just a minute.

Mr. Johnson. Even as Abraham Lincoln while a Congressman
opposed the unjust annexationist Mexican War and demanded its
termmation, so would we Coxnmunists cooperate with all democratic
forces to defeat the predatory war aims of American imperialism and
bring such a war to a speedy conclusion on the basis of a democratic
peace.

Senator Eastland. We have heard you.

Mr. Johnson. It seems to me that states our position very clearly.

Senator Eastland. No, su*. Wliat you are trying to do is to draw
a distinction between this Government and the American people, and
saying that the people's mterest would not be furthered by such a war,
and you are loyal to the people, and that by being loyal to the people
you would be disloyal to the Government.

I want to know if j^ou would defend the Government of the United
States, and I want to know if your party's policy would be to defend
the Government of the United States.

Mr. Johnson. You see

Senator Eastland. If it would not, you are certainly disloyal.

Mr. Johnson. No, no. We hold the opposite. We are not dis-
lo3^al. We hold that we have a right to our definition of loyalty.
You may make your definition of loyalty. I may not necessarily
subscribe to your definition of loyalty, and advance my definition as
a loyal American citizen, loyal to the institution of America, loyal to
its progress and its advance, and it is on that sense that I say that I
have a right to make my definitions, too.

Senator Eastland. Wiat you are saying, then, is that you could
refuse to defend your country in case of war.

186 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. JoH!VsoN. I am saying this-

Senalor Eastland. You say you are not disloyal under your defini-
tion you are loyal to the people — wait just a minute. I want you to
answer my question.

Mr. Johnson. This is answering the very question he is asking.

Senator Eastland. No, sir, I want that question answered "Yes"
or "No."

Mr. Johnson. You see, let me just pose this

Senator O'Conor. You can make any explanation you want

Mr. Johnson. Wlio preceded •

Senator O'Conor. Just a minute. Just a minute. You can make
any explanation you desire. We will sta}' here and listen to it calmly.
But when the Senator propounds a question, he is entitled to an
answer, and upon making the answer, you can elaborate on it as much
as you wish, and we will give you the opportunity to do it, politely
and fully.

Mr. Johnson. Don't you see this, he is giving certain definitions
what he terms lo^^alty to country, people, and so forth. I do not
answer on the score of his definitions.

Senator O'Conor. You can so explain it.

Mr. Johnson. That is what I am doing.

Senator O'Conor. You can explain it when you make your answer.

Mr. Johnson. Take this sentence

Senator O'Conor. Just a minute. Do you mean to say that you
do not understand the Senator's question when he asks in the event
of war with Russia, would you defend the United States?

Mr. Johnson. You see, I take this sentence from Senator Carl
Schurz, whom you perhaps well remember who in 1872 on the Senate
floor made this sentence: "Our country right or wrong, when right to
keep it right, when wrong to put it right."

Senator Eastland. You will not take control of this committee
meeting.

Mr. Johnson. I am not.

Senator Eastland. You certainly are not. We want these ques-
tions answered, and we want to be polite to you, but we are not going
to let you create a scene here, and we are not going to have a Com-
munist demonstration here. The question is a reasonable question.
I will ask it again. Would you defend the Government of the United
States in case of war with Russia? The answer is "Yes" or "No."
If you do not care to answer the question, then say you do not care
to answer it.

Senator O'Conor. Wlien you do answer

Mr. Johnson. I subscribe to the statement which I have submitted
here by William Z. Foster and Eugene Dennis as being my full answer
to the question raised.

Senator Eastland. Would you join the American Ai-my in case of
war with Russia?

Mr. Johnson. I repeat with this statement, this statement is
adequate, it is a political question, deserves a political answer.

Senator Eastland. I do not think this witness has answered.

Senator O'Conor. The question has not been answered. You are
privileged to make any explanation you wish after you answer the
question, but the question is a very clear one, and a very simple one,

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 187

and is apparently understood by you. Wliat is your answer, or do you
decline to answer?

\h\ Johnson. I prefer to read the full statement which I think is
the only sensible way to answer that khid of a question. I think that
I should have the opportunity to do so without any interruption.

Senator Eastland. I say that we let him go on and react his state-
ment into the record.

Mr. Johnson. With this understanding, that this has now^

Senator O'Conor. You can refer to it.

Mr. Johnson. I submit it as being part of the record.

Senator O'Conor. Inasmuch as the Senate has gone into session,
we will have to adjourn this meetmg and resume at 10 o'clock to-
morrow morning.

(Thereupon at 12 o'clock noon, the subcommittee recessed to re-
convene Friday, May 20, 1949, at 10 a. m.)

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

FRIDAY, MAY 20, 19 49

United States Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, D. G.
The subcommittee met, pm'suant to recess, at 10 a. m., in room
424, Senate Office Building, Senator James O. Eastland (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Eastland and O 'Conor.

Also present: Robert B. Young and J. H. Mathews, professional
staff members.

Senator Eastland. The committee will come to order.

Now, Mr. Johnson, you may proceed. Where were you yesterday?

TESTIMONY OF ARNOLD JOHNSON, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
COMMUNIST PARTY, NEW YORK, N. Y.— Resumed

Mr. Johnson. I was just concluding on the first page. I concluded
"with the sentence:

Any agreement entered into by them, or their members, would automatically
become punishable as a crime.

I want to add this one additional sentence on that page there:
This method of outlawing the Communist Party and other organi-
zations must be understood for what it is, the destruction of the Bill
of Rights, and the political rights of the American people.

It is obvious that one of the principal aims of this section is to
prohibit non-Communist progressives and their organizations from
cooperating with the Communist Party or its members in the fur-
therance of any common objective.

vSenator Eastland. What non-Communist organizations do you
refer to in that statement?

Mr. Johnson. Any and all non-Communist organizations. I mean
any organization that is not the Communist Party, whether it is a
trade union, whether it is a tenants' organization, whether it is an
organization to abolish the poll tax, an organization dedicated to
outlaw lynching, the NWACP, any other non-Communist organization,
et cetera.

Senator Eastland. Would you mean also organizations that have
been refei/ed to or designated b}^ the Attorney General as subversive
or Communist-front organizations?

Air. Johnson. What he designates as such. However, I do not
accept his appellation that thoy are subversive.

Senator Eastland. I understand.

Mr. Johnson. Yes.

189

93357—49 13

190 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Eastland. But that are Communist-front organizations.
What about the Workers Alhance; would that be one of those or-
ganizations?

Air. Johnson. Now, when you term it Communist front organiza-
tion, then I do not classify the Workers Alliance in the period when
the Workers Alliance was in existence as a Communist front organiza-
tion. I do not take that term and use its application in the sense in
which I find definitions being given here. I place it clown as simply a
non- Communist organization which was an organization of unem-
ployed and relief workers at that particular time, WPA workers.

Senator Eastland. Did you belong to the Workers Alliance?

Mr. Johnson. Oh, surely, yes.

Senator Eastland. Were you an imemployed worker?

Mr. Johnson. Was I employed?

Senator Eastland. Were you an unemployed worker at the time
you belonged to the Workers Alliance?

Mr. Johnson. Yes. I was an officer in the Workers Alliance.

Senator Eastland. What officer? What was your position, your
title in that organization?

Mr. Johnson. I was the State chau'man of the Workers Alliance in
Ohio. I was a member of the national board of the Workers Alliance.

Senator O'Conor. If you say that the other organization to which
Senator Eastland referred is not a Communist front organization, what
organizations are Communist front organizations? Give us some
examples.

Mr. Johnson. I do not use that definition. Therefore I find it
impossible to give examples.

Senator O'Conor. You apparentl}^ knew what the chairman
referred to when you said that such an organization was not Commu-
nist front. If you loiew they w^ere not Communist front, what organ-
izations are Communist front?

Mr. Johnson. No, no, the logic does not follow that way in my
opinion. It is true if you apply a formal position, a formal syllogism
in that form of question you can come to that; that does not neces-
sarily follow, you see.

Senator O'Conor. Do you or not admit that there are organiza-
tions which are Communist front? That will bring it right to a head.
Are thei'e any such and if so, what are they?

Mr. Johnson. No; 1 don't classify organizations as Communist
front at all.

Senator O'Conor. You take the position that there are none such.

Mr. Johnson. That is correct.

Senator O'Conor. There is none such?

Air. Johnson. That is correct. The organizations have their own
identity according to their oa\ti purposes, their o^^'^l membership, and
their own bylaws, et cetera, within that they identify themselves.
Some people classify trade unions, for instance, Communist front.
That does not make it into one.

To use the term that way is sometimes used on the basis of trying
to make it appear as if there is some direct or indirect or whatever
other kind of connections between the Communist Party and that
particular organization. But to make statements like that, just like
years ago you know you could make a statement, many people believed
it, said the world was flat. That didn't make the world flat. The

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 191

fact that thousands of people said it for many hundred years, still the
world was not flat because people said so. If definitions do not deal
with the exact elements of truth, then. those definitions are both mis-
leading and false, and it is in that sense I say that sometimes you
create terminology and sometimes people use words which have en-
tirely different meanings to different peoples when they are not related
to the truth. ?

Senator Eastland. Mr. Johnson, this bill as you of course kno\^^
hits at such organizations such as you describe, and I judge that the
Workers Alliance would be; is that organization in existence now?

Mr. Johnson. No.

Senator Eastland. The National Workers Alliance of America is
not in existence at this time?

Mr. Johnson. It has not been in existence since I would say about
1938.

Senator Eastland. I would judge that would be one of the type of
organizations to which this bill, if enacted, would apply.

Who were the other national officers of the Workers Alliance?

Mr. Johnson. Now, just a second. As soon as you start to ask me
for names of people, in view of the effort being made within this legis-
lation, I don't know how joii people are going to try to mterpret
legislation of this character, to ask me to refer to individuals.

Senator Eastland. We do not interpret it.

Mr. Johnson. I know you don't. But how it will be interpreted,
say, by Tom Clark, the technique in which these interpretations occur,
if such legislation is passed; is to ask me to turn into a person trying
to brmg people into jeopardy before the law, et cetera. Do you see
my point?

Senator Eastland. I see your point.

Mr. Johnson. I just can't do it.

Senator Eastland. I judge the national officers of the Workers
Alliance, their names were not secret.

Mr. Johnson. That is right; they were not.

Senator Eastland. That was something

Mr. Johnson. Therefore, you have other means of finding, of deter-
mining whatever names you may want. That is my point.

Senator Eastland. That is the way the Communist Party operates
is through the fronts where they can publish the names as members
of the organization, rather than as Communists, isn't that correct?

Mr. Johnson. No, no; now you are really, you are really creating
an idea in your own mind.

Senator Eastland. What members of the Communist Party were
officers of the Workers Alliance to which you belonged?

Mr. Johnson. Now, you see, you are doing the same thing again.

Senator Eastland. I want you to

Mr. Johnson. I don't think you appreciate this position that we
just customarily take, especially when you are discussing a piece of
legislation which has with it this field of trying to put people into jail
for something that may have been as far as affiliations are concerned
years ago. The next thing you can ask me, you know, "Are they still
members of the Communist Party?" And you would find yourself
getting involved in this kind of a question, questions of names, I
don't, just don't see the point of it.

192 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Eastland. You are down here at your request, Mr.
Johnson, to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Johnson. That is right.

Senator Eastland. This bill, and you can throw light on whether
this measure is meritorious or not, and we think that you should give
us the information on which to act. If you do not know, no one else
can. You know more about it than we do. What are the members?

Mr. Johnson. You see, what I want to do is to give you my full
statement. When it comes to this question of saying who is the
names of this person or that person or other persons, et cetera, then
you will find the complete resistance on my part to the utilization of
any names, dealing with any feature of this legislation, from the view-
point that history begins to show that later utilization of those par-
ticular names against those, and taking of actions against people,
and I just absolutely do not in any committee anywheres turn into a
person who indirectly by any stretch of the imagination could become
a so-called informer or stool pigeon against a person.

Senator Eastland. Then what you refuse to do is to give the names
of the Workers Alliance, of the officials when you say it was not a
Communist front organization.

Mr. Johnson. That is right.

Senator Eastland. Not controlled by Communists.

You may proceed.

Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.

Thus, individuals could be fined or sent to prison for belonging to
organizations that endorse a candidate for public office, support a
wage demand advanced by a trade-union, or join in the legal defense
of frame-up victims like Mrs. Rosa Lee Ingram, the Trenton Six, or
the 12 Communist leaders.

It would be necessary only to show "reasonable ground for belief"
that Communists, or alleged Communists, were parties to such
agreements. Regardless of whether the Communist Party were the
initiator of a united front movement, or came to the support of a good
cause started by non-Communists — organizations and individuals
participating in any movement alleged to embrace Communists
would be penalized.

Under this section of the Mundt and Ferguson bills, it would be an
easy matter to prosecute labor and nonlabor groups coo )erating in an
efiort to secure repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act and restoration of the
Wagner Labor Relations Act.

Why not? The Communist Party advocates, seeks to initiate, and
vigorously supports united action to this end.

Negro and white organizations and their leaders could similarly be
prosecuted for uniting to secure passage of a real civil rights pro*: ram.

Why not? Everybod}^ knows that the Communist Party is ev^ery-
where in the forefront of the struggle for Negro rights, and participates
in every movement for full economic, political, and social equality for
the NegT-o people.

In the present atmosphere of intense war preparation and hystfri i,
this section of S. 1194 and S. 1196 could and would be used to idtimi-
date and prosecute any people's movement of opposition to the At-
lantic Pact, or to other aspects of Wall Street's bipartisan imperalist
war program?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 193

Why not? It is well known that the Communist Party is the most
active and consistent advocate of peace, of an American-Soviet peace
pact, of universal disarmament, of the decartelization and demilitari-
zation of Ja]:>an and Germany. Every measure favorable to the main-
tenance of lasting peace is sup})orted by the Communists — whether
it be support to the national liberation movements of the colonial
world, barring' Franco Spain from the United Nations, or the establish-
ment of friendly relations with the new, liberated China.

Is it not we Communists who most stubbornly insist that World
War III is not inevitable, and that the peace forces of the world, the
world anti-Fascist nnd the anti-imperialist camp, can check and defeat
the world camp of war and monopoly reaction headed by American
l)ig business? Have not the banker generals, their press, radio, and
politicians already proclaimed that to advocate a return to the peace
policies of Roosevelt is to reveal oneself as a "dupe," a " fellow traveler"
or a "Communist"?

Cooperation with other peace-loving Americans who engage in
joint elforts to check and defeat the Wall Street war mongers already
carries a lieavy penalty in our country. For this, non-Communists
as well as Communists are pilloried in the public press. They may
also be fired evidently from private and public employment, dismissed
from theh teaching posts in schools and universities, expelled from
college, or denied relief after being blacldisted. For this, Americans
of foreign birth are tlu'eatened with deportation. For this, workers
in some trade-unions are barred from holding office.

In connection ^vith this general pattern of attempted intimidation,
the cm-rent political heresv trial of the Communist leaders has special
relevance to S. 1194 and S. 1196.

As the committee knows, it was immediately after the storm of
popular protest temporarilj^ blocked passage of the Mimdt-Nixon bill
that the 12 Communist leaders were indicted on July 20, 1948.

I ask leave to attach to my testimony a copy of that indictment,
which I handed in yesterday, and I again do it at this time.

Senator Eastland. Wait right there. Do I understand you to say
that because the Mundt-Nixon bill was not enacted at the last session
of Congress that some connection between the failure of this committee
to report that bill out and the indictment of the 12 Communist leaders
came about?

Mr. Johnson. I point out simply that it was the historical fact that
immediately after the vast protest to the Mundt-Nixon bill that this
indictment was handed down.

Let me go on.

Senator Eastland. Do you mean to leave that impression?

Mr. Johnson. This explains the point.

Senator Eastland. I am not arguing with you. Is that the impres-
sion you mean to leave?

Mr. Johnson. I think the rest of it explains the point.

Senator Eastland. I want you to explain it now. Does it?

Mr. Johnson. I think the effort, yes, I put it like this. I think the
effort to outlaw the Communist Party last year by the Mundt-Nixon
bill, failing to do that, then the Attorney General likewise seeking to
outlaw the Communist Party, went then to utilize the courts in an
effort to outlaw the Communist Party, and the Bill of Rights, through

194 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

the courts, and iii utilizing the courts, utilized the blue-ribbon grand
jury. I would even add this to it: It seems to me here you had one
of those situations where the grand jury, a blue-ribbon grand jury, at
the very beginning, directed against the working class, directed against
the struggles of peoples for many years, undertook to take away from
the people the people's rights to judge a political party, and in this
sense proceeded to outlaw it. Yes, in that way this does have a
relevance.

Senator O'Conor. Inasmuch as you are discussing that very ques-
tion of indictment, let me ask you this: Assuming for the sake of
discussion that one or the other of these bills or a similar bill were to be
enacted requiring the Communist Party to register, would you abide
by the law?

Mr. Johnson. I have a statement at the concluding part of it on
that exactly.

Senator O'Conor. I think it is pertinent right here, because you
are talking about indictments. I would like to know whether it would
be the policy of the Communist Party to abide by the law and to
register as the law would require?

Mr. Johnson. Would we register? No.

Senator O'Conor. You say now that even though the Congress
passed the law, and it were signed by the President and became the
law of the land that the policy of the Communist Party would be to
violate it?

Mr. Johnson. No, no; that the point of what would happen is this,
that then you would force us into a position whereby your outlawing
us forces us into a position of underground.

Senator O'Conor. So that

Mr. Johnson. Just could not abide by that kind of a law in the
sense of saying do you abide by a law which is a law which is con-
trary to the interests of the American people, that violates the Bill of
Rights, the Constitution. Would we be a partner to violating the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I say" No."

Senator Eastland. You would go underground.

.Mr. Johnson. I suppose that is the only place we could go.

Senator O'Conor. Would it be your policy as one of the officers of
the Communist Party and the policy of your fellow officers to advise
any of your affiliated organizations not to register? Would you
direct them not to abide by the provisions of the law?

Mr. Johnson. I would insist on, I insist on everybody upholding
the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States, and in
doing so I would have to insist upon that they would not do that.
They would not register.

Senator Eastland. You mean to uphold the Bill of Rights and
the Constitution, as you interpret it; is that right?

Mr. Johnson. Yes, and as I think historically it does have its inter-
pretation.

Senator O'Conor. Just for the purpose of this discussion, I was
confining your attention to this one specific piece of legislation.
Assuming that it is to be enacted in the form that I am talking about it,
and you are now analyzing it, so correct me if I am stating your posi-
tion incorrectly, my understanding of your position is that even though
this law were enacted and made a part of the law of the land, you
would refuse to abide by its provisions, and the Communist Party

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 195

would refuse to register and would go underground. Do I understand
your position correctly?

Mr. Johnson. Yes. I elaborate upon this point later in my exact
statement.

Senator O'Conor. You may do so. I wanted to see if I got your
position correctly, and apparently I do. All right.

Mr. Johnson. In flagrant violation of the Bill of Rights and
America's democratic traditions, it alleges that it is a "crime" for the
Communist Party and its leaders to teach and advocate the working-
class principles of scientific socialism. That is the indictment that I
am inserting here. It makes an unfounded and arbitrary finding
that the duty and necessity to overthrow the Government of the
United States by force and violence is "a principle" of Marxism-
Leninism. That is, the indictment makes that.

The press has reported that Senators Mundt and Ferguson consider
that the Justice Department made a mistake in indicting the Com-
munist leaders on this ground, rather than on the grounds set forth in
the preambles to their biUs.

I contend, and many non-Communist Americans agree, that it is
not a "mistake" but a crime against the Bill of Rights to attempt to
try an American working-class political party in a court of law, or to
indict its leaders for what they believe in, teach, and advocate.

Senators Mundt and Ferguson should know that the indictment
under which the Communist leaders are presently being tried is barren
of the charge that they committed, or even planned to commit, any
overt act of force and violence against the Government of the United
States. Moreover, the Senators should know that a desperate effort
was made to indict them on charges similar to those made in this
preamble in this legislation. And that this attempt failed because
these charges are so utterly false that no evidence to warrant an
indictment on them could be contrived or concocted.

Mr. Young. How do you Ivnow that? Were you in the grand jury
when the attempt was made?

Mr. Johnson. No, no.

Mr. Young. Have you any facts there to substantiate that?

Mr. Johnson. That was generally placed in the public press all the
way through and became a matter of general public knowledge.

Mr. Young. Was the press in the grand jury when the attempt was
made?

Mr. Johnson. One of the unfortunate thmgs that happened in
regard to that grand jury, which should have been investigated by this
committee, mcidentally, was the manner in which the press intervened
into the internal affairs of that grand jury and repeatedly tried to
influence the grand jury from without in violation of the function of
the grand jury. That was one of the other features about that particu-
lar grand jury which was, where they let leaks out, so to speak, and
then utilized leaks to try to bring pressure on the grand jury, to bring
exactly these kinds of indictments. That was the fact of the matter,
and that is why there was a great deal of common loiowledge about it.

Mr. Young. You say you get this common knowledge from press
reports.

Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Young. That is your source?

Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.

196 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Novortholess, the preamble to the Mimdt and Ferguson bills makes
a wholly unsubstantiated finding in regard to the Communist Party
and so-called Communist-front organizations. It declares that there
exists "a world Communist movement controlled by the Communist
dictatorship" of an unnamed "foreign country"

Senator Eastland. What is the Communist International?

Mr. Johnson. The Communist International?

Senator Eastland. Yes, sir.

Mr. Johnson. You see, the Communist International, the Third
International, existed up until 19i3, when it was dissolved at that
time. The Communist Party of the United States was disaffiliated
from the Communist International in 1940, I think it was.

Senator Eastland. Well, up until 1940

Mr. Johnson. Since, there has been no Communist International.

Senator Eastland. Just a minute now. Until 1940, do I under-
stand that the American Communist Party was an arm of the Com-
munist International?

Mr. Johnson. Was a section of it; yes.

Senator Eastland. Go ahead. Wliat was the Communist Inter-
national?

Mr. Johnson. Like many other organizations, and many other
organizations, I may have taken the most simple comparison, take
like recently there was an organization of churches whereby the
churches established a World Council of Churches. I understand
respective world organizations in that sense, and in that sense the
Communist International was a body to which respective parties,
Communist parties throughout the world, sent delegates and partici-
pated in conferences, et cetera.

Senator Eastland. For what purpose? What were those con-
ferences?

Mr. Johnson. For the purposes of Communist discussion of com-
mon problems that may exist among the people in the development of
an ideology, in the thinking out of programs, development of science,
analysis of exact events everywhere. You know, people ever3rwhere
are interested in what is happening ever^^where else.

Senator Eastland. What was the objective, the object or the ob-
jective of the Communist International? What was it?

Mr. Johnson. I suppose you become more specific ; what you mean
by objective.

Senator Eastland. Wliat was the objective; was it world com-
munism?

Mr. Johnson, The strengthening of Communists everywhere; yes,
oh, sure.

Senator Eastland. It was to create Communist states in the
world; is that right?

Mr. Johnson. That is, you see, anj^body can learn. I trust that
the situation wiU always remain where people learn from each other.

Senator Eastland. Well, now, wait a minute.

Mr. Johnson. The constant development in this sense of respective
parties in all parts of the world, in thinking, and in this sense ad-
vancing.

Senator Eastland. Was it or was it not its purpose to create
Communist states in the world?

Mr. Johnson. I would not put it in exactly that way, Senator.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSrV'E ACTR^ITIES 197

Senator O'Conor. You just said a minute ago that the objective
was, in answer to the Senator's question, that the Communist move-
ment wouhl be extended world wide. Did I not understand you
correctly to say that that was your ultimate purpose and desire?

Mr. Johnson. You see, there is quite a distinction here, that is used
a little bit interchangeably. I noticed Senator Eastland's remarks
and I noticed some variations likewise in how it is placed from time
to time. For instance, you can use this term world wide, and thereby
try to create an impression which would be a false impression, that
from a particular point there would be a direction over and determi-
nation of what happens in respective countries. That is not true.

Senator Eastland. Answer my question.

Mr. Johnson. That is the point.

Senator Eastland. Answer my question, please, Mr. Johnson.
Was the objective of the Communist International to set up Com-
munist states throughout the world?

Mr. Johnson. No.

Senator Eastland. How?

Mr. Johnson. No, that would not be true.

Senator Eastland. \Vhat was its objective?

Mr. Johnson. You see, when you talk in terms of the responsibility
of respective Communist parties in their own countries, those respec-
tive Communist parties in each and every one of their o^vn countries
are responsible to the working class of their country, to the people
of their country, not to some outside force, and that has always been
the policy. That was true during the period of the Communist
International.

Senator Eastland. Well, now

Mr. Johnson. Do you see?

Senator Eastland. You mentioned a minute ago that the Com-
munist International meetings that your party affiliated with, that
it was to carry out plans, you later said, and then you have taken
back that word, that it was to set up Communist states in the world.

Mr. Johnson. No, I didn't say that, no, no; no, you make the
variation here.

Senator Eastland. Wasn't one of the purposes of the Communist
International to set up a Communist government in France?

Mr. Johnson. No.

Senator Eastland. How?

Mr. Johnson. No, no. You can't put it just as simply as that
because you have to discuss the question of the role of the respective
party of every single country, and the parties within each country
are responsible to the working class, and the people of that particular
country. You see, that is the difference in it.

Senator Eastland. What was its object, then? Just explain the
object in it, then.

Mr. Johnson. In this sense, that Communists of one country can
well learn from the experiences of Communists in another country,
and in the sense that there is a strong bond just a normal bond between
peoples of all lands, to use that excellent phrase which is quoted in
here, for instance, of Abraham Lincoln, I don't find it quickly, the
international bond being a close bond second only to the tie of families.
I mean it is a firm feeling among people always expressed in people's
desire for peace, et cetera.

198 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator O'Conor. There are general principles that permeate the
Communist organizations in all countries, more or less common objec-
tives, are there not?

Mr. Johnson. There is this, Senator O'Conor. In a science you see
sometimes people just do not understand. Our body theory arises
from experience everywhere. The whole stack of books you might
say that would more than fill up all the four walls of this room, which
become a body of knowledge, you might say, thus perfecting a science
which analyzes the development of society in respective countries,
how that society is growing, which direction, and all of that, all of this
becomes part and parcel and the common property, you might say,
of all of us.

Senator Eastland. Wait a minute right there,

Mr. Johnson. It is also necessary to get together and discuss it,
not only necessary to read it.

Senator Eastland. That is not what you said. You said a common
plan. One of its meetings was to carry out a common plan, one of its
purposes, to carry out a common plan. What is that plan?

Mr. Johnson. Let us go back and see just what I did say.

I don't agree with that interpretation of what I said. I make
statements, I stand by my statements, I stand by the explanations
necessary in making those statements, because when you are asking
a question dealing with a fundamental point such as this

Senator Eastland. Are you standing by your statements? I want
to know what that plan is that you spoke about.

Mr. Johnson. I didn't. I hold I never designated any such thing as
so-called common plan, certainly not in the way you are trying to
imply at the present time.

Senator Eastland. You said one of the objectives of the Commu-
nist International was a plan, that they had these meetings to discuss
the plan, the international meetings. What is that plan? Was it to
overthrow this Government?

Mr. Johnson. No; no. No; no such thing as a common plan, if
you are trying to create words of that character, if you talk about a
common body of ideas.

Senator Eastland. What did you mean? I want to know what you
meant. You said a plan. W'hat did you mean by it?

Mr. Johnson. Let us go back and see what I just did say.

Senator Eastland. Was it a plan?

Mr. Johnson. No; no.

Senator Eastland. You have nle Taft-Hartley repeal, civil rights legislation,
health and medical programs, low-rent housing, expanded social
security, and increases in the n iniirum. wage are brushed aside.

With these bills, the rapidly increasing numbers of the unemployed
and part-time employed workers are offered another feast of red her-

204 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

ring. The monopolists who arc responsible for the developing new
economic crisis in om* country are preparing new and more brutal
methods of repression to force the workers and common people to
bear the burdens of mass misery and mass unemployment. The
Mundt and Ferguson bills, far from helping delay or alleviate this
new capitalistic crisis of overproduction, are instruments for blocking
the people's independent efforts to defend their homes, their jobs, and
their living standards.

It is useful at this time to recall how broad were the forces that
opposed the Mundt-Nixon bill last summer. They included two
anti-Communist labor leaders, William Green and Philip Murray.
These supporters of Truman and the United States imperialists were
forced last year to admit that this bill could be used to destroy the
American labor movement and cripple the activities of 14,000,000
AFL and CIO members.

Americans for Democratic Action, an organization dedicated to
combatting communism and advancing the imperialist war aims of
Wall Street had to oppose this bill on the ground that it could be used
to suppress even limited criticism of official policy on minor as weU
as on major issues.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
called for the defeat of this measure in the belief that it would prevent
their organization's half -million Negro and white members from con-
tinuing to champion the rights of the Negro people.

The National Council of Jewish Women and the American Jewish
Congress joined the Protestant Council in urging defeat of the Mundt-
Nixon bill. Wliile the bill had substantial support in the Catholic
hierarchy and among the leaders of the Catholic War Veterans, it
was strongly opposed by Bishop Francis J. Haas of Grand Rapids,
Mich., and many lay Catholics.

Distinguished constitutional lawyers, among them spokesmen for
the National I^awyers Guild, demonstrated conclusively that the
Mundt-Nixon bill flagrantly violated the Constitution of the United
States and the Bill of Rights.

Without here going into the strong legal arguments against the
legislation now under consideration, I associate myself with the charge
that S. 1194 and S. 1196 are as patently unconstitutional as was the
Mundt-Nixon bill whose provisions they follow in all important
respects.

The committee has on record the names of the many other organi-
zations and distinguished individuals who opposed H. R. 5852 in the
Eightieth Congress. It is a list which includes practically every
democratic group and leader in the United States. Even Governor
Dewey opposed this bill in Oregon in the primary and won the primary
on his fight on this issue. Mayor O'Dwyer of New York was among
those who vigorously opposed this legislation last year, taking people
from both Republican and Democratic Parties.

Since this honor I'oll was inscribed, we have had almost a year of
witch hunts and book burnings, spy hoaxes, and grand jury inquisi-
tions — climaxed by the "dangerous thought" trial of the Communist
leaders. Nevertheless, I anticipate that popular opposition to the
Mundt and Ferguson bills will equal or exceed the opposition to the
Mundt-Nixon bill, expressed last spring and summer in people's
lobbies and mass demonstrations, in the resolutions of trade-unions

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 205

and other organizations, and in individual letters to Congressmen and
Senators.

I firmly believe that hatred for fascism and war, devotion to the
Bill of Rights and to peace, still imbue the vast majority of the
American workers and common people. I believe, too, that there
are more men than mice in these United States — and that the men —
and women — of America will resolutely defend their liberties.

The committee perhaps knows, or fears that it is an accurate
estimate of the temper of the American people.

At any rate, the speed with which these hearings were scheduled
had the effect, if not the intent, of preventing the opposition from
mustering its full strength in time to make itself effectively heard.

Moreover, using a very flimsy pretext, the committee made an
unconstitutional ruling on procedure wliich cannot but work to the
advantage of this unconstitutional legislation. I refer to the require-
ment that all witnesses state whether or not they are or have been
Communist Party members, as a condition for the admission of their
testimony.

This trick, taken over from the House Committee on Un-American
Activities is designed to make it appear that only Communists are
affected by this proposed police state legislation. I have already
demonstrated the falsity of this pretense. This legislation is of very
vital concern to all Americans who desire to live under the protection
of the Bill of Rights — regardless of their political affiliation, or their
fundamental economic and social views.

Understanding of this elementary truth is growing among ever
wider sections of labor and the people. In many localities first-hand
acquaintance with this type of legislation is increasing the opposition
to so-called little Mundt and Ferguson bills that crop up in the
State legislatures.

Just across the District line, in the Free State of Marvland, the
Fascist Ober bill was recently passed by the legislature and signed by
the Governor. The very effective and widespread opposition de-
veloped too late to prevent passage of the Ober bill, which is modeled
after S. 1194 and S. 1196. But, under threat of the bill's immediate and
unlawful emergency enforcement, this people's resistance movement
has shown exemplary unity, courage, and determination. It has
rejected the dangerous notion that non-Communist progressives can
live with the Ober bill, leaving Maryland Communists to suffer all
the consequences of illegalization. Maryland's democratic non-
Communists have wisely elected to act along jointly with the Com-
munist Party of Maryland — in order that all trade-unions, people's
organizations, and freedom-loving individuals may live in Maryland
under the protection of the Bill of Rights.

This is the spirit in which Thomas Jefferson and his followers met
the challenge of the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790's. This is
the spnit of the Ynginia and Kentucky resolutions, in which Jeffer-
son and the people declared the Alien and Sedition Acts to be "alto-
gether void and of no force."

I believe that this is the spirit in which American labor and the
people will oppose S. 1194 and S. 1196.

Before reading the concluding words of this statement, I wish to
submit as part of my testimony the opening statement made to the
jury by the Communist Party's general secretary, Eugene Demiis,

93357—49 14

206 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

who is acting as his own attorney in the trial of the Communist
leaders.

This statement has a direct bearing on the proposed legislation
under consideration here. It answers not only the false charges made
against the Communist Party in court, but also the false charges
made as statements of fact in the preamble to S. 1194 and S. 1196.
I submit that at this time, having given copies yesterday.

The Communist Party's fight to defeat S. 1194 and S. 1196 will
continue. It will be joined with the fight of millions to assure that
neither this, nor any similar Fascist legislation is ever enacted into
law.

We Communists, beleaguered by attacks on many fronts, are confi-
dent that the American people will win this battle.

I conclude my statements with the concluding words spoken here
on May 28, 1948, by our national chairman, William Z. Foster:

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 our 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.

Mr. Mathews. Is Mr. Joseph H. Rainey present? Will you please
stand and raise your right hand? You solemnly swear or affirm
that m the. proceedings before this subcommittee of the Senate
Judiciary you will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth, so help j^ou God?

Mr. Rainey. I do.

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH H. RAINEY, MAGISTRATE,
PHILADELPHIA, PA.

Mr. Mathews. W^ould you give your name, address, and present
occupation for the record, please?

Mr. Rainey. My name is Joseph H. Rainey. I live at 1709 West
Jefferson Street, Philadelphia, Pa. I am a judge in the magistrate's
courts of Philadelphia for the past 12 years.

Mr. Mathews. You are speaking as an mdividual and not repre-
senting any organization?

Air. Rainey. I am speaking as an individual, although I am the
retired president of the Philadelphia branch of the National Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Colored People. I at present am the
chairman of the youth committee of that organization, and of course
1 am a member of a number of other organizations for which I don't
speak officially.

Mr. Mathews. Are you familiar with the policy of the subcom-
mittee as enunciated in the first hearing; that the subcommittee con-
siders certain information pertinent and material and relevant to
this hearing; namely, these two questions.

Senator Eastland. Have you a wiitten statement?

Mr. Rainey. No; I have not. I am going to talk from notes.

Mr. Mathews. Are you now or have you ever been a member of
the Communist Party. Mr. Rainey?

Mr. Rainey. No; I am not a member of the Communist Party.
I have never been a member of the Communist Part}^, but I am

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 207

answering that in protest, because I don't feel that anyone has the
right to ask me what my poUtical afhUations are. I feel that the Bill
of Rights protects me, and it is a violation of my constitutional rights
to ask me such. So I answer under protest.

Mr. Mathews. Ai-e you now or have you ever been to the best of
your knowledge a member of any organization which has been cited
by governmental agencies as a Communist organization or Comnmnist-
front organization?

Mr. Rainey. No; I have not. I answer that also under protest,
with the same qualifications as stated prior.

Senator Eastland. Yon may proceed.

Mr. Rainey. Senators, I am particularly interested in the defeat
of the Mundt and Ferguson bills because I feel that they definitely
violate the Constitution of the United States, and I have a personal
interest more directly to the effect that it would have upon the Negro
people in America. 1 am cognizant of the fact that there are some
15,000,000 or more Negroes in this country of ours, and that they have
played a very dominant part in making America the country that it is
today. I feel that the colored people have gained a great deal of the
rights that are justly theirs as American citizens because of the right
of expression and the right of assembly that is granted all American
people through the Constitution. I feel that the Mundt and Ferguson
bnis are bills that put fear in the minds and in the hearts of many
people in America, and certainly in the minds of the Negro people of
America, particularly those who live in the South. I think this fear
would place them in a position of thinking more than once before
they took the platform to express themselves against some of the
inequalities that exist in America today, or I think the same thing
would be true in relationship to writing where Negro papers are
concerned.

I think that we are all aware that for a number of years efforts
have been put forth for the passage of civil-rights legislation, and we
are also cognizant of the fact that one of the things, if not the most
important thing, that made it possible for President Truman to be
elected President of the United States at the last election was the fact
that he campaigned among the Negro people in America on a civil-
rights platform.

And I am also aware of the fact that when Mr. Truman went into
the South on many occasions he remained rather silent — not rather
silent; he remained silent about civil rights — but when he got into
Harlem he talked rather loudly what he was going to do for the
rights of the people of which I am a part.

The Negro people feel that, in view of the fact that they were
brought here many years ago, that since having been brought here
they have served their country well; there has been no war that has
been fought by America that the Negro has not played his part — and
I can remember very vividly the expressions and the promises that
were made to the black people in America in both the First and
Second World Wars; that these wars were being fought for democracy
and that when the wars were over and the boys returned home they
would find a better America, a more democratic America in which
to live than the America they had left behind.

But that was not true, unfortunately, not for the black people in
America; and so, consequently, we find ourselves in a position,

208 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator, of having to continue our fight for fair employment practices.
We have to continue our fight to have an antilynch law passed. We
have to continue our fight for the right to vote in all parts of America.
We have to continue our fight along with the laboring class of people
all over America to make conditions better for the man who has to
toil with his hands day in and day out in order to gain a living; and
if the Mundt-Nixon bill were passed, or the Mundt and Ferguson
bills, it would place not only the Negro people in America and the
laboring-class people in America but it would place any individual
in America in a rather embarrassing position to go forth and fight for
any of the things that are generally known as liberal policies, because
we have found unfortunately that in many instances where whites
take the stand in the interests of the Negro people that they are im-
mediately labeled as subversive people or a part of some subversive
element; and on that basis, if the Mundt, Ferguson, or the Mundt-
Nixon bills were passed, it would mean that many of these individuals
who are fighting for democracy as it should be practiced in this land
of ours would be labeled by this particular commission as subversive
individuals, or possibly members of some front organization alined
with the Communist group, and would find themselves being possibly
indicted and sent to prison, and serving terms simply because they
believe in democracy.

I, too, am familiar with the Alien and Sedition Acts that were put
in eft'ect just prior to the election of Thomas Jefl'erson; and I know, too,
then, that the common masses of people were not in sympathy with
any such acts as the Alien and Sedition Acts, any more than 1 believe
that the masses of people in America today are in accord with any
Mundt-Nixon or any Mundt-Ferguson bill.

I think that we must remember that public opinion rules democracy.
I think that the right to — I thinlv that the first amendment of the
Constitution of the United States denies Congress the right to enact
any law which abridges the freedom of either speech or assembly.

I would like to remind you — and I am not going to talk at length,
Senators; I would like to remind you, however — of the great deal of
intimidation that took place during the past election, when it is my
belief as an American citizen that any individual has a right to seek
public office. I believe that the platform that he proposes, together
with his reputation and his record, are things that the public them-
selves can search, and on that basis they can determine whether or
not he is the suitable individual to be elected to the particular office he
may seek. And I do not think it is America at all when it gets to the
place where people are intimidated and threatened simply because
they seek either public office or they are inclined to support sonde
individual who does seek public office. I would not want to see a
repetition of some of the things that took place during the last cam-
paign take place with the passage of any such bill as the Alundt-
Ferguson bill. I am hoping that this bill will be defeated, gentlemen.
I believe that, even though I am not officially speaking for the national
office of the NAACP, it is a known fact that the organization opposes
this bill, and that the millions of people who are members of this
association are in sympathy with the fight against the Mundt-Nixon
bill, because we feel that the passage of the Mundt-Nixon bill would
be a very definite step toward thought control. We know that the
Mundt-Nixon bill would weaken the fight of the Negro people in

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 209

America. "We know it would weaken the fight of all minority peoples
in America, and I would like to bring to your attention that it is the
minority peoples in America who make up the majority in America.

So, in conclusion, I am hoping that there will be no passage of the
Mundt-Nixon or a Mundt-Ferguson bill; so that there shall be no
forestalling of the fight against Jim Crowism; so that there shall be no
curtailment where the repealing of the Taft-Hartley Act is concerned;
so that there will be no stopping of the building of low-cost homes for
people to live in; so that there will be no stopping of an FEPC law;
that there will be an advance among the national health lines in this
country of ours; that we will be able to fight to defeat the North
Atlantic Pact, and that, above all things, neither the militarists nor
the Wall Street trusts will be able to dictate to the millions of people
who live in America as to what their future may be, but that the great
masses of people in America themselves shall dictate the policies of how
this country shall be run ; and, finally, I feel certain that these millions
of people who should dictate the policies of the United States will
dictate that there must be peace here in the United States, and there
must be peace in the world.

Thank j^ou. Senator.

Senator Eastland. You are welcome.

Mr. AIathews. Raise your right hand. You do solemnly swear or
affirm that the testimony you are about to give before this sub-
committee of the Senate Judiciary you will tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. MiNTOR. I do.

TESTIMONY OF BERNARD MINTOR, NEW YORK, N. Y., REPRE-
SENTING UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO

Mr. Mathews. You may be seated. Give 3^our name, address, and
present occupation for the record.

Mr. MiNTOR. Bernard Mintor, 35 East Seventh Street, New York
City, representative of the United Furnitiu"e Workers of America,
CIO.

Mr. Mathews. Mr. Mintor, are you now or have you ever been a
member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Mintor. Well, it is my opinion that I came here to represent
my union. I spent a number of years fighting to uphold the Constitu-
tion in the services of our country.

Senator Eastland. Just answer the question.

Mr. Mintor. I am answering the question, Senator, and I think that
answering this question would be a violation of those constitutional
rights, and would not be germane to the discussions taking place here.

Mr. Mathews. Are you familiar with the statement as made in the
first hearing?

Senator Eastland. If he does not care to answer the question, he
is not qualified to testify. Just call the next witness.

Mr. Mintor. I would like to know, inasmuch as T was sent here
by my union for the purpose of testifying on the bill, and I feel that
that was the subject to be discussed and not my personal opinions
in any matter, what should be my answer in reference to this question
when I go back to my union.

210 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Eastland. I do not care a thing in the world about that^
Mr. Mintor, and do not know anything about it. You have come-
here at your own request, and when you come here you are going to
be subject to the rules that this committee has laid down. I just do
not care to discuss it. If you answer the question and qualify your-
self, you can testify. If you do not, you cannot testify.

Mr. Mintor. Is that the interpretation — —

Senator Eastland. You decline to answer?

Mr. Mintor. Is that the interpretation of the committee that I
can't testify on behalf of my union?

Senator Eastland. That is absolutely correct, sir; I do not want
to argue with you.

Mr. Mintor. It is my opinion that would be a violation of my
constitutional rights.

Mr. Mathews. Do we have a representative of the Progressiva
Party present who wishes to testify at this time?

(No response.)

Mr. Mathews. Is there a representative of the Wliolesale and
Warehouse Workers Local 65 present, please?

(No response.)

Senator Eastland. Is Mr. Rogge here?

(No response.)

Senator Eastland. That is all of the witnesses so far as I know at
this time.

Mr. Mathews. Is Mr. Winston McDaniel here?

Senator Eastland. Mr. McDaniel, have you a statement?

Mr. AIcDaniel. Yes; very, very brief. I have a few notes here.

Senator Eastland. That is all right.

Mr. Mathews. Raise your right hand. You solemnly swear or
affirm that in the proceedings before this subcommittee of the Senate
Judiciary you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?

Mr. McDaniel.' I do.

TESTIMONY OF WINSTON McDANIEL, STUDENT, UNIVERSITY OF

WISCONSIN, MADISON, WIS.

Mr. Mathews. Identify yourself for the record.

Mr. McDaniel. My name is Winston McDaniel. I am a student
at the University of Wisconsin, and vice president of our Wisconsin
Student Board. However, upon this occasion I am not representing-
the student board. I am here as an individual. I am going to give
you some of the viewpoints expressed by the board on similar ques-
tions, registration of members of the Communist Party, and so-called
Communist Party organizations.

Mr. Mathews. I have two questions to ask you.

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist
Party?

Mr. McDaniel. I object to the question, but, no, I am not now
nor have I ever been a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. Mathews. Are you now or have you ever been to the best of
your knowledge a member of any organization which has been cited
by a governmental agency as a Communist organization?

Mr. McDaniel. I am not now —

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 211

Mr. Mathews. Or a Communist-front organization.

Mr, McDaniel. Nor have I ever been.

Mr. Mathews. Proceed.

Mr. McDaniel. I wish to bring to the attention of the committee
the fact that the student board of the University of Wisconsin recently
went on record in opposition to the two bills before the Wisconsin
State Legislature, one calling for registration of members of the
Communist Party, and a second calling for signing of non-Communist
affidavits, which would include members of the student body.

In the vote upon the second measure there was not a single dissenting
vote against our motion to take a stand and testify against this bill
in the State legislature.

Fortunately the Wisconsin Legislature defeated the first bill calling
for registration of the members of the Communist Party with only
five votes opposed to the stand taken against this measure.

Why did we oppose these bills? I would like to just briefly explain
our policy with respect to recognition of student groups and the rights
granted to the students at the liberal University of Wisconsin.

First of all, we have recognized a Communist Party discussion
group, and other groups, which under the proposed Ferguson bill
might be classified as Communist-front organizations. We consider
this right of recognition one of our most precious rights as students.
When an organization comes before the student board requesting
recognition, we simply request that they submit a constitution, make
certain financial arrangements, and produce a faculty adviser. Once
those requirements are met, oiu? recognition becomes practically
automatic.

The administration to our knowledge has never overruled oiu-
decision to recognize a student group. In considering the application
of the student group for recognition we are not concerned with the
purposes of the organization or campus group as long as they are
consistent with principles of orderly conduct observed at the Univer-
sity of Wisconsin, as well as anywhere else.

I wish to bring to the attention of the committee an incident which
occurred early last fall, when the administration of Wisconsin asked
each organization to submit a list of its members, a complete member-
ship list. There was an immediate uprising among student organiza-
tions and church groups, special-interest groups, and political organ-
izations proclaimed their refusal to submit such meinbership lists.
They were supported a very short time later by the student board
at the University of Wisconsin, and after a tense 4 weeks fight, during
which many of these groups were denied the use of the university
facilities because they did not submit the membership lists, we finall}^
won our battle, and maintained our freedom from intimidation and
thought control.

We wish to retain these rights that we have fought for and won.
We want neither the interference of the State government nor the
interference in thought control of the Federal Government. We feel
that we as students in a liberal community have the right and the
privilege of determining which student groups shall be recognized
and for preserving complete academic freedom upon the university
campus.

I have not had a chance to read the Mundt bill, but the Ferguson
biU would certainly encroach upon our rights at the university to

212 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

recognize student groups and to allow members of the Communist
Party and other groups which have left-wing shadings to have free
run of the campus, to use campus facilities. So far we have found
that there has been no threat of intimidation upon the part of students
against certain student groups which they may dislike. The students
have been very broad-minded and have recognized these groups.
They have been very anxious to receive leaflets and pamphlets
handed out by members of the Communist Party upon the street
corners after classes. They have been very anxious to attend rallies
and meetings sponsored by the Communist Party, and other groups
which you might classify under this very broad classification a^
Communist-front groups. There has been no thought that the
Communist Party, or particularly its chapter at the University of
Wisconsin, was attempting to advocate the overthrow of the Govern-
ment or carry on a program of force and violence. We feel that as
long as such organization or organizations are willing to recognize the
principles of orderly conduct, which should be in force anywhere,
that we are willing to give them recognition, and use of the university
facilities, and maintain academic freedom at the university,

I feel that if the Federal Government is going to step in upon this
occasion and encroach upon our rights, it is a very serious mistake.
I feel that if freedom of expression and of thought, is going to be main-
tained anywhere, it must be maintained at the universities. Once it
is violated there, once students no longer have the right to hear speak-
ers of their own choosing, they no longer have the right to determine
for themselves what their own beliefs and policies shall be. We will
then have destroyed the very traditions upon which our Constitution
was founded. And I feel that the Ferguson bill will do just that.

Unfortunately, since it is our policy at the University of Wisconsin
of the student board not to discuss national legislation, I am not here
as an official representative of this group. However, as vice president
I have taken an active part in the organization, and I am sure there is
no objection to my representing their viewpoints in respect to the two
proposals before the Wisconsin Legislature, indicating the opinions
of the student board, and the University of Wisconsin students, on
such questions as discrimination against the members of the Com-
munist Party or people connected with organizations considered to
be Communist-front organizations.

Briefly, looking at this particular bill, the definition of a Communist
front is very broad, and I think it would probably include a number
of organizations which after thorough investigation would be found
not to be connected with- the Communist Party. The criterion such
as the extent to which its funds or resources or personnel are used to
further or promote the political objectives of any Communist political
organizations, I think would be unusually difficult to determine; also,
to what extent any organization is furthering the case of the Com-
munist Party, would be difficult to determine. Would simple agree-
ment upon a few basic issued be classified as furtherance of the cause?
I do not see how the subversive activities board could clearly deter-
mine the extent to which positions taken or advanced by any group
from time to time on matters of policy do not deviate from any Com-
munist political organization. In a certain period of time there is
some unification of liberals and leftists and Communists upon a few
issues. There would be difficulty to find any specific deviation.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 213

I find these criteria for determining whether any organization is a
Communist front to be too broad and too difficult to apply in any
^ specific situation.

I feel also that it is unnecessary to require the listing of names open
for public inspection, for the stamping of publications with such things
as "This organization is a Communist organization." I would like
to bring before the committee just an example of what can happen in
a situation of this nature.

An organization which may nationally be non-Communist, and
there might be no question at all but that the organization is simply
a political organization not controlled or dominated in any way by the
Communist Party or by members of the Communist Party. However,
I can very clearly see the possibility of a local chapter of such an or-
ganization coming under the domination of members of the Com-
munist Party, perhaps simph^ because the only people willing to at-
tend the meetings are Communists. Therefore, under this bill such
organization might be classified as a Communist-front organization,
and therefore you would be definitely discriminating against the na-
tional members of this national organization, and you leave no alter-
natives to those liberals in the specific area who wish to go into that
chapter and bring the chapter in line with national policies. If the
local members find that the organization or local chapter is classified
as a Communist-front group, they certainly vnB. have no desire to go
in there and do as I think they should do represent themselves and
try to assume control, and take it away from the members of the party
with whom they disagree.

But I feel that under the bill you leave them no alternative. Once
the organization has been stamped, people will steer clear, and I
think that if you are going to stamp front organizations, the trend will
be slowly in that direction until you have included anything which
is slightly left of center.

I think that the result will be a stamping out of liberal traditions
and rights and privileges, which American citizens have under the
Constitution.

Mr. Mathews. May I interrupt for a moment?

Was your primary pm-pose in coming to Washington to offer your
views on this legislation?

Mr. McDaniel. That was one of my pm-poses, yes.

Mr. Mathews. But not your primary purpose in coming?

Mr. McDaniel. No.

Mr. Mathews. Were your expenses paid by any organization in
Wisconsin, or did you defray your own expenses?

Mr. McDaniel. My expenses for coming to this particular meeting
are my own, are paid by myself.

Senator Eastland. Is that all you have?

Mr. McDaniel. Yes, I am through.

Senator Eastland. Any questions?

Senator O'Conor. No questions.

Senator Eastland. Thank you, sir.

This will close the hearings.

(Thereupon, at 11:50 a. m., the hearings were closed.)

CONTEOL OF SUEYEKSIVE ACTIVITIES

FRIDAY, JUNE 10, 1949

United States Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a. m., in room
424, Senate Office Building, Senator James O. Eastland, chairman of
the subcommittee, presiding.

Present: Senators Eastland and Ferguson.

Senator Langer.

Also present: Robert B. Young and J. H. Mathews, professional
•staff members.

Senator Eastland. The subcommittee will come to order.

!Mr. Baldwin, before we proceed will you stand and raise your right
hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that in the proceedings before
this subcommittee you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Baldwin. I do.

TESTIMONY OF C. B. BALDWIN, SECRETARY, PROGRESSIVE PARTY

Senator Eastland. Proceed.

]Mr. Young. Will you give your name, address, and present occu-
pation for the record, please?

Air. Baldwin. My name is C. B. Baldwin. I am the secretary of
the Progressive Party. Before that time I was Administrator of the
Earm Security Administration. I was appointed by Secretary Hull
to be the Director of Economic Operations in Italy. In 1943 I came
with the CIO Political Action Committee, later with the National
Citizens Political Action Committee, the executive vice chairman of
the Progressive Citizens of America, and now, as I said, I am the elected
secretary of the Progressive Party.

Mr. Young. Will you tell us whether you represent just that one
organization or other organizations?

Mr. Baldwin. No, sir; I only represent the Progressive Party.

Mr. Young. Are you acquainted with the policy and the rule laid
down by this subcommittee on the answering of certain preliminary
questions before you make a statement?

Mr. Baldwin. I have heard something about it, but I am not com-
pletely familiar with it.

Mr. Young. In that case I think we should read to you the opening
statement

Senator Eastland. Just ask the question.

Mr. Young. Just ask the question? All right, sir.

215

216 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

I would like to ask you, Mr. Baldwin, are you now or have you
ever been a member of the Communist Party?

Air. Baldwin. I would like to have this preliminary information
in order to know the basis of the question.

Senator Eastland. Mr. Baldwi.n, it is the policy of the committee,
which was decided by unanimous vote, that we desire to have the
background of every witness who appears before the committee. If
a person is a Communist — one of the issues is whether the Communist
Party is a conspiracy to overtlirow the Government of the United
States controlled by a foreign power — he is better able to answer that
than anybody else.

Mr. Baldwin. Was this rule approved by the Senate of the United
States?

Senator Eastland. No, sir; it was not approved by the Senate-
It is the policy of the subcommittee. If you want to testify, you can
answer the question. If you do not want to testify — —

Mr. Baldwin. Before I decide I think I am entitled as an American;
citizen to have some information. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad

Senator Eastland. I do not care to argue about it.

Mr. Baldwin. I would be glad to take the oath of allegiance to the
United States which you have taken, but I want the fourteenth and
fifteenth amendments repeated. I would like to see whether or not
you would be willing to swear to uphold

Mr. Young. Stop the record. You are excused, Mr. Baldwin.

(There was further discussion off the record.)

Mr. Young. Is there a representative of the A. F. of L. here who
wanted to leave a statement for the record?

(No response.)

We received a call from the A. F. of L. that they would like to
leave a statement for the record. I told them if they would appear,
they could. May I leave the record open for them?

Senator Eastland. Yes; of course.

(The statement appears in appendixes.)

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Chairman, I requested at the last hearing
that Mr. Donald Richberg be permitted to file a memorandum or
opinion on the legal questions involved in this bill, and I contacted
Mr. Richberg and asked him to prepare such an opinion. He has
done that, and he has sent me the original which I want to file at this
meeting. I won't read it at this time. I will just make it part of the-
record and give the committee the benefit of that.

Senator Eastland. That is all right.

(The docmnent follows:)

Law Offices of Davies, Richberg,

Beebe, Busick & Richardson,

Washington, D. C, June 7, 1949.
Hon. Homer Ferguson,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
Dear Senator: Herewith I am enclosing the opinion you requested on May
21. Also, after a discussion with your office I am sending you under separate-
cover 150 mimeographed copies of this opinion. As I explained to Miss Duty,
I shall not undertake any press distribution of my opinion, leaving that entirely
to your discretion. I shall avoid giving out any copies myself until such time
as you have placed this in the record of hearings or otherwise made it public.
I hope you will find the opinion helpful as I have put a good deal of time and
heart into it.

Sincerely yours,

Donald R. Richberg..

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 217

Washington, D. C, June 6, 1949.
Hon. Homer Ferguson,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

Dear Senator: In response to your request of May 21, I am submitting this
commentary on the anti-Communist bills introduced by Senators Mundt and
Johnston (S. 1194) and yourself (S. 1196). These bills follow closely the pattern
of the Mundt-Kixon bill (H. R. 5852) which passed the House in the Eightieth
Congress and was in process of revision by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
when the Congress adjourned. In both of the present bills a careful effort has
been evidently made to meet certain criticisms of the former bill, which were at
least sincere even though some were meticulous and highly debatable.

In 1948 I teslifie at some length before the committees of both Senate and
House in favor of sich a bill as H. R. 5852, and worked with your Senate com-
mittee on a revised bill. Hence m.y present comments may well be limited to a
few issues and not embroidered with extended analyses and quotations of judicial
opinions.

It is my opinion that the present bills can be more easily defended than H. R.
5852 from the four major attacks which any such legislation will invite. Never-
theless, those who are opposed to any restraint upon political activities, no
matter how evil these are in method or objective, will always insist that any
such legislation is unconstitutional. They will perpetually argue:

First, that the proposed law violates the civil rights of free speech, free press,
and free assembly.

Second, that it seeks to establish "guilt by association," whereas guilt should
always be "personal."

Third, that it defines a crime in such uncertain or ambiguous terms that an
offender has no fair warning that he is violating the law.

Fourth, that its procedures violate "due process of law."

Not one of these objections can be validly laid against S. 1194 and S. 1196,
although, of course, all are vehemently urged by Communist lawyers and Com-
munist-front lawyers ("No man e'er felt the halter draw, with good opinion of the
law"). The same objections also obtain an unfortunate support from those
deluded liberals and myopic idealists who perennially lead political sheep into
pastures overrun by political wolves. If the actual menace of communism is
understood and the measures of national defense embodied in these bills are
carefully analyzed, every one of these objections will be found to be based on
either (1) ignorance of communism, or (2) misrepresentation of the provisions
of the proposed law, or (3) misapplication of the legal principles and decisions
which determine the constitutionality of such a law.

Perhaps I can be of most service to you by reviewing and answering briefly
the four major arguments made against S. 1194 and S. 1196 — those alleged "con-
stitutional" arguments that will be made against anj- proposal to restrict Com-
munist political activity by law.

First. These bills do not attempt any unconstitutional restriction of free speech,
free press, or free assembly.

Even an avowed Communist lawyer will concede that Congress has a constitu-
tional power to restrict the exercise of these freedoms to a reasonable extent when
there is a "clear and present danger" that they will be used to bring about evils
that Congress has a right to prevent. If, therefore, the unrestricted activities of
Communists in the United States threaten a "clear and present" danger of foreign
aggression, coordinated with domestic disorder, a law reasonably designed to
reduce that danger would be clearly constitutional.

Thus, the entire argument against the constitutionality of the proposed law
is narrowed down to two assertions — both of which are false. One, the assertion
that Communist activities do not offer a clear and present danger of destruction
of the freedom and security of the American people. Two, the assertion that the
proposed law is not reasonably designed to reduce that danger.

It is amazing to find that today many otherwise intelligent people regard the
fear of communism as a sort of hvsteria, which they take pride in avoiding by
shutting their eyes and ears to such facts a^ these:

(1) Communism is not an econo.nic or political theory, but, is today an inter-
national conspiracy to establish a dictatorship in every nation, which is to be
attained and maintained by force and ruthless terrorism and which shall be a part
of a world-wide dictatorship centralized in Soviet Russia. It is utterly unimpor-
tant to assert, or even to assume, that this complete destruction of individual
liberty is intended to be only a transition stage to the ultimate establishment of a
free communistic society in which everyone is to be equally happy and comfortable

218 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

(or equally unhappy and uncomfortable) and equally the servant of everyone
else. The promise of ultimate good or evil to himself or his descendants wilt
not divert a rational person from defending himself against an immediate threat
to kill him or to imprison him for torture.

(2) The United States of American today lives under the menace of armed
attack by the only nation on earth capable of effectively making war against
us — Communist Russia.

(3) The United States today finds every effort of its Government to establish
international peace on a sound basis thwarted bv Communist Russia.

(4) The United States this year is spending the larger part of $21,000,000,000)
in national-defense measures, which are to a great extent made necessary by the
hostile, aggressive policies of Communist Russia. (See hearings, April 29, 1949,
p. 15.)

(5) The aggressive policies of Communist Russia include an internal warfare
against nonagressive, friendly nations, which has no parallel in history. It has
been proved beyond controversy (and indeed admitted frequently) that a Com-
munist organization within a nation is a militant conspiracy against the existing
government and against the liberties of the people. Tliere are volumes of evidence
gathered by congressional committees which provide ample justification for out-
lawing any Communist organization — as a criminal conspiracy against the peace
and welfare of the American people.

It is, however, the primary purpose of the proposed law merely to deprive
Communist organizations of one of their vicious powers — the power of secrecy —
with which Communists are able to infiltrate conspirators into law-abiding organi-
zations of loyal citizens and to mislead and betray them into aiding in their own
destruction. A fundamental evil of communism is that its creed justifies the use
of every form of dishonesty, treachery, depravity, and fraud. This lowers every
Communist and every Communist organization to the level of a moral corrup-
tionist — a destroyer of the faith of human beings in one another, without which
faith civilization could not survive. This makes it necessary and proper to
identify and to isolate Communists as moral lepers. They are no more entitled
to secret their disease and to associate freely with healthy persons than are
persons afflicted with infectious and loathsome physical diseases. This is the
fundamental reason for refusing to allow Communists freely to teach immature
persons or freely to conduct secret organizations and activities. They are the
breeders and spreaders of a moral pestilence.

Of course there is a restriction of free speech, free press, and free assembly if
Communists and their fellow travelers are required to speak and to publish a few
truths now and then instead of lies all the time, and are required to uncover some
of the organizations and persons who are secretly planning and carrying on
activities hostile to the public safety and welfare. But, it has never been
suggested that thieves had a constitutional right to gather and plan their robberies
and to publish a thieves' gazette to aid them in committing crimes. By what
strange logic has a more serious conspiracy, to destroy the liberties and to con-
fiscate the properties of a free people, any immunity from legal restraint?

The most plausible — and most ridiculous — argument against this legislation is
that there is no "clear and present danger" to the American people from the
activities of the reported 75,000 Communists in the United States. Indeed the
total number of admitted and concealed Communists and their foolish sympa-
thizers is much greater than 75,000. Witness the fact that over 1,000,000 people
voted for Henry Wallace in 1948.

But, even if there were only 100,000 active Communists in the United States,
what would we think of allowing Russia to send 100,000 trained spies and saboteurs
into our country and giving them complete freedom to meet and plotand propagate
their vicious projects in legalized secrecy?

If the danger of insurrection is not "present," as a matter of law, until the time
is ripe and preparations are completed for a violent revolution, then, in the words
of Mr. Bumble, "the law is an ass." Obviously the famous phrase "clear and
present danger" does not mean that we must wait for an imminence of disaster
before taking protective measures. It can only mean that there must be an
existing danger as contrasted with a danger that may or may not develop at some
future time.

Clearly there is today an existing danger of a war with Russia. If not, why are
we spending billions for defense against such a war?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 219

Clearly, there is todaj^ an existing danger of political strikes, domestic disorder,
and vast public injuries, which have been and are being brought about by Com-
munist intrigues, particularly in labor organizations. How can we distinguish
between such revolutionary guerrilla warfare and lawful strikes for legitimate
ends, as long as Communist plots and Communist plotters are protected by
legalized secrecy?

The Congress has the power and the duty to enact laws necessary and useful to
thwart foreign aggression, and to expose and to destroy conspiracies against do-
mestic law and order. The Constitution was expressly written in order to "insure
domestic tranquility" and "to provide for the common defense." It is not the
function of the courts to reverse a reasoned judgment of the Congress as to when
and where there is a clear and present danger threatening our Government and
our institutions, from abroad or from within our borders. Whether the proposed
laws are wise is a question properly to be debated. But, the constitutionality of
legislation reasonably adapted to prevent evils which the Congress has a right and
duty to prevent, is not debatable. It is needless for me to cite scores of decisions
of the Supreme Court establishing this doctrine. They have been cited in several
opinions heretofore presented to this committee.

Second. These bills do not attempt to establish guilt by association.

It can be accepted that mere association with persons engaged in unlawful acts
should not be the basis for making an individual criminally responsible for acts
of his associates in which he has no participation. In the trite phrase, "guilt
should be personal." But this does not mean that one who participates in plan-
ning or preparing for the robbery of a bank cannot be punished as an accomplice
because he stays at home during the actual robbery. Nor does it mean that one
who prepares pamphlets inciting others to crime cannot be punished because he
does not personally distribute the criminal documents.

It is true that a member of a political party or other loose organization should
not be held responsible for personal violations of law by some officer or other
member of the organization, in which he did not participate or which he did not
help to conceal. But, if a man contributes money or other aid to activities which
he knows to be unlawful, if he is informed of the fact that he is assisting in an unlaw-
ful course of action and is punished for that wrongdoing, he is not made guilty
because of mere association, but because of what he personally does. His guilt is
personal.

If the proposed legislation, is carefully read it will become plain that no man is
to be subjected to any punishment because of the wrongdoing of an associate in
which he had no participation. It is not made a crime merely to belong to an
avowed Communist organization. It is only made a crime for an individual to do
certain unlawful acts, which are:

1. To conspire "to perform any act which would substantially aid" in establish-
ing in the United States a totalitarian dictatorship under foreign control.

2. To conceal the fact, when seeking public office or employment, that he is a
member of an organization which has been legally found to be a Communist
political organization.

3. To hold any nonelective office or employment under the United States when
such a member.

4. To apply for, or to use, a United States passport, when such a member.

5. To fail to file reports which it is his legal duty to file, if a person is an officer of
a Communist organization, or to make false statements or willful omissions in
such a report.

6. To become or remain a member of a Communist political organization if he
knows that the organization has been legally required to register and has failed to
register.

7. To mail Communist publications, or to broadcast a Communist program, for
a Communist organization, without identifying their source, as required by law.

It will be seen that no individual is made guilty because of mere association
with others. He must do something himself which is made unlawful. Even
when he merely remains a member of a Communist political organization, if he
does this knowing that the organization has not registered as required by law, he
is thereby aiding the organization and its officers to keep secret the activities and
membership of an organization which uses an imlawful secrecy as the means of
establishing a totalitarian dictatorship under foreign control, that is, in aid of
foreign aggression against the United States. He is personally guilty of helping

220 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

to conceal an unlawful conspiracy, and he is only guilty when he knows what he
is doing.

Third. These bills do not define any crime in such uncertain terms that an
individual will not have fair warning that he is violating the law.

The offenses listed in the preceding paragraphs numbered 1 to 7 are all clearly
defined. The principal charge of "vagueness" or "uncertainty" is directed at
section 4a of both bills. Here the original section 4a of H. R. 5852 has been
improved, first, by making it clear that the offense is conspiracy to perform an
act which will substantially aid in establishing a totalitarian dictatorship under
foreign control, and, second, by defining a "totalitarian dictatorship."

The determination of whether a particular act will substantially aid a Commu-
nist revolution rests first with the individual who works with a Communist organiza-
tion. Since such an organization is not outlawed it is evident that mere educa-
tional propaganda, and campaigns for political reforms or to elect candidates to
public offices, are not made unlawful. (In fact, to give additional assurance of
the legislative intent, it might be desirable for the committee to include in its
report a statement to the effect that the bill recommended for passage does not
prohiVit or penalize the exercise of the constitutional right of American citizens
to advocate or to organize for the advocacy of changes in economic or political
institutions by methods devoid of violence or frau ' ^vhir^h .nre compatible with the
maintenance of law and order and the protection of the public safety and welfare.)
But, these are activities that can, and should, be carried on publicly, openly,
and not secretly.

Hence, when Communists or fellow-travelers undertake secret activities which
create or foment disorder and lawlessness, or which bring about the paralysis of
essential production or public services, or which hamper national defense, or which
interfere arbitrarily with the performance of public duties by public officials, or
which discredit the administration of justice or the conduct of foreign relations,
then the fact that it is necessary to use secrecy, dishonesty, and treachery should
provide ample warning to individuals that they, by their actions, may be rendering
substantial aid to an unlawful project.

It is necessary in lawmaking, particularly in dealing with secret activities, to
prohibit a great variety of acts which may sometimes be lawful but which are made
unlawful if they are done for the ultimate accomplishment of an unlawful end.
Combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade are forbidden by the Sherman
Antitrust Act, and, after nearly 60 years of prosecutions, it is still a matter of great
uncertainty as to whether particular activities of businessmen are lawful or un-
lawful. But the constitutionality of the Sherman Act, and other antimonopoly
laws of a similar charctr, has long been established.

In dealing with a po itical-economic conspiracy of the intricate character of
the Communist movement, where not only domestic tranquility but also national
defense against secretive foreign aggression require restrictive legislation, it is not
only reasonable but necessary to provide that men and women desirous of pro-
moting co:Timunism act at their peril when they engage in secret collaboration with
those who are confessedly trying to overthrow our institutions and our form of
government.

It is exceedingly significant that three authorized spokesmen for the Commimist
Party flatlv asserted in sworn testimony before the Senate committee (hearings
on H. R. 5852, pp. 95-141: hearings. May 20, 1949, p. 370) that if such a law as
proposed were enacted the Communist Party would not register as required by
law, but would "go underground." By this deftance, they conceded that they
could not accomplish their ends by open political activities, which meant that
they could not hope to succeed by an appeal to reason. They must continue to
rely in the future as in the past on secrecy, treachery, fraud, and force.

It is absurd to give any credence to public anno'incements that Communists
do not now plan to overthrow our Governme'it by force and violence. It is
notorious that the long-established program of Conmunist aggression is to create
such a disorganization of industry and government, such chaotic, anarchistic
conditions, and such widespread hardshio, that a well-organized and disciolined
minority will be able to seize dictatorial powers to reshape the industrial and
political structure of our society. The pattern of a Communist revolution has
been clearly revealed in Europe. Its successes give assurance that it will be
followed here.

Those who are willing to plav anv part in this underground movement, which
assure? us that it will go farther un 1e''gro ind if wi a^temnt to bring it above
ground, will certainly have f ir wam'ng that any aot-s of theirs which render sub-
stantial aid to this criminal conspiracy may subject them to prosecution and

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTRITIES 221

punishment. They will only be punished when they are found guilty by a jury;
but they will have been fairly warned of the legal consequences of their acts.

The criticism might vvell be made that the proposed law offers too large an
avenue of escape to offenders, because juries may be inclined to underestimate the
evil effect of acts which well-informed public officials would correctly appraise as
giving substantial aid to the Conununist conspiracy. A jury might be doubtful
as to whether even such an obviovisly wrongful act as furnishing copies of secret
Government documents would substantially aid in establishing a Communist
dictatorship. What is substantial aid might be regarded as defining only an act
of large and immediate effect. Also, aid in establishing a dictatorship might be
regarded as including only those acts which contribute to an immediate overthrow
of representative government. For these reasons the legislative intention might
be more accurately expressed by prohibiting any conspiratorial act which w'ould
definitely aid in bringing about the eventual establishment of a totalitarian
dictatorship under foreign control.

I do not urge such a revision of the pending bills (either with or without adding
the word "eventual") because so much care has been given to the present drafting
that I hesitate to suggest any change. But I do wish to point out that any un-
certainty as to meaning favors offenders rather than prosecutors, because the
Government may find it difficult to convict minor offenders who, by a multitude
of small offenses, would be in fact, rendering substantial aid in preparing for the
final Putsch — the foreign aggression and coincideTit civil war — that we are striving
to prevent.

The rulings of the Supreme Court, quoted in other opinions furnished your
committee, provide ample support for my conclusion that the pending bills define
offenses with sufficient clarity and precision to meet constitutional requirements.

Fourth. These bills established procedures for the prosecutions and conviction
of offenders that satisfy the constitutional requirement of "due process of law-."

It is unnecessary to review here the carefully drawn provisions for administra-
tive procedure and judicial review which give assurance that the rights of indi-
viduals to adequate notice, fair hearing, and impartial adjudication are fidly
protected. It is notorious that every would-be violator of a proposed law seeks,
as a last refuge for the wrongdoer, to assert that he is going to be punished without
due process of law. The stale and insubstantial objections raised against the
pending bills on the ground of lack of due process of law^ are fully answered in
the studies of the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress w^hich
are printed in the hearings on H. R. 5852 (pp. 33-39, 425^428), which studies
also deal effectively with many other objections.

Because of the adequate citation of authorities in these studies and in other
legal opinions submitted to the committee, incltiding my own previotis testimony,
I have avoided encumbering this opinion Avith such references. But, it should
be understood that my views are based on studies and arguments of constitutional
questions which have been my constant concern in a ong, active practice of the
law.

On the basis of this experience it is with the utmost respect for the judicial
authority that I venture, in concluding, to refer to the independent, coordinate
authority of the legislative branch of the Government. It wotild be improper to
advise INIembers of Congress to enact a law which they believed to be unconstitu-
tional, on the assumption that the Supreme Court would annul it. On the other
hand, it would be a failure of duty for Members of Congress to fail to enact a law
which they believed to be necessary for the common defense, and which they
believed to be within their constitutional powers, becatise of any timid assumption
that the Supreme Court might hold it to be unconstittitional.

It should be borne in mind that there is no instance in history when the Supreme
Court has ventured to set aside the judgment of the Congress in enacting legisla-
tion which it regarded as essential to the national defense and the preservation
of our Government. To reach such a decision a majority of the Court would have
to be profoundly convinced that the Congress had either attempted to exercise a
power not granted to it, or had arbitrarily and txnreasonably exercised a power
which has been granted.

The constitutional power of the Congress to protect the people and their
Government against conspiracies to aid foreign aggression or to foment domestic
disorder has been clearly granted, and sustained by the Supreme Court many,
many times. The pending bills would authorize the exercise of that power within
such cautious limits and with such careful protection of individual rights that
it is difficult to take seriously the contention that stich legislation would be held

93357—49 15 ,

222 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

arbitrary and unreasonable. But, the Communist position, stated officially by
the national president, W, Z. Foster, in hearings on H. R. 5852 (p. 121), which is,
that the Communist Party would not register if required by law and if ordered to
do so by the Supreme Court, should be given serious attention. The only ade-
quate answer to such premeditated lawlessness and to such a defiance of govern-
ment is for the Congress to enact such a law and for the Supreme Court to enforce
it.

Respectfully submitted.

Donald R. Richberg.

Senator Easiland. That closes the hearing.

(Thereupon, at 10:20 a. m., the subcommittee recessed subject to
call.)

APPENDIX

Disabled American Veterans,
National Service Headquarters,

Washington, D. C, May 5, 1949.
Hon. Pat McCarran,

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
Dear Senator ^McCarran: It is noted that a subcommittee of the Judiciary
Committee is presently holding hearings on S. 1194, and S. 1196, bills designed to
protect the Ignited States against certain un-American and subversive activities.

The Disabled American Veterans is vitally concerned with Communist and other
un-American infiltrations into our social, political, and economic way of life. At
our last national convention held in New York City during the month of August
1948, the delegates unanimously adopted a resolution urging the Congress to
enact appropriate legislation that will provide for the expulsion and exclusion
from the United States of all persons who subscribe to political doctrines con-
trary to the democratic concepts of Government as set forth in our Constitution.
A copy of this resolution is enclosed herewith.

It is requested that this letter, together with enclosed resolution, be made a
part of the record of hearings on S. 1.194 and S. 1196.
Very sincerely yours,

Francis ]M. Sullivan,
Director for National Legislation.

AMERICANISM RESOLUTION I

Whereas evidence has been revealed that certain persons in our beloved America
are actively engaged in the pursuance of a philosophy of life that is based on an
allegiance to a foreign power which has for its avowed purpose the destruction of
our American way of life; and

Whereas this philosophy of living which is described as communism is proposed
and sustained by the governing powers in the Soviet Socialist Republics; and

Whereas the Government of the United States through its legal and constituted
authority has declared that the Communist Party of the United States is designed
for the violent overthrow of existing governments including that of the United
States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That this twenty-seventh national convention of the Disabled Ameri-
. can Veterans assembled at New York City in the State of New York, this 19th day
of August 1948 urge the Congress of the United States to enact, without delay,
appropriate legislation that will provide for the expulsion and future exclusion
from these United States of any and all persons who have subscribed to a philoso-
phy of life that has for its avowed purpose the destruction of our American way of
life and the subjugation of our people.

The Federal Grand Jury Association
FOR the Southern District of New York,

New York, N. Y., May 2, 1949.
Hon. James O. Eastland,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
Dear Senator Eastland: On April 26 a Federal grand jury in the Southern
District of New York handed up to District Judge Sylvester Ryan an important
presentment. A copy is enclosed.
The jury recommends —

1. Tightening up of laws on espionage.

2. Especially, repeal of the statutes of Umitation on espionage acts.

223

224 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

3. Registration of all aliens trained by a foreign nation in espionage or
sabotage.

4. Secrecy in investigations of espionage activities (comparable to secrecy
of grand jury hearings).

The Federal Grand Jury Association for the Southern District of New York
commends this presentment to your earnest consideration.
Sincerely yours,

A. Verb Shaw, President.

PRESENTMENT OF GRAND JURY WARNING ON ESPIONAGE

(Submitted to and accepted, approved, and ordered filed by Judge Sylvester J.

Ryan April 26, 1949)

Whereas the undersigned constitute all the members of the December 16, 1948,
special Federal grand jury of the District Court of the United States for the
Southern District of New York, impaneled to inquire into espionage and sub-
versive activities; and

Whereas there has been present for the past 4 months, and is being presented,
before this special Federal grand jury a volume of testimony concerning activities
of both foreigners and American citizens which are directed from within and with-
out against the security of the Nation; and

Whereas this testimony and evidence have led this special Federal grand jury
to certain conclusions it deems proper and imperative to be brought to the atten-
tion of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Departments of the United States
Government for such action as may be necessary or appropriate, the undersigned
members of this grand jury respectfully show and allege as follows:

1. The grand jury is of the unanimous opinion that the safety of this country
and its institutions is being jeopardized because

(a) Increasing efforts, since the United States of America has been forced
by events to take a dominant position in world leadership, have unlawfully
been and are being made by those inimical to the Nation to obtain informa-
tion relating to the national defense and security — information which could
be used to the Nation's injury and to the advantage of foreign nations; and
because

(b) Existing laws, applicable to activities aimed at unlawfully obtaining
such information, are inadequate and unrealistic in view both of the Nation's
position in world affairs and internal menaces from those zealously activating
a philosophy hostile to our constitutional form of government.

2. This conviction was arrived at by the grand jury after hearing, over a period
of 4 months, the testimony of a large number of witnesses who, irrespective of
their widely differing relations to the problems under consideration, have been
able to aid its investigations. Many of these witnesses have been summoned
by the Department of Justice and some by the grand jury itself acting independ-
ently under its own authority as the anciently establshed representative of the
people. They have been examined in that secrecy which is designed not only to
determine those who may have violated Federal laws but to protect the rights and
the reputations of the innocent.

Among these witnesses have been men charged with ferreting out violations of
Federal laws and others who could be classed as "Government witnesses."

Others, men and women whose integrity and innocence have not been questioned
but who have had valuable information to give, have proven entirely cooperative
in the grand jury inquiries.

Still others — and the number has proven surprisingly large-^themselves be-
lieved to be guiltless of direct violation of the law as it now exists, have invoked
their constitutional rights to refuse to give information they indubitably possess
concerning knowledge of violations by others. It has been a matter of grave
concern to the grand jury that there are in this category of witnesses certain
lawyers who, despite the fact that they are by virtue of their profession "officers
of the court," have refused to answer questions put to them by the Federal
attorneys and the grand jurors on the grounds that the answers "will tend to
degrade or incriminate" themselves. This such witnesses have unquestionably
done because they have been alerted through the publicity given by other investi-
gating bodies to the circumstances which the grand jury must examine in secrecy.

Lastly, there have been a certain number of witnesses who, the grand jury is
convinced, either by their own confessions or by the incontrovertible evidence of

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 225

others, have violated Federal laws but who are protected by the operation of the
statute of limitations. The grand jury is powerless to indict such an individual
so that he can be given a fair trial before a judge and jury with all the safeguards
of such legal procedures.

3. The grand jury has been provided with many object lessons of the looseness
with which laws governing espionage, the practical application of which it must
determine, are at present drawn. In the light of the situations it has had to face
it believes that the safety and welfare of this country require either the enactment
of new legislation or the amendment of existing legislation.

4. The grand jury, without making detailed recommendations, is nevertheless
convinced that the espionage statutes themselves should be amended and tightened
without meanwhile infringing on those civil rights constitutionally guaranteed
our citizens. It recommends, therefore, that laws defining espionage be designed
to cover all unauthorized transmission of information relating to the national
defense which could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage
of any foreign nation. It further recommends provision be made that those
engaged in such transmission can be prosecuted if they know the information may
be used for such purposes.

The grand jury holds the crime of acting against one's ow-n country is of such
gravity and of such abhorrence to the American people that those so guihy^ should
not be protected in any manner not provided by their constitutional rights.
Accordingly it strongly recommends that provision be made to indict at any time
any individual guilty of transgressing espionage statutes, now* existing or to be
enacted, without regard to any statute of limitation as in the case of treason.

Convinced that, despite the vigiliance and the efficiency of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, increasing efforts will be made to acquire and transmit informa-
tion injurious to the Nation, the grand jury holds that persons trained in espionage
or sabotage by any foreign country should be required to register under the
Foreign Agents Registration Act; and that failure to register under the act shall
be considered a continuing offense for which the statute of limitations will not be
operative. It recommends legislation to this end.

The grand jury is aware of the legislation on these and related subjects which
has been proposed on the recommendations of Attorney General Clark. These
recommendations were prepared in close consultation with the Interdepartmental
Intelligence Committee, composed of representatives of the intelligence divisions
of the Army, Navy, and Air Departments and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
It urges the careful study of this proposed legislation by our legislative authorities
with the view that laws be passed to achieve these objectives in the proper con-
stitutional framework.

Having seen at first-hand the difficulties in arriving at the truth concerning
espionage violations when witnesses have been alerted by publicized charges and
countercharges, the grand jury recommends that all investigating bodies conduct
their inquiries into espionage in secret

The grand jury further recommends that an investigation be made by the proper
authorities, by bar associations and other similar bodies, to determine those
measures that may be taken to disbar from practice in the courts any lawye
who, appearing before any grand jury, refuses to answer questions on the grounds
of self-incrimination. It is obvious that if such grounds exist the lawyer is not
of that integrity which the American people should demand of all officers of the
court.

Now, therefore, the grand jury respectfully petitions the court to accept this
presentment and order it filed, authorizing the foreman and the secretary of this
grand jury to send copies of it to the ]Members of Congress and to the proper
officers of the Executive Department of the Government, and to permit such other
use as mav properlv be made of this document.

Dated: 'New York, N. Y., April 26, 1949.

Signed by the following members of the Special Federal Grand Jury:

John Gilland Brunini (foreman), John G. Kilbreth (assistant foreman),
Hugh V. Doran (secretary), Robert L. Barrows, Joseph P. Chris-
tiansen, Mrs. Evelyn Zorn Dingwall, James Sumner Draper,
Raymond G. Fowler, Robert Frese, G. Leonard Gold, Henry E.
Grant, Harold C. Hahn, Richard Brown Jones, Murray Kanner,
Francis Keally, Samuel B. Leight, Sidney Leshen, Herman E.
Nathan, Bernhard K. Schaefer, Harry Scherman, John Schreiber,
Siegfried Stern, Wheeler Williams.

93357—49 16

226 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Statement op Osmond K. Fraenkel in Opposition to the Mundt-Ferguson

Bills (S. 1194 and 1196)

Since illness prevented my appearance before the subcommittee of the Judiciary
Committee of the Senate which is considering these bills, I take this opportunity
to express my views.

I shall first answer the "test" questions put to all witnesses.

1. I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the Communist Party.

2. I have no notion whether I am now or ever have been a member of an organ-
ization designated as subversive by an}' Government agency. I have made no
effort to ascertain what organizations have been so designated. Moreover, I
would not let such ex parte designation influence my own action.

I appear here as a lawyer who has for many years been interested in the guar-
anties of the Bill of Rights. I have written a book entitled "Our Civil Liberties"
which was published in 1944 by the Viking Press and have written articles on
various aspects of the subject which have appeared in law journals published in
many sections of the country. I have participated in a considerable number of
civil liberties cases before the United States Supreme Court. I have for many
years been a member of the board of directors of the American Civil Liberties
Union and counsel to its New York City committee. I have been a vice president
of the National Lawyers Guild and a member (for some years chairman) of its
committee on constitutional liberties. I am also a member of the civil rights
committee of the New York County Lawyers Association.

My opposition to the bills proposed by Senators Mundt and Ferguson rests on
two basic considerations: They will not accomplish their supposed objectives;
they will do more harm than good. Also, in part at least, they are unconstitu-
tional.

The main thesis of the supporters of this type of legislation is that Communists
operate secretly and should be forced into the open. Therefore the bills require
the registration of Communist organizations and establish administrative machin-
ery for determining which organizations are of such a character. But it is fantastic
to suppose that any one will ever register under these bills. For, in the light of
the Government's contention that the Communist Party advocates the over-
throw of the Government by force, to do so would constitute the admission of the
commission of crime. Regardless of this contention, these bills make it unlawful
to do anything to facilitate the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship in the
United States and so define the Communist movement as to bring it within that
category. Thus, in my opinion, no one will register. And if prosecutions are
attempted for failure to register the defendants can stand on the Fifth Amend-
ment which protects them against self-incrimination. Thus the basic purpose
of the legislation will fail of accomplishment.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that the administrative machinery devised
for the branding of organizations as Communist will be utilized. The agency set
up for this purpose will be vested with a power unparalleled in our history over
the life and death of organizations engaged in political and propaganda activities.
Moreover, every member of such organizations is exposed to great hazards, for
he can be sent to jail for applying for a passport or even for remaining a member
if the organization has not registered. Even if the organization has registered,
no member may be a Government employee. Moreover, the agency is empowered
to determine whether particular individuals are members or officers of the branded
organizations.

It will be observed from the foregoing that although severe criminal penalties
are imposed by the proposed bills the function of a criminal court in any prosecu-
tion would be very limited. For in most cases which might arise the basic facts
will have been determined by the administrative agency, not by the court. Un-
doubtedly the Government would claim, in any prosecution for not registering
after the making of a branding order, for instance, that the issue of the character
of the organization could not be litigated before the jury. In this way the salutary
safeguard of jury trial guaranteed by the sixth amendment would be taken away.
This, in my opinion, is a violation of the Constitution.

Moreover, the terms used in the penal provisions of the bill are in many instances
so vague that it is doubtful 'if prosecution could constitutionally be conducted
under them. For instance, to subject to punishment persons who do anything
which might "substantially facilitate or aid" the establishment of a dictatorship
would constitute a "dragnet" in violation of the due process clause. (See Herndon
V. Lowry, 301 U. S. 242.)

I am finally opposed to these bills because their necessary consequences would be
a grave interference with expression of opinion and freedom of association.

Osmond K. Fraenkel.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 227

Statement of Lewis G. Hines, National Legislative Representative,
American Federation of Labor, on the Mundt and Ferguson Bills

The American Federation of Labor is opposed to the Mundt (S. 1194) and
Ferguson (S. 1196) bills for the same reasons that it was opposed to the Mundt-
Nixon bill of 1948. The statement which the American Federation of Labor
presented before the Senate judiciary committee last year in respect to the
Mundt-Nixon bill is equally apphcable to the present bills. Both the 1948
Mundt bill and the present bills make the same general approach to the problem
of combating communism, namely, by attempting to define what constitutes a
Communist organization or a Communist-front organization and then condemning
such organization and membership therein by imposing various criminal, political,
and social sanctions. Inherent in both the 1948 and 1949 bills is the same threat
to civil liberties that the American Federation of Labor protested at last year's
hearings. This, threat arises inevitably from any attempt to penalize for beliefs
and ideas, no matter how unorthodox or unpopular they maj^ be, and from pro-
viding for guilt by association, as do the 1948 and" 1949" bills. Rather we would
suggest, as we suggested at last year's hearings, that the threat of communism
can better be coped with by improving internal conditions and eliminating in-
ternal dissatisfactions upon which communism breeds and without which it
cannot exist. Repeal of the notorious Taft-Hartley Act would be a long step in
this direction and, to our mind, would alone do more to eliminate the Communist
threat than a dozen Mundt bills. In addition, laws against espionage, against
betrayal of information vital to the security of the country, or against act> treason-
able in nature, could be strengthened or enacted if this was believed necessary,
although it would seem that the existing laws are adequate to cope with specific
acts of disloyalty.

Our legal department has informed us that all of the constitutional objections
that were applicable to the 1948 bill continue to be applicable to the present bills.
The present bills still constitute a serious infringement of the civil rights of speech
and assembly and are still replete with vague and indefinite definitions and phrases,
making it impossible for a person to determine whether his membership in any
organization, some of whose objectives might happen to coincide with those of an
avowed Communist organization, would subject him to the penalties and sanctions
of the act. Freedom to express oppositional or unpopular views, and to assemble
with others holding similar views, could not continue for long in an atmosphere
such as would be created by the bills in question; yet it is on this very right to
express contrary opinions that the civil liberties which the bills seek to protect
against Communist usurpation are predicated.

More specificalh^, as respects labor organizations, the same opportunity to
brand them as Communist groups or Communist-front groups that was present
in the 1948 Mundt-Nixon bill continues to exist under the present bills. The
criteria under which an administrative agency could determine that a particular
organization is a Communist one are substantially the same under the new bills
as under the 1948 bill. Thus the fact that a labor organization might, as it some-
times does, refuse to disclose its membership or the extent to which its policies and
objectives- might, as they sometimes do, correspond with the policico and objectives
of an admittedly Communist organization, such as the advocac}' of better housing,
an adequate health program, the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act, and the like,
might be utilized by a hostile commission to make a finding that a particular labor
organization is a Communist -front organization and subject that organization to
all the penalties, sanctions, and ignominies that are visited upon actual Communist
groups.

While it can be said that the present bills do offer some improvement over the
1948 bill, notably in providing for administrative hearings rather than permitting
the Attorney General alone to make a determination as to whether an organization
is communistically inclined, nevertheless the principal defects of the old bill,
as enumerated above and as further specified in our 1948 statement, still exist.
Indeed, in at least one major respect, the present bills are even more objectionable
than the 1948 bill — that is, in respect to section 4 (a) of the new bill. Section
4 (a) makes it a felony punishable by 10 years' imprisonment or a fine of $10,000,
or both, for any person knowingly to conspire with any other person "to perform
any act which would substantially facilitate or aid in the estabhshment within
the United States of a totahtarian dictatorship * * *." Under this pro-
hibition any labor organization, or its officers or members, engaging in or support-
ing or promoting a legitimate, bona fide strike in an important industry, might
very well be found guilty of a violation of this section. Other situations, involv-
ing possible violations but arising out of bona fide labor disputes, are not difficult
to imagine. It is to be noted that the conspiracy need not be with the intent to

228 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

establish any totalitarian dictatorship; on the contrary, the persons involved
might be entirely innocent of such intent, yet if any of their activities in connection
with any labor dispute could V)e said to facilitate the establishment of a dictator-
ship, they could presumably be held liable under the present wording of this
section.

For the reasons above given, together with the reasons set forth in the statement
presented by the American Federation of Labor before the committee when
considering the Mundt-Nixon bill of 1948, the American Federation of Labor is
strongly opposed to the enactment of the Mundt and Ferguson bills.

Statement of Harry See, National Legislative Representative, Brother-
hood OF Railroad Trainmen, in Opposition to S. 1194 and S. 1196

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 SE., Washington, D. C. The headquarters of
the brotherhood are located in the Standard Building, Cleveland, Ohio. We
represent brakemen, yardmen, conductors, switchtenders, train baggagemen, and
other classes of employees on railroads. The brotherhood has approximately
200,000 members in the United States.

Their work carries them to all parts of this great country. They are deeply
concerned for its welfare. They would not advocate any legislative measure
which would jeopardize its future, for they take their obligations as free-born
Americans most seriously. They are likewise concerned that nothing be done
that in any way tends to undermine the spirit and practice of democracy itself.

It is our belief that the measures before your committee are in the category of
those proposals that undermine individual integrity and destroy those social
institutions which are the very foundations of democracy.

To our way of thinking the Bill of Rights is the keystone of our free society
and supports not only our constitutional government, but our most cherished
social and poUtical practices. For it is in the spirit of the Bill of Rights that
Americans have achieved their great stature as independent people. Here no
man is master; all men are free and equal. To remain that way we must be
ever zealous that no infringement on our deep-rooted beliefs in freedom be al-
lowed. And these measures are such infringements, no matter how they may
operate, or with what care they may be employed. They are inimical to
freedom.

We do not hold that a police force, traffic regulations, and other limits on
freedom of individual action are undesirable. On the contrary, we believe that
these forms of control are needed in even the freest of democracies to insure
individual safety and reasonable freedom of movement. But it is a far cry from
such restraints to the stringent provisions of these two bills.

There is all too little democracy left in the world. The United States remains
one of the few sanctuaries of democratic freedom on the globe today. In no
small degree our very freedom is rooted in institutions in which it has been
nurtured and from which it derives its daily sustenance. These are the fullest
freedom of communication, the right to say and be heard, individual responsi-
bility for what one says and does, and institutions of the church and the home,
and the school and the press, open forums, and assemblage. All of these are
indispensable parts of the democratic way of life.

That is how sound Americanism operates in many organizations and groups in
this country. That is the way any self-governing people should express their
beliefs and establish the discipline that signifies good and loyal Americans.

But to strait-jacket the thinking of our people, to force their actions through
fear, is not only anathema to any good American, it is likewise self-defeating.
It will not accomplish the purposes of its proposers. For once such methods are
made legal, and used widely, they will drive subversive elements still deeper
underground where their nefarious acts and plottings will hatch unobserved, to
breed a horror that may consume us.

Our great leader Franklin D. Roosevelt used an expression that is especially
suitable here. He once said that all we Americans have to fear is fear itself.
There is no more direct way of spreading fear than to endow the police of this
Nation with the powers to invade our privacy, as proposed in the measures
pending before your committee.

We are not opposed to applying such tests and imposing such actions on all our
people as will safeguard our democracy to the utmost possible from fifth columists.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSR^E ACTIVITIES 229

Communists, and others who do not believe in democracy and its free institutions.
We urge, on the contrary, that certain needed steps be taken to disclose their
actions. We believe in disclosure consistent with democracy itself. It is a brave
form of government, and it requires bravery to support and make it prosper.
We would urge the committee to examine the desirability of having open rosters of
membership in organizations, a careful public accounting of funds used in attempts
to further political or social causes. These, in addition to the laws now on the
books to apprehend and punish spies, foreign agents and criminals, are adequate
in our judgment to safeguard us against such harmful influences.

What we really ought to put our minds on, all of us who are concerned with
making democracy safe and sound, is the welfare of all the people in this country.
Give us good government, clean and honest government, a modern defense force,
and a sound economy which is devoted to maintaining full employment for our
people and ever-increasing widespread high standards of living — buttress all
these with free institutions that build individual character, and we have little if
anything to fear from that pitiful and petty handful of people amongst us who
would change our form of Government for something else.

Constitutionality of H. R. 5852 (80th Cong., 2d Sess.)
(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"
has been given no definite meaning (see Feinglass v. Reinecke (N. D. 111. 1942)
48 F. Supp. 438), or that the statute is so vague and indefinite that a person cannot
determine the offenses penalized and, therefore, is unconstitutional as a violation
of due process (U. S. v. Josephson (C. C. A. 2d, 1947) 165 F. (2d) 82, cert. den.
(1948) 16 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 Lamella v. New Jersey (1939) (306 U. S. 451) (citing ConnaUy 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. S. (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 subse-
quently estimates it, some matter of degree. If his judgment is wrong, not only
mav 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 argument
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 indicated 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 Lanzelta v. New Jersey, supra, the statute
there involved was found lacking in definiteness, but was not held invalid because
it invoked guilt by association. Indeed, the opinion suggests that had the
statutorv language been more specific, it would have been upheld.

Section 2 of the bill contains findings to demonstrate that Communist organiza-
tions 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 'nail 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 govern-
mental system in general or supports "the political principles of foreign nations."
Feinglass v. Reinecke, supra.

It has been said that the findings of a legislature that the public interest requires
restriction of certiin 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 administrative and
judicial determination whether particular parties, persons or acts come within

230 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

the provisions of the statute. The bill thus avoids the objection that the legisla-
ture by statute condemns a particular named party as violating its terms. Com-
munist Party v. Peek, supra.

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

"It well maj' 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). We
admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendant 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 in falsely shouting fire in a threater and
causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against
uttering word.^ that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove &
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 sub; tantive evils that Congress
has a right to prevent. It is a question of pro.ximity and degree."

See also Schaefer v. U. S. (1920) (251 U. S. 466); Hart^el v. U. S. (1944) (322
U. S. 680); Okamoto v. U. S. ((C. C. A. 10th, 1945) 152 F. (2d) 905). In the
latter case the circuit courts 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,
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 w^ould
produce, or are calculated to produce, a clear, present, and imminent danger of a
substantive evil w^hich Congres . has the constitutional power to prevent. Schenck
v. United States, (249 U. S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed 470) ; Hartzel v. United
States (322 U. S. 680, 64 S. Ct. 1233, 88 L. Ed. 1534). Ordinarily 'the substantive
evil must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high' in
order to warrant punishment for the exercise of speech, press, or assembly.
Bridges 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 danger 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 unlimited
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 guarantees 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 tech-
nical state of war. {Fleming v. Mohawk Wrecking and Lumber Co. (1947) 331
U. S. Ill; Woods V. The Cloyd W. Miller Co. ('1938) U. S. — , 16 LW 4165.) Al-
though the Supreme Court has indicated that there are constitutional boundaries
which even a technical state of war may not serve to extent {Ibid.; Hartzell v.
[7. <S'., supra), vet the governmental w^ar powers are viewed very broadlv. In
Hirabayashi v. f7. S. ((1943) 320 U. S. 81), Mr. Chief Justice Stone declared:

"The war power of the national government is 'the power to wage war success-
fully.' See Charles Evans Hughes, War Powers Under the Constitution, 42
A. B. A. Rep. 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 em-
braces every phase of the national defense, including the protection of war mate-

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 231

rials 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 governmental
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. Cihj of Chester (C. C. A. 3d, 1944, 144 F. (2d) 415).
"Nor can it be 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 con-
sideration." Ibid. "Congress * * * can invoke the war power * * *
during times of peace, for the future protection of the nation." Henderson v.
Brrjan (S. D. Cal. 1942, 46 F. Supp. 682); see also Ashwander 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 funda-
mental principle support of Soviet Russia, that the "Communist Party of the
United 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, 80th Cong., 1st se.ss. (1947) 35-36, 43,
testimony of Hon. J. Edgar Hoover).

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

"jf * * * propaganda takes the form of, for example, advocacy of the
overthrow of the Government by violence, it is rightfully called 'Un-.\merican'
and a sensible regard for the self-preservation of the Nation may well require 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 potentially 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.
"Citizenship" convevs the idea of membership of a nation. Minor v. Hap per sett
((1875) 88 U. S. 162; Ex parte Fung Sing (W. D. Wash. 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 * * *
voluntarv action in conformity with applicable legal principles." Perkins v. Elg
((1939) 307 U. S. 325, 329) ; see also In re Bolter (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. S. ex rel. Wrona v. Karnvih (W. D. N. Y.
1936, 14 F. Supp. 770). This right is generally recognized throughout the civilized
world, and is recognized in the United States 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 Si7ig, supra. Nor does the fourteenth amendment
prevent citizenship acquired either bv 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

232 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

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 determination,
A^^ Fung Ho v. White ((1922). 259 U. S. 276).
Section 5 appears to meet these tests.

IV. SECTION 6

Section 6 regulates employment by the United States. The right of the United
States to regulate the political activity of its employees or to say who shall and
shall not be employed is clearly supported by United Public Workeis 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. 216, 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
unlawful for anyone to become or remain a member of such an organization
which has not complied with the statutorj^ 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 assemblies,
involving no element of grave and immediate danger to an interest the State is
entitled to protect, are not instruments of harm which recjuire previous identifica-
tion of the speakers." The Court referred to Neiv York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmer-
man, 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 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 file 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 11

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 distributed 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) 96 U. S. 727). 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,

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 233

Congress has long exercised, and the courts have sustained, the Federal power to
prevent the facilities of the mails from being used to accomplish ends deemed
inimical to the general welfare. Electric Bond and Share Co. v. S. E. C. (C. C. A.
2d, 1937, 92 F. (2d) 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 postoflice of the United States is a
matter that Congress may regulate. Ex parte Jackson (96 U. S. 727). What-
ever 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. Cal. 1939, 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, pro-
tecting freedom of speech and the press, so long as their transportation by some
means other than the mails is not forbidden. Ex parte Jackson, supra. The
Government may constitutionally decline to become itself an agent in the circula-
tion of printed matter which it regards as injurious to the people. In re Rapier,
supra. "The freedom of communication is not abridged within the intent and
meaning of the constitutional provision unless Congress is absolutely destitute
of any discretion as to what shall or shall not be carried in the mails, and com-
pelled arbitrarily to assist in the dissemination of matters condemned by its
judgment, through the governmental agencies which it controls." Ibid. More-
over, Congress in exerting the postal power may fix certain standards with re-
spect 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 Badders v. U. S., supra, where the Court said
that "there is no doubt that the law may make each putting of a letter into the
postoffice 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 condi-
tions. See Ex parte Jackson, supra. But cf. Oklahoma- Texas Trust v. S. E. C.
(C. C. A. 10th, 1939. 100 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. (1925) 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. L^ S. (1917) 242 U. S. 470).

VIII. SECTION 12

Section 12 provides, under certain circumstances, for a denial of tax deductions
and exemptions. Deductions allowed in computing income taxes are matters of"
legislative grace. {New Colonial Ice Co., Inc. v. Helvering (1934) 292 V. 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 con-
ditions.

Similarlv, Congress has the right to make or withdraw exemptions as it. sees fit.
{Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co. (1916), 240 U. S. 1; Flint 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

234 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

administrative process rather than judicial one amount to a denial of due process
of law. (See, among others, Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson (1894),
154 U. S. 447; Lloyd Sabaudo Societa v. Elting (1932), 287 U. S. 329; Yakus v. II. S.
(1944), 321 U. S. 414; President, Managers and Company of the Monongahela
Bridge Co. v. U. S. (1910), 216 U. S. 177; Louisville 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 subpena.
See Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, supra. This is a power com-
monly 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 ad-
vance 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. C.
111. 1869), 16 Fed. Gas. No. 9252; U. S. v. Bateman (S. D. Gal. 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 be filed is not objec-
tionable. Compare Yakus v. U. S., supra. And the fact that the determination
of an administrative agency may become final because of failure to act within the
statutory time to secure a judicial review, likewise is not objectionable. (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 Badders
V. U. S. ((1916) 240 U. S. 391), the punishment imposed (under statute) of 5 years
on each of five counts, the periods being concurrent, and a fine of $1,000 on each
of seven counts, was held not to be cruel, unusual, or excessive within the pro-
hibition of the Constitution.

Testimony of Benjamin C. Sigal, Chairman, Washington Chapter, Ameri-
cans FOR Democratic Action in Behalf of Americans for Democratic
Action and the American Civil Liberties Union in Opposition to the
MuNDT and Ferguson Bills

My name is Benjamin C. Sigal. I am chairman of the Washington chapter of
Americans for Democratic Action and I am appearing here toda,y in behalf of the
National ADA and the American Civil Liberties Union in opposition to S. 1194
and S. 1196.

The ADA and the ACLU are unalterably opposed to communism but we are
equally opposed to any denial of the basic civil rights and liberties. It is our con-
viction that the two measures pending before this committee are unconstitutional;
that they seriously curtail rights of free speech and thought; that thej^ will in
effect materially aid the Communists; drive them underground and greatly en-
hance their chances for success.

S. 1196, introduced by Senator Ferguson, is so similar to Senator Mundt's
bill, S. 1194, that it needs no separate analysis. The major points wherein it
differs from S. 1194 will be indicated by footnotes. All that follows will be de-
voted to an analysis of S. 1194.

1. As has already been stated, the bill would have the inevitable effect of
driving the Communist movement underground. Communists have already
announced that they would not comply with the provisions of this bill. Such
noncompliance would of course compel Communists to seek refuge in underground
activities. Furthermore, we believe that there are adequate laws now on the

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTH^TIES 235

statute books to combat any "clear and present danger" from communism, which
is all the proponents of this bill seek to safeguard against. 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 Registra-
tion 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 S. 1194, 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 S. 1194 were to become law, those who furthered the Com-
munists' program would be penalized. What of tomorrow? May the Congress
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." De Jonge v. Oregon (299 U. S. 353,
365). These words have apt application to the present problem. If it be true,
as S. 1194 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 tliat "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. 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 aspects which in our opinion render most of its
provisions unconstitutional: (i) 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 Subversive Activities Commission rather than to the courts.

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 would appear also that a finding could be based on
any one of criteria set forth in section 14. In the case of political organizations,
the criterion is control by a foreign government or political organization, plus
operation "primarily to advance the objectives of the world Communist move-
ment." Either criterion can be determined on the basis of a series of considera-
tions set forth in section 14, many of them wholly unrelated and entirely la^yful.
Among those mentioned are the extent of nondeviation of its views and policies
from those of foreign Communist governments and organizations and the extent
to which the organization resists the efforts to obtain information with regard
to its membership. Included are also matters more directly connected with
control by a foreign government.

In the case of "front" organizations, the criterion is either control by a "Com-
munist political organization" or a finding that the suspected "front" is primarily
operated to give aid to a "Communist political organization," a Communist
foreign government, or the "world Communist movement." Either of these
criteria can be estabhshed on the basis of the identity of persons active in man-
agement, the sources 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).

4. The foregoing is rendered even more objectionable by the fact that the
Government may be able to avoid offering proof before a judge and jury that

236 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

the suspected organization comes within the category of the law. For the bill
in its registration provisions (sec. 7) compels action by an organization designated
as coming witliin the scope of the law by the Subversive Activities Commission
under the administrative provisions of section 14. Moreover, failure to register
is then a crime (sec. 16). (It is not clear whether it is criminal to fail to register
before a formal designation is made.) Membership in an organization that has
not registered is then 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 16 (c)).

Since it is contemplated that the Subversive Activities Commission will deter-
mine which organizations 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 Subversive Activities Commission if upheld on appeal is
conclusive. That we submit is in violation of the provisions of the sixth amend-
ment which guarantees trial bv jury and a right of confrontation of witnesses
(^Kirby v. United Stales, 174 U. S. 47).

5. Section 4 creates criminal penalties wholly independent of the two types of
organizations we have been discussing. Any conspiracy or agreement to perform
any act which would substantially facilitate or aid in the establishment of a
"totalitarian dictatorship" is punished by a possible fine of $10,000 or imprison-
ment for 10 years, plus ineligibility for public office, 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 nol. limited to acts of violence and to overt
acts at all. For it expressly punishes an agreement to do any act which would
substantially "facilitate or aid" the establishment 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.

There is now^ a definition as such of what constitutes a "totalitarian dictator-
ship," lacking in last year's Mundt bill. But beyond that, it is quite clear that
this provision on its face is not applicable to acts alone, but to speech and publica-
tion as well. It is hard to imagine phrases broader than those used as a method of
criminal liability, except perhaps the phrase used last year, i. e., "in any manner."
In Winters v. Neu) 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 "knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree ^
with any other person to perform any act which would substantially facilitate or
aid in the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship"? If a group files a brief
amicus in the trial of the Communist leaders in New York and helps secure their
acquittal, is this an agreement or combination which would aid such an establish-
ment? Note that there is not even a requirement of intent — it is sufficient if the
agreement aids the establishment. Is an attorney who defends a Communist in
a political trial guilty under this section? Where is the line to be drawn? 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 Herndon v. Lowery
(301 U. S. 242, 259)." See aso Stromberg v. California (283 U. &. 359, 369).

Finally, this section would even outlaw a proposal to amend the Constitution
to establish a "totalitarian dictatorship."

6. Section 5 prohibits employment in the service of the United States, except-
ing only for elective offices, of any person who is a member of a Communist
"political" organization.

We have consistently opposed the blanket proscription of persons from Gov-
ernment service merely because of their affiliations. They may be totally out of
sympathj' with the subversive policies of that organization, or may have joined
because of personal reasons. We find no justice in the broad scope of this bill
whatever may be the question of its costitvitionality.

7. Section 6 forbids the issuance of passports to members of such a political
organization. We have alw^ays 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.

1 S. 1196 omits the words "or agree."

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 237

8. The registration requirements of section 7 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.

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 or-
ganizations and of the data given, including names of members.

We are of the opinion that these registration provisions, as well as the provision
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. 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."

9. The administrative provisions call for little comment. Section 14 requires
full hearing, with provision for subpoenas, before any determination by the Sub-
versive Activities Commission. The Commission 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 15 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 Commission are to be conclusive if supported by the preponderance of the
evidence.- We have no criticisms of these provisions, except as indicated above.
We oppose the possibility of a finding by the Commission which may be con-
clusive in a criminal prosecution against an individual.

10. Permeating the bill are two concepts, the unconstitutionality of which can-
not be doubted.

(a) 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 illustrates the
dangers and absurdities of the doctrine. Pages 470-484.

Under section 10, a member of a "Communist political organization" may go to
jail for 5 years merely for belonging to such a group if it has not registered. The
default of the organization in failing to comply with the la'n 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,
((* H- * 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
unconstitutional. See Mr. Justice Murphy in Bridge v. Wilson (326 U. S. 135).

(b) 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 with-
out a judicial trial Cumtnings v. Mo. (4 Wall. 277). The present bill constitutes
a congressional determination that in effect all members of a "Communist political
organization" are automatically subjected to certain penalties merely by the fact
of membership. The bill by the registration provisions removes the right of
privacy from thein. They may not obtain or seek privileges, such as passports or
Federal jobs, to which other persons are eligible. 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 consideration. If the Supreme
Court has ruled the former unconstitutional because of some presumption of guilt
which woidd be the basis for the denial of the privilege, then the latter, which does
not merely presume guilt but finds it conclusively, must also fall Cnmmings 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-disguised
method to define the Communist Party as an international conspiracy. The use
of the term "Communist" brings the statute within the Lovett easels dictum that
"legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply to named individuals or

' The Ferguson biU, in effect, would require only support by "substantial" evidence.

238 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

to easily ascertainable members of a group * * * are bills of attainder."
{United States v. Lovett, supra. 315.) [Emphasis added.]

11. We think that it is sufficiently clear that registration of an organization
found by the Attorney General to be a Communist political organization, would
automatically subject officers and members of the group to the criminal provisions
imder section 4. 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.

Under section 7, Communist political organizations are required to register
with the Attorney General. Such groups are defined in section 14 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 movement
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 agree to perform any act which would facilitate or aid in the
establishment within the United States of a "totalitarian dictatorship under the
control of a foreign government." Thus, it is clear that registration of an organi-
zation, if not conclusive, would be at least prima falcie evidence that its members
are guilty of a substantive crime. Clearly, the act in this manner establishes
guilt bv association, a concept held illegal by the Supreme Court (see Kotteakos
V. U. S., 328 U. S. 750).

12. Any registration required by the Attorney General of a Communist political
organization because of its views and policies (sec. 14 (e) (1)) or because of the
alleged identity of its views with a foreign government or organization (sec. 14
(e) (2)) would seem to be a clear violation of the constitutional principle against
prior restraints on beliefs or opinions.

(a) 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 Jonge v. Oregon, supra, Taylor v. Mississi-ppi (318 U. S. 583).) Registra-
tion 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), Schenider v. Irvington (308 U. S. 147), and Murdoch v. Pennsylvania
(319 U. S. 105).)

(b) 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 8 of our memo-
randum, which we believe, correctly states the law.

(c) 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.

Law School of Harvard University,

Cambridge, Alass., June 4, 1949.
Hon. James O. Eastland,

Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, D. C.

Dear Senator Eastland: If you will permit me to file this statement in
opposition to two bills (S. 1194 and S. 1196), both entitled biUs "To protect the
United States against un-American and subversive activities," I shall be most
grateful.

Inasmuch as it is not infrequent to misunderstand and even misrepresent the
motives of citizens who have opposed certain anti-Communist measures, I want
to let you know briefly what sort of person is here objecting to these bills. A
member of the Rhode Island bar, I have taught law at Harvard Law School since
1916, being now Langdell professor. My courses for many years have com-
prised equity, negotiable instruments and banking law, trade-marks and unfair
competition. I have published many books and articles on those subjects,
besides three books on freedom of speech and press, and have occasionally advised
practitioners on problems within my field of teaching. I have participated in
several cases in the United States Supreme Court and elsewhere involving freedom

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 239

of speech and religion, but always as a friend of the court. Never have I been
retained or paid by any individual or private organization for work involving
civil liberties, because I wish to consider only the interest of the public when I
speak or write on such matters. I was consultant for the National Commission
on Law Observance and Enforcement, formerly a member of the United Nations
Subcommission on Freedom of Information and of the Press, and one of the
United States delegates to the United Nations Conference on Freedom of Infor-
mation in Geneva. Also, I was the draftsman of the Federal Interpleader Act
of 1936 (now 28 U. S. C, sees. 1335, 1397, 2361), under which millions of dollars
in conflicting claims against insurance companies and other corporations have
been expeditiously adjudicated. My chief activity, outside of teaching and
scholarship, has been serving for 40 years as a director of Builders Iron Foundry,
a manufacturing business in Providence which has done important work for the
Government at various times; since 1943 I have been chairman of the board.

In short, I am one of the large number of old-fashioned Americans trying to do
their own jobs as well as they can, who care a good deal about our Bill of Rights
and about maintaining American traditions of freedom and tolerance. We like
the kind of country in which we grew up, and we want it to stay that kind of
country for our children and our grandchildren. Because we detest totalitarian-
ism, we are greatly disturbed by proposals, such as these two bills, to copy any
of the methods which totalitarian nations use for keeping a'tight control over the
thoughts and expressions of individuals, over their political activities when they
do not meet the approval of officials, and over the exchange of views among
individuals in publications and meetings.

When anybody has reached my age, he has seen some pretty queer ideas
running around in this country at various times, but they died out when they
were left alone. We have pulled through in splendid shape without any laws
remotely resembling these two bills, and are now a stronger and more united
Nation than ever in our history. It is because of my eagerness for it to remain a
free and brave Nation, unvexed by hordes of spies, numerous inquisitions about
opinions, and drastic legal restrictions on political and social groups, that I am
opposing these bills.

There is an old story of a liberated slave who met his former master on the
street. The master asked "Are you as well off as before you were free?" The
Negro admitted that his clothes were frayed, his house leaked, and his meals
were nothing like the food on the old plantation. "Well, wouldn't you rather
be a slave again?" "No, Massa. There's a sort of a looseness about this here
freedom that I likes."

There is no looseness about either of these bills. Although they have cured
some of the shortcomings of the Mundt-Nixon bill of 1948 (H. R. 5852 in the
second session of the 80th Cong.) because they apprise organizations more
clearly when they are obliged to register, thej' are much tighter than the old bill
in controlling peaceable exchanges of views among citizens. Both of the new
bills establish a wholly new Federal agency to determine what political opinions
are lawful and what are unlawful. These bills are drafted with amazing effi-
cienc}\ They remind me of the efficiency of a Ukrainian law for strait-jacketing
presses and publications which was read to us at the Geneva Conference.

IVIy main objection to these bills is that I see very little evidence to support
the recital in each of them that the world Communist movement presents "a clear
and present danger * * * to the existence of free American institutions."
Let me begin by reviewing the acts of Congress which now protect our Govern-
ment and institiitions from attacks through violence or other unlawful action.

First, a statute enacted in 1861 (U. S. C, sec. 6) punishes conspiracy "to over-
throw, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States,
* * * or to oppose by force the authoritv thereof, or by force to prevent, hin-
der, or delay the execution of any law of the LTnited States." This was considered
adequate to protect the Government when the Confederate Army was within 100
miles of Washington. In 1867 it was supplemented by another statute punishing
conspiracy to commit an offense against the Government with an overt act, no
force being required (U. S. C., sec. 37). These two statutes kept us safe from
any serious consequences of internal disaffection in time of peace for three quarters
of a centurv. Without anv sedition act, we came through the panic of 1873, the
panic of 1893, the panic of 1907, and the great depression of 1929-33. The ab-
sence of any prosecutions against revolutionists under either of these laws demon-
strates that the sky has been clear of forcible revolution for a good many years.

240 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Still, in 1940 Congress wanted more than the old conspiracy statutes. So it
created two new types of criminal offenses in the Alien Registration Act. To
begin with, it made the Espionage Act of 1917 applicable in time of peace, so as
to punish anybody who advocated insubordination, disloyalty, and so forth, in
the armed forces (U. S. C, sec. 9). This measure was urged as essential to pro-
tect the Army and Navy from Communist organizations. Yet the only reported
ease under it was the abortive prosecution of about 30 Fascists and anti-Semites
in Washington in 1944. The fact that there is no reported case under this statute
against a Communist proves one of two things. Either Communist activities to
demoralize the armed forces never have amounted to much, in which event there
seems to be no need for more legislation for the same purpose; or else the 1940
statute has been very successful in putting a stop to such Communist activities,,
and if so why do we have to have a new law to safeguard soldiers and sailors?

The other part of the 1940 statute, commonly distinguished as the Smith Act
(18 U. S. C, sec. 10), makes it a serious crime to advocate the overthrow of any
Government in the United States by force, or to be an organizer or a member of
any group of persons which advocates such overthrow. This is the first Federal
peacetime sedition law since the ill-fated Sedition. Act of 1798. It goes very far
toward reaching anybody who belongs to what the new bills define as a "Com-
munist political organization." If there were really a clear and present danger
in this country from world-wide communism, anybody would naturally expect,
that this Smith Act would have been invoked again and again during recent
years. On the contrary we find just three prosecutions. The first was several
years ago, Dunne v. Li. S. (138 Fed. 2d. 137 (1943)). Although there was a good
deal of wild talk by the men who were convicted in this case, their organization
amounted to little more than a small outlaw labor union and being Trotskyites,
they were about as far removed as possible from the Communist dictatorship of
the Soviet Union, which is described in these two bills as the fountainhead of
danger to our own country. The second was the abortive Washington prosecu-
tion of Fascists, already mentioned. Surely, Stalin's influence over American
citizens could not have Created an overwhelming peril to our Nation when the
Smith Act lay dormant for 8 years before any of Stalin's admirers were thought
worth prosecuting.

At last, 11 leaders of the Communist Party of America were indicted. Their
trial is now going on in New York City. The Government's case has been com-
pleted, so that we can get a pretty good idea already whether these 11 men and
their organization have our country in deadly danger. There has certainly been
some very obnoxious behavior by the defendants in the courtroom and the wit-
nesses for the prosecution have recounted some pretty objectionable talk at the
various Communist meetings which they attended. Yet, whatever the outcome
of this case, is there anything in the Government's evidence to scare any American
citizen of normal guts? I have talked with scores of people of varying political
and economic views while this testimony was going in. Only two or three of
them even brought up the case in conversation. Nobody was the least bit scared.
Nor have I happened to see alarm expressed by a single editorial or a single letter-
to the editor of a newspaper. It is about the least exciting news of the dav

The low temperature of this trial is significantly indicated by the accounts of the
Government's case in the New York Times. It got on the front page with the open-
ing statement on March 22, and stayed there for 8 days because Budenz is a sensa-
tional figure as the best known ex-Communist. Then even during his cross-
examination, the trial dropped to a distant inner page on April- 2. It occasionally
returned to the front page in April, but April 28 was its last appearance in
such a prominent position until the very close of the Government's case. For 14
successive reports from April 29 through May 18 the trial wandered around
the inner pages of the Times. On IVIay 19, the next to the last report, an
undercover informant made the front page bacause he was called a "rat" by
a defendant in the courtroom, and the trial stuck there when the Government
rested next day. In short, out of 39 issues reporting the misdeeds of the most
prominent members of the leading Communist organization, the trial was front-
page news for a little less than half the time (19 out of 39 issues). This is hardly
the way the chief newspaper in the country behaves when the Nation is at death's
door. Possibly these 11 men or some of them will be properly found guilty, but is
anybody lying awake at night a single minute from terror because of the testimony
against them?

At least it would be wise for you gentlemen to wait until the verdict has come in
and the Supreme Court has given its judgment on the case, before making up
your minds about supplementing the Smith Act by another and much more
sweeping sedition law.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 241

Some have argued that Communist spies make a new statute necessary. Yet
there is no reported decision of a Communist spy since Gorin was arrested in
December 1938 (312 U. S. 329), and I know of no trials connected with spying
until very recently. It is true that two such trials are now going on, one of
Mr. Hiss and the other of a woman. Still, no matter how Mr. Hiss' case ends,
the documents in question are 10 years old. Much better precautions against
leakage now exist in Government offices. And the Nation seems to have survived
the extensive leakage of 1938 documents without the slightest sign of any resulting
calamity. As for the other case, we do not know yet how serious it is, and at
all events there is no reason to suppose that either of the proposed bills will stop all
spying. Anybody who is wicked enough to be a spy and hardy enough to brave
the severe penalties of the Espionage Act will not be bothered about evading
a statute requiring him to register as a Communist.

If the present statutes against spying are defective, the proper remedy lies in
new legislation aimed directly at spying, and not in roaming all over the lot
against thousands of people, most of whom would never dream of being spies.

The postal and interstate commerce provisions of these bills (S. 1194, sec. 11;
S. 1196, sec. 10) are unnecessary to prevent the transmission of really dangerous
communications, because existing statutes make matter nonmailable for violating
the Espionage Act or advocating treason, insurrection, forcible resistance to
a law of the United States, arson, murder, or assassination (18 U. S. C, sees. 334,
343, 344), deny the second-class mailing privilege to such matter by Supreme
Court interpretation (255 U. S. 407), and make imported books, etc., of this sort
seizable (19 U. S. C, sec. 1305). It would be easy to amend a present criminal
statute regulating interstate commerce (18 U. S. C, sec. 396) to reach such
matter if this be thought desirable.

Finally, in connection with the registration provisions in the two proposed
bills, it is important to observe that we now have two statutes which require
registration by anybody who acts as the agent of a foreign government (except
diplomats, consuls, etc.), and by any organization "subject to foreign control"
if it is engaged in political activitv or if it aims to control, seize, or overthrow
the Government of the United States by force (22 U. S. C, sees. 233-233g; 18
U. S. C, sees. 14-17). Whoever fails to register before acting incurs severe
criminal penalties. Now, if the Communist Party of America or any other group in
this country really satisfies Senator Mundt's definition of a "Communist political
organization" (sec. 3 (3) in S. 1194), then he doesn't need any new law to make it
register. It can be compelled to do so any day under the existing statutes just
mentioned. The fact that these two statutes have not been enforced against the
Communist Party or its leaders indicates that all the talk in the pending bills-
about American Communists creating "a clear and present danger" of a totalitarian
dictatorship in the United States, is like the reports of Mark Twain's death —
grossly exaggerated.

To sum up in two sentences this survey of the present United States Code:

If American Communists and fellow-travelers are as dangerous as the sup-
porters of these bills make out, then there is enough legislation already with teeth
in it to take care of these people; so no new law is needed.

If, on the contrary, existing statutes are not violated by what these people are
saying or doing, then they can't be very dangerous, so no new law is needed.

Let us now turn from the law to the facts. How many Communists are there
in the United States? The United Press said 70,000 in 1947, out of a total popu-
lation of 143,382,000 (World's Almanac, 1949, pp. 544,164). Thus Communists
form one-twentieth of 1 percent of all the people in our country. The odds are
1,999 to 1 in favor of free institutions. Suppose a football stadium holds 40,000
people. The chances are that 20 of them would be Communists and 39,980 would
not. Remember, too, that it is not a question of 20 dynamiters or 20 men with
concealed weapons, for then they could be arrested at once under the ordinary
criminal laws. Just 20 unarmed persons who have not violated any existing
Federal or State law or conspired to violate any existing law. But they have
learned bad ideas about politics from foreigners and foreign books, they are think-
ing bad thoughts about these bad ideas, they are telling them to each other and
to any outsiders who are willing to listen. What can we do to prevent them from
harming the other 99.95 percent of us, who have on our side only the city and State
police, almost every newspaper and school teacher and professor and preacher,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy,,
never forgetting the Marines?

93357 — 49 17

242 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Such is the "clear and present danger" inside the United States which (accord-
ing to sec. 2 (11) of the Ferguson bill) imperils "the existence of free institutions"
and makes it "necessary" for Congress to pass a new law 30 pages long with
unheard of regulations and 10-year prison sentences "in order * * * to
preserve the sovereignty of the United States as an independent nation." Shades
of Valley Forge and Iwo Jima. If we no longer want to be the land of the free,
at least let us be the home of the brave.

I fully recognize that the Communist Party in Czechoslovakia was a danger to
the freedom of Czechoslovakia, and the same is probably true of Italy and some
other countries. It does not follow that the inclusion of less than one-twentieth
of 1 percent of our population in a Communist Party here is a real danger to our
institutions and our freedom under the very different conditions in this country.
We have a very strong government equipped with existing legislation and efficient
Federal police. Our Government does not need any such novel bill as this in order to
deal effectively with any actual conspiracy against its existence or any actual
effort toward violent revolution. W^here inside this coimtry are the facts which
justify the establishment of unheard of regulatory machinery, the expenditure
of large sums of money in its operation and the severe punishment of American
citizens because somebody or other has not filled out a piece of paper?

It is now nearly 30 years since my work as a student of freedom of speech led
me to pay considerable attention to the activities of Communists in this country.
Although I still dislike them very much, it is my considered opinion that they
are far less dangerous today than they were in 1919-20, soon after the Russian
Revolution. During those early years that revolution was to many Americans
the symbol of a better world. It was assumed to be a heaven on earth. To many
idealists it at least appeared possible that men might build a fruitful society with-
out having to seek their own profit. Few of those who now dream of a city of
God can ignore the ugly facts in Moscow. Radicals of my acquaintance who used
to speak of Russia as a land of hope are now reduced to saying that it is no worse
than any other country. Also social and economic conditions in this country have
vastly improved since 1919. The reasons for revolutionary discontent which
then existed have greatly been lessened by the legislation under Mr. Roosevelt,
the high wages paid during the war and since, the realization that Americans of
every sort fought and suffered side by side during the war. The spiritual health
of the Nation is far better than in 1919. We have a much greater immunity to
revolutionary radicalism.

Ill

Sometimes I wonder whether the supporters of measures like these bills have
been worrying so much about Communists that they have forgotten what freedom-
loving Americans are like. They are the last people to fall easy victims to the
ideology of a country where nobody can speak his own mind unless he agrees with
the ruling class, where there is only one party convention and only one man to
vote for at an election, where labor unions are state-run bureaus, where men can
be grabbed out of their beds in the dead of night with no charge against them and
be hidden away from their families for weeks, where hordes of people are moved
from their old homes at the will of some official and ordered to live and work in
some barren place two thousand miles awaJ^ Although communism now has
behind it a powerful nation, which was not the case 30 years ago, this makes
military problems more serious but I believe it decreases whatever attraction it
has had for American citizens. If there is one thing American history teaches,
it is that most of our citizens intensely detest any possible foreign influences over
our own political policies. The very fact that joining the Communist Party
means constantly taking sides with a foreign government against our own Govern-
ment is enough to keep most American radicals from having anything to do with
that party. And then there are more material considerations, though by no
means sordid. Think of the billions of dollars invested in life insurance and
savings banks, the pride a man has in knowing that he is giving his children a
better start in life than he had himself, the satisfaction of acquiring a home, a
car, a motor boat, a little cottage on the beach. These bulwarks against commu-
nism are infinitely stronger than all the inquisitions and prosecutions that could
ever be devised.

The only possibility of communistic control of this country, leaving aside the
chance of foreign conquest, would come, I believe, from the destruction of this
confidence which the great mass of our citizens now have in their own future and
that of their children and their community. Imagine a prolonged period of
enormous unemployment, the dollar buying what a dime buys now, and perhaps
worth a nickel next week, who knows, ever-mounting taxes, the national revenue

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 243

heavily mortgaged for decades by unwise commitments to groups of the aged at
the expense of active men and women and their children , voters hating and despis-
ing the men they themselves have put in office because they had nobody better
to choose from. That is when communism might grow by leaps and bounds,
not because of what 70,000 Communists say but because of what the hopeless
facts say. Maggots live in rotten meat.

A friend of mine met a Communist in France. He was a man of considerable
wealth, and my surprised friend asked him, "Then why on earth are you a Com-
munist?" "Because any government is better than the kind we have been having
for years and years." It is that sort of spirit which, if it should be widespread
in this country, might lead us into communism.

It is up to you gentlemen in the Senate and the House of Representatives to
make sure that no such blinding discouragement and financial demoralization shall
ever threaten us. Better yet, it lies in your power to do many things which will
constantly lessen disaffection and strengthen the confidence of citizens in the future
and in their institutions. The cure for internal disaffection is not sedition bills,
but all sorts of statutes within the normal tasks of the Congress and the State
legislatures. The safeguard against communism and any other sort of loyalty is
to make this steadily a better country to live in.

A further objection to these pending bills is that, while they purport to be
necessary to preserve "free American institutions," they gravely impair some of
the most precious of those institutions, freedom of speech and press and assembly,
which our ancestors put at the very head of our Bill of Rights. Without bother-
ing you with an extensive discussion of the meaning of those freedoms, I merely
point out what will be illustrated later by passages from several great exponents
of the first amendment, that the American tradition of freedom of speech and
press and assernbly is that words as such shall not be punished or restricted,
however objectionable the ideas they express. Peaceable language should be
left alone by law, for the proper remedy for it is peaceable language on the other
side. An especially strong claim to immunity is possessed by speeches and
publications concerning political issues and candidates for office, because they
are an essential part of the process of self-government. The only words which
may properly be made unlawful are either (1) immediately injurious like libel
and obscenity, or (2) closely connected with commonly recognized wrongful acts,
e. g., an incitement to murder or to desert from the armed forces.

Now, there is no limitation to the two exceptional situations just mentioned in
either of the pending bills. Let me run through the Mundt- Johnston bill (S. 11 94)
to bring out this point.

Section 4 punishes any person who agrees with another to perform "any act"
which would "substantially facilitate or aid" in the establishment of a totalitarian
dictatorship in this country. There is no requirement of the use of force or other
unlawful methods at any time. The "act" may be wholly peaceable. It may be
one of the commonest political activities, like nominating a candidate for office
w^ho LS pledged to the specified policy.

Section 5 imposes upon a member of proscribed organization a special require-
ment in running for elective office, which is not imposed upon candidates of other
parties and which is not necessarih^ related to any unlawful acts by himself.

Section 6 keeps a man within this country because of his association with men
of specified political views, with no consideration of his own unfitness to travel
abroad and with no reference to any unlawful act. The denial of a passport may
amount to a severe penalty on a person with bona fide reasons for going abroad.

All the registration provisions relating to a "Communist political organization"
restrict normal political processes without regard to any unlawful act.

The registration provisions for "Communist-front organizations" have no
relation to any unlawful act, but are imposed because of the expression and ex-
change of opinions.

The burdens in section 11 on use of the mails for letters as well as printed
matter have no relation to any unlawful acts or to the character of the language
sent by mail.

In case any of your committee should conclude that the pending trial of Com-
munist leaders in New York shows sufficient unlawful acts to take them and the
Communist Party of America outside the traditional protection for freedom of
speech, I would respectfully direct your attention to the fact that neither of these
bills is limited in its application to that particular party. For example, if there
had been such a law passed a year ago, the Progressive Party headed by a former
Vice President of the United States might, for all we know, have been ruled to be
a "Communist political organization," and the same thing maj^ happen in 1952
if either bill be enacted. Moreover, the "Communist-front" provisions obviously

244 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

extend to other organizations than the Communist Party of America. It is im-
possible to justify the sweeping provisions of either bill by sa}ang that it reaches
only particular groups who don't deserve to have any freedoms anyway. You
never know whom a sedition bill is going to hit until the authorities start shooting
with it.

So the provisions just summarized and many others in both bills should be
placed alongside the following selected statements by four exponents of the
American tradition of freedom of speech and press and assembly, two of them
great Democrats, two others great Republicans.

Thomas Jefferson said in his first inaugural in 1801, during the apprehensions
caused by the French Revolution:

"If there be any among us who wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its
republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with
which error of o])inion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
I know indeed that some honest men have feared that a republican government
cannot be strong; that this Government is not strong enough. But would the
honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government
which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that
this Government, the world's best hope, may, by possibility, want energy to
preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest
government on earth."

Justice Holmes said in a famous dissenting opinion in 1919 (250 U. S. 616)
during the period of great excitement about Russians in this country who ardently
supported the Russian Revolution:

"But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they
may come to believe even more than thev 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 competition of the market, and that the 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 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 expres-
sion of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they
so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing
purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country
* * *. Only the emergency that makes it immediately dangerous to leave
the correction of evil counsels to time warrants making any exception to the
sweeping command, 'Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of
speech.' "

A few months later, Charles Evans Hughes objected to the refusal of seats in
the New York Assemblv to five duly elected Socialists, who were (as I recall)
considerably less radical than Communists. That situation is closely parallel
to the pending bills, for, although they do not actually bar Communists from
being candidates for elective office, the burdensome registration provisions and
the possibility of prosecutions under section 4 of both bills will make it very
difficult for any member of a "Communist political organization," and probably
a "Communist-front organization" to participate in normal political processes.
So Hughes' condemnation of any proposal to disenfranchise men merely for
belonging to a group is highlv relevant to the bills vou are considering. He said
(New York Times, January 10, 1920) :

"If there was anything against these men as individuals, if they were deemed
to be guilty of criminal offenses, they should have been charged accordingly.
But I understand that the action is not directed against these five elected members
as individuals but that the proceeding is virtually an attempt to indict a political
party and to deny it representation in the legislature. This is not, in my judg-
ment, Ainerican government * * *,

"I understand that it is said that the Socialists constitute a combination to
overthrow the Government. The answer is plain. If public officers or private
citizens have any evidence that any individuals, or groups of individuals, are
plotting revolution and seeking by violent measures to change our Government,
let the evidence be laid before the proper authorities and swift action be taken
for the protection of the community. Let every resource of inquiry, of pursuit,
of prosecution be employed to ferret out and punish the guilty according to our
laws. But I count it a most serious mistake to proceed, not against individuals
charged with violation of law, but against masses of our citizens combined for

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 245

political action, by denying them the only resource of peaceful government; that
is, action by the ballot box and through duly elected representatives in legislative
bodies."

Hughes, as Chief Justice, uttered principles equally relevant to the pending
bills. In 1931 he said (283 U. S. 359) :

"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 liberty contained in the fourteenth amendment."

And in 1937 he released a man who had spoken at a meeting of the Communist
Party, where no unlawful conduct was urged by anybody. He was convicted
merelv because the Communist Party was held to advocate criminal syndicalism
and sabotage. Hughes said (299 U. S. 353) :

"The greater the importance of safeguarding the community 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."

Finally, Alfred E. Smith spoke out against the expulsion of the Socialist assem-
blymen in 1920 (see his Progressive Democracy, 273) :

"Our faith in American democracy is confirmed not only by its results, but by
its methods and organs of free expression. They are the safeguards against revolu-
tion. To discard the methods of representative government leads to the mis-
deeds of the very extremists we denounce — and serves to increase the number of
the enemies of orderly free government."

After you have read these extracts by four of the men who did most to make
"free American institutions" what they are today, I respectfully request you to
reread either of the pending bills and see how far it departs from the principles
cherished and declared by Jefferson, Holmes, Hughes, and Al Smith.

IMy next objection is drawn from the past experience of the Nation. This is
not the first time when fears of the infiltration of revolutionary radicalism from
Europe has led earnest men to demand drastic laws against speeches and publica-
tions. A hundred and fifty years ago patriots terrified of the French Revolu-
tion got your predecessors to enact the Sedition Act of 1798. It is commonly re-
garded as one of the greatest follies in our history. Happily it expired in 2 years
by its own terms. Again, after the First World War, Congress was repeatedly
urged to pass a new peacetime sedition law. Revolutionary groups were much
more vocal than now. Violent acts occurred like a bomb exploded near the house
of the Attorney General. Still Congress refused to do anything, and nobody now
regrets that refusal. The years that followed proved that the law which eminent
men said was indispensable to save the country was not needed at all. The names
of the men who supported the bills of 1798 and 1919-20 have long ago slipped into
oblivion, but we remember Jefferson, Holmes, Hughes, and ,AL Smith for their
courageous insistence that we must trust open discussion to bring us safely
through.

That courage, we are now told bv proponents of bills like these, is out of date.
The United States never had to face Stalin before. But in 1798-1801 it had to
face the French Revolution and Napoleon. And in 1919-20 it had to face Lenin.
His army was not so big as Stalin's, but he was a far abler master of revolutionary
tactics. The lawyers who drafted the S(?dition Act of 1798 and the judges who
enforced that law were firmly convinced that they were stamping out a foreign
menace fully as dangerous as the foreign menace which confronts us today. In-
deed, they used much the same arguments as those urged for these bills now, with
France the villain instead of Russia and Switzerland replacing Czechoslovakia
as the victim to forecast the fate of our own Republic if we do not save ourselves
by passing a sedition law.

Listen to the dire phr-ophecies with which, in 1799, a committee of the House
of Representatives urged the continuance of the Sedition Act for 2 vears more (9
Annals of Congress, 2991-2992) :

"If it be asserted * * * that our security arises from the form of our
Constitution, let Switzerland, first divided and disarmed by perfidious seductions,

246 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

now agonized bj^ relentless power, illustrate the consequences of similar
credulity * * *

"France appears to have an organized system of conduct toward foreign nations;
to bring them within the sphere, and under the dominion of her influence and
control. It has been unremittingly pursued under all the changes of her internal
polity. Her means are in wonderful coincidence with her ends; among these, and
not the least successful, is the direction and employment of the active and versatile
talents of her citizens abroad as emissaries and spies."

As late as January 1801, after the Federalists had lost the Presidency, one of
them was still trying to get the House to prolong the statute, by charging French
agents with buying several American newspapers with foreign money for the
purpose of spreading disaffection (10 Aimals of Congress, 957-958).

In 1919-20 you can find the same kind of fears as today eloquently expressed
in House and Senate hearings, by the Lusk committee reports in New York, and
in the New York Assembly where the outline of the case against the five Socialists
described their party as "having the single purpose of destroying our institutions
and Government and substituting the Russian-Soviet government * * * an
antinational party whose allegiance is given to the Internationale and not to the
United States." This corresponds almost word for word with passages in section
2 of the pending bills.

Everybody agrees now that the fears of subversive organizations in 1798-1801
and 1919-20 were much exaggerated. Probably this is just as true of the fears
expressed today by the supporters of these bills. Section 2 (11) in both bills may
sound as queer in the future as the passages I have been quoting.

Every great war, especially a war accompanied by revolutions, is followed by
a difficult settling-down period. The anxieties and strains of war do not die out
the moment hostilities stop. People go on being worried because they have been
worried so long, and all sorts of economic and social adjustments caused by the
dislocations of war bring new reasons for anxiety. It took over 10 years for us to
get back to normal after our own Civil War. The constant tension breaks out in
all sorts of queer ways, and one frequent manifestation of it is fear of internal
disaffection. The English went through a terrible period of this sort after the
long Napoleonic wars; they enacted any number of suppressive statutes and
soldiers shot down workmen who were attending a peaceful meeting at Peterloo.
We experienced the same kind of thing in a milder form after the First World
War during the so-called "Red menace." In such times of disturbance and
anxiety, sedition laws were demanded as indispensable, but soon the tension began
to relax, the fears proved unwarranted, and the country went on safely with its
traditional freedoms.

We are going through such a settling-down process today. It is particularly
difficult for all sorts of causes — the magnitude of the devastation, the delay in
the peace treaties, the diverse character of the victorious nations, the unprece-
dented formation of a world-wide permanent union, and so on. We have plenty
of real worries, and it is quite natural that they should be reflected in some false
worries as well. All the more reason for keeping our heads.

It is like waking up at two in the morning and trying to solve all your problems
at once. A wise man tells himself that some of those problems won't amount to
much in daylight. He faces the immediate tangible tasks squarely, and stops
tearing himself to pieces over vague, remote, conspiratorial perils. Usually they
vanish next morning. If not, they shrink into concrete problems which can be
taken up when they actuallv arise as part of the ordinary course of life.

We may be getting well along in this uneasy settling-down process by now.
Relations with the Soviet Union are noticeablv less strained than when these bills
were introduced late in Februarv. Many delicate negotiations with the Russians
are under way. This is a poor time to outlaw Communists when we have some
real hopes of doing business with the Kremlin. What harm will it do to wait and
see how things work out?

I have read a good many regrets that particular sedition laws were passed.
Never, given the lapse of 2 or 3 years, have I known anybody to regret that a
sedition law was rejected.

The principles which Jefferson used to allay apTirehensions in his time are
equally valid in our time. Meet unlawful action with action; proceed againstreal
spies and real plotters as he prosecuted Aaron Burr and approved the dismissal
of Genat. Meet objectionable ideas from abroad by living up to our own ideas —
give increased drawing-power to our great traditions of democracy and freedom.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSR'E ACTIVITIES 247

My final point before I take up these bills in detail is very important. The
enactment of either of them would disastrously impair our influence over other
freedom-loving peoples.

If we leave aside military considerations, the best way to combat the spread of
communism in western Europe and elsewhere is to give increased drawing power
to the great traditions of democracy and freedom. These war-torn countries
want more than weapons, more than food and machinery. They are eager for
ideals to strengthen the spirit and make life worth living. Communism, we are
told, operates like a religion; it is presented as the vision of a better world. Yet
Jefferson and Lincoln had a great vision. During the nineteenth century it
possessed the appeal of a religion to bring millions to our shores. In order to
hearten the discouraged peoples of the twentieth century, we must keep that
vision bright — not, this time, to attract them to America but to enable them to
rebuild their lives in their own homes, so that the freedom which Jeff'erson and
Lincoln did so much to give us will be a reality in many parts of the world.

More than words is needed. LTnless our acts show that we believe in our demo-
cratic ideals, we lessen the chance of winning wavering men to democracy.

In my experience with foreigners in the United Nations, I have been con-
stantly impressed by the way our prevailing adherence to the ideals of our Bill of
Rights helps to close up the ranks of freedom-loving countries in opposition to
undesirable measures. On the other hand, I have seen how much harm is done
whenever we conspicuously depart from our professed basic principles. It lays us
open to damaging charges of hypocrisy and pretense, which are hard to meet.
There is no doubt that such attacks based on concrete facts do impress men from
many countries whose support we need, and sometimes they are thus pried apart
from the United States delegation on critical votes.

Now, freedom of information is one of the big issues in the United Nations at
the present time. A treaty of great value to facilitate the work of foreign corres-
pondents, which was originally projected by our State Department, has been put
in final form by the general assembly. Over and above this, freedom of speech
and press is an American ideal which means a very great deal to the citizens of
countries where censorship and every sort of gross suppression have prevailed in
recent years. So the way we maintain freedom of speech and press or the way we
depart from it is bound to have a tremendous effect, for good or bad, upon dele-
gates from countries like Holland, Norway, India, and Australia.

Consequently, if we enact a new sedition law like either of these bills, it will do
us great harm among our natural friends in the United Nations. They know well
how much suppression is made possible by the vague definitions in these bills.
We just can't defend such a sedition law against the bitter attacks of our opponents,
and still less against the distrust of our friends. Our professions of love for open
discussion will ring hollow in their ears. And matters will be much worse when
enforcement starts, with numerous inquisitions by the Subversive Activities
Commission, mail opened, nonregistrants prosecuted, lists gone through with a
fine-toothed comb, and all the rest of it. Frenchmen, Belgians, Dutchmen,
Norwegians, Danes have had years of experience with that sort of thing under
totalitarian occupations and it leaves a stench in their nostrils.

The way for us to spread abroad freedom of speech is to live up to it ourselves.
The rejection of these bills will be a teUing demonstration that we are governed
by the principles of Thomas Jefferson.

VII

ANALYSIS OF THE ACTUAL OPERATION OF THE MUNDT-JOHNSTON BILL

It is time to examine one of these bills in some detail and see how it is likely to
work. Since the two bills are much alike, I shall mainly confine this analysis to
one of them, the Mundt-Johnston bill (S. 1194). Occasionally reference will be
made to some significant difference in the Ferguson bill (S. 1196).

The Mundt-Johnston bill may conveniently be studied under five different
aspects: (1) The purely criminal provisions in section 4; (2) the general registra-
tion machinery; (3) registration of a "Communist political organization"; (4) regis-
tration of a "Communist-front organization"; (5) practical considerations about
various enforcement provisions.

1. The -purely criminal provisions of section 4- — The bill is much more than a
registration measure although it is sometimes represented to be merely that.

248 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

It imposes many serious penalties upon the expression of opinions and upon
membership in organizations which are stigmatized because of their opinions.
Notably, section 4 has no connection with the registration requirements. It
punishes any sort of participation in the novel and very vague crime of establishing
a totalitarian dictatorshi]) in the United States. Whatever this crime means it
goes far l)eyond the speech which is punishable under the Smith Act. The
statute of limitations does not apply, so that a mature man can be punished for
what he did as a college student. Yet all sorts of very wicked crimes have some
limit on the possibility of prosecution. There is something barbarous about
classing this vague and entirely novel offense with capital crimes like murder and
treason (18 U. S. C, as amended in 194S, sec. 3281).

Nobody knows how unexpectedly a sedition law can be construed unless he has
studied into such matters. The draftsman and the legislators have certain
particular situations in mind, but its actual use may be against some kind of
conduct which they never dreamed of. Thus a New York statute which was
passed after tlie assassination of President McKinlev to punish anarchists has
never been used against an anarchist, but it was drastically enforced against
Gitlow and other Communists, who are at the opposite pole of political thought
from anarchists (234 N. Y. 159 (1922); 234 N. Y. 132, 539 (1922); 268 U. S. 652
(1925)). A still more striking illustration is an existing Federal statute, which
looks absolutely clear. It punishes with imprisonment up to 5 years a willful
"threat to take the life of the President * * *" (18 U. S. C. sec. 89). What
could be plainer? At once we think of the need of shutting up the man who writes
the President that he will be shot unless a certain bill is vetoed. But that is not
the way this statute has worked out. A man in Beaumont, Tex., got into a violent
argument about Wilson's war policies and exclaimed "I wish Wilson was in hell,
and if I had the power I would put him there." He was convicted under this law,
and the appellate judges held his revolting language was punishable as a threat
to kill the President, because how could be be in hell unless he were dead? (250
Fed. 449).

So, if this bill passes, you cannot tell what sort of people will ever be punished
for agreeing to aid in establishing a totalitarian dictatorship, but you can be sure
that they will be very different people from anybody that you have in mind in the
summer of 1949.

I have already pointed out that these provisions do not involve any use of force
or unlawful acts. It will be a crime for two men to agree that one of them will
run for Congress on a platform which a particular jury considers to involve a
totalitarian dictatorship.

A further serious difficulty about section 4 (a) arises from the fact that it
probably overlaps the definition of a "Communist political organization" in
section 3 (3). The language is different but the substantial elements of the two
passages in the bill are much the same. Therefore, it seems very possible
that any active participant in a "Communist political organization" is guilty
of the vague crime which is punishable under section 4. In other words, the
registration provisions virtually compel them to confess their own guilt of aiding
to establish a totalitarian dictatorship. Thus, besides impairing the policy of
freedom of speech under the first amendment, the bill cuts into the privilege
against self-incrimination under the fifth amendment.

Subsection (b) of section 4 relates to acts of disclosing secret information,
something most people regard as wicked now. Hence, this provision is entirely
different from the rest of the bill. If we need any new law against such wrongful
acts, it seems to belong in a separate amendment to the Espionage Act, and
not in a sedition bill. Moreover, if a secret is worth classifying as such, whv hide
it only from Commimists and let it out to Fascists, columnists, and ladies at
large? This country contains many more blabbers than conspirators. Here as
elsewhere in the bill. I find provisions which only an emergency can justify, and
which consequently have no place in a permanent statute such as this is intended
to be.

Even if you do not agree with me that the whole of these bills should be rejected,
I hope that you will strike out section 4 at all events. It is a straight sedition
law of the most reprehensible sort. We came through the months between the
fall of France and Pearl Harbor without needing anv such protection against the
much more powerful totalitarian dictatorship of Hitler, and we certainly do not
need any such extraordinary statute now.

2. The qeneral reaisfration machinery. — This is mainly described in sections
13-15 and 17 of the bill. We can expect that if the bill becomes law, the pro-
cedure will operate in three successive stages:

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 249

First. Some organizations may register voluntarily or may do so after receiving
some sort of notic^ that a proceeding for registration is to be begun. Some
individuals within section 8 may also register of their own accord. There will
also probably be defaults by organizations and individuals in cases before the
Subversive Activities Commission. In all these situations the administration of
the law will really begin and end in the office of the Attorney General.

Second. Contested cases will be heard and decided by the Subversive Activities
Commission, to which I shall return in a moment.

Third. Either the Government or an organization (or individual) required by
the Commission to register may get judicial review in the Court of Appeals in
the District of Columbia and perhaps in the Supreme Court under section 15 (a).

It is my well-considered opinion that by far the most important of these three
stages is the second stage, before the Commission. Except for purposes of passing
on questions of constitutionality, judicial review may not play an important part
for at least two reasons. In the first place, going to court is expensive and the
financial resources of organizations under fire wiU often be small anyway; they
will be further crippled by the denial of income-tax advantages under section 12,
which is likely to scare off contributors as soon as proceedings start against an
organization, without waiting for the final order. A recent Treasury ruling
denying exemption for gifts to organizations which the Attorney General has
listed as subversive is already demoralizing to the financial condition of such
organizations, several of which have gone out of existence. In the second place
all the evidence against an organization or on its behalf will be taken before the
Commission. The reviewing court has no power to receive any new evidence.
Now, any lawyer knows that the way in which testimony shapes up depends
considerably upon the competence, experience, and fairness of the person or
persons presiding at the trial. It is true that the court can send a case back for
additional evidence and further findings, but all this will happen in the same
Commission. If its attitude is definitely hostile to an organization or an indi-
vidual, he may well feel that it is not worth his time and his money to seek judicial
review on an unsatisfactory record. At all events, whatever the frequency of
resort to the courts, it is plain that the bill gives very important powers to the
Commission.

Therefore the operation of this statute depends very largely on the three persons
composing the Subversive Activities Commission, set up by section 13 (a). Who
are they, what will be their experience, are there any safeguards to induce them to
behave like judges rather than law enforcers and policy makers, are they inde-
pendent of executive control or congressional control,' does the compensation
attract men of unusual ability?

To any person familiar with the proceedings of administrative bodies, the
answers which the bill furnishes to such Questions as these is nothing short of
astonishing. The bill states no qualifications whatever except that the three
members are to be appointed by the President, one from the State Department,
one from the Commerce Department, and one from the Army or Navy or Air
Force. _ It is not certain whether they have to be confirmed by the Senate. There
is nothing about length of service, iflence they can doubtless be removed at will,
and what is worse, there is no assurance whatever of continuity of service through
which men gain ripe judgment in the performance of difficult duties. So far as
the bill shows, one underling after another may be shoved into this Commission
for such time as he can spare from his normal work. If any decision he makes
does not satisfy his superiors, off he goes. Surely this is not the way to encourage
competent and impartial decisions in a novel and very controversial field.

Espf^cially disturbing is the provision that one of these three men is to come
from the armed forces. A general or an admiral in uniform is empowered to tell
civilians what political parties they oueht not to join and what other organizations
of civilians are to exist under crippling burdens. Did I say a general or an
admiral? It may very well be a major or a lieutenant (senior grade), for all the
bill says. Such a militarv man may easily come to dominate the Commission and
shape its decisions according to the wishes of those who control the armed forces.
Thus an important part of the exchange of political views among citizens can be
shaped by the Military Establishment. Nothing like this has ever been proposed
in the history of the United States. This conception of "free institutions" would
have staggered the men who drafted our Constitution at Philadelphia in 1787.

The Ferguson bill, section 12 (a) and (d), removes some of these difficulties by
providing for a salary of $12,500, a term of 3 years, nonremoval except for cause,
and confirmation bv the Senate. There is no characterization of members as in

250 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

the other hill, and I hope the Senate would not confirm a member of the armed
forces for this judicial task. •

However, the P'erguson bill lias a bad snag of its own. The three members of
the Commission (or Board) ''shall not engage in any other business, vocation, or
employment" (sec. 12 (d), p. 20, lines 9-10). What sort of men will be willing to
do nothing except examine the affairs of suspected subversive organizations, all
day long, week in and week out, for 3 years? Sifting the good from the bad
requires historical and sociological training and insight plus judicial capacity of a
high order, but there is none of the variety which makes a judge's work appealing.
The danger is that nobody who is really fit for this task will touch it with a 10-foot
pole. What you are likely to get is either political hacks attracted by one of the
highest-paid jobs in Government service, or else persons fired by a zeal to save the
country from communism.

Tremendous powers over the lives of private citizens will be possessed, under
either bill, by the three men on this Commission. They can shape political action,
blast reputations, make Government employees and workmen lose their jobs with
small hope of getting other employment. Even if organizations condemned by
the Commission get judicial review, they will not have much of a chance to reverse
its decision. On the assumption that these bills are constitutional, their defini-
tions of a "Communist political organization" and a "Communist -front organiza-
tion" are so wide, that it will be hard for judges to say that the Commission was
wrong in bringing an organization within those definitions. As usually happens
in court review of administrative decisions, the judges may be reluctant to sub-
stitute their own judgment in place of the judgment of the officials, except in cases
where the officials were plainly mistaken.

Only a terrible danger to the Nation could justify Congress in placing these
enormous powers in the hands of three men who do not have the training and
experience of judges or the life tenure which the Constitution considers essential
to assure the independence of men who make vital decisions. Once more I ask
your committee: does such a terrible danger really exist?

3. The registration of "Communist political organizations.-' — Perhaps something
can be said for requiring all political parties and all organizations which are some-
how associated with politics to register, but these bills do nothing like that. They
impose on particular political parties or organizations very serious burdens from
which other political parties, etc., are wholly free. Section 7 of the Mundt-John-
ston bill (to which I again confine the discussion) requires some but not all parties
to file the names and addresses of all members (perhaps 70,000 for the Communist
Party), to repeat this full list every year, to keep accurate records of such names
and addresses and of moneys received and expended, to file an annual financial
statement. And every omitted name or address, every inaccuracy, may mean 2
years in prison for the party officers. Imagine what this would mean if it had to
be done by the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?

But those are good parties, the supporters of the bill may say, and the bill hits
only bad parties. Sifting bad parties from good parties is the job of the voters,
by the American tradition, and not the job of Congress or Government officials.
We have had confidence that most of the voters would recognize a bad party when
they saw it and keep away from it. The fate of the Know-Nothing Party, which
incited prejudice against recent immigrants, and the failure of the Communist
Party to win any important office anywhere or even a single Presidential elector,
show that this confidence in the voters is amply justified.

Only once hitherto has Congress tried to take over the job of sifting out a bad
political party. That was when the Federalists passed the Sedition Act of 1798,
under which the owners and editors of the four chief Jeffersonian newspapers in
the country were indicted, and several other editors and well-known Jeffersonian
politicians were convicted and sent to prison. (See F. M. Anderson, the Enforce-
ment of the Alien and Sedition Laws, Ann. Rep. of Am. Historical Assn. (1912)
115.) This example proves that the definition of what is a "bad" political party
may depend on the ideas of the particular people in power, who can shape the
definition to cripple the adversaries they would like to get rid of.

The IMundt-Johnston bill uses a different method to sift out a "bad" party. It
is a method much more likely to succeed in breaking up an opposition party than
the Sedition Act of 1798, which gave the vital decision to 12 jurymen, whereas this
bill puts the control in the hands of three officials selected by the party in power.

The basic idea in this method is to pick out characteristics of an objectionable
sort which are possessed by some members of the party you want to smash, then
brand the whole party with those objectionable characteristics, and consequently
make it carry a heavy load in the political race against competing parties which
run unburdened.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 251

Now, this may seem very clever when it is used against parties with a commu-
nistic tinge, but it is a game two can play at. Once Congress passes this bill and
gets people accustomed to the method of having officials sift out "bad" parties
instead of letting the voters do it themselves, other laws can be drafted with new
definitions of badness to hit some party which has nothing to do with communism.
There is no logical limit to the possibility of thus proscribing an opposition party,
for every party has some members with qualities capable of arousing intense and
v/idespread detestation.

Let us imagine that the method of this bill had become familiar by the time the
Republican Party was founded. Among its members were many prominent
Abolitionists, who had urged or even participated in violations of the fugitive
slave law. So in 1858 the Democratic Congress passed a statute defining a
"disloyal political party" as one which "is dominated or controlled by persons
who advocate resistance to or disobedience of any law of the United States duly
enacted." The statute compelled such a party to register, with all the consequent
disabilities now contained in S. 1194. A "Disloyal Activities Commission" ap-
pointed by President Buchanan and comprising two Democrats and one Southern
Whig, determined that the Republican Party was dominated by law-breaking
Abolitionists. This decision was affirmed by a majority of the Supreme Court
which had lately refused to free Dred Scott. So the Republican Party had to
register, list the names and addresses of all its members every year, mark all its
mail "Disseminated by the Republican Partv, a disloyal organization," and no
Republican could hold any Federal office. Would Lincoln have been willing to
run on the Disloyal ticket? Would he have been elected?

What is the need of introducing such a method of political proscription among
free American institutions in order to get rid of the Communist Party of America,
which is so nearly dead already as a political party that it hasn't nominated a
candidate of its own for President for at least two elections? As Senator Carter
Glass remarked, "What's the use of wasting dynamite when insect powder will
-do?"

The reply may be made that, although the Communist Party amounts to
nothing in elections, it still exists as an organization making policies and spreading
propaganda of a bad sort, and hence this bill is necessary to break it up completely.
How much good will that really do? No doubt, if this bill be enacted, there will
no longer be any organization called the Communist Party. My guess is that
it will not register, but simply go out of existence within 30 days after the President
signs this bill. See section 7 (c) (1). Then nobody can be punished for failure
to register. The present 70,000 Communists will very likeiv join other political
7:)arties. They will be no less harmful than they are now, because they will con-
tinue to have the same ideas and probably be more resentful than ever, on account
of this new law. And there is no reason to expect that they will stop meeting
-together in some way or other. Anybody who has studied the history of Irish
societies which were working to give Roman Catholics the vote, in the days of
Daniel O'Connell, can tell prettv well what will happen. Every time a particular
society was declared unlawful, it was promptly dissolved and its former members
started a new society to do exactlv the same thing. The same process was re-
peated under Parnell. (See my Free Speech in the United States, 473-474.)
So we can expect the formation of a large number of Shakespearean societies,
Dante institutes, chess clubs, indoor baseball associations, etc. Meanwhile
you will no longer know whether there are 70,000 Commiunists at heart or 700.000.
In short, if we are scared about the possibility of Communists under the bed, let
us cling hard to the existing system which encourages most of them to get on the
bed where we can see them.

Finally if you drive the present Communists into other political parties, they
may be able to do much more damage than now. Candidates will be found in
those lawful parties who will promise extreme measures in order to satisfy their
new left-wing members. As for the former Communists who will not vote at all
after the partv vanishes, we shall be wise to remember that the prime cause of all
dangerous political agitation is discontent and that outlawing Communists is
likely to double their discontent. So long as they are a lawful political party,
thev can say, "This isn't such a bad country after all. for at least it does give us
a chance to vote for the man we want to." But if you outlaw their party, then
they can say, "This country won't let us earn a decent living and now it won't
even let us vote. So let's trv somethino: else."

We ought not to discuss this bill as if it affected only one political partv — the
Communist Party of America. That is the chief target of the bill, but its enforcers
do not have to stop there. How about following up the large number of former
Communists who join the Progressive Party, which they supported at the 1948

252 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

election? A good many Democrats have excellent reasons for wanting to cripple
the Progressive Party; it is common knowledge that Mr. Wallace drew many votes
away from Mr. Truman last November. So there may be strong pressure in favor
of proceeding against the Progressive Party under the Mundt-Johnston law before
the 1952 election.

Suppose that the Progressive Party convention is held early in July 1952, and
renominates Mr. Wallace. A few days later the party learns that it is charged
with having become a "Communist political organization" or at least a "Com-
munist-front organization," which seems reasonably possible under the provisions
of sections 3 (4) and 13 (f) of the bill. Hence section 7 (c) (2) requires it to regis-
ter within 30 days after the convention. If it does register, the Progressive Party
and its members will operate under all the disabilities in the statute. Of course,
it has a right to get the registration canceled under section 14 (b), but such a pro-
ceeding will probably drag out till after election day. The court may vindicate
the Progressive Party, but what good will that do when it had to run its whole
campaign under the stigma of being a "Communist organization" with all the dis-
advantages imposed on it by this bill.

So the officers decide not to register the Progressive Party with the Attorney
General, but to fight the issue through the Commission and the courts until the
final order is handed down under section 15 (b). Mr. Wallace and the officers of
the party know that they will have to conduct the campaign with the opprobrium
caused by Government evidence in contemporaneous hearings before the Com-
mission, but at least, so they think, they will escape all the disabilities and penal-
ties in this bill.

But are they right about escaping the penalties of fines and imprisonment
under section 16 (a)? I don't believe so. The bill has a joker in it. Of course,
if the final order is in favor of the Progressive Party, nobody can be punished.
The trouble will come if they contest without registering, and then the final order
goes against them. Let us suppose that the court decides early in December,
1952, that the Progressive Party is a "Communist political organization" and be-
came such at its Presidential convention early in July. This decision reaches back
to its initial failure to register. The statute required it to do so within 30 days
after the convention. You can't ignore section 7 (c) (1) and (2), in spite of
clause (3) immediately afterward. That means that the officers of the party had
"the duty," by section 7 (h) to register early in Avigust and also to file a statement
listing the names and addresses of every member of the Progressive Party. Since
a miUion people voted for Wallace in 1948, this is quite a job to do in 30 days.
Well, they didn't do it, and so the officers are liable to the penalties provided by
section 16 (a) (2) : "each individual having a duty" under section 7 (h) "to register
or to file any registration statement * * * q^ behalf of such organization,
* * * shall, upon conviction of failure to so register," etc., "be punished for
each such offense by a fine of not less than $2,000, * * * qj- imprisonment for
not less than two years * * *, or by both." I do not see how the officers can
get away from this punishment, if they lose the registration case.

Furthermore, 4 months or over 120 days must elapse between early August and
early December when they do actually register in accordance with the court's de-
cision. The bill says (p. 34, lines 5-7) that "each day of failure to register * * *
shall constitute a separate offense." Therefore any officer of the party who had
a duty to register is liable to a fine of not less than $240,000 or imprisonmeni of not
less than 240 years, or both.

It is my well-considered opinion that any good lawyer who was consulted by the
officers of the Progressive Party in July would have to advise them that they ran
a very serious risk of this enormous punishment unless they registered early in
August. Human nature being what it is most of these officers would probably
resign at once. It would be pretty hard to get anybody to direct the campaign
after the end of July. The Progressive Party would be broken up right away by
fears of losing the registration contest. Even if it won that contest in court in
December, it would be just as broken up in August.

To sum up this matter of "Communist political organization." Probably the
Communist Party of America does have some links with Moscow, and certainly
some of its members engage in talk and organizational activities which are very
repulsive to most Americans. But even if anything is gained by breaking up
a party which comprises only one-tenth of 1 percent of our population, the
Smith Act of 1940 is amply sufficient. So is it wise, for the sake of getting rid
of the Communist Party, to enact still another sedition law, which can easily
be used to break up some other party to which many honest patriotic citizens
belong and to warp and demoralize the normal processes of self-government?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 253

To pass one of these bills in order to hit Communists is like using a hammer to
swat a wasp on a baby's head.

4. The registration of a "Communist-front organization." — Most of what has
just been said is applicable to these organizations, except that only officers and
not members have to be listed in registration statements and annual reports.
Inasmuch as this part of the bill is likely to reach many more groups, whose
purposes are often cultural as well as political and who are engaged in exchanging
ideas rather than winning elections, the interference with the lives of private
citizens is much more extensive than in the case of "Communist political or-
ganizations."

Here again, there is something to be said for a general registration law re-
quiring all groups, which attempt to influence public opinion, to disclose the
pertinent facts about themselves through systematic procedures. The harmful-
ness of nondisclosure is by no means confined to "Communist-front organizations."
For instance, virulent anti-Semitic circulars and pamphlets falsely and libellously
accusing long lists of well-know^n decent citizens with being disloyal are often
widely mailed by organizations with high-sounding names, which take good care
not to mention their authors and the men who put up the money. A broad
statute to break through this vicious anonymity of defamers of every sort is
recommended in the 1947 report of the President's committee on Civil Rights
(To Secure These Rights, 51-52, 164). On the other hand, my book on Govern-
ment and mass communications (vol. II, 489-494) presents some serious doubts
whether such a statute will be a desirable remedy for vicious anonymity; it is
likely to be enforced inefficiently and in a haphazard way, and to stifle more good
views than bad views.

At all events, if Congress thinks a compulsory disclosure law for propaganda
is needed, then it is needed for all sides of political, racial, and religious contro-
versies. Such a law should seek to force into broad daylight all the enemies of
democracy and not Just a particular portion of them as in this bill, leaving the
rest to remain in the darkness they love, because their ways are evil.

We can guess what sort of groups will be classed as "Communist-front" from
the list of subversive organizations made by Attorney General Clark (New York
Times, December 5, 1947), and he said that other groups might be added. The
restriction on the use of the mails under section 11 (1) will probably be a burden-
some limitation on several organizations which serve very desirable purposes,
even if they include Communists among their supporters. Thus the Joint Anti-
Fascist Refugee Committee, which on the Attorney General's list has been largely
backed by Dr. Walter Gannon, a great physiologist, and by his medical friends
in order to rescue from tyranny, misery, and disease thousands of refugees from
Franco Spain. It is ironical that men who profess to be engaged in an attack
on totalitarian dictatorship should do their best to discourage help for the victims
of one of the cruelest of totalitarian dictatorships. The ease with which a de-
sirable organization can be condemned as communistic on the basis of very thin
evidence is shown by Professor Walter Gellhorn of Columbia in an article relating
to the wholly unfounded blasklisting (or Red listing) of the Southern Conference
for Human "Welfare by the House Un-American Committee (60 Harvard Law
Review 1193, October 1947). Although the southern conference is not yet on At-
torney General Clark's list, it is possible that the Un-American Committee may
bring about is condemnation bj' the Commission set up by this bill. Then that
organization would have to describe itself on all its publications as a "Communist
organization." This novel stigma recalls the practice of medieval princes to
require Jews to wear special marks on their coats.

5. The practical considerations about various enforcement provisions. — The various
penalties provided by this bill for organizations which are registered or ought to
register are very severe and will interfere greatly with the lives and liberties of
American citizens who have committed no acts of force or violence and most of
whom have not been proved to be dangerous individuals.

The first penalty is fine or imprisonment, with the oppressive cumulative
provisions alreadj^ mentioned. In addition to what has been said, it should be
noted that under section 8 an individual, who has done nothing in the way of
wrongful conduct or wicked words except that he is adjudged to be a member of
a "Communist political organization" without having his name listed, will be
fined $2,000 or imprisoned for 2 years for every day he neglects to register. He
will be punished worse than any counterfeiter, not because he is bad, but because
of the activities of other prople. This conception of guilt by association is
abhorrent in a free country. (See the article by John Lord O'Brian in 61 Harvard

254 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Law Review 592, April 1948; and my book on Free Speech in the United States,
pp. 472-484.)

The second penalty is exclusion from Federal employment, under section 5
(a) (2), of any member of a "Communist political organization." This is not
just a question of not employing Commiuiists in Government jobs. The bill
may (as already pointed out) bar any supporters of Henry Wallace. This pro-
hibition includes teaching in the Washington public schools. Furthermore,
prospective employees who are open to any possible suspicion may easily be kept
out of such teaching and other Government work without any determination by
the Commission (or a court) that they really are member sof a proscribed organiza-
tion. This will happen because section 5 (d) punishes any official who knowingly
employs a member of such an organization (p. 35, lines 3-9.) Consequently, if
the official in charge of employment has any doubts, he will turn the suspected
applicant away in order to save his own skin. He will not want to run any
chances of going to prison himself.

In view of the President's loyalty order, it is hard to see the slightest need
for this fresh combing-over of Government employees. The completion of the
loyalty check resulted in the discharge of one-three-hundredths of 1 percent of
Federal employees. Only one-tenth of 1 percent resigned while under suspicion,
many of them probably because they preferred private jobs where they were
treated like honest men. Not one among the millions of employees subjected to
the loyalty test has been indicted for a crime (New Yorker, May 21, 1949, p. 37).
The loyalty review boards are composed of men with experience in important
work, who are more likely to be competent and impartial than the Commission
set up by this bill.

The third penalty is the denial of a passport under section 6 to members of
a "Communist political organization." We are constantly blaming the Russians
for not allowing anybody whom their governent dislikes to travel abroad, and
yet we are now proposing to do much the same thing ourselves. Of course the
existing law allows anybody who is personally dangerous to be refused a passport-.
Why isn't that enough to keep the country safe?

The fourth penalty is the exclusion from mails and express under section 11,
of publications relating to the affairs of a "Communist political organziation" or
of the numerous bodies which are likely to be classed as "Communist-front."
This includes letters as well as printed matter, by section 3 (6), so long as the
letter is intended to be read by more than one person. How can any enforcement
official tell that the contents of a sealed letter violate this bill without opening
the letter? Therefore section 11 involves breaking into private correspondence,
one of the most odious forms of petty tyranny.

Taking an over-all view, I see that many other kinds of prying besides opening
letters will be necessary if this bill is to be effectively enforced. The Commission
hearings cannot help being inquisitions into men's "dangerous thoughts." Con-
versations will be reported by participants, so that men will begin wondering
whether it is safe to say anything to supposed friends. People will eavesdrop on
their neighbors. Secret police will be multiplied, to catch all these new crimes.
Spies will be introduced undercover into suspected organizations in the hope of
collecting evidence. This has already been going on extensively in the Com-
munist Party, and the Government evidence in the pending trial in New York
City reveals that at least three imdercover agents of the United States were
actually engaged in persuading men to become Communists and take part in what
their official employers considered to be a criminal conspiracy against the United
States (New York Times, April 13, 1949, p. 22, column 2; May 3, p. 3, column 7;
May 18, p. 19, columns 4-5). It is only a step to agents provocateurs, spies who
incite organizations to commit unlawful acts for the sack of getting damaging
evidence against those organizations — the sort of thing which the La FoUette
Committee showed to be going on inside labor unions. (See what Oliver, a spy
planted in English radical groups after Waterloo, used to do. Hammond, The
Skilled Labourer, 341-376). You get a man changing so often from revolutionist
to spy and back again that he does not know himself which he is. It is like Russia
under the Czars. (See Joseph Conrad, Through Western Eyes.) It is bad enough
to have numerous undercover spies inside the Communist Party. The passage of
this bill will spread them into a whole new flock of suspected organizations, many
of them much more legitimate than that party. No doubt, all sorts of queer
devices are sometimes necessary to catch really dangerous criminals, like gangsters
and violent revolutionists, but the enforcement methods which this bill requires
Are a terribly high price to pay for tracking down nothing except objectionable
ideas.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 255

In 1920 Gov. Alfred E. Smith of New York vetoed a bill which authorized
the attorney general to conduct investigations of violations of the State sedition
law. He said (Progressive Democracy, p. 275) :

"There is no just cause for providing any different method for enforcing the
criminal anarchy statute from that employed in enforcing the other penal laws
of the State — through the agencies of the grand jury, the magistrate and the
district attorneys of the respective counties of the State. The traditional abhor-
rence of a free people of all kinds of spies and secret police is valid and justified
and calls for the disapproval of this measure."

VIII

In this statement I have not gone into questions of constitutionality. The main
cjuestion before your committee is the wisdom of these bills and not their validity.
Such an extraordinary- measure can be justified only by a tremendous danger
within our Nation. Are these novel penalties, is this novel machinery, required
to save the country? It is not enough that Communists are pestiferous people or
indulge in big talk about taking over our Government. The question is whether
they are within a million miles of doing so. Jefferson said in 1801 : "I believe this
the strongest Government on earth." Because I confidently share his belief, I
hope very much that your committee will reject these unheard of bills.
Sincerely yours,

Zechariah Chafee, Jr.

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

Jlilillllililililllli

3 9999 05445 4697