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

Full text of "Hearing relating to H.R. 9753, to amend sections 3(7) and 5(b) of the Internal security act of 1950, as amended, relating to employment of members of Communist organizations in certain defense facilities. Hearing"

11^2 < (I 





'!B!ilt!titi'i!«l(i 



Mm 



ii 



mmm 



ill 



i 



! 



Hilji- ;t 111 




< 




» liimi 


1111, 




T ■ 


:|md c| 


Hpti 






r "^m?nF* 


ii 

'■ : 'i 




iiSHi 








1 , ■ 
' 1 


\ wlk 




.- 

t. ■ 


•; ? ' , ' ! 
■> ' ' ' ' ' 


H 






m\.. >m 

^i: ! It' >■ 




^^^^^^^Hii-' 


:flln:. ■ 




^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Hi^tt ' 


i{>:>s}{ii}»i 



U^/>oo ^'7^/ 




COLLEGE 
LIB 






\ 



2.7-9- 



y 




us Doc 2.791 



■L'^ 



Committee on Un-American Activities 

House 
87th Congress 



Table of Contents 



1. Hearing Relating to H.R, 9755; to Amend Sec- 
tions 5(7) and 5{'b) of the Internal Seciirity op£ 
Act of 1950, As Amended, Relating to Employ- ' "* 
ment of Members of Communist Organizations 

in Certain Defense Facilities 

2, Hearings Relating to H.R. 10175 > to Accompany 
H.R. 11565, Amending the Internal Security -^^il 
Act of 1950 ' 

5-^. Structure and Organization of the Communist ^ ^ 
Party of the United States, pt.1-2 ^^W 

5. Communist Propaganda - and the Truth - About 
the Conditions in Soviet Russia ^?'' 

6-7. Communist Activities in the Cleveland, Ohio, V''**^ 
Area, pt.1-2 

8." Intellectual Freedom" - Red China Style ^ 



HEARING RELATING TO H.R. 9753, TO AMEND 
SECTIONS 3(7) AND 5(b) OF THE INTERNAL 
SECURITY ACT OF 1950, AS AMENDED, RELATING 
TO EMPLOYMENT OF MEMBERS OF COMMU- 
NIST ORGANIZATIONS IN CERTAIN DEFENSE 
FACILITIES 



Since these hearings are consecutively 
paged, they are arranged by page number 
instead of alphabetically by title 



FEBRUARY 7, 1962 
INCLUDING INDEX 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Un-American Activities 




U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTTNG OFFICE 
WASHINGTON : 1962 



HAHVAKt «"LLi«k L18«AJ$^ 
D»r»3'.T*%» lY THE 



HEARING RELATING TO H.R. 9753, TO AMEND 
SECTIONS 3(7) AND 5(b) OF THE INTERNAL 
SECURITY ACT OF 1950, AS AMENDED, RELATING 
TO EMPLOYMENT OF MEMBERS OF COMMU- 
NIST ORGANIZATIONS EN CERTAIN DEFENSE 
FACILITIES 



HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON UN-AMEEICAN ACTIVITIES 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 



FEBRUARY 7, 1962 
INCLUDING INDEX 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Un-American Activities 




U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
7SI998 WASHINGTON : 1962 



HAM'AKii ••aLKvt UB8AS^ 
D?f»SlT^ lY THE 






y?/') 



/ 



ft- 



)9^ /' ^ D 




^. 



N ACTIVITIES 

lESENTATIVES 

ia, Chairman 

SCHERER, Ohio 
I. JOHANSEN, Michigan 
p. BRUCE, Indiana 
1 SCHADEBERO, Wisconsin 

TtCtOT 

>el 
el 
hsistant 



CONTENTS 



Wednesday, February 7, 1962: Statement of: I'age 

Frank A. Bartimo 442 

Kevin T. Maroney 442 

Maj. Bruce F. Meyers 442 

Index i 



ni 



COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 

United States House of Representatives 

FRANCIS E. WALTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

MORGAN M. MOULDER, Missouri GORDON H. SCHERER, Ohio 

CLYDE DOYLE, California AUGUST E. JOHANSEN, Michigan 

EDWLN E. WILLIS, Louisiana DONALD C. BRUCE, Indiana 

WILLIAM M. TUCK, Virginia HENRY C. SCHADEBERG, Wisconsin 

Frank S. Tavexxer, Jr., Director 

Alfred M. Nittle, Counsel 

John C. Walsh, Co-counsel 

QwENN Lewis, Administrative Assistant 



CONTENTS 



Wednesday, February 7, 1962: Statement of: ^^^^ 

Frank A. Bartimo 442 

Kevin T. Maroney 442 

Maj. Bruce F. Meyers 442 

Index i 



m 



Public Law 601, 79th Congress 

The legislation under which the House Committee on Un-American 
Activities operates is Public Law 601, 79th Congress [1946]; 60 Stat. 
812, which provides: 

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

PART 2— RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Rule X 

SEC. 121. STANDING COMMITTEES 
* * Hl * * * tr 

17. Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine Members. 

Rule XI 

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES 
******* 

(q)(l) Committee on Un-American Activities. 

(A) Un-American activities. 

(2) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommit- 
tee, is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (i) the extent, 
character, and objects of un-American projiaganda activities in the United States, 
(ii) the diflfusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propa- 
ganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks 
the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and 
(iii) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary 
remedial legislation. 

The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the 
Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such investi- 
gation, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable. 

For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American 
Activities, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act at such 
times and places within the United States, whether or not the House is sitting, 
has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance 
of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, and 
to take such testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under 
the signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by any 
member designated by any such chairman, and may be served l)y any person 
designated by any such chairman or member. 



Rule XII 

LEfllPLATIVE OVKRiSlCHT BY STANUIN'G COMMITTEES 

Sec. 136. To assist the Congress in appraising the administration of the laws 
and in developing such amendments or related legislation as it may deem neces- 
sary, each standing committee of the Senate and the House of Re])resentatives 
shall exercise continiious watchfulness of the execution by the administrative 
agencies concerned of any laws, the subject matter of which i,s within the jurisdic- 
tion of such coniinittee; ami, lor that purpose, shall study all pertinent reports 
and data submitted to the Congress In- the agencies in tlie executive branch of 
the Government. 

IV 



RULES ADOPTED BY THE 87TH CONGRESS 

House Resolution 8, January 3, 1961 
******* 

Rule X 

STANDING COMMITTEES 

1 . There shall be elected by the House, at the commencement of each Congress, 
******* 

(r) Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine Members, 
******* 

Rule XI 

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES 
******* 

18. Committee on Un-American Activities. 

(a) Un-American activities. 

(b) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommittee, 
is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (1) the extent, char- 
acter, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, 
(2) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American prop- 
aganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and 
attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitu- 
tion, and (3) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in 
any necessary remedial legislation. 

The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the 
Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such investi- 
gation, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable. 

For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American 
Activities, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act at such times 
and places within the United States, whether or not the House is sitting, has 
recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance 
of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, and 
to take such testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under 
the signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by any 
member designated by any such chairman, and may be served by any person 
designated by any such chairman or member. 

27. To assist the House in appraising the administration of the laws and in 
developing such amendments or related legislation as it may deem necessary, 
each standing committee of the House shall exercise continuous watchfulness 
of the execution by the administrative agencies concerned of any laws, the subject 
matter of which is within the jurisdiction of such committee; and, for that purpose, 
shall study all pertinent reports and data submitted to the House by the agencies 
in the executive branch of the Government. 



HEARING RELATIN(J TO H.R. 1)753, TO AMEND SEC- 
TIONS 3(7) AND 5(b) OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY 
ACT OF 1050. AS AMENDED, RELATING TO EMPLOY- 
MENT OF MEMBERS OF COMMUNIST ORGANIZATIONS 
IN CERTAIN DEFENSE FACILITIES 



WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1962 

U.S. House of Representatives, 
Committee on Un-American Activities. 

Washington, D.C. 

The CommiLtee on Un-American Activities met, pursuant to call, 
at 10:10 a.m., in room 34G, House Office Building,-, Washington, D.C, 
Hon. Francis E. Walter (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Committee members pi'esent: Representatives Francis E. Waltei" of 
Pennsylvania; Clyde Doyle of California; Gordon H. Scherer of Ohio; 
Donald C. Bruce of Indiana; and Henry C. Schadeberg of Wisconsin. 

Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., director; Alfred M. 
Nittle, counsel; and John C. Walsh, co-counsel. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Let the record show that a quorum is present for the consideration 
of H.R. 9753. 

This is a bill to amend the Internal Security Act relating to the 
employment of members of Communist organizations in certain 
defense facilities. 

(The bill H.R. 9753 follows:) 

[H.R. 9753, 87th Cong., 2d sess.] 

A BILL To amend sections 3(7) and 5(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950, relating to employment of 
members of Communist organizations in certain defense facilities 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That the Internal Security Act of 1950 is amended — 

(1) by amending the second sentence of section 3(7) (50 U.S.C. 782(7)) to 
read as follows: "The term 'defense facility' means any facility designated 
by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 5(b) of this title and which 
is in compliance with the provisions of such subsection respecting the posting 
of notice of such designation."; and 

(2) by amending section 5(b) (50 U.S.C. 784(b)) to read as follows: 
"The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to designate facilities, as 

defined in paragraph (7) of section 3 of this title, with respect to the operation of 
which he finds and determines that the security of the United States requires the 
application of the provisions of subsection (a) of this section. The Secretary 
shall promptly notify the management of any facility so designated, whereupon 
such management shall immediately post conspicuously, and thereafter while so 
designated keep posted, notice of such designation in such form and in such place 
or places as to give notice thereof to all employees of, and to all applicants for 
employment in, such facility. Such posting shall be sufficient to give notice of 
such designation to any person subject thereto or affected thereby. Upon the 
request of the Secretary, the management of any facility so designated shall 

441 



442 RELATING TO THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

require each employee of the facility, or any part thereof, to sign a statement that 
he knows that the facility has, for the purposes of this Act, been designated by 
the Secretary under this subsection." 

The Chairman. Mr. Tavenner, your witness? 
Mr. Tavenner. Yes; we have asked Mr. Bartinio to be the first 
witness. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK A. BARTIMO, ASSISTANT GENERAL 
COUNSEL (MANPOWER), DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, ACCOM- 
PANIED BY KEVIN T. MARONEY, CHIEF, APPEALS AND 
RESEARCH SECTION, INTERNAL SECURITY DIVISION, DEPART- 
MENT OF JUSTICE, AND MAJ. BRUCE F. MEYERS, ASSISTANT 
TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

The Chairman. Mr. Bartinio, will you state your full name for the 
record, please? 

Mr. Bartimo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 
committee. My name is Frank A. Bartimo. I am the Assistant 
General Counsel of Defense for Manpower. 

Mr. Walsh. Mr. Bartimo, before you continue, may I state for 
the record certain background information necessary to have before 
us in considering your views. 

Mr. Maroney, would you also state your full name. 

Mr. Maroney. Kevin T. Maroney, Chief of the Appeals and Ke- 
search Section, Internal Security Division, Department of Justice. 

Mr. Walsh. I will call you later on, sir. 

H.R. 9753 is an amendment to sections 3(7) and 5(b) of the Internal 
Security Act of 1950, relating to employment of members of Com- 
munist organizations in certain defense facilities. This committee 
included among the provisions of the Internal Security Act of 1950 
the principal provisions of the Wood bill which relates to employment 
of members of Communist organizations in defense facilities. This 
appears as section 5 of the Internal Security Act of 1950; the pertinent 
portion of section 5(a) is as follows: 

When a Communist organization, as defined in paragraph (5) of section 3 of 
this title, is registered or there is in effect a final order of the Board requiring 
such organization to register, it shall be unlawful — 

(1) For any member of such organization, with knowledge or notice that 
such organization is so registered or that such order has become final — 

and I skip now to (C) — 

(C) in seeking, accepting, or holding employment in any defense 
facility, to conceal or fail to disclose the fact that he is a member of 
such organization; or 

(D) if such organization is a Communist-action organization, to en- 
gage in any employment in any defense facility. 

Now the definitions of "facility" and "defense facility" appear in 
section 3, subsection 7 of the act, and it states as follows: 

(7) The term "facility" means any plant, factory or other manufacturing, pro- 
ducing or service establishment, airport, airport facility, vessel, pier, water-front 
facility, mine, railroad, public utihty, laboratory, 'station, or other establishment 
or facility, or any part, division, or department of any of the foregoing. The 



RELATING TO THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 443 

term "defense facility" means any facility designated and proclaimed by the 
Secretary of Defense pursviant to section 5(b) of this title and included on the list 
published and currently in effect under such subsection, and which is in compliance 
with the provisions of such subsection respecting the posting of notice of such 
designation. 



Subsection (b) of section 5 provides that — 



The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to designate and proclaim, 
and from time to time revise, a list of facilities, as defined in paragraph (7) of 
section 3 of this title, with respect to the operation of which he finds and deter- 
mines that the security of the United States requires the application of the pro- 
visions of subsection (a) of this section. The Secretary shall cause such list as 
designated and proclaimed, or any revision thereof, to be promptly published in 
the Federal Register, and shall promptlv notify the management of any facility so 
listed; whereupon such management shall immediately post conspicuously, and 
thereafter while so listed keep posted, notice of such designation in such form and 
in such place or places as to give reasonable notice thereof to all employees of, 
and to all applicants for employment in, such facility. 

The Chairman. Mr. Bartimo, make 3'our statement, please. 

Mr. Bartimo. It is a privilege for me, Mr. Chairman and members 
of the committee, to appear before you this morning, and to present 
the views of the Department of Defense with respect to H.R. 9753. 

The Department of Defense strongly endorses the enactment of 
this bill, which amends sections 3(7) and 5(b) of the Internal Security 
Act of 1950. 

H.R. 9753 wotild eliminate the requirement that the list of defense 
facilities so designated by the Secretary of Defense be published in 
the Federal Register. This list is made up of facilities which are so 
essential to the interests of national security as to require the exclusion 
of members of Communist organizations required to register under the 
act. The requirement that the management of each facility desig- 
nated by the Secretary of Defense as a "defense facility" be notified in 
writing and required to post notice of such designation would be 
retained. Further, this bill requires management, if requested by the 
Secretary of Defense, to obtain a signed statement from each of his 
employees certifying that he knows that the facilitj^ has, for purposes 
of the act, been designated by the Secretary of Defense. 

Under the present provisions of the Internal Security Act it is 
understood that the Secretary of Defense may exercise broad discretion 
in selecting industrial facilities to be designated as "defense facilities." 
It is also understood that a member of a Commtmist organization 
cannot be charged with unlawful conduct under section 5(a) of the act, 
unless the Secretary of Defense includes the facility, where he seeks, 
accepts, or holds employment, in a list designated, proclaimed, and 
published in the Federal Register. 

A tentative list of facilities, deemed so vital as to require the applica- 
tion of the provision of the act barring members of Communist 
organizations has been prepared and includes facilities engaged in the 
following: 

(1) Top-secret projects — — 

The Chairman. May I interrupt at that point? 

Mr. Bartimo. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Does that have a technical meaning, "top-secret 
projects"? Is that defined as a particular type of project? 

Mr. Bartimo. Mr. Chairman, I believe that in response to your 
question I might state that by a "top-secret project" we mean a 
project which because of its security aspects has been classified with a 

79998—62 2 



444 RELATING TO THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

top-secret stamp, under the classification system promulgated in the 
executive branch, wliich as you know runs from top secret, secret, and 
confidential. 

The Chairman, Yes. That is an answer, but what I wanted the 
record to show was that "top secret" has a very technical meaning, 
sir. They are words of art. 

Mr. Bartimo. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Bartimo (continuing). (2) Production of the most essential 
weapons sj^stems and most critical military end items and components ; 
(3) production of essential common components, intermediates, and 
basic and raw materials; and (4) important utility and service facilities 
and other industrial and research installations whose operations and 
contributions to the national defense effort are of utmost importance. 

Facilities and installations of interest to the Atomic Energy Com- 
mission, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the 
Federal Aviation Agency, and certain other departments and agencies 
are also included in this list. 

Enactment of H.R. 9753 will eliminate the requirement that a con- 
solidated, unclassified list of defense facilities, such as those described 
above, be published. Such publication as is now required by the 
Internal Security Act of 1950 would in the opinion of the military 
intelligence experts materially aid the intelligence efforts of any 
foreign government hostile to the United States. Publication would — 

(1) Aid in planning intelligence penetration and hostile espion- 

(2) Provide a target list for potential sabotage operations and 
for target intelligence purposes; and 

(3) Confirm and establish the accuracy of existing intelligence 
documentation. 

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, the publication of a consolidated 
master list of our strategic and vital facilities is not deemed to be in 
the national interest. 

• It is important to note that section 5, as amended by this bill, con- 
tains provisions which will assure that the persons subject to this act 
will know what conduct on their part renders them liable to penalties. 
Each facility designated by the Secretary of Defense would be required 
to display prominently notice of such designation. In appropriate 
instances, the Secretary of Defense may require that each employee 
of a facility be personally notified that continued employment by 
members of Communist organizations is unlawful. 

I urge strongly that the committee report favorably on H.R. 9753. 

And I might add a footnote to that, Mr. Chairman; on behalf of 
the Department of Defense, I want, in all humility, to congratulate 
your committee for the expeditious action which you have taken to 
bring this bill to a hearing. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Well, you take my breath. This is something I 
am entirely unaccustomed to, and I find myself in much the position 
that a friend of mine who owned a string of racehorses found himself. 
This man had a restaurant, and back during the days of limited 
availability of steaks, I was impressed one night and I remarked on 
the excellence of his steak, and he said "Well, that is the first nice 
thing anybody has ever said about my horses." 



RELATING TO THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 445 

Well, this is a difTicult problem, and we are all very happy that 
you could see what we were trying to do, and cooperate. This is a 
strange experience, because we find other agencies are a little bit 
slow in taking the action that is so important to be taken if we are 
going to protect our security. 

Mr. ScHERER. You wouldn't be referring to the vState Department, 
would you? 

The Chairman. Well, j^es, I would be referring to the State 
Department. 

You may proceed now, Mr. Walsh. 

Mr. Walsh. Now Mr. Maroney, you are from the Department of 
Justice? 

Mr. Maroney. Yes, su*. 

Mr. Walsh. And have you a statement which you wish to read 
for the record, sir? 

The Chairman. Wait a minute. Have you any questions for Mr. 
Bartimo? 

Mr. Walsh. I thought the two statements would be read, and then 
we will ask the questions of the two of them together. 

The Chairman. All right. Is that satisfactory with the committee? 

Mr. Scherer. Do you have a copy of the next witness' statement, 
or doesn't he have a statement? 

Mr. Maroney. I have no prepared statement. 

However, as stated in the report of the Department on this bill 
to the committee, in the letter dated February 2, 1962, the Depart- 
ment of Justice wholeheartedly endorses this bill, and urges its im- 
mediate consideration and enactment. 

For the reasons enumerated by Mr. Bartimo in his statement, the 
present requirement of section 5(b) that a list of defense facilities be 
published in the Federal Register creates a situation dangerous to the 
national defense, and jeopardizes the national security, since that list 
could be used as a guidebook for sabotage and for the selection of 
military targets by any potential enemy. 

It is obvious, therefore, in our view, that it is inadvisable to require 
publication of such a list in the Federal Register. Since this bill 
would eliminate the requirement of publication of a list, and still 
would retain the present essential requirements and purposes of sec- 
tion 5 of the Internal Security Act of 1950, the Department of Justice 
favors this amendment to the Internal Security Act. 
\ Specifically with respect to the last sentence of H.R. 9753, which 
would require the management of any defense facility so designated 
by the Secretary to require from his employees written acknowledg- 
ment of his awareness that the facility has been designated as a 
defense facility, the Department of Justice also favors that specific 
requirement, since it would facilitate proof in a given case to show 
actual notice rather than implied notice. 

In view of the fact that there may be certain situations where the 
proof of implied notice from the posting would create doubt as to 
whether or not the employee did in fact have notice, this additional 
provision would give the Defense Department the opportunity to 
insure that actual notice was brought home to each employee affected 
by the provisions of this bill. 

Mr. Walsh. And do both of you gentlemen agree that this pro- 
vision where notice, actual notice, will be brought home to each em- 



446 RELATING TO THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

ployee strengthens the bill, and also would be conducive to more 
successful prosecution? 

Mr. Makoney. That is our view; yes, su\ 

Mr. Bartimo. I would like to make a comment on that. I think 
it might be important for the legislative history. 

The committee in its wisdom has provided in law what is termed 
in the art "constructive notice" by the sentence which reads "Such 
posting shall be sufficient to give notice of such designation to any 
person subject thereto or affected thereby." 

With respect to the sentence which immediately follows that, which 
reads "Upon the request of the Secretary, the management of any 
facility so designated shall require each employee of the facility or any 
part thereof to sign a statement that he knows that the facility has, 
for the purposes of this act, been designated by the Secretary under 
this subsection," I think that Mr. Maroney has made a very significant 
statement so far as possible prosecution under this section is concerned. 

I believe the fact that a posting, together with your statement that 
this constitutes sufficient notice, would be given great weight by a 
court. However, as Mr. Maroney pointed out, in cases where there 
is some doubt — and I am thinking of this type of an example: In a 
utility plant, where linesmen are on the road for months, and do not 
get back to the main plant— in that type of case, the Secretary may 
feel, to unplement the intent of this committee and the Congress, 
should this bill become law, that he would require a personal certificate 
of these individuals. But what I want to pin home is — and I am sure 
the committee feels this way — that it would be a burden to get every- 
one employed to sign a personal notice. It would be expensive and 
burdensome on the part of the entrepreneur, and in my judgment is 
not necessary in all cases. But there will be cases, out of an abun- 
dance of great caution, where we should adhere to the procedure which 
you prescribe in the last sentence of the bill. 

The Chairman. When you mention the utility company, you are 
.thinking of the list of facilities, "important utilities and service 
facilities." Do you think "important utilities" is broad enough to 
cover any type of a public utilit}^? 

Mr. Bartimo. I do, Mr. Chairman, and I was using that merely 
as an example. 

The Chairman. Yes, I understand, but I am just wondering 
whether when you say "important utility" if you don't leave the 
door open in a trial to the question of whether or not this is actually 
an "important utility," and that becomes a question of fact, to go 
to the jury. I was just wondering if "utility" wouldn't be better. 

Mr. Bartimo. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that it is safe to say that 
if the Secretary of Defense, under the authority given him by the 
Congress, designates a utility or a group of utilities 

The Chairman. As "important." 

Mr. Bartimo. I would believe that that would be prima facie 
evidence that the Secretary is fulfilling his function under the law, 
which you have requu-ed him to implement. 

I would ask Mr. Maroney if he had any comment on that from the 
Department of Justice point of view. 

Mr. Walsh. That utility, of course, would have a vital contract 
from one agency, have top secret or some other work that they are 
doing which is vital to the internal security of this country. 



RELATING TO THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 447 

Mr. Bautimo. I believe that it is not necessary, under the definitions 
of this particuhir bill, that a prerequisite would be a contract from the 
Department of Defense or any other Government agency. I believe 
the thrust of this bill is as follows: Where the Secretary of Defense in 
his judgment feels that a particular utility or a particular manufac- 
turing plant, even tliough they do not have a contact, is of such vital 
necessity to our national security, he could designate that installation 
as a defense facility. 

That is my interpretation of the bill. 

The Chairman. Well, it gives hmi very wide discretionary powers, 
but I would hope that this language was sufficiently strong so that 
there could be no attack on his conclusion, unless, of course, it was 
capricious and arbitrary. 

Mr. Bartimo. I would agree, Mr. Chairman, with your statement. 

Mr. Walsh. I think that is covered in the bill at line 16 of page 2: 

Upon the request of the Secretary, the management of any faciUty so designated 
shall require each employee of the facility or any part thereof to sign a statement 
that he knows that the facility has, for the purposes of this Act, been designated 
by the Secretary under this subsection. 

Therefore, any utility or any other defense facility which has a 
contract could, under certain circumstances in the discretion of the 
Secretary, be notified to have each employee sign that this is a defense 
facility. 

Mr. ScHERER. Counsel, the witness has just said that the facility 
would not necessarily have to have a defense contract. 

The Chairman. As long as it was vital. 

Mr. Bartimo. I believe, Mr. Chairman, to be sure that oiu" legis- 
lative history is clear, that we should emphasize Mr. Scherer's point, 
and that is, that in my judgment — and I believe the Department of 
Justice concurs— it is not necessary that the Department of Defense 
or any other Government agency have a contract with a particular 
facility for the Secretary of Defense to properly implement the spu'it 
and intent of this statute. 

As we all know, the defense of our country involves many indi- 
viduals and plants and facilities. A power station might be of 
great significance, in spite of the fact that that power station doesn't 
have a direct contract with the Government. It might be so vital, 
however, in the manufacturing and the supplying of power to facilities 
having a defense contract that the Secretary of Defense might feel 
it necessary, in order to implement the spirit of this statute, to declare 
that power station a defense facility. 

Mr. ScHERER. Even if it were not fm'nishing power to a defense 
facility, a utility which might merely furnish the ordinary power to 
a municipality, in time of internal upheaval, could be so designated 
under this bill. 

Mr. Bartimo. I agree, Mr. Scherer. 

Mr. Scherer. I remember some years ago, when I was with city 
government, Army Intelligence told us that a few men, properly 
placed in the utilities and communications, could disrupt the opera- 
tion of a municipality in a few minutes. 

Mr. Walsh. Have you anything f mother to say, Mr. Bartimo? 

Mr. Bartimo. No, sir; if you have more questions, I would be 
delighted to attempt to answer them. 

Mr. Walsh. Mr. Maroney, have you anything further to say? 



448 RELATING TO THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

Mr. Maromey. No, sir; nothing else unless there are some questions. 

The Chairman. T would like to direct yoiu* attention to the lan- 
guage on page 2, line 10, concerning the notice. 

It provides that it be posted conspicuously, and "thereafter, while 
so designated, keep posted, notice of such designation"; bj- adding the 
language on line 10 and line 11, from the comma on line 10 to the 
comma in line 11, isn't there a proposed duty which can't possibly 
be complied with? And failure to prove that the notice was posted 
continuously might leave the avenue open to get away from the 
provisions of this act. 

Mr. ScHERER. I think the chairman has something there. I just 
agree with him. 

The Chairman. After the notice is posted, it may be destroyed, 
or the elements destroy it, or in some manner it may come down 

Mr. ScHERER. Or somebody removes it purposely. 

The Chairman. Purposely, that is right. Don't you think that 
mere proof it was posted would be enough? Should we impose a 
greater duty than that? 

Mr. Maroney. You mean, Mr. Chairman — — 

The Chairman. The man posts the notice, and then don't you 
think that should be the end of the responsibilities, so far as the man- 
agement is concerned? 

Mr. Maroney. I would interpret this requirement that he insure 
that the notice be continuously posted. That is, that if it were de- 
stroyed by the elements so that it was unreadable, for example, that 
he would have to replace it, so that someone coming upon it at that 
point would be able to 

Mr. Scherer. Yes, but what the chairman points out, and I think 
properly so, is that it would be most difficult to prove in a prosecution 
of an individual who was a Communist, and stayed at the plant, to 
prove that the notice was posted continuously. That is what this 
means; doesn't it? 
, Mr. Maroney. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. Suppose it was down for just 1 day? This makes it 
more difficult for the Attorney General to prosecute under this section. 

Mr. Maroney. I would think that if you had a small or a very 
short lapse of time between taking down an old, worn poster and 
putting up a new one, unless the individual could only be shown at 
the plant at that particular time, when there was a hiatus between 
the posting, there wouldn't be any materiality as far as he is concerned 
in i)roving notice to him. The question would be, as far as he is 
concerned, whether or not he received implied, whether he received 
actual notice, which can be implied from the posting. 

The (yHAiRMAN, That would be true if this language were not here, 
because if you look at line 14, "Such posting sliall be sufficient to 
give notice," there it applies to the posting, not any duty to preserve 
the condition of the notice, so I think that this weakens the bill. It 
is language T think ought to be omitted. 

Mr. Scherer. I think it would make it almost impossible to prove. 

The Chairman. Very difficult. 

Mr. Scherer. Who would you get to testify that the notice was 
kept posted at all times? 



RELATING TO THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 449 

Mr. Tavenner. Doesn't it establish an additional element of proof 
as a basis for prosecution? 

The Chairman. That is right. It just adds one more element. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chaiiinan. 

The Chairman. Mr. Doyh'. 

Mr. Doyle. May I bring this point? I think it is of equal impor- 
tance, line 10, to provide that it be posted conspicuously. Now I 
think that is very important. 

1 know in the Industrial Accident Connnission cases in California, 
sometimes in the early days, notices were posted way off in a corner 
someplace, where normally the employees would not be walking by 
or see. 

I think that that word there requires a definite place where the 
notice should be posted. In other words, conspicuously. I think 
that means, as near as I read it, the intention is to make sure that the 
employees see it; therefore, it must be posted in a conspicuous place 
so far as all the employees are concerned. 

The Chairman. I think if my distinguished friend would look at 
the words and phrases that are here in our library, you will find that 
there are a number of decisions construing what is a conspicuous 
notice posted, and I think that it is a word of art that is very easily 
understood, but this is a good point, and I think the report ought to 
show that it is our intention that this notice be posted in a place 
customarily frequented by all of the employees. 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I think the record should show that. 

Mr. Scherer. Mr. Chairman, if it is in order, then I move we 
strike from lines 10 and 11, page 2, the words "and thereafter while so 
designated keep posted." 

The Chairman. Any questions on the motion? Any objection? 

Hearing none, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Bartimo may have had something else he 
wanted to say. 

Mr. Bartimo. Mr. Chairman, if I may comment on what I be- 
lieve is a very important observation on your part, as we all know, a 
criminal statute is strictly construed, and we certainly want to build 
a legislative history here which will help a court if there is any doubt. 

I don't see any harm in deleting the phrase, but I think the legisla- 
tive history ought to show, Mr. Chairman, that the intent of the 
Congress and in spite of the deletion of that language was to post a 
notice conspicuously and to continue that notice there. That if a 
notice inadvertently or through the elements was eradicated for a short 
interval of time, this should not frustrate the spirit and the intent of 
the statute. 

I think what we can do, Mr. Chairman, to help, if we delete the 
phrase, as has been indicated, we will urge the plants designated by 
the Secretary of Defense to continue to keep these notices up, in 
prominent places, where people frequent and have an opportunity to 
see them, until such time as the Secretary of Defense takes that plant 
off the list. We will do this as an administrative device, to be sure 
that people have sufficient notice. 



450 RELATING TO THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 

Mr. ScHERER. I think the language of the next two Hnes by infer- 
ence or imphcation indicates that the notice should be posted con- 
tinuously, and which reads now as amended : 

whereupon such management shall immediately post conspicuously notice of 
such designation in such form and in such place or places as to give notice thereof 
to all employees of * * *. 

Now that to me would mean that is is a continuous notice. 

The Chairman. That is why I was disturbed by the other language. 
What Mr. Scherer just read I think, corrects the problem. 

Mr. Walsh. I think your next phrase, "and to all applicants for 
employment," connotes a continuous display of the notice, because 
as the applicants come in, the notice must be there. 

The Chairman. Are there further questions? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, we appreciate your cooperation very 
much, and we will try to get this on the calendar. Is there a motion 
to report the bill? 

Mr. Scherer. I move that the bill be reported. 

Air. Doyle. Second. 

Mr. Scherer. And that the chairman be authorized to take such 
necessary steps as to bring it before the House. 

The Chairman. It has been properly moved, and seconded by 
Mr. Doyle, and that course will be pursued. 

Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

The Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. 

(Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., Wednesday, February 7, 1962, the 
committee was adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.) 



INDEX 



Individuals Page 

Bartimo, Frank A 442-450 

Maroney, Kevin T 442-450 

Meyers, Bruce F 442 

Organizations 
United States Government: 

Department of Defense 442-444 

Department of Justice 442, 445 

i 

o 



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRABY 



3 9999 05706 3115 



This book should be returned to 
the Library on or before the last date 
stamped below. 

A fine is incurred by retaining it 
beyond the specified time. 

Please return promptly. 



' 



t 






|ii 


1 




IflRI 





i 



I ;