(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 "Hearings relating to H.R. 10390, H.R. 10391, and H.R. 10681, amending the Internal security act of 1950. Hearings, Ninetieth Congress, first session"

HARVARD COLLEGE 
LIBRARY 




GIFT OF THE 

GOVERNMENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES 



HEARINGS RELATING TO H.R. 10390, H.R. 10391, AND 

H.R. 10681, AMENDING THE INTERNAL 

SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NINETIETH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 



AUGUST 15-18, 1967 
(INCLUDING INDEX) 



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

DtPOSiltD UY THE 
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 

NOV 24 1967 




U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
84-351 O WASHINGTON : 1967 



COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 

United States House of Representatives 

EDWIN E. WILLIS, Louisiana, Chairman 
WILLIAM M. TUCK, Virginia JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio 

JOE R. POOL, Texas DEL CLAWSON, California 

RICHARD H. ICHORD, Missouri RICHARD L. ROUDEBUSH, Indiana 

JOHN C. CULVER, Iowa ALBERT W. WATSON, South Carolina 

Francis J. McNamara, Director 

Chester D. Smith, General Counsel 

Alfred M. Nittle, Counsel 



CONTENTS 



August 15, 1967: Statement of— Page 

Hon. Durward G. Hall 304 

James B. Gardiner, vice president general, National Society of 

the Sons of the American Revolution 312 

August 16, 1967: Statement of— 

Robert Morris 316 

John W. Mahan, Chairman, Subversive Activities Control Board_ 327 

Stanley J. Tracy 382 

Afternoon session: 

Hon Henry C. Schadeberg 397 

Military Order of the World Wars 397 

National Woman's Christian Temperance Union 398 

Hon. Speedy O. Long 399 

Marvin Karpatkin, member, national board of directors of Amer- 
ican Civil Liberties Union 400 

August 17, 1967: Statement of — 

Stanley J. Tracy — Resumed 421 

John W. INIahan, Chairman, Subversive Activities Control Board, 

additional statement 422 

Stanlej' J. Tracy — Resumed 423 

Francis W. Stover, director, National Legislative Service of the 

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States 433 

Daniel J. O'Connor, chairman. National Americanism Commis- 
sion of The American Legion 440 

August 18, 1967: Statement of — 

Hon. Michael A. Musraanno, Pennsylvania Supreme Court 

Justice 444 

Loyd Wright 465 

A. Leo Anderson, national commander of American Veterans of 

World War II (AMVETS) 478 

James J. Davidson, Jr 480 

John C. Satterfield 482 

Peyton Ford 485 

Additional statements submitted by — 

Hon. Armistead Selden 487 

Hon. Dante B. Fascell 487 

Hon. Odin Langen 488 

Appendix 491 

Index i 

III 



The House Committee on Un-American Activities is a standing 
committee of the House of Representatives, constituted as such by the 
rules of the House, adopted pursuant to Article I, section 5, of the 
Constitution of the United States wliich authorizes the House to de- 
tennine the rules of its proceedings. 

RULES ADOPTED BY THE 90TH CONGRESS 

House Resolution 7. January 10. 1967 
RESOLUTION 

Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the Eighty-ninth 
Congress, together with all applicable provisions of the Legislative Reorgani- 
zation Act of 1946, as amended, be, and they are hereby, adopted as the Rules 
of the House of Representatives of the Ninetieth Congress * * * 

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 

POWEKS 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, charac- 
ter, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, (2) 
the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propaganda 
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 (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 pur- 
pose, shall study all pertinent reports and data submitted to the House by the 
agencies in the executive branch of the Government. 

******* 



HEARINGS RELATING TO H.R. 10390, H.R. 10391, AND 
H.R. 10681, AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY 
ACT OF 1950 



TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 1%7 

United Stx\tes House of Representatives, 

Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington^ D.G. 

PUBLIC hearings 

The Committee on Un-American Activities met, pursuant to call, 
at 10 :15 a.m. in Room 429, Cannon House OflEice Building, Washing- 
ton, D.C., Hon. Echvin E. AVillis (chairman) presiding.^ 

Coimnittee members present: Representatives Edwin E. Willis, of 
Louisiana, chairman; William M. Tuck, of Virginia; Richard H. 
Ichord, of Missouri ; John C. Culver, of Iowa ; Richard L. Roudebush, 
of Indiana ; and Albert W. Watson, of South Carolina. 

Staff members present: Francis J. McNamara, director; Chester D. 
Smith, general counsel ; and Alfred M. Nittle, counsel. 

The Chairman. A quorum is present, and the committee will come 
to order. 

Before calling our first witness this morning, the Chair would like 
to make a general opening statement. 

Although there are a variety of laws designed to protect the United 
States from Communist subversion in one area or another, the Smith 
Act and the Internal Security Act of 1950 are the two major laws 
of general application. 

This hearing is being held to receive testimony on the bills H.R. 
10390, H.R. 10o91, and H.R. 10681, identical bills which would amend 
Title I of the Internal Security Act of 1950, designated as the Sub- 
versive Activities Control Act of 1950. 

Incidentally, H.R. 10390 Avas introduced by myself, joined by 24 
Democrats, and H.R. 10391 was introduced by the rankmg minority 
member, Mr. Ashbrook of Ohio, joined by 24 Republican Members— 
so these bills have been joined in, under the new rule of the House 
l>ermitting multiple sponsorship, by over 50 Members, and such is 
the general regard of Congress for the Subversive Activities Control 
Act of 1950. 

The most important fact to keep in mind as far as Title I of the act is 
concerned is that the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality 
of the principle on which it is based and its main provisions, which 
have to do with the registration of Communist organizations. 

To date, the Supreme Court has found only one section of Title I 
of the Internal Security Act to be unconstitutional. That section is 
section 6, the passport, control section. I have introduced a bill to 

273 



274 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

amend that section to conform with that Supreme Court decision. 
It is expected that hearings will be held on it at a later date. 

Now, although the basic provisions of Title I of the Internal Secu- 
rity Act have been upheld by the Supreme Court, several other court 
decisions have had the effect of weakening to some extent the effec- 
tiveness of the statute. 

In addition, 17 years of practical experience in the administration 
of the act has indicated ways in which the act might be amended to 
make it a more efficient instrument for dealing with the threat of 
Communist subversion. 

The three bills pending before the committee which are the subject 
of these hearings are designed to strengthen Title I of the act in 
the light of this practical experience and the court decisions I have 
referred to. 

' Before receiving the testimony of our first witness I would like to 
make a few observations about Title I of the act, and the principles 
on which it is based. 

For some 20 years now, beginning in 1947 when the Internal Security 
Act was being considered by this committee, the Communist Party, 
its fronts, and its fellow travelers have been trying to convince the 
American public that the act is an extremely harsh and repressive 
measure; that it is, to quote the late national secretary of the Commu- 
nist Party, Benjamin J. Davis, "a pro-Fascist" law. 

It is im]:>ortant to emphasize, and this can't be overemphasized, that 
in fact these allegations are completely fmfounded. 

Title I of the Internal Security Act is actuallv a relatively mild 
law. It is so mild that it permits the Communist Party, without pmi- 
ishment, to continue its organizing efforts; it permits it to continue 
the publication of its newspapers and magazines, the dissemination of 
its propaganda, its creation of front organizations — all its day-to-day 
operations which are not declared criminal by other statutes — even 
though the ultimate aim of all these activities is the subversion of 
our Constitution and our fomi of government. 

Title I of the act principally provides machinery for informing 
the Congress and the American i^ublic of such Communist activities 
in the interest of the national security. 

In draftine: the Internal Securitv Act, the committee analvzed which 
weapon used by the Communist Party over the years had been chiefly 
responsible for such success as it has achieved in this country — and 
that success was considerable at the time in light of the actual size of 
the party. 

The committee concluded that the party's major weapon was deceit 
and concealment : concealing the real aim and nature — and the foreign 
control — of the Communist Party: concealing the fact that it had 
created and controlled certain organizations which posed as non-Com- 
munist; that it had seized control of some originally bona fide groups: 
concealing the fact that it had infiltrated, and was thereby influencing, 
the policies of still other organizations. 

The committee was convinced also that the American people would 
never buy communism if it were truthfully ])ackaired, with a full and 
honest revelation of its aims and nature printed clearly on the eye- 
catching paper in which the Communists have traditionally wrapped 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 275 

tlieir low-grade product in un ett'ort to sell it to the American public. 

The connnittee therefore concluded that if a means could be found 
to disclose these hidden C'ommunist operations to the people, to reveal 
their Communist nature, origin, and control, the Communists would 
l)e strii)ped of one of tlieir major weapons — that of deceit and con- 
cealment — and their subversive etforts would thereby be weakened. 

The principle of disclosure which underlies the basic provisions 
of the Internal Security Act of 1950 has long- been recognized as a 
valid one and as an effective means of dealing with concealed subver- 
sive operations, no matter what their nature. 

As many of us will recall. President Truman, in the late 1940's, 
appointed a committee of highly respected Americans to study the 
question of civil rights in the United States and what could be done 
to preserve and strengthen them. It was known as the President's 
Committee on Civil Rights. That committee was generally regarded 
and recognized as being liberal in orientation. 

For the benefit of those persons of good intent who might have some 
doubts about — or Avho actually oppose — the registration or disclosure 
{provisions of the Internal Security Act, I quote from the 1947 report 
of President Truman's Committee on Civil Rights : 

The principle of disclosure is, we believe, the appropriate way to deal with 
those who would subvert our democracy by revolution or by encouraging dis- 
unity and destroying the civil rights of some groups. * * * 

whether they be the Ku Klux Klan — and I am paraphrasing now what 
I think was in the minds of the committee — whether they be the Ku 
Klux Klan, the Black Panthers, the Communist Party, or whatever, 
of whatever stripe. 

That is what they said, that the principle of disclosure was the 
principal way, appropriate way, to deal with those who would subvert 
our democracy by revolution or by encouraging disunity and destroy- 
ing the civil rights of some groups. The Committee continued : 

The ultimate responsibility for countering totalitarians of all kinds rests, as 
always, with the mass of good, democratic Americans, their organizations and 
their leaders. The federal government * * * ought to provide a source of refer- 
ence where private citizens and groups may find accurate information about the 
activities, sponsorship, and backgroimd of those who are active in the market 
place of public opinion. 

There is nothing new, novel, or, I believe, even questionable in a 
representative government such as ours using disclosure as a weapon 
to strengthen and preserve democracy against the efforts of totalitar- 
ians who would undermine and destroy it. 

The President's Committee on Civil Rights pointed out the follow- 
ing facts in its 1947 report : 

Congress has already made use of the principle of disclosure in both the eco- 
nomic and political spheres. The Securities and Exchange Commission, tJie 
Federal Trade Commission and the Pure Food and Drug Administration make 
available to the public information about sponsors of economic wares. In the 
political realm, the Federal Communications Commission, the Post Office Depart- 
ment, the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and the Secretary of the Senate — 
all of these under various statutes — are required to collect information about 
those who attempt to influence public opinion. Thousands of statements disclos- 
ing the ownership and control of newspapers using the second-class mailing 
privilege are filed annually with the Post Office Department. 



276 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

Still quoting from the Committee finding of the fields in which 
disclosure is properly and constitutionally used: 

Hundreds of statements disclosing the ownership and control of radio stations 
are filed with the Federal Communications Commission. Hundreds of lobbyists 
are now required to disclose their efforts to influence Congress under the Con- 
gressional Reorganization Act. In 1938, Congress found it necessary to pass the 
Foreign Agents Registration Act which forced certain citizens and aliens alil^e 
to register with the Department of Ju.stice the facts about their sponsorship and 
activities. The effectiveness of these efforts has varied. We believe, however, 
that they have been suflSciently successful to warrant their further extension 
to all of those who attempt to influence public opinion. 

It is difficult to quarrel with that statement and, as I have already 
indicated, the Supreme Court has upheld the principles stated in it 
which are embodied in the disclosure provisions of the Internal Se- 
curity Act. 

At the same time, the courts have held that the self-incrimination 
]3rovisions of the fifth amendment, when invoked, protect an individual 
from an order to register himself as a member of the Communist 
Party. 

And here is what we did. We found a way in this bill, I think, to 
preserve the integrity of the Internal Security Act of 1950, that is, in 
respect to the keeping of a register of the names and addresses of 
organizations and persons found by the SACB to be Communist, 
without infringing on the fifth amendment rights of the individuals as 
interpreted by the courts. 

Now how do we do that in this bill ? Well, we still have the integrity 
of the SACB, it is being preserved — and it disturbs me no end to 
hear people, because the President appointed a certain individual 
who happened to have married his former secretary a member of 
the Board, to holler "politics."' When I look on TV and I hear this, 
I say, "Well, look who is saying that." 

Well, it disturbs me no end to see that some Members of Congress 
in this and the other body are after the hide of the SACB. It is not the 
fault of the SACB if it has not been busy. 

The idea of abolishing the Board would be just like abolishing a 
court, if ever the court gets up on its docket, because it has no more 
cases to try. If the Board has no more cases to try, it is the fault of this 
Congress. And now that Ave have found a way to keep the Board 
^oing, we w411 preserve the Board. You still have adversary proceed- 
ings, organizations and persons alleged to be Communist will be 
brought up before the Board, and the Board will have to find as a 
fact whether or not they are truly of that character. 

If they are truly Communist, then we part with the present struc- 
ture of the act in this way : Instead of compelling the respondent to 
register, to sign that he or the organization is Communist, we will 
require the Attoniey General to keep a register of Communist organiza- 
tions and the names and addresses of those found by the Board to be 
members of the party. 

Now to you, Dr. Hall, who I think is our first witness, to you and 
me, at least., charging a person with being a Communist is charging 
a heinous offense. 

I don't think anything more denigrating could be heaped upon a man 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 277 

than to call him a Commnnist. in my book, and I think in the book 
of the Congress. 

Now when the Board pronounces as a matter of fact that a person 
alleged to l>e a member of a Communist-action organization is in 
fact so, then the bill would require, instead of requiring the individual 
to sign the register of those pei-sons so found, it requires the Attorney 
General to keep the books, and cwnpels him to keep an accurate list 
of the names and addresses of persons found by the Board to be mem- 
bers. I think we have arrived at a solution of the problem which, 
as I say, completely preserves the original intent of Congress, 
namely, a register of organizations and persons found to be Commu- 
nist, as defined, without abridging fifth amendment rights as inter- 
preted by the Supreme Court. Frankly, gentlemen, I am completely 
fair in saying that since I feel so deeply that to call a man a Commu- 
nist is such a degrading charge, if I' had been a member of the Supreme 
Court, I, too, would have held that to compel a man to sign that he was 
a Commmiist, if he had invoked the fifth amendment, would be an 
unconstitutional act. So I can find no quarrel with that case at all, so I 
am very happy that we have found a way to preserve the integrity of 
the act without abridging any fifth amendment rights. 

Xow we have other provisions. For instance, there is another pro- 
vision in this bill. We have a number of them, but another one comes 
to my mind right now. 

The Internal Security Act of 1950 defines an action organization to 
be, for instance, what the Communist Party itself is in fact. Then it 
proceeds to define what is a front organization. And the definition of 
a front organization — and I am groping from memory, and I hope the 
right words come to my mind — a front organization, accordiiig to the 
act, is one which is dominated or controlled by a Communist- action 
organization, or what is now in accordance with the finding of the 
Board, dominated or controlled by the Communist Party. 

Now in a certain case that came before the court, hard-core members 
of the Communist Party were found to dominate and control, in fact, 
a certain front organization. 

The court said, well, to demonstrate that members of the Communist 
Party control this front is not sufficient. You have to prove agency. 
You have to prove that they actually acted for the Communist Party 
in running the front. 

Now the Communist Party is not going to go around giving a power 
of attorney or agency to anybody to represent it. It is done under 
the table. 

So another proposed amendment to the act is to redefine a Commu- 
nist-front so as to permit the SACB to make an affirmative finding 
if a group is controlled by people who are in fact Communist Party 
members, without having to prove agency. 

So I think we have found a satisfactory solution to that problem. 

At this point, I offer for inclusion in the record a copy of the bills 
which are the subject of these hearings, a section-by-section analysis 
of them, and, in addition, summaries of three court decisions relating 
to the Internal Security Act, which are relevant to various provisions 
of the bills we are now considering. 

(The bills and other documents follow : ) 



-vs— H. R. 10390 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mat 25, 1967 

Mr. AViLLis (for himself, Mr. Ahernetiiy, Mr. Abbitt, Mr. Ashmorb, Mr. 
BoGGS, Mr. CoLMER, Mr. Dorn, Mr. Downing, Mr. Edwards of Louisiana, 
Mr. Fascell, Mr. Haley, Mr. Hebert, Mr. Ichord, Mr. Landrum, Mr. 
Lennon, Mr. Long of Louisiana, Mr. Pool. Mr. Rarick, Mr. Rivers, Mr. 
Rogers of Florida, Mr. Selden, Mr. Stephens, Mr. Tuck, Mr. Waggonner, 
and Mr. Williams of Mississippi) introduced the following bill; which 
was referred to the Committee on Un-American Activities 



[H.R. 10391, introduced by Mr. Ashbrook on May 25, 1967 (for himself, Mr. Del 
Clawson, Mr. Roudebush, Mr. Watson, .Mr. Gardner, Mr. Goodling, Mr. Dole, 
Mr. Watkins, Mr. Mize, Mr. Winn, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Scherle, Mr. Ayres, Mr. 
Clancy, Mr. Devine, Mr. Hall, Mr. Utt, Mr. Gross, Mr. Schadeberg, Mr. Wylie, 
Mr. Miller of Ohio, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Derwinski, Mr. Cramer, and 
.Mr. Adair), and H.R. 10681, introduced by Mr. Olsen on June S, 1967, are identical 
to H.R. 10390. 

[On August 23, 1967, Mr. Langen introduced H.R. 12552, which is also identical 
to H.R. 10390.] 



A BILL 

To amend certain provisions of the Internal Security Act of 1950 
relating to the registration of Communist organizations, and 
for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 

2 /''T.s of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 Thal>- 

4 Section 1. Paragraph (4) of section 3 of such Act is 

5 amended to read as follows: 

6 " (4) The term 'Communist-front organization' means 

7 any organization in the United States (other than a Com- 

I 

279 



280 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

2 

1 munist-action organization as defined in paragraph (3) of 

2 this section) which (A) is substantially directed, domi- 

3 nated, or controlled by a Communist-action organization, or 

4 (B) is subst<antially directed, dominated, or controlled by 

5 one or more members of a Communist-action organization, 

6 and (C) is primarily operated for the purpose of giving aid 

7 and support to a Communist-action organization, a Conunu- 

8 nist foreign government, or the world Coimnunist movement 

9 referred to in section 2 of this title." 

10 Sec. 2. Section 8 of such Act is amended to read as 

11 follows : 

12 "eegisteation of members of communist-action 

13 organizations 

14 "Sec. 8. (a) When there is in effect a final order of the 

15 Board requiring any organization to register under section 

16 7 (a) as a. Communist-action organization and such organiza- 

17 tion has not filed a statement of its members as required by 

18 subsections (d) and (e) of section 7, it shall be the duty of 

19 the Attorney General to petition the Board for a determina- 

20 tion as provided in section 13 (a) as to each individual whom 

21 the Attorney Gei 3ral has reason to believe is at the time of 

22 the filing of his petition under section 13 (a) a member of 

23 such organization. 

24 "(b) When any organization files a statement of its 

25 members pursuant to subsection (d) or (e) of section 7 it 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 281 

3 

1 shall be the duty of the Attorney General to petition the 

2 Board for a deteraiination as provided in section 13 (a) as to 

3 each individual whom the Attorney General has reason to 

4 believe is at the time of the filing of his petition under section 

5 13 (a) a member of such organization but whose name was 

6 not included upon the statement filed by the organization. 
1 "(c) Any individual as to whom there is in effect a final 
° order of the Board determining such individual to be a mem- 
^ ber of a Communist-action organization and who is no longer 

a member of such organization may file a petition for a 
detennination as provided in section 13." 

Sec. 3. (a) Subsection (a) of section 9 of such Act is 

13 

amended to read as follows: 

14 

" (a) The Attorney General shall keep and maintain 

15 

separately in the Department of Justice — 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 



21 
25 



" ( 1 ) a 'Register of Commimist-Action Organiza- 
tions', which shall include (A) the names and addresses 
of all Communist-action organizations registered or by 
final order of the Board required to register imder the 
provisions of this title, (B) the registration statements 
and annual reports filed by such organizations there- 
under, and (C) the names and last-known addresses of 
individuals who by proceedings under section 13 are by 
final order of the Board determined to be members or 
oflficers of such organizations; 



282 AMENDESTG THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

4 

1 " (2) a 'Register of Communist-Front Organiza- 

2 tions/ which shall include (A) the names and addresses 

3 of all Communist-front organizations registered or by 

4 final order of the Board required to register under the 

5 provisions of this title, and (B) the registration state- 

6 ments and annual reports filed by such organizations 

7 thereunder; and 

8 "(3) a 'Register of Communist-Infiltrated Organi- 

9 zations', which shall include the names and addresses of 

10 all Communist-infiltrated organizations determined by 

11 final order of the Board to be such by proceedings under 

12 section 13A." 

13 (])) Subsection (d) of section 9 of such Act is amended 

14 to read as follows: 

15 " (<^) Upon the registering of each Communist or- 

16 ganization by the Attorney General under the provisions of 

17 this section, the Attorney General shall publish in the Fed- 
13 era! Register the fact that such organization has been regis- 

19 tered by him as a Communist-action organization, or as a 

20 Communist-front organization, or as a Communist-infiltrated 

21 organization, as the case may be, and the publication thereof 

22 shall constitute notice to all members of such organization 

23 that such organization has been so registered." 

24 Sec. 4. Section 10 of such Act is amended to read as 

25 follows : 

26 "Sec. 10. It shall be unlawful for any organization which 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 283 

5 

1 is iTjilstcicd under soctioii 7, or for any organization with 

2 respect to which there is in elTect a final order of the Board 

3 reiiuiring- it to register under section 7, or determining that 

4 it is a Comniunist-infihrated organization, or for any person 

5 acting for or on hehalf of any such organization— 

6 " ( 1 ) to transmit or cause to be transmitted, through 

7 the United States mails or by any means or instru- 

8 mentahty of interstate or foreign commerce, any pubh- 

9 cation which is intended to be, or which it is reasonable 

10 to beheve is intended to be, circulated or disseminated 

11 among two or more persons, unless such pubUcation, 

12 and any envelope, wrapper, or other container in which 

13 it is mailed or otherwise circulated or transmitted, bears 

14 the followmg, printed in such manner as may be provided 

15 in regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, with 

16 the name of the organization appearing in lieu of the 

17 blank: 'Dissemuiated by , which has been deter- 

18 mined by final order of the Subversive Activities Control 

19 Board to be a Communist organization'; or 

20 " (2) to use the United States mails, or any means, 

21 facility, or instrumentaUty of interstate or foreign com- 

22 merce, to soHcit any money, property, or thing unless 

23 such solicitation, if made orally, is preceded by the 

24 following statement, and if made in writing or in prmt, 

25 is preceded by the following written or printed state- 



284 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

6 

1 ment, with the name of the organization in lieu of the 

2 blank: 'This soUcitation is made for or on behalf of 

3 , which has been detennined by final order 

4 of the Subversive Activities Control Board to be a 

5 Communist organization'; or 

6 "(3) to broadcast or cause to be broadcast any 

7 matter over any radio or tele\'ision station in the United 

8 States, unless such matter is preceded by the following 

9 statement, with the name of the organization being stated 

10 in place of the blank: 'The following program is spon- 

11 sored by , which has been detennined by 

12 final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board 

13 to be a Communist organization'." 

1^ Sec. 5. (a) Subsection (a) of section 13 of such Act 

1^ is amended to read as follows : 

1^ '' (a) Whenever the Attorney General shall have reason 

^^ to beUeve that any organization which has not registered 

1° under subsection (a) or subsection (b) of section 7 of this 

1^ title is in fact an orgjinization of a kind required to be regis- 

^^ tered under such subsection, or that any individual is of the 

^^ type refeiTcd to in subsection (a) or (b) of section 8 of 

^^ this title, he shall file with the Board and serve upon such 

2"^ organization or individual, as the case may be, a petition 

■^^ for an order requiring such organization to register, or deter- 

2^ mining such individual to be a member of such organization, 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 285 

7 

1 imrsuaiit to such subsection or section. Each such petition 

2 shall be verified under oath, and shall contain a statement 

3 of the facts upon which the Attorney General relies in sup- 
■i port of his i)rayer for the issuance of such order. Two or 

5 more such individuals, members of such organization or of 

6 any section, branch, fraction, cell, board, committee, com- 

7 mission, or unit thereof, may be joined as respondents in one 

8 petition for an order determining each of such individuals to 

9 be a member of an}^ such organization. A dissolution of any 

10 organization subsequent to the date of the filing of any 

11 petition requiring it to register shall not moot or abate the 

12 proceedings, but the Board shall receive evidence and pro- 

13 ceed to a determination of the issues: Provided, howe\-)er, 

14 That if the Board shall find such organization to be a Com- 

15 numist-action or Comnnmist-front organization as of the time 

16 of the filing of such petition and prior to its alleged dissolu- 
1'^ tion. and shall find that a dissolution of the organization has 

18 in fact occurred as aforesaid, the Board shall enter an order 

19 determining such organization to be a Communist-action or 

20 Comnnmist-front organization, as the case may be, and the 

21 Attorney General shall register it as such in the appropriate 

22 register maintained by him pursuant to subsection (a) of 

23 section 9 of this title, together with a notation of its dissolu- 

24 tion. Xo such organization found to be dissolved as aforesaid 

25 shall be required to file any registration statement or annual 

B4-351 O - 67 - 2 



286 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

8 

1 report, nor shall any member or officer thereof be registered 

2 or required to register as a member or officer of such orga- 

3 nization under the provisions of this title." 

4 (b) Subsection (b) of section 13 of such Act is amended 

5 to read as follows : 

6 " (b) Any organization registered under subsection (a) 

7 or subsection (b) of section 7 of this title, or any organiza- 

8 tion which by final order of the Board has been required to 

9 register, and which no longer is an organization of such type, 

10 or any individual who by final order of the Board has been 

11 determined to be a member of a Communist-action organiza- 

12 tion, and who no longer is a member of such organization, 

13 may file with the Board a petition for a detennination that 

14 such organization no longer is an organization of such type, 

15 or that such individual no longer is a member of such orga- 

16 nization, as the case may be, and for appropriate relief from 
1'^ the further application of the provisions of this title to such 

18 organization or individual. Any individual authorized by 

19 section 7(g) to file a petition for relief may file with the 

20 Board and serve upon the Attorney General a petition for 

21 an order requiring the Attorney General to strike his name 

22 from the registration statement or annual report upon which 

23 it appears. Each petition filed under and pursuant to this 

24 subsection shall be verified under oath, and shall contain a 

25 statement of the facts relied upon in support thereof. Upon 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 287 

9 

1 the filing of any such petition, the Board shall serve upon 

2 each party to such proceeding a notice specifying the time 

3 and place for hearing upon such petition. No such hearing 

4 shall be conducted within twenty days after the service of 

5 such notice." 

6 (c) Subsection (c) of section i;5 of such Act is amended 

7 by inserting the following sentence immediately preceding 

8 the last sentence thereof: "No person, on the ground or for 

9 the reason that the testimon}' or evidence, documentary or 

10 otherwise, required of him ma}'^ tend to criminate him or 

11 subject him to a penalty or forfeiture, shall be excused from 

12 testifying or producing documentary evidence before the 

13 Board in obedience to a subpoena of the Board issued on 

14 request of the Attorney General when the Attorney General 

15 represents that such testimony or evidence is necessary to 

16 accomphsh the purposes of this title; ])ut no natural person 

17 shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture 

18 for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing con- 

19 ceming which he, under compulsion as herein provided, may 

20 testify, or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, be- 

21 fore the Board in obedience to a subpoena issued by it : Pro- 

22 vided, That no natural person so testifying shall be exempt 

23 from prosecution and punishment for perjuiy committed in so 

24 testifymg." 



288 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

10 

1 (d) Subsection (d) of section 13 of such Act is 

2 amended as follows : 

3 (1) Amend paragraph (2) of said subsection to read as 

4 follows : 

5 "(2) Where an organization or individual decUnes or 

6 fails to appear at a hearing accorded to such organization or 

7 individual by the Board in proceedings initiated pursuant to 

8 subsection (a) , the Board shall, nevertheless, proceed to 

9 receive evidence, make a determination of the issues, and 

10 enter such order as shall be just and appropriate." 

11 (2) Add the following paragraphs: 

12 "(3) Any person who, in the course of any hearing 

13 before the Board or any member thereof or any examiner 

14 designated thereby, shall misbehave in their presence or so 

15 near thereto as to obstruct the hearing or the administration 

16 of the provisions of this title, shall be guilty of an offense and 
1'^ upon conviction thereof by a court of competent jurisdiction 

18 shall' be punished by a fine of not less than $500 nor more 

19 than $5,000, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, 

20 or by both such fine and imprisonment. Whenever a stat€- 

21 ment of fact constituting such misbehavior is reported by the 

22 Board to the appropriate United States attorney, it shall be 
22 his duty to bring the matter before the grand jury for its 
24 action. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 289 

11 

1 " (4) The authority, function, practice, or process of the 

2 Attorney General or Board in conducting any proceeding 

3 pursuant to the provisions of this title shall not be questioned 

4 in any court of the United States, nor shall any such court, or 

5 judge or justice thereof, have jurisdiction of any action, suit, 

6 petition, or proceeduig, whether for declaratory judgment, 

7 injunction, or otherwise, to question such, except on review ia 

8 the court or courts having jurisdiction of the actions and 

9 orders of the Board pursuant to the provisions of section 14, 

10 or when such are appropriately called into question by the 

11 accused or respondent, as the case may be, in the court or 

12 courts having jurisdiction of his prosecution or other pro- 

13 ceeding (or the review thereof) for any contempt or any 

14 oflfense charged against him pursuant to the provisions of this 

15 title." 

16 (e) Paragraph (1) of subsection (f) of section 13 of 

17 such Act is amended to read as follows : 

18 " ( 1 ) the extent to which persons who are active in 

19 its management, direction, or supervision, whether or not 

20 holding office therein, are active in the management, 

21 direction, or supervision of, or as representatives or mem- 

22 hers of, any Communist-action organization, Communist 

23 foreign government, or the world Communist movement 

24 referred to in section 2 ; and" 



290 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

12 

1 (f) Paragraph (2) of subsection (g) of section 13 

2 of such Act is amended to read as follows: 

3 " (2) that an individual is a member of a Commu- 

4 nist-action organization, it shall make a report in writing 

5 in which it shall state its findings as to the facts and shall 

6 issue and cause to be served on such individual an order 

7 determining such individual to be a member of such 

8 organization." 

9 (g) Paragi-aph (2) of subsection (h) of section 13 

10 of such Act is amended to read as follows : 

11 "(2) that an individual is not a member of any 

12 Communist-action organization, it shall make a report 

13 in writing in which it shall state its finding as to the 

14 facts; issue and cause to be served upon th€ Attorney 

15 General an order denying his petition for an order deter- 

16 mining such individual to be a member of such organi- 

17 zation; and send a copy of such order to such indi- 

18 vidual." 

19 (h) Paragraph (2) of subsection (i) of section 13 of 

20 such iVct is amended by inserting the words "or officer" fol- 

21 lowing the word ''member" in the first clause thereof, and 

22 striking the numeral "8" in clause (B) and substituting in 

23 lieu thereof the numeral "9". 

24 (i) Paragraph (2) of subsection (j) of section 13 of 

25 such Act is amended by inserting the words "or ofiicer" 



AMENDING THK INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 291 

13 

1 iollowing the word "member" in the first clause thereof. 

2 niul strikinj,^ the nnmeral "8" in clause (B) and substituting 

3 in lieu thereof the numeral "9". 

4 Sec. 6. Section 13 A of such Act is amended as follows: 

5 (1) Subsection (b) of such section is amended to read 

6 as follows: 

7 "(b) Any organization which has been finally deter- 

8 mined under this section to be a Communist-infiltrated orga- 

9 nization may thereafter file with the Board and sei-ve upon 

10 the Attorney General a petition for a determination that such 

11 organization no longer is a Communist-infiltrated organiza- 

12 tion, and that its name be s.tricken from his register main- 

13 tained under section 9 hereof." 

14 (2) Subsection (d) of such section is amended to read 
1^ as follows: 

16 "(d) The provisions of subsections (c) and (d) of sec- 

1'^ tion 13 shall apply to hearings conducted under this section." 

18 Sec. 7. Clause (B) in the sixth sentence of subsection 

19 (a) of section 14 of such Act is amended by striking the 

20 numeral "8" and substituting in lieu thereof the numeral "9". 

21 Sec. 8. Section 15 of such Act is amended to read as 

22 follows : 

23 "penalties 

24 "Sec. 15. Any organization which violates any pro- 

25 vision of section 10 of this title shall, upon conviction thereof, 



292 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 

14 

1 be punished for each such violation by a fine of not more 

2 than $10,000. Any individual who violates any provision of 

3 section 5 or 10 of this title shall, upon conviction thereof, 

4 be punished for each such violation by a fine of not more 

5 than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than five 

6 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment." 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 293 

SECTIOX-BY-SECTIOX ANALYSIS OF H.R. 10390— 90TH CONGRESS 
AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

(Analysis also applies to identical bills H.R. 10391 & H.R. 10681) 

Section 1. 

Section 1 of the bill amends paragraph (4) of section 3 of the Internal Security 
Act of 1950, defining the term "Communist-front organization." 

The Internal Security Act presently defines a Communist-front organization as 
any organization which — 

"(A) is substantially directed, dominated, or controlled by a Communist- 
action organization, and (B) is primarily operated for the purpose of giving aid 
and supiwrt to .;; Communist-action organization, a Communist foreign govern- 
ment, or the world Communist movement * * *." 

The bill adds an alternate criterion to the definition following clause (A) and 
redesignates conjunctive clause (B) as clause (C). The new criterion, designated 
clause (B), reads as follows: 

"or (B) is substantially directed, dominated, or controlled by one or more 
members of a Communist^action organization". 

The result is to define a Communist-front organization as (A) plus (C) or 
(B) plus (C). 

The purpose of the amendment is to remedy a problem relating to the nature 
of the evidence required to prove Communist Party ^ control of a front organiza- 
tion. This problem was raised by a 1963 decision of the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which held that to satisfy the 
criterion of Communist-front contained in clause (A), it was not enough to show 
that the directors of an organization are members of the Communist Party. That 
court, in the case of the Xational Council of American-Soviet Friendship, Inc. v. 
Sidvcrsirc Activities Coiitrol Boa^-fl. 322 F. 2d 375, reversed an order of the 
Board requiring the Council to register as a Communist-front organization. It 
did so on the groiuul that the Government had failed to demonstrate that the 
Communist Party members active in the management of the council were also 
active in the management of the Communist Party, or were acting as the party's 
agents or representatives in directing the affairs of the NCASF. The amendment 
clarifies the intent of the Congress with respect to a factual basis which, together 
with proof of the element CC) . renders permissible a finding that an organization 
is a Communist front. 

The use of front organizations as "transmission belts" is basic to Communist 
tactical doctrine. New front organizations are continually being created. Some 
fronts are national in scope, others operate only in a certain area. State, com- 
munity or neighborhood. Fronts in either category may be intended to be more 
or less i)ermanent in nature, or temporary. Generally, they are kept alive as long 
as the issue on which they are to propagandize and agitate remains of importance 
to the party. Some fronts have functioned for decades, others for a few years, 
a few months or even for .iust a few days. 

Major fronts intended to be nationwide in scope are usually established by di- 
rection of the party's top leadership or governing bodies. Others, however, are 
established by direction of local Communist officials or bodies on the district 
(■generally corresponding to the State), section, community, or neighborhood level. 

Whatever the nature of a particular front, however, the party authority order- 
ing its creation seldom, if ever, issues written directives, or even gives oral 
directives, stating explicitly that certain individual party members are to join 
the front, that they are to work with other Communists within it, and that they 
are to see that party members are elected to office and that all actions, publica- 
tions, etc.. of the organization shall conform to the line of the Communist Party 
and/or of the world Communist movement. In summary, fronts are established, 
supported, and operated by Communist Party members so as to aid, support, and 
advance party objectives not only by specific orders of the top party leadership, 
but also by the initiative of local Communist officials pursuing general party 
directives and as a result of the general discipline, training, and teachings of the 
party. 



iln Communist Party v. f^ACB, .367 U.S. 1 a961). the Suoreme Court upheld the deter- 
mination of the Board that the Communist Party. U.S.A., is a "Communist-action orga- 
nization" as defined in section 3C.3) (a) of the act. 



294 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

The purpose of the amendment is to recognize these realities. In light of the 
above facts, the conspiratorial nature of the Communist Party and the secrecy 
with which it conducts its affairs, it is unrealistic and imposes an undue burden 
on the Government to require that in all cases it prove an express or explicit 
agency relationship between the Communist Party and its members controlling a 
particular front organization. 

When it has been demonstrated that a group of identified Communist Party 
members control an organization and that the organization, at the same time, 
adheres to the line of the Communist Party, it would seem to be an obvious, per- 
missible, and rational factual conclusion that those party members are doing 
the worlf of the party and are conducting a front in its behalf and in aid of its 
general objectives. 

Section 2. 

Section 2 of the bill amends section 8 of the Internal Security Act relating to the 
registration of members of Communist-action organizations. 

Section 8 of the act presently imposes a duty upon any individual who is or 
becomes a member of a Communist-action organization to register with the At- 
torney General as a member of such organization when (a) a Communist-action 
organization required by a final order of the Subversive Acti\ ities Control Board 
(SACB) to register has not done so, or (b) when such organization has registered 
but has failed to include his or her name on its list of members filed with the 
Attorney General. 

The amendment eliminates any requirement for self-registration by members of 
Communist-action organizations. 

When a Communist-action organization has not filed a statement identifying 
its members, or has failed to include an individual member's name in filing a 
statement pursuant to section 7 of the act, the bill directs the Attorney General 
to petition the SACB for a determination of membership as to each individual 
he has reason to believe is a member of the organization at the time he files his 
petition. (If the Board finds that a i>articular person is a member of a Communist- 
action organization, the Attorney General, under other provisions of the bill 
[see section 3] will then register that individual as such.) 

The amendment also authorizes any individual determined to be a member of 
a Communist-action organization who is no longer a member of such organization, 
to file a petition for a determination of such fact. 

The purpose of the amendment is to establish a system of registration of mem- 
bers of Communist-action organizations which conforms with the requirements 
of the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Albertson and Proctor v. 
Subversive Activities Control Board, 382 I\S. 70 (1965). In this decision the 
Court held that when the privilege against self-incrimination (fifth amendment) 
is invoked in a proceeding to compel members of a Communist-action organiza- 
tion to register themselves, an order of the Board requiring such registration is 
invalid. 

The amendment proposed by section 2 is one of several amendments in the bill 
which repeal provisions requiring members of Communist-action organizations 
to register themselves. It substitutes for self-registration a procedure by wliich 
determination of membership is made by the Board (on petition of the Attorney 
General), following which the Attorney General registers the name of the person 
determined to be a member. 

Section S 

Section 3 of the bill amends subsections (a) and (d) of section 9 of the In- 
ternal Security Act relating to the Attorney General's maintenance of public 
registers of Communist-action and front organizations in the Department of 
Justice. 

Section 9(a) of the act presently requires the Attorney General to maintain 
in the Department of Justice a register of Communist-action and Communist- 
front organizations. The register of Commimist-action organizations includes 
only the names and addresses of organizations which register themselves, to- 
gether with such registration statements and annual reports as they actually 
file, and such registration statements as are filed by their individual members. 
The register of Communist-front organizations also includes only the names and 
addresses of organizations whicli register themselves, together with such regis- 
tration statements and annual reports as they file. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 295 

It does uot require that the Attorney General maintain a public register of 
Communist-infiltrated organizations. 

Paragraph (d) of section J) requires publication in the Federal Register of the 
fact of registration of Communist-action and front organizations. 

Section 3 of the bill amends section of tlie act : 

(1) to include the registration of Communist-action and front organizations 
which are by final order of the Board required to register : 

(2) to require, in addition, the maintenance of a register of Communist- 
infiltrated organizations aTul notice of the registration of each such group in 
the Federal Register; and 

(3) to delete the maintenance of registration statements filed by members of 
Communist-action organizations under existing section 8 of the act, and requir- 
ing instead that the Attorney General maintain a register of individuals who are 
by final order of the Board determined to be members or oflficers of Communist- 
action organizations. 

The purposes of the amendment are : 

(1) to provide a more complete system of public disclosure of organizations 
determined to be Communist by final order of the Subversive Activities Control 
Board : 

(2) at the same time, to bring the Internal Security Act into conformity with 
the Albert son-Proctoi- decision of the Supreme Court regarding the registration 
of members of Communist-action organizations. 

Section .) 

Section 4 of the bill amends section 10 of the Internal Security Act of 1950 
relating to the dissemination of publications and radio or television broadcast- 
ing by "Communist organizations." (Section 3 of the Internal Security Act de- 
fines the term "Communist organization" as including Communist-action, Com- 
munist-front, and Communist-infiltrated organizations.) 

Section 10 of the act presently requires that a publication intended to be dis- 
.seminated among two or more persons and transmitted through the mails or by 
any instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce by a Communist-action or 
front organization which is registered or ordered to be registered, or by an orga- 
nization found to be Communist-infiltrated by final order of the Board, shall 

be identified as follows: "Disseminated by , a Communist 

organization." 

it also pro\ides that any radio or television broadcast by any such organiza- 
tion shall be preceded by the following statement: "The following program is 
sponsored by , a Communist organization." 

The amendment adds to section 10 a new provision which requires any Com- 
munist organization using the mails or any instrumentality of interstate or 
foreign commerce to solicit any money, property, or thing, to precede such solici- 
tation by the following statement : "This solicitation is made for or on behalf 
of , which has been determined by final order of the Sub- 
versive Activities Control Board to be a Communist organization." 

The amendment also modifies the identifying statements of the act above- 
quoted relating to publications and broadcasts, respectively, as disseminated or 

sponsoretl by " ; . which has been determined by final order 

of the Subversive Activities Control Board to be a Communist organization." 

The purpose of the new provision relating to solicitations is to comi)el Com- 
munist organizations to identify themselves as such when they appeal to the pub- 
lic for financial or other assistance. In the past, the Communist Party has col- 
lected millions of dollars from persons who would not knowingly contribute to a 
Communist organization. It has done this principally by soliciting funds and 
other assistance through organizations (fronts) not generally known to be under 
its control. 

The alteration in the wording of the identifying .statements is for the purpose 
of clearly setting forth the authority for the identification of an organization as 
Communist. 

Section 5 

Section 5 of the bill amends subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i). 
and ( j) of .section 13 of the Internal Security Act of 1950, relating to registration 
proceedings before the Subver.sive Activities Control Board. 



296 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

Subsection (a) of section 13 of the act authorizes the Attorney General to 
petition the SACB for orders requiring unregistered Communist-action and front 
organizations to register and requiring unregistered members of Comniunist- 
nction organizations to register pursuant to section 8 of tlie act. 

The bill amends subsection (a) in the following respects : 

(1) It provides that tlie Attorney General, in the case of individual Com- 
munists, will not seek an SACB order that they register themselves, but only 
a determination of their membership by the SACB. Then, pursuant to other 
provisions of the bill, the Attorney General would register the individual as a 
member of the Communist Party instead of the individual himself being required 
to do so. The subsection would thus conform with the previously mentioned 
Albert son-Proctor decision of the Supreme Court. 

(2) It adds a new provision to the Internal Security Act to expedite pro- 
ceedings relating to the determination of the membership of individuals in 
Communist-action organizations. It does this by authorizing the Attorney Gen- 
eral to include two or more individuals in any petition for determination of 
membership. ( See page 7 of the bill, lines 4-9) . 

(3) The amendment remedies a deficiency created by a decision of the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Di.strict of Columbia in Labor Youth Leaf/iir v. 
Subversive Activities Control Board, 322 F. 2d 364 (1963). In that case the 
court concluded that the dissolution of an organization subsequent to the 
commencement of an action by the Attorney General to compel its registration, 
would moot his action as long as the organization was not revived. The court 
remanded the case to the SACB on an "inactive status." saying that the proceed- 
ing could be reactivated if the Labor Youth League ever resumed operations. 

The amendment provides that the dissolution of an organization subsequent 
to the initiation of proceedings against it shall not moot or abate the proceed- 
ing. The Board is required to receive evidence and proceed to a determination 
of the issues. If tlie Board finds a dissolution to have in fact occurred, it shall 
make a finding determining only whether such organization was Communist- 
action or Communist-front, as the case may be. at the time the petition was 
filed. If an aflBrmative determination is made, the Attorney General is then 
obliged to register the organization together with a notation of its dissolution. 
No such organization found to be dissolved, however, shall be required to 
file any registration statement or annual report, nor shall any member or officer 
of such organization be registered. (See page 7 of the bill, at line 9 through 
line 3, at page 8.) 

This amendment forestalls the effect given by the Labor Youth League case 
to dissolutions in contempt of the statute and Board. Experience i-eveals a 
pattern or practice employed by the Commxinist Party of directing dis.solutions 
of Communist organizations following the public disclosure of their alleged 
character resulting from the Attf»rney General's filing of an initiating i>etition. 
Such dissolutions are for the purix)se of fru.strating the administration of the 
act. The amendment accomplishes its purposes by requiring the Board to proceed 
to a determination of the nature of the organization and the establishment of 
a public record thereof, where a dissolution is alleged to occur following the 
commencenient of the proceeding. 

The court's remanding the Labor Youth League case to the SACB on "inactive 
status" has little or no practical value. Experience indicates that when the 
Communist Party orders the dissolution of a front because the Attorney General 
has initiated proceedings against it. that front is never subsequently reactivated 
as such. If the issue on which it was agitating and propagandizing is deemed 
to be of sufficient continuing importance to the Communist Party, the party 
will set up a new front with a different name and different leadership to ser\'e 
its purpose. 

This amendment removes the basis for the court's mooting the Labor Youth 
League case on the grounds that an order for a dissolved organization to register 
would be a "vague gesture" because there would be no one to register it or to 
authorize its registration. It does this by eliminating the requirement that an 
organization register itself and providing instead that the Attorney General 
register it. 

The court also arguetl in mooting the Labor Youth League case that the 
entry of the name of an organization in a book "serves no purpose discernible in 
this statute, unless the name identifies an existing entity." 

The basic concept of the Internal Security Act, however, is that, in a demo- 
cratic society with an informed citizenry, public revelation of concealed Com- 
munist operations of the tyix^s encompassed by the act is a necessary (and 
effective) means of coping with the threat they pose to the national security. 
The main thrust of the act is to provide the citizenry with a public, documented 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 297 

record of such ronininnis) operations not only through tho roj^istor of Com- 
munist orsaiiizations and individuals, hut also through tho hearings and reports 
of the SACB. For this nelson. SACH hearinjjs on a very recently dissolved 
(^ommunist orfranization, (•ond)ined with a puhlic reix)rt of the Board which 
summarizes the key facts hrouijht out. in these hearini^s and the inclusion of 
the name of the organization in a puhlic register, definitely serve the puriwse 
of the statute. They do .so by providing information not. only on a significant 
phase of vei\v recent (Vnnniunist activit.v and the individual Communists selected 
to carry it out. hut also the Communist Party's objectives, its present-day tactics, 
its approach to a current issue or issues, and clues to its operations in the near 
future. 

The court further argued, in mooting the Labor Youth Ijoague proceeding, 
that many of the individuals who were perhaps innocently entrapped in the 
organization would be "enveloi)ed in a cloud" and faced with social sanctions 
by an order of registration. The court expressed its concern wnth the "potential 
impact upon numbers of people without recourse." 

Mooting a proceeding, however, would not resolve the problem raised by 
the court. The public petition of the Attorney General asking the Subversive 
Activities Control Board to hold hearings wth regard to a particular organi- 
zation for the pnri>oso of determining it to be Communist, buttressed by alle- 
gations of fact siipporting his claim that it is in fact Communist, in itself 
envelops the organization, and comsequently its membership, in a "cloud." A 
mooting of the proceedings makes this cloud permanent and eliminates any pos- 
sibility of a finding by the SACB that, contrary to the claim of the Attorney 
(Teneral, the organization is not Communist. 

Moreover, providing for the completion of the proceeding, as the amendment 
does, is a means of furnishing information for the innocently entrapped, as well 
as for members of the general public, which will help nullify Communist opera- 
tions and prevent future entrapment — which is a principal purpose of the act. 

It should be stressed in this regard that the act imposes no i^enalties on mem- 
bers vf dissolved organizations. 

Subsection (b) 

Subsection (b) of section 13 of the act authorizes an organization or indi- 
vidual registered under sections 7 and S of the act to apply to the Attorney 
General for cancellation of such registration not oftener than once in each cal- 
endar year. It also authorizes any individual who has been registered by such 
organization to petition the Attorney General for an order to strike his name 
from the registration statement or annual report upon w^hicli it apjDears. 

Subsection (b) is amended by the bill in the following respects only: (1) 
with regard to i-egistration of individuals, the language of the subsection is 
modified to conform to prior amendments made in deference to the Albertson 
and Proctor case, and (2) with regard to organizations or individuals registere<l 
pursuant to the provisions of the act. applications for cancellation for such reg- 
istr-ation are i>ermitted without limitation as to time. (See section .'"►(b) of the 
bill at page 8.) 

Subsection (c) 

Subsection (c) of .section 13 of the act is amended by the addition of an en- 
tirely new provision. With resi^ect to proceedings before the Board and in rela- 
tion to subpenas issued on request of the Attorne.v General, the amendment 
authorizes compelled testimony and the production of evidence despite claims of 
self-incrimination. It provides for this, however, only after grant of immunit.v 
upon representation of the Attorney General that such testimony or evidence is 
necessary to accomplish the puriwses of the title. ( See page 9 of the bill, lines 
6-24.) 

Tlie puriiose of this amendment is to provide an effective means for obtaining 
evidence and testimony essential to accomplish the purposes of the act. In pro- 
ceedings involving the Communist movement, as with efforts to cope with rack- 
eteering, the "code of silence" is a basic obstacle to effective governmental action. 
There are currently some 55 statutes authorizing grant of immunity to witnesses 
before various Federal bodies, principally the regulatory agencies. This amend- 
ment would extend such authority to an area involving the national security in 
which such procedures are criticall.v needed. 



298 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

Subsection ( d ) 

Subsection fd) of section 13 is amended in two respects: (1) the provisions 
of paragraph (2) of said subsection are amended, and (2) two new paragraphs 
are added to the subsection. (See pages 10-11 of the bill.) 

Paragraph (2) of sub.section (d) presently authorizes the entry of a default 
judgment in cases where an organization or individual declines or fails to appear 
at a hearing accorded to such. It also permits the exclusion of a party or counsel 
from further participation in the hearing if either is guilty of misbehavior 
obstructing the hearing. 

The bill amends paragraph (2) by requiring the Board to receive evidence 
and to make a determination of the issues even though an organization or indi- 
vidual fails to appear in proceedings initiated by the Attorney General pursuant 
to subsection (a) of section 13. The purpose of this amendment is to strengthen 
the due process provisions of the act. 

The provision relating to misbehavior is deleted from paragraph (2) by the 
amendment, but new provisions relating to misbehavior are incorporated in an 
additional paragraph (3). 

This new paragraph (3) makes misbehavior in a liearing before the Board 
punishable as a contempt and establishes a procedure for prosecuting such con- 
tempt. Since the Board is a quasi-judicial body, it seems apparent and reasonable 
that it should have powders to initiate contempt proceedings in order to preserve 
its dignity and to exercise its functions unimpeded by tactics of obstruction fre- 
quently and increasingly applied by Communists in governmental proceedings. 

The new paragraph (4) is designed to protect the due administration of the 
act and prevent frivolous delays in its enforcement by depriving Communist 
organizations of the ability to initiate dilatory collateral proceedings. It pro- 
vides that no court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to question the 
authority, function, practice, or process of the Attorney General or Board in 
conducting any proceeding pursuant to the title, and requires that all questions 
on those subjects be raised before the Board or, after completion of Board pro- 
ceedings, before the courts in the review proceedings authorized by section 14. 
With regard to offenses charged again.s>t an individual pursuant to the provisions 
of the title, or for any contempt arising out of proceedings under the title, all 
(luestions must be raised in the court having jurisdiction of the enforcement 
proceeding. 

The provisions of paragraph (4) in no way deprive an intereste<l party of any 
right to judicial review of any matter he may .seek to contest. Tlie amendment 
only requires that questions be raised before the tribiuial having initial juris- 
diction of the matter with respect to which the questions are raised, or on appeal 
from that tribunal, or in the court having juri.sdiction of an enforcement pro- 
ceeding. The amendment is designed to remedy a serious problem in the admin- 
istration of the title, by prohibiting a practice frequently resulting in inordinate 
delays and the frustration of the puri>oses and orderly procedures of the title. 

Subsections (f), (g), (h), (i),and (j) 

The amendments proposed by the bill to subsections (f), (g), (h). (i), and 
(j) are conforming amendments. 

Paragraph (1) of subsection (f) is amended to include the phrase "or mem- 
bers of" to conform to the amendment to the definition of Communist-front orga- 
nization made by section 1 of the bill. (Page 11 of the bill, lines 21-22.) 

Paragraph (2) of subsection (g) and paragraph (2) of subsection (h). relating 
to proceedings before the Board under subsection 13(a), authorizes the Board to 
state its findings as to individual membership in a Communist-action organization, 
in conformity with the limitation set forth in Albertsoii and Proctor. (Page 12 
of the bill, lines 1-19,) 

The amendments to paragraph (2) of subsection (i) and paragraph (2) of sub- 
section (j) are likewise conforming amendments to reflect changes made by other 
sections of the bill in section 8 of the act. (Page 12, line 19 through page 13, 
line 3.) 

Section 6 

Section 6 of the bill amends subsections (b) and (d) of section 13A of the 
Internal Security Act of 1950 relating to proceedings before the Subversive Activi- 
ties Control Board with respect to Communist-infiltrated organizations. (Page 13 
of the bill, lines 4-17.) 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 299 

Subsection (^) is amended by deleting the G-month limitation and permitting 
Commnnist-iufiltrated organizations to tile a petition for a new determination of 
their status at any time. Further, in conformity with other provisions of the bill, 
which require the inclusion of Communist-intiltrated organizations in the Attor- 
ney General's register, the amendment authorizes the striking of the name of an 
organization from the register when a determination is made that it is no longer 
Communist-intiltrated. 

The amendment to subsection (d) conforms proceedings of the SACB relating 
to Communist-intiltrated organizations to those relating to Communist-action and 
front organizations with respect to the provisions of subsections (c) and (d) of 
section 13, which set forth procedures on the conduct of hearings before the Board. 

Section 7 

(Page 13 of the bill, lines 18-20) 

Section 7 of the bill amends subsection (a) of section 14 of the Internal Security 
Act of 1950 to conform with other amendments of the bill deleting the require- 
ments of individual registration. 

Section S 

i See page 13 of the bill, at line 24 through page 14. ) 

Section 8 of the bill amends section 15 of the Internal Security Act of 1950 re- 
lating to penalties for violations of Title I of the act. 
The amendment retains penalties for the following offenses only : 

(1) violations of section 10 of the act, relating to use of the mails and instru- 
mentalities of interstate or foreign commerce, and 

(2) violations of section 5 of the act. relating to employment of members of 
Communist organizations by the United States, defense facilities, and labor 
organizations. 

The amendment deletes all penalties relating to the failure of organizations and 
individuals to register. These changes are made to conform to other amendments 
proposed Jby the bill and also to make the act conform to the holding of the 
Supreme Court in the Alhcrtson and Proctor case, supra, and of the Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case of the Communist Party of the 
United States v. United States of America, decided March 3, 1967, which held that 
the provisions of section 15 of the act imposing criminal penalties for failure of a 
Communist organization to register were unenforceable on tifth amendment 
grounds. 

Penalties relating to omissions or false statements in registration statements 
or annual reports tiled by organizations or individuals under section 7, are de- 
leted because it is considered that the provisions of Title 18, U.S. Code, section 
1001, are adequate to cover such falsification or omission. 

The penalties relating to violation of section G of the act, the passport provisions, 
are deleted in the light of the holding in Apthcker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 
500 (1964) , which held section 6 of the act unconstitutional as sweeping ''unneces- 
sarily broadly" and invading the area of protected freedoms. 



Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board 
367 T'.S. 1. decided June 5, 1961 

The opinion for the Court, Justices Frankfurter, Clark, Harlan. Whittaker, 
-nid Stewart concurring, was delivered by 'Sir. Ju.stice Frankfurter. Justices 
Warren, Black, Douglas, and Brennan dissented, writing separate opinions. 

In November 19.50, following passage of the Internal Security Act, the Attorney 
(General petitioned the SACB for an order to require the Communi.st Party to 
register as a "Communist-action organization." The party brought suit in the 
district court to enjoin the proceedings. This relief was denied by a three-judge 
court which, however, stayed the proceedings before the Board pending appeal 
to the Supreme Court. The party petitioned the Supreme Court for an extension 
of the stay pending appeal, which was denied. The party then abandoned its 
suit for injunction. 



300 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

Hearings began before the Board in April 1951 and ended July 1952. On April 
20, 1953, the Board issued its report concluding that the Communist Party was 
a Communist-action organization within the meaning of the act — that is, that 
the Communist Party was an organization substantially directed, dominated, 
and controlled by the Soviet Union — and issued an order requiring the party 
to register itself as such. 

The party asked for review of the registration order. A number of motions were 
interposed by the party which were acted upon in the court of appeals and in 
the Supreme Court. The case was twice remanded to the Board, which filed two 
successive modified reports on remand. The Board again concluded that the 
Communist Party of the United States was a Communist-action organization and 
that it be required to register as such. The court of appeals aflBrmed, and finally, 
on June 5, 1961, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the order of 
the Board. 

In its decision the Supreme Court overruled a number of constitutional ob- 
jections raised by the party in support of its contention that the registration pro- 
visions of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 (Title I, Internal Security 
Act of 1950) were unconstitutional. The party claimed that the act was violative 
of article I, section 9, clause 3 of the Constitution which provides that "No Bill 
of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" ; and of the first (free speech 
and association) and fifth (self-incrimination, due process) amendments to the 
Constitution. 

In overruling the Bill of Attainder claim, the Court agreed that the singling 
out of an individual for legislatively prescribed punishment, whether the individ- 
ual is called by name or described in terms of conduct which, because it is past 
conduct, operates only as a designation of particular persons, would constitute 
an attainder. However, said the Court, the act under consideration does not 
attach to specified organizations but to described activities in which an organiza- 
tion may or may not engage. The incidents which the act reaches are present 
incidents. The application of the registration section is made to turn upon "con- 
tinuingly contemporaneous fact." The act applies to a class of activity only and 
not to the Communist Party as such. "Legislatures may act to curb behavior 
which they regard as harmful to the public welfare, whether that conduct is 
found to be engaged in by many persons or by one." So long as the persons who 
engage in the regulated conduct can escape regulation merely by altering the 
course of their own pre.sent activities there can be no complaint of an attainder. 

As to first amendment freedoms of expression and association, the majority 
held that there was no improper impingement upon any of these freedoms. The 
Court said that the present statute does not "attach the registration requirement 
to the incident of speech, but to the incidents of foreign domination and of opera- 
tion to advance the objectives of the world Communist movement — operation 
which, the Board has found here, includes extensive, long-continuing organiza- 
tional, as well as 'speech' activity." While the Court agreed that compulsory dis- 
closure of the names of an organization's members may in certain instances in- 
fringe constitutionally protected rights of association, it said that where such 
disclosure has a substantial bearing upon a Federal interest — as here, the security 
of the Nation against foreign danger — congressional power may be appropriately 
exercised. 

Mr. Justice Frankfurter pointed out that in a number of situations in which 
secrecy or the concealment of associations has been regarded as a threat to public 
safety and to the effective, free functioning of our national institutions. Congress 
has met the threat by requiring registration or disclosure. He cited as examples 
the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, upheld in Burroughs v. United States, 290 U.S. 
534 ; The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, upheld in UKited States v. Harriss. 
347 U.S. 612. Likewise a State statute, directed against the Ku Klux Klan, re- 
quiring disclosure of membership lists, was held not to offend the 14th amend- 
ment due process clause in New York v. Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63. 

The Court concluded : "Where the mask of anonymity which an organization'.s 
members wear serves the double purpose of protecting them from popular 
prejudice and of enabling them to cover over a foreign-directed conspiracy, in- 
filtrate into other groups, and enlist the support of persons who would not, if 
the truth were revealed, lend their support, * * * it would be a distortion of 
the First Amendment to hold that it prohibits Congress from removing the mask." 

It is significant that only one of the dissenting Justices, Black, took the position 
that the Act was violative of the First Amendment. One of the dissenters. Justice 
Douglas (with whom Justice Brennan concurred) said on this issue: 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 301 

"If lobbyists oau he required to register, if political parties can be re- 
quired to make disclosure of the sources of their funds, if the owners of 
ne\vspai)ers and periodicals must disclose their aflBliates, so may a group 
operating under the control of a foreign power. 

"The Bill of Rights was designed to give fullest play to the exchange and 
dissemination of ideas that touch the politics, culture, and other aspects of 
our life. When an organization is used by a foreign power to make advances 
here, ijuestions of security are raised beyond the ken of disputation and 
debate between the people resident here. Espionage, business activities, 
formation of cells for subversion, as well as the exercise of First Amend- 
ment rights, are then used to pry open our society and make intrusion of a 
foreign power easy. These machinations of a foreign power add additional 
elements to free speech just as marching up and down adds something to 
picketing that goes beyond free speech. 

"These are the reasons why, in my view, the bare requirement that the 
Communist Party register and disclose the names of its officers and directors 
is in line with the most exacting adjudications touching First Amendment 
activities." 
Of significance (particularly in the light of Alh'jitson and Proctor v. SACB, 
382 U.S. 70, decided November l.j, 1965) was the Court's disposition of the party's 
fifth amendment claim, asserted on behalf of unnamed officers, that an order 
requiring the party to register would incriminate its officers. lioth those obliged 
to register the party and those obliged to register for the party if it failed to do 
so. The Court held that such claims were premature, and not "ripe for adjudica- 
tion" in this proceeding. As to registration by the party (through its officers), the 
Court said it is not known whether its officers would ever claim the privilege 
against .self-incrimination which, the Court pointed out. normally must be 
claimed by the individual who .seeks to avail himself of its protection. When 
the order becomes final, the party's officers may file registration statement's, or 
they may claim the privilege in lieu of furnishing the required information. If 
a claim is made, it may or may not be honored by the Attorney General, but the 
Court cannot on the basis of supposition proceed to adjudicate fifth amend- 
ment claims. 

As to duties imposed upon officers obliged to register for the party if the 
party fails to register, these duties will not arise until and unless the party fails 
to do so. Present adjudication of .such claims is therefore "wholly contingent 
and conjectural." The Court said, "There is nothing in the case which justifies 
advisory adjudication of self-incrimination questions prior to the time when a 
demand for information has been, at the least, made and resisted." 

The four dissenting Justices, in separate opinions, each took a contrary view, 
holding that the registration provisions of the act were violative of the fifth 
amendment privilege against self-incrimination. 

Only one Justice, Black, expressed the view that the act was violative of the 
Bill of Attainder provision of the Constitution. 

AlhertsoH and Proctor v. Subversive Activities Control Board 
382 U.S. 70, decided November 15, 1965 

The opinion for a unanimous court was delivered by Mr. Justice Brennan. 
Mr. Justice White took no part in the decision in this case. 

The Communist Party refused to register with the Attorney General as re- 
quired by final order of the SACB {Communist Party case, 367 U.S. 1). Con- 
.se(iuently no list of party members was filed by it as required by section 7 of 
the Internal Security Act. In default of the party listing its members, section 
8 of the act imposes a duty on each member of the Communist Party to register 
himself. If the member fails to do so, the act authorizes the Attorney General 
to i>etition the Board for an order recpiiring him to register. 

Following the failure of the members to register, the Attorney General ijeti- 
tioned the SACB for orders requiring various high-level Communist Party 
leaders, including two named Albertson and Proctor, to register as members of 
the Communist Party. In answer to the petition. Albertson and Proctor, as well as 
the others, asserted the self-incrimation privilege under the fifth amendment. The 
Attorney General rejected their claim. Hearings followed, but neither Albertson 
nor Proctor nor the other party leaders testified at them. The SACB entered 

84-351 O— 67 3 



302 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 

orders requiring each of theui to register. Albertsou and Proctor api^ealed and 
again asserted the privilege in the court of appeals. The court of appeals 
affirmed the orders of the Board. On review in the Supreme Court, they made 
several constitutional challenges to the validity of the SACB orders, but the 
Supreme Court expressly confined itself to their contention that the orders 
violated their fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. On November 
15, 1965, .the Supreme Court held the orders invalid on that ground. 

The Supreme Court noted that the court of appeals had affirmed the SACB 
orders that Albertson and Proctor register without deciding the self-incrimina- 
tion issue, expressing the view that under the Supreme Court's decision in the 
Communist Party case, the issue would be rijie for adjudication only in a prosecu- 
tion of a member for failure to register pursuant to an SACB order. The Supreme 
Court disagreed. It said : 

"In Communist Party the Party asserted the privilege on behalf of unnamed 
officers — those obliged to register the Party and those obliged 'to register for' 
the Party if it failed to do so. The self-incrimination claim asserted on behalf 
of the latter officers was held premature because the Party might choose to 
register and thus the duty of those officers might never arise. Here, in con- 
trast, the contingencies upon which the members' duty to register arises 
have already matured * * *. As to the officers obliged to register the Party, 
Communist Party held that the self-incrimination claim asserted on their 
behalf was not ripe for adjudication because it was not known whether they 
would ever claim the privilege or whether the claim, if asserted, would be 
honored by the Attorney General. But with respect to the orders in this case, 
addressed to named individuals, both these contingencies are foreclosed. 
Petitioners asserted the privilege in their answers to the Attorney General's 
petitions * * * . Thus, the considerations which led the Court in Communist 
Party to hold that the claims on behalf of unnamed officers were premature 
are not present in this case." 
The Court indicated that it was further persuaded that the self-incrimination 
claims were ripe for decision in this proceeding because, uixtn entry of the order 
to register, each day of failure to do so con.stitutes a separate offense punishable 
by a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment up to 5 years, or both. Tlie Court said 
that Albertson and Proctor should not be required to await prosecution to have 
an adjudication of their self-incrimination claims, or be denied the protection 
of the fifth amendment privilege, by imposing upon them the duty of making a 
choice between incriminating themselves and risking serious punishment for 
refusing to do so. 

Communist Party v. United States 

U.S. Court of Appeals. D.C. Circuit, decided March 3, 1967 

The opinion was rendered by Judge McGowan for a panel of the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia. Prettyman (in a separate opinion) and 
Danaher concurred. 

The 1953 order of the Subversive Activities Control Board requiring the Com- 
munist Party to register as a Communi.st-action organization became final in 
1961 after the decision of the Supreme Court in Co^mmnnist Party v. SACB. 
361 U.S. 1. It then became the duty of the Communist Party to register itself 
as such and to file a registration statement, which would include, inter alia, a 
list of its members. The Attorney General, given the power to prescribe by 
regulation the form to be used for such purposes, prescribed forms to be signed 
by an officer of the organization, or by a "member, employee, attorney, agent, or 
other person." 

Faced with these requirements, the Communist Party caused a letter to be 
forwarded to the Department of Justice on a letterhead showing the party's 
name, address, and telephone number. The letter was signed in the name of the 
Communist Party, "by its authorized officers," but did not name them. It advised 
the Department that its officers declined by reason of the fifth amendment 
privilege to supply or to authorize the supply of any additional information 
called for by the registration requirements. The letter also advised that the 
Communist Party, on behalf of its members, asserted the privilege of each of 
them against self-incrimination by the listing of his name or the furnishing of 
the other information called for. The government rejected this claim of privilege. 

On December 1, 1961, the Communist Party was indicted under section 15 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 303 

of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1050 (Title I. Internal Security Act 
of 1950) for failing to register as a Communist-action organization. The party 
was convicted. 

This conviction was reversed by the court of api^eals on December 17, 1963. 
on the ground that the self-incrimination privilege was available to, and ade- 
quately asserted by. the oflBcers of the party, and that to the extent registration 
could be effected by an "agent'" or "other person," conviction must at the least 
rest upon proof of the availability'of such a i>erson. 

The case was remanded to the district court "with instructions to grant a 
new trial if the (Jovernment shall request it; or. absent such a request, to enter 
a judgment of acquittal." (331 F. 2d 807, cert, denied, 377 U.S. 968). The Gov- 
ernment requested a new trial. Meanwhile, in light of the fact that each day of 
failure to register constituted a separate ofifen.se. a second indictment was re- 
turned against the party on February 25, 1965. The party was then tried and 
convicted on both indictments. 

At this trial the Government sought to supply the deficiencies of proof alluded 
to in the opinion on the reversal under the first indictment. This proof consisted 
of tw() witnesses who had joined the party in 19.">3 and who had .served as FBI 
informants throughout their periods of membership. Each testified to a willing- 
ness to sign the registration forms and to supply the requisite information if 
it were made available to them. 

The court of appeals, in reversing the convictions of the party, said that the 
trial record was devoid of any .suggestion of the availability of any oflBcer or 
member of the party, or of any third person, with acces.s to necessary informa- 
tion, who has the requisite authority and capacity to supply the information 
called for, or who i.s prepared to do so. It held that the Government cannot con- 
sistently with the fifth amendment "collectively" punish persons for their con- 
stitutionally protected rights as individuals to refrain from action that would 
incriminate them. 

The court of api>eals took cognizance of a number of decisions dealing with 
business corporations and labor unions which held that the constituent indi- 
viduals by reason of claim of privilege cannot be excused from providing records 
belonging to the entity and kept in the course of its business. The court distin- 
guished the.se ca.ses on the ground that, unlike business corporations and trade 
unions, oflBcers and members of the Communist Party oi)erate in a "climate of 
criminality." Each member is exposed to a .serious and sub.stantial "threat of 
prosecution." As pointed out in the Albcrtson case, "mere association with the 
Communist Party presents sufficient threat of prosecution to support a claim of 
privilege." The only people with authority and capacity to compile authentic 
information for registration purposes would by that very act subject them- 
selves to like threat. Moreover, in areas of first amendment concern, such as 
politics and religion, the court said that it .saw no necessity to limit the reach 
of the fifth amendment "by technical theories of artificial legal personality." 
Under such circumstances, said the court, to differentiate between the criminal 
punishment of the association and the individuals who make it a collective 
personality would be incompatible with the purix)ses underlying the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. I hope \ve liave enou^li copies to give to the members. 

All right. I understand that the members have these documents. 

And now, gentlemen, it is my great pleasure to call as the first wit- 
ness this morning the great Congressman from the great State of 
Missouri, Dr. Hall. 

Doctor, it is such a pleasure to listen to you on these bills, because 
I know your deep feeling concerning the subject matter of this legis- 
lation. 

Come forward, please, and in your own way, file a statement or talk — 
any way you want. 

Mr. Tuck. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I regard Dr. Hall 
as one of the most useful and distinguished Members of the Congress, 
certainly one of the best informed and most diligent, and I regard him 
also as an outstanding American citizen. 



304 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 

I am delighted to be able to welcome him to testify before our 
committee. 

The Chairman. Well, I feel similarly honored, I assure you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DURWARD G. HALL, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MISSOURI 

The Chairman. Proceed, Doctor. 

Mr. Hall. Well, Mr. Chairman, I must greet you this morning with 
some temerity, after your opening statement with great humility, as 
I appear before this distinguished committee of legally trained minds, 
who through the years have demonstrated their interest in people's 
individual rights and certainly those of the people of our Nation. 

Had it not been for you and statements such as the learned opening 
statement the chairman has just made, our Nation would be in even 
more dire throes at this time than it now is. 

Therefore, as one Representative of the Republic, I compliment the 
chairman not only on his opening statement, but the committee as 
a whole on its holding of these hearings. And as a nonlegally trained 
mind, I thank you for my long association with the committee, with 
its staff, those who have gone before and here present, who have been 
of such assistance to my constituency whenever called upon and who 
have served above self the best interests of the Nation. 

And I want to thank you also for the opportunity, gentlemen, of 
appearing before you and making my views known on H.R. 10390, sub- 
mitted by the distinguished chairman, and the companion bill, H.R. 
10391, of which I am one of 50-some-odd sponsors. 

Now you are all aware of the purpose of this legislation, and the 
fact that it is to amend certain provisions of the Internal Security Act 
of 1950. 

In my opinion, the essence of the bill, as the distinguished chairman 
lias outlined so beautifully and in such fine judicious opinion and his 
perceiving thoughts, is to allow us to keep more careful surveillance 
and control upon those that are members of the Communist or Com- 
munist-controlled organizations. 

And I am simply repeating this for emphasis. A principal sug- 
gested amendment contained within this proposed legislation would 
make the Internal Security Act conform with the 1965 Supreme Court 
decision, holding that an individual would not have to register in- 
dividually, underthe act. 

And I am Avell aware that the chairman has just been over this in 
his opening statement, and said it better than can I. 

But this amendment does restore the effectiveness of the 1950 act 
regarding registration by the very act of eliminating self-registration. 
It would now require the Attorney General to keep a register of 
organizations and individuals found to be Communists or Communist 
dominated and controlled by the Subversive Activities Control Board, 
after adversary proceedings, wliich include all the elements of pro- 
cedural due process. 

And I might say parenthetically that I have a bill before the Com- 
mittee on the Judiciary at this time concerning rights of individuals 
and due process, prior to commitment to hospitals of the Department 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 305 

of Justice or other systems, in order to determine their reasonableness 
and fitness to stand trial or whether or not indeed they are of unsound 
mind, with a pre-judicial determination. 

The CiiAiRivrAN. You mean individuals in hospitals such as in vet- 
erans' hospitals, and there because of the necessity to be there because 
of their alleged condition in order to derive gratuities from the 
Government ? 

Mr. Hall. No, Mr. Chairman, I am talking about the man really 
that is committed prior to judicial determination. 

The Chairman. Oh, I see. 

Mr. Hall. By a reconnnendation to a judge, i^i order that he might 
make a pre-judicial determination before commitment to a Federal 
hospital for defective delinquents, such as the U.S. Department of 
Justice hospital in my home town of Springfield, Missouri, to deter- 
mine if indeed lie is unsound of mind or not, in committing of the act, 
or whether he should stand trial for the same. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman, I suppose that bill rose out of the Gen- 
eral Walker case. Is tliat correct. Dr. Hall ? 

Mr. Hall. Well, I am familiar witli that case, but I am also famil- 
iar with the case of the lead from the Department of Agriculture that 
turned up the Billy Sol Estes case, and many others who have been 
committed on virtue of hearsay evidence and recommendation of the 
Medical Director of the Department of Justice, over a telegram, per- 
haps, from the Attorney General, rather than through a pre-judicial 
determination. 

I have never yet mentioned that case to which the distinguished col- 
league from Missouri refers. 

Mr. IcHORD. What was the final disposition of the General Walker 
case? 

Mr. Hall. It was nol pressed and dropped on insistence of attor- 
neys, both from his home, the district where the alleged crime was 
committed, and lawyers from our part of Missouri who joined in the 
defense. 

Mr. IcHORD. As I recall, though, he was incarcerated in the Spring- 
field hospital without the benefit of a hearing. Is that not correct ? 

Mr. Hall. That is correct, and without complying with section 4244 
of the Code. 

Mr. IcHORD. Without commenting on General Walker's beliefs or his 
activities, I know that I was very concerned about the precedural due 
processes that were used in getting him into the hospital. 

Mr. Hall. Well, I will tell my colleague I happened to be in the dis- 
trict at the time and did visit the institution the next morning, and 
there were no due processes ])racticed, and he was committed, by 
admission of the warden, on the basis of a telegram. 

The Chairman. I think I follow you, and yet, by comparison, and 
as a contrast, on the court decisions, a person said to have violated a 
criminal statute, adopted by the CongTess, is surrounded with all kinds 
of protective measures: he must not talk without a lawyer and he has 
to be warned before talking. In other words, right now it is almost 
against the law to confess and tell the tiiith. It is almost impossible 
to confess crime now. 

Mr. Hall. I couldn't agree with the distinguished chairman more. 
I am sorry we got off away from our other bill in discussion of this 



306 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

question of individual rights, but it so imbues the committee and the 
chairman, Avho has so aptly described some of the rulings to our High- 
est Tribmial as mental gymnastics, that I couldn't agree with him 
more, and I support that statement 100 percent; but there is a corol- 
lary wherein, if we do not exercise this control and surveillance and 
oversight and review, if you please, that tliis distinguished committee 
does, over the Department of Justice, we may allow the corollary to 
come into play which fails to make prior judicial determination of 
unsoundness of mind prior to incarceration; and once incarcerated, it 
is sometimes difficult to get out because of the tenuous toils of justice, 
especially if a psychiatric examination is involved. I am sure the dis- 
tinguished chairman of the committee will agree with me about this. 

It happens, of course, but I am particularly interested in this not 
only because this Department of Justice hospital for defective de- 
linquents is located in my hometown, but as the distinguished chairman 
knows, I am a physician and, furthermore, had my internship here 
in St. Elizabeth's Hospital, which at that time served the same pur- 
pose for the Department of Justice in its highest criminal restraint 
ward known as Howard Hall. 

It has since been transferred to Springfield, Missouri. 

Now, Mr. ChaiiTTian, using that simply as an example and as a 
point of my personal interest in the rights of the individual and due 
process, I shall go ahead. I would say tliat I do not want to take this 
distinguished committee's time in reviewing all the various provisions 
of this legislation, for I know that you are much more familiar with 
it than am I, and we have the chairman's opening statement to attest 
to this fact. 

But I would like to address some remarks toward the compelling 
reasons, in my opinion, for enacting this legislation and for consider- 
ing new legislation. 

Originally, and presently, the Internal Security Act was designed 
to combat outright Communist subversion, or subversion carried on 
by their front organizations. 

Now, in my opinion, in the past feAv years we have observed the 
emergence of a new type of subversive organization, and I refer to the 
militant violence-oriented racist grou]). These organizations are con- 
tinually in the news. 

They advocate guerrilla warfare within our cities. They preach 
wholesale burning of our cities. They advocate the overthrow and 
even the death, Mr. Chairman, of constitutionally elected officials. 
They advocate the overthrow of government by law tliroughout the 
Nation. 

The Chairman. That is right, and there, of course, you are reach- 
ing a very sensitive nerve in our society, but let me say tliis : In Octo- 
ber of 1965, or earlier, the House of Representatives approved this 
committee's plans to liave a full-scale investigation of tlie Ku Klux 
Klan organization in this country. 

It was said, "Oh, Ed Willis is not interested in hurting the KKK. 
What he is after is to destroy the civil rights leaders." 

But this committee somehow euchred these critics. Doctor. One of 
the greatest compliments paid to me was when Clarence Mitcliell, the 
representative of NAACP in this great city, sat where you are and 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 307 

paid hifrh conipliments to this committee for bein^ objective in our 
task of ferret iiio; out the activities of the Ku Kkix Klan organizations. 

Now in October of hist year, October of 1966, I directed the staff 
to make a preliminary inquiry into what — if any — subversive ele- 
ments Avipre at play in connection with the riots with which we have 
been plagued, and I appointed Governor Tuck, at my right, and Al- 
bert Watson of South Carolina, at my left here, to oversee the pre- 
liminaiy inquiry. 

I was asked on TV recently, "What do you mean by subversive ele- 
ments at play?" 

I said, "I mean this : In the context of that statement, in the context 
of what I had in mind in taking a look at what, if any, subversive ele- 
ments were involved in connection with riots that have plagued us, 
that the words 'subversive elements' are much, much broader than 
'Communist elements,' because," I said, "for instance, when we investi- 
gated the Ku Klux Klan, I found nothing communistic about it, but I 
surely did, as a southerner, find a lot of subverting of our way of gov- 
ernment about the KKK's secret organizations." 

So last week, when I was interviewed, I said, "Now by subversive 
elements I mean elements at play in the riots that could be communis- 
tic, but could also be the Black Panthers." 

I said, "We are going to name names. I was not cowed into not nam- 
ing names, as a southerner, when I investigated the KKK. I am not 
gomg to be cowed into not calling the Black Panthers, and others, 
what they are, in connection with the hearings Ave are going to have 
with reference to what, and to what extent, subversive elements are in- 
volved in these riots." 

Now I fully realize that other committees have started unvestiga- 
tion. As a matter of fact, I have been very, very observant of the rules 
in order not to have an invasion of jurisdiction by this committee of 
the Senate Judiciary Committee or Senator McClellan's commitee, 
and so on. But Ave have actually been Avorking on this proposition for 
the last 10 months, and GoAernor Tuck and Albert Watson have made 
a tremendous contribution to our country, I think, because recently 
they rendered a report and said that the situation Avas such that we 
ought to have, and Ave shall have, I promise you, some open hearings 
in connection Avith that. And Ave are going to let the chips fall Avhere 
they may. 

Mr. Hall. Well, again, Mr. Chairman, I certainly compliment the 
committee on this action. I am familiar Avith it. I did audit the hear- 
ings on the other organisations in both '65 and '66. I have a deep per- 
sonal interest in this and, like yourself, I am Avilling to let the chips 
fall AA'here they may as AA-e hcAv to the line and name names. 

Certainly, my statement that Ave ought to reach those organizations 
that advocate the overthroAv of constitutionally elected government 
throughout the Nation does not apply to those Avho have commended 
this committee for their past actions. 

And I Avill say, parenthetically, that I Avorked Avith and haA'e respect 
for the NAACP, as long as 25 years ago, AA'hen I Avas in the executiA^e 
branch, and have found them level-headed, Avith both feet on the 
gromid. This Avas during World War II, AA^hen Ave Avere mobilizing the 
Army for our greatest effort, that I first made this contact. 



308 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

The Chairman. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Hall. One thing, Mr. Chairman, no one has ever accused your 
committee of being: one-sided. It does attempt to hear both sides, and 
again you are to be complimented. 

But it is my understanding of the Internal Security Act that it per- 
tains only to Communist groups or Communist-controlled groups; and 
due to no evidence or substantial lack of evidence, these racist orga- 
nizations do not fall within the purview of Communist control, and 
thus within the language of the act. 

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the time has not come to 
broaden the concept or definition of subversion. As you yourself have 
said about another organization, it really does upset or subvert our 
system of government; or to change our concept of the term "Com- 
munist-controlled," so that this term, "Conunimist-controlled," will 
apply to the Registration Act, to these race and violence monomers who 
preach insurrection and interference with the laws of the land, such as 
the Selective Service Act, and, in fact, preach death and riots, sedition, 
and anarchy. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that time has come. 

And finally, Mr. Chairman, the bills before your distinguished com- 
mittee, H.R. 10390 and 10391, will expand the powers — I emphasize 
and repeat, will expand the powers — of the Subversive Activities Con- 
trol Board. And I wish to do that, because that may, in turn, allow 
them an opportunity to meet more frequently and, in turn, will allow 
the taxpayers to receive their money's worth; and I say this with 
neither partisanship nor political feeling, Mr. Chairman, of the serv- 
ices of the newly appointed Mr. Simon H. McHugh, Jr. 

I say it because I think it is my duty to my constituents in Missouri 
and the people in general to say to you that the people are worried 
over this man's qualifications. Not only do the taxpayers want to see 
services rendered for their tax dollars by Mr. McHugh and the Sub- 
versive Activities Control Board, which it will do if we broaden their 
powers, but many of the people don't relish the idea of paying him 
$26,000 a year for any purpose for which he may be appointed, if it 
isn't to work in an expanded capacity. 

Now, adoption of this legislation would insure a more productive 
workload for all members and staff of the SACB and, therefore, would 
provide a great service to the Nation. 

It would perhaps, if properly prosecuted, make bills and/or legis- 
lation to outlaw the Communist Party, U.S.A., unnecessary. And 
before you today, sir, is a gentleman who in four Congresses has 
submitted such a bill. 

I am afraid the lone Member. 

It would, in addition, slow down our present turmoil. It is time to 
speak softly and carry a big stick, if I may borrow an aphorism. In 
my opinion, I believe this distmguished committee believes this, and 
I feel I know the people of our Nation believe this. And again, Mr. 
Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Ichord. 

Mr. IcHORD. Before having to leave, there was one question I wanted 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 309 

to ask our distinguished colleague. I, too, join with the chairman 
and Governor Tu("k in welcoming- Dr. Ilall to this committee. 

I have the honor of serving on the House Conmiittec on Aimed 
Services with Dr. Hall, and it is an honor to serve with liim. He is a 
very valuable member of that committee. 

Dr. Hall, the bill before the connnittee attacks one of the most 
difficult jn-oblems the American people have ever faced, and that is, 
how to constitutionally and legally protect ourselves from internal 
subversion and still preserve the constitutional liberties and freedoms 
which we all cherish so much. 

I haven't been too critical of the recent appointments to SACB. I 
think it is true that the SACB is not earning its money; the members 
are not earning their salary: but I don't believe that is the fault of 
SACB. I think that would have to be attributed to the Supreme Court, 
and perhaps to this Congress. 

Xow — — 

Mr. Hall. If I may interpolate right there, that is exactly why in 
the last part of my statement I say so firmly I believe we should 
broaden their powers, increase their activity, and enlarge their horizon. 

I agree with the gentleman. 

TliB CiiAiRMAX. The Chair might say I hope that will be the result, 
and I hope, Doctor and Ike, that you will join me in importuning the 
Attorney General to keep pressing for more and more proceedings to 
effect the purposes of the act. 

Let us keep them busy from now on. 

Mr. IcHORD. Dr. Hall, this is a very difficult field in which to legis- 
late. I might note that I have just filed a dissenting report to the chair- 
man's anti-Ku Klux Klan bill. Not because I think that the Ku Klux 
Klan is a reputable organization — I think it is a despicable organiza- 
tion, but I am concerned about some of the language in the bill. Much 
of the original language in the bill has been amended, but I thought 
that mider the original language it would have been exceedingly dan- 
gerous to be a member of the Knights of Columbus or the Masonic 
Lodge, clandestine organizations. 

The Chairman. Well, I couldn't disagree more, because clandestine 
has nothing to do with secrecy. 

Mr. IcHORix Well, that is beside the point. 

I wanted to ask this question : What will be the penalties, if any, that 
will attach to a finding of the SAC Board that a person is a member 
of the Communist Party or a Communist-front organization? 

Will there be any penalties ? 

Mr. Hall. Well, as the gentleman well knows, on page 14 is the 
penalty section, under section 15, line 6, which simply says "Any or- 
ganization'' — I emphasize — "any organization which violates any 
provision of section 10 of this title shall, upon conviction thereof," 
thereby leaving the prosecution to the Attorney General and his staff 
and a finding of a court and judicial determination, "be punished for 
each such violation by a fine of not more than $10,000. Any individual 
who violates any provision of section 5 or 10 of this title shall, upon 
conviction thereof, be punished for each such violation by a fine of not 



310 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than five years, 
or by both such fine and imprisonment." 

Mr. IcHORD. Of course, the finding itself is just a disclosure. 

Mr. Hall. That is correct. 

Mr. IcHORD. He registers, and that is the public registry. 

Mr. Hall. That is correct, but there has been, I am sure the distin- 
guished colleague knows, some difficulty of getting the Attorney Gen- 
eral, in view of the most recent High Tribmial decisions as to the first 
and fifth amendments, to prosecute within the original intent of legis- 
lation, the listing or the revelation or the findings of such people in 
subversively controlled groups, and I would hope that this would 
strengthen tliat power and that determination. 

Mr. Tuck. The object of this legislation is to identify those groups 
and people so we will know who they are and know where the danger 
lies. Isn't that right? 

Mr. Hall. That is correct, I will say to the distinguished Governor 
and constitutional lawyer. Then I would leave it to the surveillance and 
oversight of this committee and the Committee on Judiciary, with 
which it is so closely related, to follow through and see that the head 
of the Department of Justice does follow his interpretation and 
prosecute the legislative intent of the Congress, because I am one of 
the people tliat believes the Congress, being elected of, by, and for the 
people, can still instruct the other branch as to its intent. 

Mr. IcHORD. Well, this Member has joined with the chairman in 
the introduction of this bill, because I certainly think there is a need 
for it. But I want to be certain that the rights of the individual who 
is called before the Subversive Activities Control Board are protected, 
because we all have many political beliefs which may or may not con- 
form with the views of the majority. 

I have many political beliefs which do not conform to the majority 
of Congress. Obviously I do, becavise many, many times I vote with 
the minority. But I want to be certain, though, that we do not set up 
proceedings w^here the majority in control can punish me for my 
political beliefs. 

Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with that, and I yield 
to no one as far as rights of the individual are concerned. I, too, believe 
in this, but I believe that the expertise in this committee can construct 
such wording, and I think we have come much closer than ever before 
in. the history of our representative Republic to doing so in these bills, 
that it will be interpreted favorably and that we can accommodate and 
adjust to the requirements of the many, while protecting the individual 
rights of the individual. 

We referred once more to a bill that I have introduced, that 
does just that very thing. I have been accused of being liberal, 
because of submitting this bill, but if the defense of individual people's 
right to due process, to call an attorney, to rely on the Constitution, to 
use the writ of habeas corpus is liberal, then so be it, and I am one. 

I think this is conservative in maintaining principles of our 
Constitution. 

Mr. IcnoRD. The Constitution itself is a very liberal document. 

Mr. Hall. That is correct, a.nd its greatest liberality is that there 
are three ways with which it can be changed from within, and I might 
say this is also ingenious. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 311 

Mr. Chairman, ha\nno; made that statement m answer to my esteemed 
colleague from Missouri, I would have to disqualify myself further as 
far as bcinji; a bill-writer or a legally trained mind, because you well 
know I am just a ridge-runnor surgeon that does believe in these rights 
and I am willing to speak out for them. 

Mr. RouDEBUsir. Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to join with my colleagues of the majority of this 
committee in complimenting Dr. Hall, the distinguished Member from 
Missouri, on his testimony here today. 

I would say that no Member of the House has a higher regard for 
his intellect, his dedication to duty as a Member of this House, and I 
found his testimony most clarifying in my mind and certainly very 
well put here before our committee today. 

(At this point Mr. Ichord left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Hall. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Watsox. Mr. Chairman. 

Certainly I would like to join with all of the members in expressing 
our appreciation to Dr. Hall. And while you are not a lawyer, I frankly 
must admit that you have approached this in a very judicious fashion, 
and I have been tremendously impressed with your knowledge of this 
particular act and also with your execution of other legislation which 
you have in mind. 

I would only make this point : I believe the thrust of the question 
of our colleague from Missouri was, since this would be in the nature of 
an adversary proceeding before the SACB to determine whether or 
not an individual or an organization would be placed on a subversive 
list, I think he was trying to determine as to what appellate rights 
the individual might have. 

I think tliis bill protects them, inasmuch as any organization or 
any individual has a right under the terms of this bill, to request, 
should that organization or individual be placed on the Attorney Gen- 
eral's list, to request a rehearing, with appeal rights, in order to have 
his name or that organization's name removed. 

So I think the legislation has done a good job in protecting the 
rights of the individual, while at the same time trying to protect 
the rights of society about which you and I are so concerned, so I 
think the bill does provide the safeguards that the gentleman is con- 
cerned about over there. 

Again I want to commend you for the thorough and the very fine 
manner in which you have approached this, and I am sure it is going 
to be vei-y helpful to the committee as we try to consider this legisla- 
tion and other legislation in this field. 

Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and if you would 
allow me one word, I will simply emphasize that insisting on the 
right that the distinguished gentleman and jurist fi'om South 
Carolina refers to was the one thing I checked on before I agreed to 
cosponsor the bill. 

I believe it does just that, and I thank the chairman and the 
committee. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Mr. James B. Gardiner, vice president general 
of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution. 

Mr. Gardiner, we are glad to have you, sir, and look forward to 
your testimony. 



312 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

STATEMENT OF JAMES B. GARDINER, VICE PRESIDENT GENERAL, 
NATIONAL SOCIETY OF THE SONS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLU- 
TION 

Mr. Gardiner. Mr. Chairman and Membei-s of this Distinguished 
Committee : I have already submitted a prepared statement, Mr. Chair- 
man. Do you want me to take up the time of the committee to read it ? 

The Chairman. You can do that, or you can do either way. I see it 
is short, so you could read it. 

Mr. Gardiner. If you wish. 

I am James B. Gardiner of New York City, and am here on behalf 
of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution 
whose headquarters are located at 2412 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. I am a vice president general of that organization. 

The Sons of the American Revolution is a patriotic society, orga- 
nized in 1889 ajid incorporated by an act of Congi^ess in 1906. The mem- 
bership of the National Society consists of approximately 19,300 mem- 
bers, represented by State societies in each of the 50 States. 

The president general of our National Society, Mr. Len Young 
Smith of Chicago, would have liked to be at this hearing today, but 
unfortunately he is attending the meeting of the American Bar As- 
sociation in Hawaii and I have been asked to appear in his place. 

While it is impossible during the summer period, when there are no 
meetings of our society, to poll t4ie members on their views, I feel 
reasonably confident that my statements will be representative of the 
vast majority of our members. 

I have carefully reviewed the committee's analysis of House bill 
10390. Speaking on my own behalf and on behalf of what I believe 
would be the overwhelming opinion of the Sons of the American Rev- 
olution, we are strongly in favor of the amendments to the Internal 
Security Act which would become effective through the enactment of 
H.R. 10390. 

Two of the basic objectives of the National Society of the Sons of 
the American Revolution are "to maintain and extend the institutions 
of American Freedom" and "to carry out the purposes expressed in 
the preamble of the Constitution of our Country." In general, we feel 
that any steps which will bring out into the open the organizations 
which foster the widespread Communist activity in this country will 
be in accord with these objectives. H.R. 10390 is a step in this direction. 

A review of the decisions involving the Internal Security Act leads 
to the conclusion that the courts, in interpreting congressional intent, 
have construed the statutes very strictly. As a result, the Govern- 
ment has generally had to establish each case on a preponderance of 
the evidence. The amendments contained in this bill should give the 
courts a much clearer idea of what Congress intended, at the same time 
enabling the courts to continue to guard the rights of the individuals 
involved. 

Specifically the bill defines Communist fronts to include those which 
are operated by members of the Communist Party as well as by the 
party itself. As we understand it, this portion of the bill would help to 
solve the problem of proving Communist control of a front organiza- 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 313 

tion Avlieii it is controlled by Communists as individuals, and would 
therefore relieve the Government of undue burden of proof. Here the 
bill deals with a difficult situation in a realistic way. 

The bill also provides that a dissolved organization can be registered 
by the Attorney General, thereby remedying the deficiency created by 
the Labor Youth league decision. We would like to point out in this 
connection that section 5 (a) of H.R. 10390 on page 7, lines 19-20, 
refers to a dissolved Communist-action or Communist-front organiza- 
tion. 

We would suggest that perhaps consideration should also be given 
to including Communist-infiltrated organizations among those found 
to be dissolved which the Board may require the Attorney General 
to register. 

The Chairman. By the way, we w411 certainly take that suggestion 
into consideration when we go into executive session to mark up the 
bill. 

Mr. Gardiner. Thank you. I am not a lawyer, so I hope I am not 
practicing law without a license. 

The Chairman. No ; you made a good suggestion. 

Mr. Gardiner. The Sons of the American Revolution has con- 
sistently taken the position that Communist infiltration at strategic 
levels of many facets of our political, economic, educational, and 
religious institutions is probably the greatest danger we have to face 
today in America. We welcome legislation that will go toward reduc- 
ing that danger. 

I therefore appreciate the opportunity to testify in favor of H.R. 
10390 and respectfully urge its enactment. 

The Chairman, Thank you very much, sir. 

You have made a good contribution and a fine suggestion. 

Mr. Gardiner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TrcK. I would like to thank the gentleman for being with us, 
and I would like to say that I have had the honor of being a member 
for many years of your organization. 

Mr. Gardiner. Well, I am glad you are, sir. I wish we had more 
like you. 

Mr. Watson. Mr. Chairman, I should also like to thank Mr. Gard- 
iner, and while I think the chairman has made a good suggestion that 
we consider the recommendation of including Communist-infiltrated 
organizations, as has been recommended. I perhaps am inclined to 
believe that the Communist-front organization may be inclusive of 
that, but I think it is worth while in looking into it. And I might 
say to the gentleman and to others who are concerned about the pro- 
tection of the individuals' rights, I think this committee in the legis- 
lation leans over backwards in that regard. 

Mr. Gardiner. Right. 

Mr. Watson. I think, in my judgment, that unfortunately the rights 
of the citizens in general have not been protected, and the rights of 
the criminal have been overly protected. 

Mr. Gardiner. We agree to that. That is true, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, sir, and the committee will 
stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. 

(AYhereupon, at 11:20 a.m., Tuesday, August 15, 1967, the com- 
mittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, August 16, 1967.) 



HEARINGS RELATING TO H.R. 10390, H.R. 10391, AND 
H.R. 10681, AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY 
ACT OF 1950 



WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1967 

United States House of Representatives, 

Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington^ B.C. 

PUBLIC hearings 

The Committee on Un-American Activities met, pursuant to recess, 
at 10 :20 a.m. in Room 429, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, 
D.C., Hon. Edwin E. Willis (chainnan) presiding. 

Committee members present: Representatives EdAvin E. Willis, of 
Louisiana; William M. Tuck, of Virginia; Kichard H. Ichord, of 
Missouri ; John C. Culver, of Iowa ; John M. Ashbrook, of Ohio ; 
Del Clawson, of California; Richard L. Koudebush, of Indiana; and 
Albert W. Wats'on, of South Carolina. 

Staff members present: Francis J. McNamara, dire^jtor; Chester D. 
Smith, general counsel ; and Alfred M. Nittle, counseil. 

The Chairman. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Yesterday, Mrs. Allen, the registered lobbyist of the National 
Committee To Abolish the House Committee on Un-American Activi- 
ties, who is present again this morning — and you are welcome. 
Madam — was seen distributing propaganda literature in the hall and 
in this very room. 

I read it, and there is nothing insulting about it, but still, it is 
propagandizing people while the committee is in session. 

I want it known, Mre. Allen, that we are not going to tolerate that. 
This couldn't be done in a court room, or in any official judicial or 
quasi-judicial proceeding of any kind, and I have spoken to the Parlia- 
mentarian about it, and it is a quastion of the discretion of the Chair. 

I choose to exercise my discretion against permitting it, and you 
are admonished not to do so, and this rule, I assure you, I have the 
means of enforcing. 

However, Mrs. Allen, after the morning's list of ^\atnesses is heard 
from, with all that you have to say against this bill, I would invite 
you to be a witness, if you tliink you can stand the gaff of cross- 
examination. 

Do you care to take advantage of that opportunity ? 

I said, do you care to be a witne'ss ? 

Mrs. Allen. I am not a ^vitness now. 

The Chairman. I said, would you care to be a voluntary witness? 

Mrs. Allen. Not before an unconstitutional committee, sir. 

315 



316 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

The Chairman. "Well, now, that is completely out of order, but I 
consider the source, so it is all ri^ht. 

The first witness I would like to hear from this morning is Mr. 
Robert Morris, president of the University of Piano, in Piano, Texas, 
and former general counsel, Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. 

Mr. Morris, we are delighted to have you, and you may proceed 
at your choice. I think you have a very short statement. This is also 
welcome, and you may read it, and we will follow you, and after 
that, speak from it. Either way you want. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT MORRIS/ PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF 
PLANO, PLANO, TEXAS (FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL, U.S. SENATE 
INTERNAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE) 

Mr. Morris. Thank you, sir. At the outset, by way of prefatory re- 
marks, Mr. Chairman, I Avould like to commend the honorable chair- 
man for his forthright pursuit of his duty in maintaining the high 
purposes of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. 

As a lawyer, and as someone who moves in an academic atmosphere, 
I can't understand the rationale of those intellectuals who take the 
position that the House Committee should be abolished. 

The Chairman. Well, for instance, the person I was addressing my- 
self to said that she would not testify before an unconstitutional com- 
mittee. I challenge any lawyer in this great counti*y of ours, of any 
political philosophy or persuasion or political beliefs, or what-have- 
you, to cite one single solitary court decision to justify that state- 
ment. That is completely wrong. 

On the other hand, I can cite dozens of cases sustaining the con- 
stitutionality and the procedure of this committee, and by the way, 
Mr. Morris, along that line, we took the liberty some few years ago, 
not many years ago, of inviting a committee of the American Bar 
Association to study the transcripts of proceedings of this commit- 
tee and to give its judgment as to the constitutionality of the commit- 
tee's procedures. 

That committee of the American Bar Association unanimously held, 
and I wish I had the quotation from the finding itself, unanimously 
held that the committee's procedures were completely constitutional 
and that its proceedings afforded complete protection to all witnesses' 
constitutional rights, whether the first, the fifth, or any other amend- 
ments. 

Mr. Morris. On that score, Mr. Chairman, I have been a judge in 
my time, and I have been a counsel to Senate committees, three dif- 
ferent Senate committees for 7 years. 

The Chairman. I knew you were general counsel of the Senate 
Internal Security Subcommittee. 

1 Robert Morris, a former municipal court judge in New York City, received an LL.B. 
degree from Fordham University in 1939 and a doctor of laws degree in 1954 from St. 
Francis College in Brooklyn. He is a member of the New York bar and was admitted to 
practice before the Supreme Court. In addition to the private practice of law, he has served 
as assistant counsel to the New York State Investigating Committee ; as special counsel, 
and later chief counsel, of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee ; and as counsel to 
Senators Hlckenlooper and Lodge on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. 
Morris is the author of numerous articles on communism and of the book, No Wonder We 
Are Losing. He is presently the president of the University of Piano. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 317 

Mr. Morris, Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is a parallel committee of the other body of 
this committee here. 

Mr. Morris. Yes, but, Mr. Chairman, I find that having been a 
judge, and having been counsel to three different Senate committees, 
the witnesses get far more rights and far more privileges in these 
legislative tribunals than tliey do in courts of law. 

The Chairman. I might say that this committee is the only commit- 
te of the 20 standing committees of the House that has a set of printed 
rules, and as a witness is subpenaed, that witness is handed a copy of 
the rules, so that that witness can know exactly what to expect, and 
exactly how to attack the committee, if they want to, and we get our 
fair share of attacks. 

Mr. Morris. But the elemental point I wanted to make, Mr. Chair- 
man, is that there are three elements to the legislative process. One 
is factfinding, one is deliberation, and one is the act of legislation 
itself. P^ach one of the three is indispensable to intelligent legislation. 
If you don't have a factfinding committee, it is inconceivable that you 
are ever going to get any intelligent legislation. 

The Chairman. I think it was President Woodrow Wilson in his 
book. Congressional Govermnent. who said that the committee work 
or the informing function of Congress w^as more important than the 
legislative function. And Truman it was who said that an informed 
Congress is an intelligent Congress. 

Now maybe we don't have the intelligence that some people desire, 
but at least we try to keep ourselves informed. 

Mr. Morris. Well, that was the point. You can criticize a commit- 
tee, but how can you, w4th a sense of intellectual honesty, how can 
you say there should be no such committee to find the facts on such 
a vital area of importance to the Nation? 

The Chairman. Well, they are just against us, that is all. 

Mr. Morris. Shall I proceed, Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Please. 

Mr. Morris. The tactical approach of the Internal Security Act of 
1950 must be revised without varying the fundamental strategy. 
While the original approach called for registration of Communists 
that would trigger a series of sanctions, the courts have vitiated this 
effort by ruling that such a tactic violated basic fifth amendment 
rights. 

The same purpose could be achieved by simply making the findings 
of the SACB, rather than the registration or the order to register, the 
action that would set in motion the remedial provisions of the bill. 

The Chairman. Well, let me tell you how we attacked the problem, 
what approach we took. 

Mr. Morris. Yes. 

The Chairman. As you know, the Internal Security Act of 1950 
set up the Subversive Activities Control Board. The act contemplated 
that any person alleged to be a Communist Party member would have 
an adversary proceeding before the Board, and it was up to the 
Board, as a quasi-judicial body, to find as a fact whether that person 
is or is not a member of the Communist Party. Then that person was 
required, under the act, to register as a member of the party if the 
SACB found him to be one. 

84-351 0—67 4 



318 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

Now as to the question of disclosure, as I pointed out yesterday, dis- 
closure proceedings are permeated throughout our functions of Gov- 
ernment. For instance, lobl)yists, hundreds of them, in America, have 
to disclose who they are, and what their functions are, even what their 
pay is, and so on. 

Newspapers, in one of their issues each year, must disclose their 
ownership, and so on, under the law. Under the labor laws, the unions 
must file with the Secretary of Labor annual financial reports and 
statements, and union officials earning more than a certain salary 
must do likewise. 

So following that pattern, the act of 1950 required the Communist 
Party and its officers and members to register. Nothing outrageous 
about that. 

It is throughout our economic and political life. You have to regis- 
ter to vote whether you are a Democrat or Republican; you have to 
register for food stamps. Registration or disclosure permeates our sys- 
tem of government. 

So we didn't think it was too horrifying, or horrifying in the least, 
to have a registration provision in the act. 

It was President Truman's Commission on Civil Rights which held 
that the way to get at the enemies of democracy is to have a disclosure 
procedure. 

Now having held that the disclosure procedure itself was constitu- 
tional, the Supreme Court held that on invoking the fifth amendment, 
nobody can be compelled to register. 

We completely respect that Supreme Court decision. Tlie Subver- 
sive Activities Control Board is preserved under our bill, and by the 
way, this bill was introduced under the new rule of the House per- 
mitting multiple sponsorship, and over 50 Democrats and Republicans 
joined us in the introduction of this bill. That is what the House 
generally thinks about the Internal Security Act of 1950. 

Well, in order to completely respect the Supreme Court decision 
and to preserve the fifth amendment rights of people as interpreted 
by the Supreme Court, these bills, instead of requiring the defendants 
themselves to sign a register, requires the Attorney General to be the 
bookkeeper, as I have told the Attorney General yesterday, and re- 
quires, after proceedings before the Board, requires the Attorney Gen- 
eral to keep an actual register of persons found by the Board, the 
names and addresses of persons found by the Board, to be members of 
the Communist Party — and that was the original intent of Congress. 

And by the way, if I had been a Justice of the Supreme Court, I 
would have voted with the majority to hold that under the fifth 
amendment you can't be compelled to register, because to me — my rea- 
sons may have been different than those of many people — but to me, 
to be a Communist is such a heinous and degrading thing that I would 
not support compulsion to have anybody sign that lie is a member of 
that heinous conspiracy. 

And so we found a way to comply with the decision, and instead 
of requiring self-registration, to have the Attorney General keep the 
books and to register those found by the Board to be members of the 
conspiracy. 

Thank you, sir. I am sorry to interrupt, but I just want to tell 
you the structure. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 319 

Mr. Morris. 1 iindei-stand your purpose, Mr. ('onorressman. 

Now, this tactic, that is, making the findings of the SACB rather 
than the act of registration or the order to register the triggering of 
the sanctions, I say, this tactic would have all the advantages and 
none of the legal disadvantages of the registration route. The basic 
purpose of the act thus would remain reasonable disclosure of the 
conspiracy. 

After reading the proposed legislation introduced in the Senate 
and the House 

The Chairisian. By the way, I just heard on TV last night, after 
we introduced this bill. Senator Dirksen in the Qther body introduced 
a similar bill. 

The Senate, by a vote of 11 to 2, I think, or some such overwhelm- 
ing vote, the Senate committee has already approved this bill. 

Now it is a question of who is going to get to the floor of the 
Senate or the House first. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman, will the chairman yield? 

The Chairman. Yes, surely. 

Mr. IcHORD. I believe the gentleman is well acquainted with the 
differences between the Dirksen bill and the bills that have been 
introduced and are now pending before this committee. I would like 
for the gentleman to go into those differences. 

Mr. Morris. Well, I was just about to say, Mr. Congressman, I 
believe that the Dirksen bill S. 2171 more simply achieves this goal 
and with less chance of endless litigation. 

Mr. Ichord. Why? 

The Chairman. Will you explain that? Because I am interested 
in that. 

Mr. Morris. Yes, I will. 

Your bill sets up a changed definition of a Communist-action or- 
ganization, and I agree with it. It is an excellent revision. 

The Chairman. You mean of the definition. 

Mr. Morris. Of the Communist-action organization. 

The Chairman. The Communist front, rather. 

Mr. Morris. Yes, Communist front. 

The Chairman. Communist front. 

Mr. Morris. Your original description of a Communist-front and 
a Communist-action organization. 

The Chairman. Was too tight? 

Mr. Morris. And I think that it is a commendable and praise- 
worthy and laudable improvement. 

The Chairman. Well, the reason we did that was this: A court 
held that under the structure of the act of 1950 as written, in order 
to prove that a certain outfit was an official front, you not only had 
to prove that tlie Communist Party members in that front were 
dominating the front organization, but also that they were acting 
as the agent of an action organization or of the party itself in doing so. 

Now as I said yesterday, I don't know of any instance where the 
Communist Party would issue an official power of attorney to someone 
to act in its behalf, but we make it self-evident under this bill that if 
the front organization is dominated by membei'S of the party and also 
serves Communist purposes, we need not go further to prove agency. 

It is in that respect that we modified the rules. 



320 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

Mr. Morris. Well, as I say, Mr. Chairman, I agree with the excel- 
lent amendment, but I make the point that I don't think that time will 
allow us to improve it for this reason : That the present act has been 
constitutionally vindicated by the highest Court of the land. 

The Chairman. That is right. 

Mr. Morris. With one exception, and that is the registration pro- 
vision. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Now let us, because time is running out on us, correct 
that registration provision, and let everything go and ride with it as 
much as possible, and try to do something about enforcing this law, 
which is now 17 years old. 

The Chairman. You would not touch the definition of the front at 
this time? 

Mr. Morris. Pardon, sir ? 

The Chairman. You would not touch the definition of the front at 
this time ? 

Mr. Morris. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, that you were then 
opening, as it were, a whole new legal can of worms. 

Now this gives the Communists another crack at this thing, it gives 
you another challenge before the court, who knows that they are going 
to insist if it has got to be nothing or anything applied on it. 

The Chairman. I am very quizzical, and I put our counsel on the 
spot on that very question, that I want to be sure that no constitu- 
tional prohibitions were presented in the power of Congress to define 
the front, and I was assured that none was. 

Although I am a lawyer myself, of some 41 years, I listened to their 
advice, and I am told that — I am very much concerned and very much 
interested in opening up another can of judicial worms, for some 
brand-new litigation by the Communists. 

Mr. Morris. Well, it is an invitation to open this whole area up. 

Now you and I may not agree that that is a challengeable constitu- 
tional point, but based on past experiences, these things have been 
found, where lawyers have conventionally never foreseen them before. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. IcHORD. Would the chairman yield ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. IcHORD. Yours, then, Mr. Morris, is a practical approach ? 

Mr. Morris. Precisely. 

Mr. IciioRD. You feel that the decisions have revealed that a modi- 
fication of the disclosure provisions alone would be sustained by the 
courts ? 

Mr. Morris. That is correct. 

Mr. IcHORD. And that you are concerned that getting into the matter 
of a definition of the front might cause the court to go otT on a dif- 
ferent approach 

Mr. Morris. Precisely. 

Mr. IcHORD. — and perhaps nullify the provisions. 

Mr. Morris. I think that these changes, particularly with the ex- 
perience we have had, are improvements, but I think the status of 
the cases now that the Supreme Court has said, "Look, there is only 
one thine: wrone: with this bill.'- And that is 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 321 

The Chairman. Now the other side of that coin is that unless we 
modify the provision of the act vis-a-vis the front, we will never have 
the court pronounce any organization a front, because they require 
proof of express agency 'in interpreting the present definition. How in 
the devil are you going to prove express agency ? 

I don't think we can be in a woree shape as to interpretations of the 
kind of evidence needed to meet the definition of fronts than we are 
under the present definition as interpreted by the court of appeals. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Congressman, my suggestion would result in the 
situation where the findings of the Board would be issued and order 
would be issued, disclosure would be made, and then the sanctions 
would be invoked as a consequence. 

Now, at that point, there may be some challenge to the particular 
finding somewhere along the line, but meanwhile you can get scores 
of findings and you can have scores of disclosures, and some of these 
things that are now lying under the surface could be brought to light. 

But that would be a subsequent challenge. This other thing would 
be an initial challenge going into it, you see ; it would stop the whole 
proceeding. 

The Chairman. I see your point. 

Mr. Morris. And I think, sir, that the issue is that the situation 
around the country today is so grave that we should take the posture 
that, "Look, let us save whatever we have out of this; let us make the 
most of it, and then let the improvement as you suggest go until the 
next year or the year after,'' because I think if we d<? nothing this year, 
and let these people move in there, the DuBois case is up, these people 
are threatening to make a motion; let us make a move now and do 
something, and then begin enforcing it. 

Now I don't think that the SACB has been responsible for the lack 
of enforcement of these things. I think it has been unjustly criticized. 

The Chairman. I think so, too, and I so pointed out yesterday. To 
criticize the Board for not being kept busy would be to say, if the 
Board must be demolished and abolished because it has no cases, that 
would be like abolishing the Supreme Court if ever it arrives at the 
case where it is current on its docket. 

Mr. Morris. Well, the Attorneys General have not been bringing the 
cases before the court. Whatever reasons they have, I don't know, but 
this is where the situation lies. 

I don't mean to be personal. I don't mean this Attorney General — 
the Attorneys General over the years have not brought enough cases 
before the Board, and I think this is where the stress should be. 

Now this other approach, this very simple approach that I pro- 
pose, would obviate all of those things, and would strike a note of 
urgency. You are not going to take issue with the Court any further, 
you may say, "Well, look. Supreme Court., we are doing exactly what 
you recommend. We are changing, putting the focal point now on the 
findings rather than the registration, but for the sake of the security 
of the country and the security of the United States abroad, we want 
to get ahead with this right now." 

And then so inform the Attorney General that that is the mood of 
the Congress. Every time this has been voted on. Congress has been 
overwhelmingly for it. This is the mood of the country. Let us begin 



322 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

applying these things, instead of having this thing drag on and on 
and on. 

Just imagine the spectacle, Mr. Chairman, of the United States of 
America not being able to come to a determination from 1950 to 1961, 
11 years, that the Communist Party of the United States is Commu- 
nist controlled. 

That is the spectacle we have created abroad. Now how can anyone 
consider us serious? For whatever reasons? That is why I say, let us 
strike an emergency posture, let us get on with this thing, let us make 
the findings instead of the registration the focal point, tell the Board 
that we want action, tell the Attorney General that you want action ; 
and I think that this will strike the mood of the country. 

Mr. IcHORD. Will the chairman yield ? 

The Chairman. Yes, surely. 

Mr. IcHORD. In the first paragraph of your statement, Mr. Morris, 
you say, "Wliile the original approach called for registration of Com- 
munists that would trigger a series of sanctions, the courts have viti- 
ated this effort by ruling that such a tactic violated basic fifth amend- 
ment rights." 

I think we should get into the record that you are a former chief 
counsel of SACB. 

Mr. Morris. No, sir; I was chief counsel of the Senate Internal Se- 
curity Subcommittee. 

Mr. IcHORD. Senate Internal Security. I am sorry. I stand cor- 
rected. 

I think we should get into the record the series of sanctions. Now 
all you are going to do is to modify disclosure provisions, and make 
the finding the hub of the matter. What are the series of sanctions 
that would be set in operation by this finding that 

The Chairman. Well, fines, imprisonment, all kinds of things under 
the present act if the affected party refuses to register. This bill, how- 
ever, rescinds all sanctions flowing from refusal to register. 

Mr. Morris. They are all set forth in the bill, extensively. 

Mr. IcHORD. Could the gentleman be more specific? Does he have 
the statute ? 

Mr. Morris. I don't have it with me. 

The Chairman, In my bill, under the present bill. 

Mr. Morris. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that I don't have the bill with 
me, and the whole act with me, but they are all set forth in that, and 
I just refer to them. 

Mr. IcHORD. I am sure that there wouldn't be any fine or imprison- 
ment imposed upon an organization or member just because the SACT-^ 
made a finding. 

The Chairman. No, no ; but under the act, if the member failed, or 
if the pf rty failed to register, there w^ere fines or imprisonment. 

Mr. luHORD. I still think we would be concerned about the 

The Chairman. But, of course, that has been struck down by the 
Supreme Court. 

Mr. Ichord. I know ; but still, if there was a finding that they were 
Communists, this bill doesn't call for the registration by the Com- 
muj 'st himself. 

le Chairman. That is right. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 323 

Mr. IcHORD. Well, I wonder what the series of sanctions, what I 
want to get into the record somewhere along the line, we will have 
some witness who will 

Mr. Watson. Will the chairman yield? Perhaps in speaking to the 
question raised by our colleague from Missouri, it w-as not my inter- 
pretation that Mr. Morris was referring necessarily to legal sanctions 
upon disclosure. 

I think basic sanctions would necessarily follow^, and that is, the 
expose of these people and the Communist involvement, that the public 
could generally discredit them, and that is the sanction basically that 
we are looking forward to, rather than the matter of legal sanctions. 

Do I interpret your statement correctly in that regard ? 

Mr. Morris. That is right, sir, but I think also they would be, upon 
the finding of the SACB that a certain organization is a Communist 
organization, then there could be an enforcement, after the issuance of 
the order, of the provisions set forth in the Internal Security Act of 
1950. 

The Chairman. That is right. 

Mr. IcHORD. Now in the second paragraph 

Mr. Morris. But it would be conditioned on the finding, rather than 
on the registration, and that way you are conforming with the man- 
date of the Court. 

Mr. IcHORD. In the second paragraph, you say that this action 
''would set in motion the remedial provisions of the bill.'' Of course, 
there are so many statutes on the books that have been passed in regard 
to Commmiist activities, and many have been stricken down by the 
Supreme Court. 

I am wondering what remedial provisions the gentleman is re- 
ferring to, other than the mere fact of disclosure. 

Mr. Morris. Well, the ones set forth in the bill, in the act — and not 
those that are invoked by refusal to register. There are other sanc- 
tions, too, 

Mr. IcHORD, I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Morris. The sanctions set forth in the Internal Security Act of 
1950, w^hich are extensive. There are fines and 

Mr. IcHORD. Of course, the Supreme Court has been whittling and 
cutting into those various sanctions for many years. 

Mr. Morris. That is right. Congressman, and it may well be that 
later on in the proceedings, after these things take place, but after 
the findings are held and after they are promulgated and after we 
get the benefit of all this evidence that now unfortunately lies beneath 
the surface, then the challenge could be to a particular case somewhere 
along the line, rather than to the heart of the things which we are 
talking about here today. That is the gravamen of my position. 

Mr. Tuck. In other words, as I understand it, there would be no 
sanctions unless there was a court finding. There would be no sanc- 
tions involved in the payment of any fine, or any criminal punishment, 
unless a person was tried subsequent to the fiiidings by the Subver- 
sive Activities Control Board. 

Mr. Morris. After the findings there would be litigation, but your 
issue will have been made, your disclosure will have been made, and 
then the constitutional issue can be raised at that point. Congressman. 



324 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 

Mr. Tuck. So that, actually, there would be no sanctions except 
those referred to by the gentleman from South Carolina, sanctions 
demeaning and denigrating an individual for having found this fact. 
That is true, isn't it? 

Mr. Morris. Well, there would be other sanctions. But not the sanc- 
tions for failure to register. 

Mr. IcHORD. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to have the chief counsel 
and the staff provide me and the committee with a paper along that 
line, as to what remedial provision, as the gentleman refers to. would 
come into operation if we made the changes as proposed in the Dirksen 
bill. 

The Chairman. Of course, under my bill, sir, you understand that 
we eliminate the criminal sanctions flowing from refusal to register. 
In other words, the Board finds as a matter of fact that Mr. A is a 
Communist. Then the Attorney General registers him as such on a 
register. Now, thereafter, he is not tried. He can't be tried. My bill 
contemplates no criminal punishment. Is that correct? 

So I don't think that what you have in mind and what my bill pro- 
vides are too far apart. 

Is that correct ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, after the finding and after the 
registration, there is no prosecution anymore. 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Under my bill, no. 

Mr. Morris. Well, it could well be, sir, if you have a violation of the 
law. 

The Chairman. No, no. 

There will be no provision for that in the law. 

The act of 1950 is modified to that extent. This is going to be the 
new law. And you are not going to, after a findine; by the Board, as a 
matter of fact, that Mr. A is a Communist, and after the Attorney 
General as a bookkeeper registers him on the register, there is to be 
no prosecution, and there are to be no criminal sanctions anymore. 

Is that correct, diet? 

Mr. Smith. Unless he violates other statutes. 

The Chairman. Unless he violates some other law, but not this bill. 
This is going to be the new version of the act, in this respect. 

Mr. Morris. Well, I agree, Mr. Chairman, that you should, that by 
all means, disclosure is the principal ])oint of any legislative effort, as 
far as the Communists are concerned. I haven't 

The Chairman. Well, in other words, I think my bill is not too far 
away from what you have in mind already, because after the disclosure, 
that is the end of it. Except the keeping of a public register, but that 
is all there is to it. There is no more prosecution for a failure to reg- 
ister, there are no more criminal penalties on that point. 

That is the. new act and the new Subversive Activities Control Act, 
in this bill. 

I don't think really that we are far apart. 

Mr. Morris. Well, you have made the point. I wasn't quite aware of 
the fact that you were eliminating all the sanctions of the original 
1950 bill at the same time. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 325 

The Chairman. That is accomplished in section 8 of the bill, and 
I am reading the analysis of the section 8. Listen to what sanctions 
are retained only. 

M;-. McXamara. ''Section 8 of the bill amends section 15 of the 
Internal Security Act of 1950 relating to penalties for violations of 
Title I of the act. The amendment retains penalties for the following 
otfenses only" 

The Chairman. The following only. 

Mr. McNamaRcV. — "(1) violations of section 10 of the act, relating 
to use of the mails and instrumentalities of interstate or foreign com- 
merce" 

The Chairman. Which has not been attacked by the Sui)reme Court. 

Mr. McNamara. — "and (2) , violations of section 5 of the act, relat- 
ing to employment of members of Communist organizations by the 
United States, defense facilities, and labor organizations." 

The Chairman. And which has not been struck down. 

That is right. 

Mr. McNamara. Under "defense facilities," there have been some 
problems. 

The Chairman. Under "defense facilities," there is a case presently 
pending, but really, I think I have said enough of it by saying that 
after the finding by the Board, and the registration or the disclosure, 
that is the end of it, mider this bill. 

There is to be no prosecution. There is to be no fine, no imprisonment, 
nothing on the registration issue. 

Mr. Morris. Well, my point, Mr. Chairman, and as again I don't 
cite a difference of principle, I am just prescinding from the question 
of sanctions, I am just putting the focal point on the finding rather 
than the registration, and getting on with it, with an emergency note 
struck. 

The Chairman. Well, do you find any objection to the Attorney 
General keeping a list ? 

Mr. Morris. Well, I don't think that is where 

Tlie Chairman. That is the only thing he is to do. He is to be a 
bookkeeper. 

Mr. Morris. Except that right now, he does keep a list: doesn't he, 
Mr. Chairman? 

And you are making the Attorney General both the prosecutor and 
the court, as it were, in that case. 

The Chairiman. No; that is where we depart, that is where we dis- 
agree. He initiates the hearing, but the SACB makes the determina- 
tion. He merely maintains a register of its findings. I wish we could 
understand each other, because I don't think we are far apart at all. 

Mr. Watson. Mr. Chairman- — - 

Mr. Tuck. As I understand the gentleman's testimony, he agrees with 
the bill, but he thinks that the bill should be divided. The part 

The Chairman. Should stop at registration. 

Mr. TixK. That is right. 

The Chairman. And that is what it does. 

Mr. Morris. Not stop with registration, sir, stop with the finding. 

The Chairman. That is what the bill does. There is nothing that 
can be done, except that the Attorney General is to make notation of 



326 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

it. I see no objection to that. That is certainly important in informing 
the public. 

Mr. Morris. Well, to that extent, Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. 

I think as again I say, it should be as simple as possible ; put the 
emphasis on finding rather than registration, have the promulgation 
of the findings, and then let the rest of the thing go. 

Now you go further; you eliminate some of the sanctions or almost 
all of the sanctions. With that, I am not taking issue. I mean, I say, 
fine, it is in the spirit of what I am saying; let us get on with it, and 
let us not put something in there about some kind of a prosecution 
that is going to last 10 years on some points, and that is going to be 
futile. 

We may lose the country in the meantime. 

Mr. Watson. Mr. Chairman, I might say, I think we are close to- 
gether here. I understand that you are for the bill, at least the thrust 
of it, in simplifying and making constitutional the disclosure process, 
that is, so far as registering of Communists. 

Mr. Morris. Eight. 

Mr. Watson. But you differ because you are apprehensive about the 
change in the definition of Communists, organization or front, in that 
it might open up extensive litigation. 

The Chairman, Oh, I understand that point, and that is a good 
one. 

Mr. Watson. That is really about the only difference we have. 

The Chairman. I think that is the only difference. 

Mr. Morris. And possibly the Attorney General. I mean, I don't 
think — I think it would clutter up the significance of this thing by 
having the Attorney General make the list. Why not have the Board 
make the list of its findings ? 

The Chairman. Well, we can amend the bill and put "The Board 
shall keep a register." 

Mr. Morris. For simplification, because you can make the point 
that 

The Chairman. I have no objection to that. What I want is a 
register to be kept, because that is what Congress intended in 1950. 
I say that because I was a party to the passage of that act in 1950. 

Mr. Morris. Well, as Congressman Watson says, I think we are 
almost in agreement here. 

The Chapman. I think so. 

Mr. Morris. My point would be to just simplify it as much as you 
can, because time is wasting. 

The Chairman. Well, I don't know. Perhaps — I tell you what you 
do. Suppose you talk to our counsel, and maybe you could come out 
with an amendment that would have — what difference, for goodness 
sakes, what difference does it make to me whether it is the Board or 
the Attorney General who keeps a register ? 

And if what you have in mind is that you don't interpose the Attor- 
ney General, and have the Board make the list, that would be all right 
with me. 

Talk to him, and perliaps you might offer an amendment, and he 
would certainly consider. 

Mr. Morris. T appreciate that. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 327 

The Chairman. Talk to the <i:eiiei"al counsel, would you ^ 

Mr. Morris. Very good. I will just read the last two sentences here, 
just to complete the statement. 

As you propose the request to register should he deleted, the SACB 
should bo empowered to issue orders and activate the sanctions by its 
findings which should be made public. 

Events of recent years vindicate the wisdom of the framers of the 
act. The removal of etfective sanctions and the restrictions on respon- 
sible exposure of Communist activity, by the courts, have led to a weak- 
ening of national morale at home and the extension of Soviet poAver 
in the world. 

Congress must act now to remove the courts" inhibitions or else the 
whole act, though constitutionally vindicated will be annulled. If it 
does not act, and act simply, 17 frustrating years of effort will be 
lost. 

The Chairman. That is right. I understand. 

I appreciate it. 

Talk to counsel, will you ? 

Mr. Morris. I will, sir. 

The CiiAiRMAx. All right. 

Mr. Morris, Thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. Tuck. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman. Our next witness will be Mr. John Mahan, Chair- 
man, Subversive Activities Control Board. 

Mr. Mahan, please come forward, sir. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. MAHAN, CHAIRMAN, SUBVERSIVE ACTIV- 
ITIES CONTROL BOARD, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES DIRLAM, 
COUNSEL 

The Chairmax. And do you have a prepared statement ? 
Mr. Mahan. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. 
The Chairmax. I don't sujDpose it is very long ? 

Mr. Mahax. Xo, sir. I have one prepared statement that I would 
like to submit to the record, and then give highlights of it. 
The Chairmax. That will be fine. 
(The statement follows :) 

STATEMENT OF THE SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BOARD 

The Subversive Activities Control Board was created 17 years ago by the 
Congress of the United States specifically for the purpose of disclosing to the 
American people, Communist-action. Communist-front, and Communist-infiltrated 
organizations, and the members of Communist-action organizations. Such groups 
and individuals', according to the Congressional findings, constitute a real and 
continuing danger to the national welfare. 

BACKGROUND 

Rarely has there been a more intense study of methods of dealing with a 
particular evil than that which preceded and produced the Subversive Activi- 
ties Control Act of 1950. The Act was the final distillate of investigations begun 
in the 1930's, and which was enacted after more than two years of Congressional 
work on a number of different bills^. The Act was amended in 1954 to enlarge its 
coverage. 

The Subversive Acti\'ities Control Board, as established by the 1950 Act, is 
the only agency in the Executive Branch in which is vested the authority to spot- 



328 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 

light and expose Oommuuist activities in the United States. Congress in estab- 
lishing the Board guaranteed full and fair hearings to accused groups or individ- 
uals. The Board is a quasi-court to hear and decide cases brought before it by 
the Attorney General of the United States. The Board does not itself conduct 
investigations nor initiate proceedings. Board hearings are subject to the require- 
ments of the Administrative Procedure Act. The law requires that the hearings 
be open to the public and that an accurate stenographic record be kept. Written 
findings of fact must be made by the Board in each case it hears. Orders of the 
Board are subject to judicial review and cannot become effective unless upheld l)y 
the courts, if appeals are talven. 

During the past 17 years the Board has performed a good function for the 
Nation. Accomplishments of the Board are set forth below. The basic scheme of 
disclosure as provided in the Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1961. The 
device of disclosure was again held valid by a Federal Court of Appeals in 
March 1967, just five months ago. although the court ix)inted to the need to 
change some of the provisions. The courts in a series of cases, however, have 
determined one of the provisions of the Act to be unconsitutional and have in- 
terpreted another provision in a way which limits its application. A consequence, 
of course, has been to decrease the work of the Board. 

Pending legislation 'svill remove the limitations and cure the constitutional 
defect. The other extreme is a move to abolish the Board. 

It is absolutely crucial that the Nation take every reasonable and lawful means 
to protect itself against Communist subversion. Whatever is done with respect to 
the S.A.C.B. should be done with care and deliberation. The issues are very im- 
portant — too imix)rtant for being decided hastily or on impulse. 

The Chairman and members of the Subversive Activities Control Board are 
fully in accord with proposals that the Congress debate and consider all aspects. 
Should Congress decide that the people have no right to know and be warned 
of Communist activities, or that there is no Communist threat to the Nation, or 
that there is a threat but different means should be followed to meet and counter- 
act it ; then the Board should be abolished. Otherwise, the Act should be amended 
so as to accord with the court decisions and. i>erhaps, to again broaden the 
coverage and scope. 

Cases which have been handled by the Board are listed in the attached Table A. 
An average of just about $300,000 per year has been spent by the Board in the 
past 17 years. This amounts' to ,$"1,000,000 in round niunber.s. Over $849,000 of 
unused appropriations have been returned by the Board to the U.S. Treasury. 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE BOARD 

No one knows the full effect the Subversive Activities Control Act has had in 
controlling Communist efforts to subvert our government. No one knows what the 
.situation would be today but for the enactment of that statute. Some things, how- 
ever, are known and other things reasonably can be assumed. 

We do know that many organizations ceased their Communist-directed activ- 
ities and dissolved when threatened with disclosure by the Board. Part of the 
statutory concept of a Communist front is that it conceals the facts as to its 
true character and purpose. Many i>eople would not render support to such an 
organization once the true facts are known. The Court of Appeals has stated in 
a formal opinion that when a Communist-front group dissolves, "the purposes' of 
the Act. and more, are accomplished." Dissolved organizations where there are 
no "final" orders of the Board are shown separately on Table A. As indicated in 
the Table, some of the organizations as to which there are in effect "final" 
orders have also become defunct. 

We know that the Board has made a very large number of findings of fact 
which, when upheld on judicial review, place the spotlight on the myriad ways 
In which the Communist con.spiracy operates. This has tremendous value in 
informing the public. The rulings, findings, and orders of the Board up to 
June 30, 1966, are contained in four printed volumes having a total of just 
under 3,000 i>ages. As stated. Board hearings are open to the i>ublic and mav 
be held at any place within the I'nited States. Each party has the full right to 
cro.ss-examine the witnesses of his adver.sary. The.se hearings afford the oppor- 
tunity for the public to see democracy in action and to learn at the same time. 
The great quantity of evidence presented at Board hearings is indicated from 
Table C. 

We see from a mere inspection of Table A the types of organizations to 
which the Act applies and the various activities covered. The Conimunist activi- 
ties included in the Board's findings in these cases cover many and varied fields. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 329 

such as: sit-ins, rallies, marches, ami other protests against the foreign and 
domestic jwlicies of our government ; Communist educational programs to in- 
doctrinate our youth in Marxism-Leninism; Communist efforts to infiltrate 
legitimate civil rights organizations and other groups to covertly guide them 
to following the Communist line. Disclosure of such activities has oh\ious value 
since a well-informed public is a well-armed public. 

From judicial review of Board orders we have learned much as to the pro- 
cedural and constitutional limitations nithin which laws to protect the national 
welfare must operate. We now know much more of how best to balance freedoms 
and security. There have been 30 or more court decisions (some unreiwrted) 
in which Board orders and provisions of the Act were considered. In one of 
these. Chief Judge Bazelon of the Court of Appeals stres.sed "the strong public 
interest in the Aefs enforcement." A decision of the Court of Appeals in March 
of the present year in effect suggested the desirability of amending the Act. 
The Court said in part. ". . . there is very much indeed that Congress may do 
in the sinylc purpose to regulate the Communist Party hy the device of disclosure." 
Senior Circuit Judge E. Barrett Prettyman, who wrote a separate concurring 
opinion said. "I agree that the disclosure provisions of this statute are valid in 
and of themselves. ..." 

Very imix>rtantly. the orders of the Board when they become "final," following 
judicial review where sought, cover or apply to a great number of i)ersons. 
This is not apparent from the face of the orders. For instance, one case in which 
an organization is determined to be a Communist front brings within the restric- 
tions of the Act all members who choose to remain such after the Board's 
order has become final. The Communist Party is said to have between 10,000 
and 12,000 members. According to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investi- 
gation there are at least 100.000 "state of mind" members who are sympathetic 
to the Party line and objectives. It is reasonable to assume that all or most of 
most of them are active in Communist fronts. 

PRESENT ACTIVITIES 

There is presently pending in the Board a case on petition of the Attorney 
General for hearings and determination whether an organization named the 
W.E.B. DuBois Clubs of America is a Communist-front organization as defined 
in the statute. Shortly after the Attorney General's petition was filed the DuBois 
Clubs and others began litigation in the District Court seeking to enjoin Board 
proceedings under the "Communist-front" provisions of the Act, and for 
declaratory judgment that such provisions are unconstitutional. 

The petition of the Attorney General in this case was filed in the Board in 
March 1966. Thereafter various motions of the parties were heard and ruled 
upon by the Board until 'Slay 31. 1966, when it became necessary to suspend fur- 
ther proceedings because of the court litigation. On May 5, 1967, after almost 
a full year, the court dismissed the suit by the DuBois Clubs. The Board called 
the parties before it for a prehearing conference on May 25, 1967, and subse- 
quently fixed June 20, 1967, as the date to begin hearing evidence. On June 12, 
1967, the court directed the Board to postpone all further proceedings in the 
Board until the Supreme Cx)urt disx)oses of the DiiBois Clubs' appeal from 
the refusal of the lower court to enjoin the hearing in the Board and to declare 
the Act unconstitutional. 

During the period from Januai-y 20. 1966, to June 14, 1967, there have been 
45 formal meetings of the Board (official minutes recording actions taken) 
and at least that many informal meetings (no minutes kept). Actions with 
respect to the proceedings in the Board and in the courts Involving the DuBois 
Clubs were among the matters considered at 25 of the 45 formal meetings, and 
many of the informal meetings. 

Parenthetically, other actions taken by the Board during this period included, 
among others : orders issued with respect to the Veterans of the Abraham 
Lincoln Brigade and the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Work- 
ers; reports adopted giving the Board's views, as requested by Congressional 
Committees, on H.R. .5042. H.R. 6134. S. 518. H.R. 12302. H.R. 10390 and H.R. 
10391, and other proposed legislation; formulated and issued rules and regula- 
tions in compliance with the Public Information Act. 

Considerable effort has been devoted by the Board in working with its attor- 
neys with respect to possible changes in the present statute. The members have 



330 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

studied a great many court opinions that bear either directly or indirectly upon 
the Act's provisions. Recommendations of the attorneys have been discussed and 
drafts arrived at so that specific suggestions can be made as to legislation. 

THE ^FUTURE 

The following quotations from statements made by the Director of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation clearly and forcefully show that the Communist threat 
to the Nation not only continues but has become intensified. These statements are 
informed and reliable. They indicate strongly the necessity that the Subversive 
Activities Control Act be amended so as to disclose and regulate, in the national 
iuterest, those organizations and individuals that are carrying out the Communist 
activities : 

"In its struggle to become a more potent force on the American scene, the 
Communist Party, USA, greatly stepped up its acti\ities during the past 
twelve months." (January 5, 1967.) 

". . . Gus Hall, General Secretary of the Communist Party. USA, stated 
that the Party w^as experiencing the greatest upsurge in its history. Hall said 
that the Party membership had jumped 1.000 or 2.000 above its 10,000 total 
of a year ago." (January 6. 1966.) 

"The Party is today, in every way ix)ssible. attempting to camouflage its 
true communist identity. . . . The Party is intensifying its campaign to 
infiltrate and subvert tlie institutions of our society. ... In the civil rights 
field, the Party is becoming bolder. . . . The Party is eagerly trying to 
reach the hearts, minds and souls of our young iieople." (March 27, 1967.) 
"The Communist Party is riding the crest of a wave of optimism .... in 
Communist eyes, recent Supreme Court decisions invalidating portions of 
the Internal Security Act of 1950 have given the Party the green light to 
become more active in mass agitation. . . . The Party, moreover, senses a 
new mood of radicalism in America. . . ."(1966.) 

"The Commimist Party. U.S.A., undoubtedly is in a much stronger posi- 
tion as a result of the 18th National Convention. [Held in June 1966.] Com- 
pletely loyal to a foreign power, tlie Soviet Union, it remains a serious threat 
to our national security." 
Findings of the Board have disclosed many of the strategies and tactics 
followed by the Party in its efforts to accomplish the goals outlined by F.B.I. 
Director Hoover. The Party's efforts to ensnare yoimg Americans may be used 
to demonstrate both the past, present, and future of the Board's activities. 

The Board in its first case found that the Communist Party, pursuant to 
foreign directives, established in this covintry a Young Communist League aflBli- 
ated with the Young Communist International (see 1 SACB 236.) The Y.C.L. was 
dissolved in 1943 when the International had become widely known as a part 
of the world Communist conspiracy. The Commimist Party next organized the 
"American Youth for Democracy" as a technically non-Commimist organization 
designated to recruit and influence as many voung people as possible for the 
Party. ( See 1 SACB 237. ) 

Next came the Labor Y'outh League. The Board has determined that this 
group was created as a purportedly independent organization devoted to the 
so-called needs of the youth but which was in fact completely subservient to 
the Party and used as a means whereby a segment of American youth was 
indoctrinated and trained for dedicated membership and future positions of 
leadership in the Party. (See 1 SACB 378.) The Labor Youth League dissolved 
after having been ordered by the Board to register as a Commimist -front organi- 
zation. The case is subject to further Board consideration if the purported dissolu- 
tion is shown to have been a sham. 

The demise of the Labor Youth League was followed by a Board hearing on 
petition of the Attorney General with respect to a youth organization named 
"Advance and Burning Issues Youth Organizations." That organization dis- 
banded after a Board hearing oflScer recommended that it be ordered to register 
as a Communist front. The Board is holding the case in abeyance in the event 
the organization resiunes activities. 

There is now i>ending in the Board for hearings, as soon as the court-imposed 
stay is lifted, a petition of the Attorney General charging that the W.E.B. DuBois 
Clubs of America is a front for the Communist Party which seeks, among other 
things, to indoctrinate American youth in Marxism-Leninism and recruit them 
into the Party. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 331 

Two otJier cases are also being held by the Board in the status of indefinite 
abeyance. They, too, involve groui>s which ceased activities and dissolved when 
threatened with disclosure by the Board. The Board is holding the cas(?s subject 
to an order to reopen them shoiUd it develop that the piirpox"ted dissolutions 
were a sham to avoid disclosure, or if the groups again undertake their Commu- 
nist activities. 

Enactment of remedial legislation will greatly add to the workload of the 
Board. It can bo argued that legislation should not be considered until the 
Supreme Court has disi>osed of the case now before it as respects proceedings 
under the Communist-front provisions. However, the actions open to the court 
cover nuiny possibilities and it is doubtful that the decision will i.)rovide addi- 
tional guidelines for legislation. Moreover, pending legislation has as a primary 
puriK)se making it possible to disclose and restrict ^individual hard-c*ore Com- 
munists. This is not involved in the matter now before the Court. The Supreme 
Court has already spoken in this respect. 

CONCLUSION 

The Nation is at the cross-roads as to disclosing and regulating the Communist 
conspiracy in this country. At issue is whether the Subversive Activities Control 
Board be required to close up shop and, in effect, let the Communists win a 
17 year battle by default. 

The Congress must decide what the American people need and want. Congress 
must determine whether to keep the Board alive and give it the tools necessary 
fully to disclose and regulate the operations of the Communist conspiracy in this 
country. This involves the question whether $5,000,000 and 17 years of effort in 
disclosing the Communist conspii-acy and in developing ways of doing so within 
the framework of the Constitution of the United States are to be thrown away 
in order to "save" another $295,000. 

Calm and studied deliberation is necessary. Press reports that the Board is 
doing nothing and serves no puriwse should be examined in the light of the facts. 
The matter is too vital to warrant gambling with the national security. 

July 28, 1967. 

Table A 

Subversive Activities Control Board 

Cases Brought Before the Board 

(As of June 30, 1967) 

A. Registration Orders Arc Final: 

Communist Party of the United States of America 

California Emergency Defense Committee 

California Labor School. Inc. 

Civil Rights Congress 

Connecticut Volunteers for Civil Rights 

Jefferson School of Social Science 

United May Day Committee 

Washington Pension Union 

B. Cases Being Held in Abeyance ( Organizations not Active) : 

American Peace Crusade 

Colorado Committee to Protect Civil Liberties 

Labor Youth League 

Advance and Burning Issues Youth Organizations 

C. Cases Pending: 

W.E.B. DuBois Clubs of America 

D. Cases Where Organizations Dissolved (Some included in A, above, have ceased 

activities) : 

American Slav Congress 

Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy 

Committee to End Sedition Laws 

Council on African Affairs, Inc. 

Joint-Anti Fascist Refugee Committee 

National Negro Labor Council 

Save Our Sons Committee 



332 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 

B. Cases Dismissed Following Judicial Review: 

American Committee for Protection of Foreign Bom 

International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers 

International Union, Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers (Redetermination) 

International Workers Order, Inc. 

National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, Inc. 

United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America 

Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade 

William Albertson 

Samuel Krass Davis 

Benjamin Dobbs 

Mildred McAdory Edelman 

Miriam Friedlander 

Frances Gabor 

Norman Haaland 

Flora Hall 

Donald Andrew Hamerquist 

Dorothy Healey 

Otis Archer Hood 

Benjamin Gerald Jacobson 

Arnold Samuel Johnson 

Lewis Martin Johnson 

Elmer Charles Kistler 

Samuel Kushner 

Aaron Lib son 

Lionel Joseph Libson 

Claude Mack Lightfoot 

Albert Jason Lima 

Hyman Lumer 

Marvin Joel Markman 

George Aloysius Meyers 

Thomas Nabried 

Burt Gale Nelson 

Ralph Nelson 

William L. Patterson 

Irving Potash 

Roscoe Quincy Proctor 

Daniel Lieber Queen 

Mortimer Daniel Rubin 

Michael Saunders 

Betty Mae Smith 

John William Stanford, Jr. 

Meyer Jacob Stein 

Milford Adolf Sutherland 

Ralph William Taylor 

William Cottle Taylor 

Edward S. Teixeira 

Anne Burlak Timpson 

Betty Gannett Tormey 

James Joseph Tormey 

Louis Weinstock 

William Wolf Weinstone 

Mr. Mahan. If it is all right with the chairman, I would like to 
introduce Mr. Charles Dirlam, our counsel for the SACB. 

The Chairman. That is fine. 

Mr. Mahan. And I Avish to say to you first of all, Mr. Chairman, it 
has been a pleasure to me since I have been here to meet with your 
staff, and I think they have done a very conscientious and wonderful 
job for this committee, and also it is a pleasure to see my friend Dick 
Roudebush. 

I served as his senior vice commander while he was national com- 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 333 

mander to tlie Veterans of Foreign Wars, but to go into the business 
at liand, Mr. Ohainnan 

Mr. IciiORi). Mr. Chairman, do we have a copy of his statement? 

Mr. Maiian. No, I don't think so. 

The Chairman. Do you have it? 

Don't you liave about five ? 

Mr. Mahan. No, he doesn't, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Mahan. I was appointed as Chairman of the Subversive Activi- 
ties Control Board in December of 1965, and the job since then has not 
been without its frustrations, as I will outline in a moment. 

For the record, may I mention briefly the purposes and procedures 
of the Board, and I have for your record the Subversive Activities 
Control Board Step-by-Step Handling of Cases, Mr. Chairman, be- 
cause many people do not realize the procedure before the Board, and 
1 thought it would be good for your record. 

The Chairman. I think it is a splendid idea to have in the record 
at this point. It will be admitted at this point. 

(The information follows:) 

Subversive Activities Control Board 
Step-by-Step Handling of Cases 

1. The parties to proceedings before the Board are, in most instances, the Attorney 
General of the United States, designated as "petitioner," and an organization 
or individual, designated as "respondent." 

2. The Attorney General files his petition with clerk of Board. Clerk enters in 
docket and sends respondent a copy of the Board's rules of procedure. 

3. Full Board meets and considers, and hears oral argument where indicated, 
with respect to any preliminary motions tiled by the parties, such as a motion 
by respondent to dismiss, or for particulars. (Board's rules fix time within 
which preliminary motions may be filed. ) 

4. Respondent files an answer to the Attorney General's petition. In some cases 
the Board holds a prehearing conference with attorneys for the parties prior 
to fixing the time and place of hearings for the purpose of taking evidence. 
Absent a prehearing conference, or following it if one is held, the Board meets 
and issues an order fixing the time and place for hearings and designating the 
hearing oflBcer. 

5. Evidentiary hearings are conducted either by the full Board, one or more 
members of the Board sitting as hearing officers, or by a hearing examiner 
designated by the Board. (The Board does not now have anv hearing 
examiners.) 

fi. Following hearings, the parties are given the opportunity to file proposed 
findings of fact and briefs on legal questions. Where hearings are not conducted 
by the full Board, the hearing officer prepares and issues a recommended 
decision. 

7. Both sides are given the opportunity to file exceptions to the recommended 
decision and to be heard thereon by the full Board. 

8. Board issues written findings of fact and an appropriate order. There is a 
statutory right of the aggrieved party to judicial review. Board is a party to 
litigation on judicial review. 

9. Where full Board conducts the evidentiary hearings there is no recommended 
decision. The Board issues its decision based upon the evidence and proposed 
findings and briefs submitted by the parties. 

Tlie Chairman. Tell me, I have been receiving every year an analysis 
by the Board and the Attorney General of proceedings conducted. 

How many adversary proceedings against individuals and organi- 
zations have there been ? 



84-351 O— 67- 



334 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 

Mr. Mahan. There have been 70 cases. 

The Chairman. How many ? 

Mr. Mahan. Seventy cases. 

The Chairman. Seventy ? 

Mr. Mahan. And I have for the record a list of all the Communist- 
action, Communist-front cases, individual cases for your record. How 
long each took. For instance, the Communist Party, U.S.A., case men- 
tioned by the previous witness started in 1950, finally finished in 1961. 
It involved 16,824 pages of transcript, with 745 exhibits. 

And I have this for the record, so that your committee will have it 
and will know exactly every case that has been instituted, and what 
has happened to every case that has been tried. 

The Chairman. That is fine. 

(The record follows:) 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 



335 




336 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 




AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF IOTjO 



337 



! 



•% 




-'W 




K K .^ ^ *^ 




^ i * 



I i 



T5"? 



tr 



^ ^ 
-U 






I- — -^- 



■ -^-^---t;."" 




-li 

5 I 



<1 * 



4 ^ 



n 



(; ^ 



1? Al 









338 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT' OF lOfiO 




AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 339 

Mr. IciioRD. Seventy cases since when ? 

The Chairman. Since the act was on the books, in 1950. 

Mr. Mahan. Since 1950, but these cases involve, as I have mentioned 
before, many years and many tlioiisands of transcripts, and many thou- 
sands of people are involved. 

The Chairman. During what period of time did you serve as Chair- 



man 



Mr. Mahax. I was appointed on the Board, Mr. Chairman, in Octo- 
ber of 1965, and I was made Chairman by the President on De- 
cember 27. 
The Chairman. 1965? 

Mr. Mahan. 1965. And since I hav^e been on the Board, we have had 
one case filed with us by the Attorney General, and that is the W.E.B. 
DuBois Clubs case. We set it for hearings to begin this June the 20th, 
after the three-judge court of the District of Columbia had ruled 
unanimously that we had the right to proceed with the case. 

Then after they ruled unanimously that we had tlie right to hear the 
case, a few days later they filed a stay against us, so we couldn't go 
ahead with the case until the Supreme Court decided whether to accept 
the case on jurisdictional grounds. 

The Chairman. They are very resourceful, these respondents, aren't 
they? 

Mr. Mahan. And, of course, the Supreme Court at that time had 
gone into recess, so we can't do anything about it until October, when 
the Court comes back from recess and decides whether to accept the 
W.E.B. DuBois Clubs case before we have had a hearing in relation to 
that case. 

Mr. Ichord. May I ask a clarifying question there, Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Surely. 

Mr. loHORD. You mean that the defense counsel has filed with the 
courts a proceeding asking for an injunction against your hearing the 
case ? 

Mr. Mahan. They did, as soon as the case was filed by the Attorney 
General. They filed a proceeding in the district court, asking an in- 
junction, stopping us from hearing the case on the basis 

The Chairman. And that was unanimously dismissed ? 

Mr. Mahan. That was unanimously dismissed. 

The Chairman. Then they did what ? 

Mr. Mahan. Then the same court filed a stay on us, when the Su- 
preme Court went in recess, until the Supreme Court can decide wheth- 
er they should accept the case. 

The Chairman. On a rehearing? 

Mr. Mahan. No, not on a rehearing; on the basis that the act in 
relation to Communist fronts is unconstitutional. 

The Chairman. Having unanimously held one way, how did they 
change their mind ? 

Mr. Mahan. I do not know, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Ichord. I suppose, Mr. Chairman, they are raising constitutional 
questions dealing with procedural due process. 

Mr. Mahan. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Issued a stay to the proceedings. 

Mr. Mahan. That is right. 



340 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 

So then the first thing I think that we have to decide is whether 
there is a Communist menace in America, and I think tliat we all agree 
that there is. We can read the statements of Mr. Hoover, which I have 
listed in the statement that I have given yon, and I am sure you have 
all read those statements. 

We can then decide if there is a danger in America, is this Board, 
and I am convinced it is, the proper place to expose to the American 
people the Communist menace? 

The CHAiRMA>r. Well, yesterday I commented on the fact that some 
people's nerves were aggravated because the President was proposing 
to appoint as a member of the Board the husband of his former sec- 
retary, on the ground of politics. 

And I made a statement on the floor of the House a few days ago 
giving my own feelings that the Board by all means should be pre- 
served and intending, m short, to tell those people who are saying that, 
"Now listen to who is talking about politics." 

Mr. Mahan. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. I feel the Board 
should be, and I feel that the Board is, the only branch of the Execu- 
tive Government that has the power today to reveal to the American 
people the Communists. 

Now our duties are not to investigate. Our duties are not to prose- 
cute. Our duties are merely to sit as a quasi -judicial body. 
The Chairman, Exactly. 

Mr. Mahan. And we can't do anything unless the Attorney General 
files a petition before us. However, if your bill did pass, the parties 
that have been found to be Communist fronts and fomid to be mem- 
bers of the Communist Party, they then could come before the Board 
and ask that their names be removed from the list on rehearing. 
I understand that is in the bill. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman, may I interpose a question here ? 
The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. IciioRD. What is your piu-pose in proceeding with the DuBois 
case at the present time, after the Supreme Court decision to the effect 
that no member of a Communist organization can be compelled to 
register ? 

Mr. Mahan. It is my personal opinion, and the Board's opinion, 
that the purpose of the act, and the main purpose of what Congress 
intended in 1950, was to allow the American people to know who the 
Communists in this country were. 

The Chairman. That is right, and our bill preserves that. 
Mr. IcHORD. You would make a finding; you haven't made any find- 
ing in regard to the DuBois Club yet. 
Mr. Mahan. No, we haven't. 

Mr. IcHORD. But your finding might be, on the basis of the evidence 
that you hear, that the DuBois Clubs, W.E.B. DuBois Club, is a 
Communist or a Communist-front organization and, as such, is com- 
])elled to register. That would be your finding ? 

Mr. Mahaqn. That might be the finding today, yes. If the law is 
changed, and you take out the registration, we wouldn't have the prob- 
lem with the Supreme Court. And we feel that once we have informed 
the i^eople of the United States that an organization is a Communist- 
front organization, then the youth of this country who would belong- 
to that organization then have a right to decide not to belong. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 341 

The Chairman. So let me see now. 

So if the Contjress should act this session, the balance of this year, 
and the President should sio:n this bill, that would answer your prob- 
lem, in effect ; wouldn't it ? 

Mr. Maiiax. I believe so, personally, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Maiian. In other words, the Supreme Court's decision was to 
the effeot that to require a member of the Communist Party to regis- 
ter violates a member's fifth amendment jorivilegc against self- 
incrimination, and there have been no cases filed with the Board to 
identify and disclose members and officials of the Communist Party 
since the Albert son case, which M-as 1965. 

Obviously, an amendment to the act is needed to ])rovide for disclos- 
ing the members of the Communist conspiracy Avithin the framework 
of the Constitution. 

And the bills being considered by you do that by the simple device 
of eliminating compulsory registration, after the Board has deter- 
mined that a particular individual is a member of any Communist- 
action organization. 

The act as now written also provides for compulsory registration by 
organizations which the Board has determined to be Communist-action 
or Communist-front. Various restrictions apply to such organizations 
and those who choose to remain in office, to remain officers or members, 
when there is in effect a final Board order that the organization 
register. 

The question, whether the Board may issue valid orders requiring 
organizations to register, has not been squarely decided by the courts 
up to the i^resent time. 

However, in what is perhaps the next closest thing, the court of ap- 
peals held in March of this year that criminal sanctions can't lawfully 
be applied to an organization that fails to register, after having been 
ordered to do so. 

The Chairman. Well, these court ])roceedings will still at least be 
alive throughout this year, so if this bill is enacted, I repeat that Avould 
substantially or just about solve your ]>roblem. 

Mr. Maiiax. The pending bills retain provisions for the Board to 
issue organization registration orders, but eliminate criminal penalties 
if an organization does not obey the order. 

I believe that the preferable approach is to handle the disclosure and 
regulation of Communist organizations the same as is done with re- 
sj)ect to individuals under your bill. 

And I feel that if that was passed and signed by the President this 
year, it Avould solve the problems before us. 

The CiiAiRMAX'. And then the belly-aching about the Pi-esident*s new 
ap])ointment would be moot, also. 

Mr. Mahax'. And we would have more work to do. 

The Chairman. And you would have work to do. And by the way, I 
suggest to you and the Attorney General that you do go to work after 
this bill becomes law. 

Mr. Mahax'. Thank you. 

I wish to also state I can't say anything except on the basic provisions 
in your bill. I personally am in favor of the right of the Attorney Gen- 



342 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 

eral to request of the Board immunity. I think this is essential and 
necessary. And 'other provisions you have to strengthen 

The Chairman. In other words, the Attorney General has a right to 
immunize, to grant immunities and then, having granted immunity, 
that shuts out certain defenses by the defendant. 

Mr. Mahan, That is correct. 

And yesterday I was before the Senate investigating committee 
considering the Williams bill, and I listened to the Assistant Attorney 
General of the United States, who is knowledgeable in such matters 
as internal security, and he expressed a personal view at this hearing 
that the Subversive Activities Control Act has done much to control 
the spread of communism in the United States. And I wish you to 
know that I share that view. 

The Chairman. I remember in that connection, I remember after 
the Supreme Court upheld the bare constitutionality of the disclosure 
proceedings, Gus Hall, the head of the Commmiist Party, said, "This 
is just like asking the Communist Party to commit suicide." 

I said, "Well, that is fine. I would like to attend the funeral." 

Mr. Mahan. That is correct ; they have been opposed to us for some 
time. [Laughter.] 

The Chairman. And I have said many times that in my opinion, the 
Smith Act and this act are the greatest tools to fight communism on the 
books. Don't you agree with that ? 

Mr. Mahan. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. 

But here is what the court stated in March of this year, Judge Baze- 
lon : "that there is very much indeed that Congress may do in the pur- 
suit of a single purpose to regulate the Communist Party by the device 
of disclosure." 

And that is what your bills do. 

Mr. Ichord. What case and what court? 

Mr. Mahan. That was the last case that they decided in relation to 
our Board. It is the Communhf Party ^ U.S.A. v. U.S.A.. the criminal 
penalties, where they fined them $230,000. 

Mr. IcHORD. A district court case? 

Mr. Mahan. Yes. The language I read was from the court of 
appeals. 

I have it with me and I will leave it with you, Mr. Congressman.^ 

Mr. IcHORD. District court decision ? 

Mr. Mahan. This is the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit. 

Mr. IcHORD, Court of appeals decision. 

Mr. Mahan. Yes, sir ; and I will leave it with you and put it in the 
record ; pages 6 and 22 in the decision. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman, in order to clear up the record, I be- 
lieve in one question which I directed to you, sir, I lumped Com- 
munist-front organizations together witli Communist-action organi- 
zations. To clarify the record, upon reflection, I believe you do not 
have under the4 registration features of the Internal Security Act 
the power to order a Communist -front organization to register. 

Is that not correct ? 



1 See pp. 357-381. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 343 

Mr. Mahan. Presently, registration applies to })oth types of organi- 
zations. 

Mr. IcnoRD. The provisions only apply to Communist-action orga- 
nizations. 

Mr. Mahan. No; we think the provision should be changed so the 
Communist fronts are not required to register. In other words, we 
keep our own register. Just like a court, when a court 

Mr. IciioRD. I understand what you are trying to do, but I am talk- 
ing about the provisions of the Internal Security Act as such. 

Mr. Maiiax. Both have to register. 

Mr. IcHORD. At the present time, they only apply to Communist- 
action organizations. 

Mr. Mahan. No, Communist fronts, too. 

The Chairman. Both. 

Mr. Mahan. That is correct. 

Mr. IcHORD. Well, now, Mr. Director, could I have the provision of 
the la-sv there, perhaps I am sutfering from a misimderstanding, then. 
I thought you stated that they only applied to Communist-action orga- 
nizations, rather than Communist-front. 

Mr. McNamara. I stated that the individual members 

Mr. Watson. "\Aniile you are looking — excuse me. 

Mr. IcHORD. It would be the individual members in a Commvmist- 
action organization, the statute did give you authority to order the 
members of a Commmiist-action organization to register. 

Mr. Mahan. That is correct. 

Mr. IcHORD. That has not been the case with a Communist-front 
organization. 

Mr. Mahan. That is correct. 

Mr. IcHORD. That is the distinction. I wanted to clarify that for 
the record. 

Mr. Mahan. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say one other thing. 

The Chairman. Yes, and I think it is a great distinction that ought 
to be drawn and I approve, I applaud it, because it has been my ex- 
jierience. I wish to direct this question to you, speaking of Commmiist- 
front organizations, that used to be called "transmission belts" by 
the Communists, 30 years ago, but is it not a fact that by and large, 
at least trying to get some kind of sensible percentage, it has been my 
experience that with reference to fronts, a large percent of front 
members are not Communists, they are just suckers. Isn't that true? 

Mr. Mahan. Tliat is correct. 

The Chairman. And that is why I think the act properly draws a 
difference. 

Mr. IcHORD. Well, of course, the gentleman is asking for authority 
to find whether or not a given organization is a Communist-front 
organization. 

Mr. Mahan. That is correct, and we agree with your bill, where it 
changes the laws in relation to proof to prove a Communist-front 
organization. This came about through 

The Chairman. The agency holding. 

Mr. Mahan. — The National Coimcil case; National Council of 
American- Soviet Friendship versus Subversive Activities Control 
Board. 



344 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 

The Chairman. Do you agree with my interpretation of that ? 

Mr. Mahan. I agree. 

The Chairman. How are you going to prove in all instances that the 
Communists controlling a front are acting expressly as agents of a 
Communist-action organization ? You just can't do it. It is an insuffer- 
able burden. • 

Mr. Mahan. It is a burden on the Attorney General's office, you 
know, too. 

The Chairman. Now let me ask you. I don't know what the previ- 
ous witness and our general counsel will come up with, but let me ask 
you this general question : Do you approve the idea of, after the find- 
ings of fact by the Board, that the Attorney General should keep a 
register, or do you think the Board itself ? The Board itself no doubt 
has a register of cases. 

Mr. Mahan. I think the Board itself should. 

The Chairman. It has that, but I think it would be still a good 
idea to have an additional official list kept by the Attorney General. 

Don't you agree with that ? 

Mr. Mahan. Mr. Chairman, the reason that I say that I feel that 
the Board should keep its own lists, as the court keeps it own records, 
the reason I feel that is that some 

The Chairman. Let me ask you, then. That is a question I intended 
to ask: If the previous witness can convince our counsel that you 
should do, you should keep the register, which one would you prefer ? 

Mr. Mahan. I would prefer that the Board keep the register. 

The Chairman. Yourself? 

Mr. Mahan. On the basis that I feel that there might be other prob- 
lems involved since the courts have ruled that the member doesn't 
have to register with the Attorney General. 

The Chairman. Well, this is looking a considerable number of weeks 
ahead, because I don't know when we will sit to mark up this bill, 
but just for my own information, my own edification, anyway, will you 
prepare words for an amendment that would do that ? 

Mr. MLvHAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. And leave it with counsel. 

Mr. M^VHAN. Yes. 

The Chairman. I want to discuss it with the members, when we 
meet in executive session. 

Mr. Mahan. But going back to the Communist front, yesterday at 
the hearing in the Senate, the Assistant Attorney General informed 
the Senators that they were investigating at the present time 100 pos- 
sible front organizations. 

The Chairman. You are talking about Mr. Yeagley, now? 

Mr. Mahan. Yes, that is what he testified to, that they are presently 
investigating a hundred suspected front organizations, and because of 
the law, the way it is today, they can't bring many cases. So it is impor- 
tant to change the manner of proof. 

The Chairman. The manner of proof. That is right. 

Mr. Mahan. As your bill does. 

I appreciate very much liaving the opportunity to aj^pear here. I 
feel that most Americans would rather have preventive medicine by 
disclosing who these people are. I think it is good for people to know 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 345 

who they are, because then when they join an organization, and this 
man has been stated to be a Conunnnist member, they are a little leary 
of what he does and leary of the oro^anization, and they can protect 
themselves. The least that the (\)no;ress owes the American people, I 
believe, is to tell them, under a constitutional form of government, 
who is subvei'sive. 

The Chairman. That is right. 

Mr. Culver. Mr. Chairman, a question. 

Mr. Mahan. what is your background, your professional back- 
ground ? 

Mr. Mahan. I practiced law, Dick knows me pretty well. I have 
been with him off and on since I was about 32. 

The Chairman. In connection with American vets? 

Mr. Mahan. No, I Avas national commander of the Veterans of For- 
eign Wars, like Dick was. 

Mr. RouDEBUsii. Veterans of Foreign Wars, now, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Culver. Mr. Mahan, for the record, would you please pro- 
vide 

The Chairman. Oh, VFW. 

Mr. Mahan. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Now I have got it. 

Well, you are appearing here, and I hope I can keep in mind that 
you are appearing here in a dual capacity, as a former VFW com- 
mander and as a member and Chairman of the Board. May I assume 
that to be the case ? 

Mr. Mahan. Today I was asked to appear here as the Chairman of 
the Subversive Activities Control Board. 

Mr. CuLA^R. Mr. Mahan, Avhat is the nature of your academic back- 
ground ? 

Mr. Mahan. I entered the service when I was 18. 

The Chairman. But by saying you appear here as a member of the 
Board, or Chairman of the Board, you don't mean to say that the 
VFW's would repudiate you? 

Mr. Mahan. No, I don't think they would. 

The Chairman. Because the legislative director of the VFW 

Mr. Mahan. Here is my biographical sketch, if you would like it. 

The Chairman. — will be testifymg tomorrow. 

Mr. Culver. I would like you to reply to the question. If you would 
be kind enough to reply to the question. I don't want a biographical 
sketch. I am very much interested in your personal response. 

Mr. Mahan. I entered the serx'ice when I was 18. I became a Marine 
Corps pilot in World War II. 

Mr. Culver. Are you a high school graduate ? 

At that time? 

Mr. Mahan. I am a high school graduate. I attended the university 
and Carroll College in Montana. I attended the I'niversity of Montana 
Law School, 1949. 

Mr. Culver. What was the vear of graduation from college? 

Mr. Mahan. 1949. 

Mr. Culver. No, from college. 

Mr. Mahan. 1949. 

Mr. Culver. And the law school, Avhat year? 



346 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

Mr. Mahan. 1949. 

Mr. CuLA-ER. How lono: a program was that ? "WHiat was the date of it ? 
You received simultaneous degrees? 

Mr. Mahan. An LL.B. degree. 

Mr. Culver. You received simultaneous degrees? 

Mr. Mahan. No. I only have one degree, the LL.B. 

Mr. Culver. It was my understanding that you graduated from both 
law school and college. 

Mr. Mahan. No, I went to undergraduate school. I had to go to 
prelaw. 

Mr. Culver. Let us do it chronologically. 

I think that is a little easier. 

You graduated from high school. What year? 

Mr. Mahan. 1941. 

Mr. Culver. Aiid then what was the nature of your activities ? 

Mr. Mahan, I entered the military service. 

Mr. Culver. And you served for how long a period? 

Mr. Mahan. The voluntary program in the Navy, and I ended up 
a Marine Corps pilot, dive bomber pilot. I got out of the service on 
January 1st of 1946, and I went to school from the time 

Mr. Culver. What school was that, then, in 1946? 

Mr. Mahan. I went to Carroll College, 1946. 

Mr. CuL^^R. In Nebraska, is that? 

Mr. Mahan. No, it is in Helena, Montana. It is a Catholic college 
tliere. Then I 

Mr. Cul%tr. How long did you attend that institution ? 

Mr. Mahan. I attended that for a year. And I attended Montana 
State University for approximately a year before the war, because 
I graduated from high school when I was 17. 

Mr. Culver. Then let us go back. 

You graduated from high school in 1941. 

Mr. Mahan. 1941. 

Mr. CuL\T.R. And then you say you attended what college for a year? 

Mr. Mahan. Montana University School, prelaw. 

Mr. Culver. For 1 year? 

Mr. Mahan. Until the war broke out, and then I joined the Navy. 

Mr. Culver. Did you have 1 complete year of academic training 
during that period? 

Mr. Mahan. Yes, or partially completed. Well, I will start out first 
on my educational backgi'ound. 

I attended school first when I w^as 6 years old. 

Mr. Culver. No, I am interested in the period of your high school 
graduation, Mr. Mahan. 

Mr. Mahan. I graduated in 1941 from Helena High School. I was 
the president of the student body, too. I attended the I'^^niversity of 
Montana. I was president of the freshman class at the University 
of Montana. 

Mr. Culver. Did you complete that 1 year? 

Mr. Mahan. I completed that 1 year and joined the Navy. 

Mr. Culver. I misunderstood you, then, because from your earlier 
response, "partially completed," I gathered you were unable to com- 
plete that. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 347 

Mr. Mahan. Oh, I completed it. I didn't take one course because I 
went to Seattle and joined the Navy. Three of us hitchhiked to Seattle 
and joined the Navy. So one course I didn't complete that year. 

I came out of the service as a captain. I then attended Carroll 
College. 

Wliile in the service, I attended St. Mary's, preflight in California. 

Mr. Culver. 1946, this was? 

Mr, ^LviiAN. That would have been in 1942. 

Mr. Culver. When you were discharged? 

Mr. Mahax. No, when I was in the service. 

Mr. CuL^^:R. I say, you were discharged, M*\ Mahan, in 1946. 
Is that correct? 

Mr. Mahan. That is correct. 

Mr. Cul\t:r. Then the nature of your education from that point on? 

Mr. Mahan. I received 1 more year of prelaw at Carroll College and 
at Montana University. Then I went to law school because I met the 
requirements to attend the graduate school, and I graduated in 1949 
from law school with an LL.B. 

Mr. CuL\^R. And also received under that; program an undergrad- 
uate degree at that time, or just the law degree? 

Mr, Mahan. No ; just the law degree. I am fairly close to having an- 
other degree, but at that time I had a wife and two children and I had 
to practice law to make a living. 

Then my father was an attorney, but he died while I was going 
to law school, but he had been an attorney in my town for 20-some 
years. And he was a past national commander of the Disabled Ameri- 
can Veterans of the United States. A very successful trial lawyer. 
And I practiced law in Helena, Montana, from 1949 until the Presi- 
dent appointed me to this Board, 1965. 

During that time, I have held about all of the special assistant 
attorneyships in the State, in relation to workmen's com]3ensation, 
unemployment compensation, public employees' retirement fund, and 
so forth. 

During that time, I probably have tried 500 criminal and civil 
cases before juries. And during that time I met Dick Roudebush, and 
he and I went through the chairs of VFW, which I enjoyed im- 
mensely. And during that time, also, Dick sent me to Japan to act 
as an observer at the Girard trial, when the American soldier shot 
the Japanese lady. I was over there for some 5 weeks during that 
trial. 

Dick sent me down to Mexico when 32 servicemen were imprisoned 
in Tijuana without the right of bail. And after about 2 weeks there, 
we got these men out of prison down there, had their cases brought 

They lived in filth. It was a terrible situation. I never saw anything 
like it in my life. One boy was in his cell, and he was suffering from 
spinal meningitis, and they wouldn't take care of him. Dick remembers 
all this. 

We got all these boys out of jail down there. 

Mr. Cul\t:r. How did this position first come to your attention ? 

Mr. Mahan. I was called by the White House about 6 o'clock in the 
morning, in my home in Helena, Montana, and they asked me if I 
would be interested. 



348 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

Mr. Culver. In 1965? 

Mr. Mahan. Yes. I never requested the job, if that is what you mean. 

Mr. Culver. I am just curious. The c^uestion was pure and simple. 
How did the position come to your attention ? 

Mr. Mahan. They called, and I said, "I never heard of the Sub- 
versive Activities Control Board," and they said, "Well, let us know 
by 1 o'clock this afternoon if you are interested." 

And then 

Mr. Culver. You were offered it at that time, Mr. Mahan, the po- 
sition as director? 

Mr. Mahan. What is that ? 

Mr. Culver. Were you offered at that time the position as director 
of the Board ? 

Mr. Mahan. A member of the Board. 

Mr. Culver. Member? 

Mr. Mahan. Yes, sir. They told me the chairmanship was open, and 
I might receive it. The chairmanship of the Board had been in the 
hands of Governor Cherry of Arkansas for years previously, and he 
had died, and I took his place. And we have also the other sketches of 
the other members of the Board, and I will present them to you, if you 
would like. 

Mr. Culver. What do you think would be lost, in terms of the effec- 
tiveness of the administration of your present responsibilities and the 
Board's as you currently understand them, if it was moved under the 
directorship and administration of the Justice Department and the 
Attorney General of the United States ? 

Mr. Mahan. I feel that that would be as un-American as you could 
do it. I don't believe that one organization 

Mr. Culver. What is un-American about a transfer of governmental 
authority from one constitutional body to another, under our system 
of government ? 

Mr. Mahan. Maybe I used the wrong terminology. I feel that if a 
person is to be investigated by one department, prosecuted by the same 
department, and judged guilty or innocent by the same department, 
he loses some of the rights of due process which our Constitution 
should afford him. 

I believe that a man should be investigated by one organization, 
prosecuted by another, and the organization that sits as his court 
should be independent of tliat. I believe in the tlieory of the Subversive 
Activities Control Board. 

Mr. Culver. When you were an Assistant Attorney General in the 
prosecutor's office, is that the way it really operated? Has that been 
characteristic of United States law enforcement historically? 

Mr. Mahan. It is, I think. Tliere are certain boards in the country 
that have the right to issue ordei-s to show cause, and decide their own 
cases, but they don't deal with human rights. They deal mostly, like 
the Federal Trade Commission, with matters that don't involve tlie 
first amendment of the Constitution, the fifth amendment, and so forth, 

Mr. Culver. Your basic objection would not be in terms of the effec- 
tiveness and the administration of the ])resent responsibilities of your 
Board as you understand it, but it would really be much more — the con- 
stitutional issue which would constitute your major objection to such a 
transfer? 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 349 

Mr. Maiian. This Board has had so much difficulty in the courts that 
I think it would just add more difficulty to transfer it over to Justice. 

Mr. Tuck. If the gentleman will yield on a point of order, I don't 
believe this is part of the purpose of our hearings. 

The Chairman. Well, I am sure the gentleman will pursue this line 
not very long. 

Mr. Ctjlver. Mr. Chairman, I can't think of a line that is any more 
relevant to consideration of legislation affecting the current nature and 
authority of the Subversive Activities Control Board than to determine 
whether or not, among those bills before us, that this indeed is, in fact, 
the best way to accomplish that. 

Mr. Tuck. I don't think we have the authority in this field, if we 
had the will. 

Mr. Culver. I didn't suggest that, Governor. 

Mr. Tuck. If we have no authority in the field, why should we pursue 
an investigation ? 

Mr. CuL^^:R. I think certainly whether or not the Board's authority 
should in fact be strengthened, or whether or not it could be more effec- 
tively administered is relevant. We have the rare opportimity here to 
have the Chairman for over a year and a half. 

Mr. Tuck. Well, I won't pursue the point. 

Mr. Cul\t:r. I certainly suggest that there is a great deal of germane- 
ness to this line of inquiry, but I would yield to the chairman's deter- 
mination on that point. 

The Chairman. I don't want to rule on it. 

Mr. Tuck. I will withdraw any questions I have. 

Mr. IcHORD. Will the gentleman yield for one question at this point? 

Mr. Culver. Certainly. 

Mr. IcHORD. T\Tio has the responsibility for prosecuting a case before 
S ACB at the present time ? 

Mr. Mahan. The Attorney General. 

Mr. IcHORD. Under the proposed legislation, both the Dirksen bill 
and this legislation, who would have the duty of prosecuting the case? 

Mr. Mahan. The Attorney General. 

Mr. IcHORD. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Culver. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Of course, we are using the word "prosecuting" very 
loosely. 

Mr. Ichord. Yes. 

The Chairman. It is really a civil matter. 

Mr. Ichord. I don't know what term you could apply, Mr. Chairman, 
except that perhaps T should have stated who has tlie responsibility of 
sustaining or presenting the prooi. 

Tlie Chairman. Of bringing the action. Instead of prosecuting, I 
think bringing the action is more appropriate. 

Mr. Mahan. The Attorney General brings the action, and then he 
has his attorneys present the United States' evidence on his petition. 

The Chairman. That is right. 

Mr. Culver. Mr. Chairman, just one last question. 

How would you distinguish the two holdings affecting the SACB? 
First, Communist Party versus S'uhversive Activities Control Board. 
Wliat did you understand the holding in that case? 



84-351 O— 67- 



350 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

Mr. Mahan. The criminal case. Is that the one you speak of? 

Mr. Culver. Convmunist Party versus Subversive Activities Control 
Board. 1961 ? What is your understanding ? 

Mr. JVIahan. In 1961, they held this act was constitutional in 1961. 
That was my understanding. 

Mr, Culver. Upheld the Board. 

Mr, Mahan. A five-to-four decision. 

Mr. Culver. Upheld the Board, requiring what ? 

Mr, Mahan. Requiring registration. 

Mr. Culver. How about the 1965 case, the Albertson ? 

The Chairman. That was a fifth amendment case in 1965. 

Mr. Mahan. That is correct, and in that case they held that we 
could not force members to register where they invoke the fifth amend- 
ment privilege against self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. Individuals to register. 

Mr. CuL^^ER. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. RouDEBusH. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. RouDEBUSH. I would like to state that it is a rare occasion that 
two old friends and comrades in arms have a chance to share the posi- 
tion that we share today in a relative sense, Mr, Mahan, and I would 
like to say for the committee's general edification that I have known 
John Mahan for about 15 years, that he served as my senior vice com- 
mander when I was the national commander of the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, and I assigned many responsibilities to him. 

He mentioned a couple of these: one, going to Japan on a very 
ticklish case that involved one of our sei-vicemen and, another, on 
the case of the servicemen who were held in prison in Mexico, 

I would say he served our organization well and with dispatch and 
with intelligence, I have often taken exceptions to appointments by 
the President, but I would like to say I was personally delighted when 
John Mahan was appointed to this position, as he is a great American 
and eminently qualified for the job, 

Mr. Mahan. Thank you, Mr. Roudebush. 

Mr, loHORD. Mr, Chairman, since the gentleman from Iowa went 
into educational qualifications, a question arose in my mind, I was 
raJther curious as to the law school ; was that a 2-year or 3-year law 
school ? 

Mr. ]VL\HAN. No, 3-year law school. 

Mr. IcHORD. On what did you obtain credits? 

Mr. Mahan. I went to school in the summer, too. 

Mr. IcHORD. Did you get credits for courses which you had taken? 

Mr. Mahan. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Ichord. How many years of prelaw work do you have to take 
before you enter law school ? 

Mr, Mahan, Two years, I had 2 years. 

Mr. Ichord, And you attended 1 year before you went into service ? 

Mr. Mahan. Correct. 

Mr. Ichord, And then you obtained another year after service, and 
then you went into 3 years of law school. Is that correct? 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 351 

Mr. Maiian. That is correct ; I had a 5-year course. I did it faster 
than 5 years because I went to sunnner school on tlie G.I. Bill of 
Rights. 

Mr. IciioiiD. AVell, I can join with the gentleman there. I am also a 
product of the G.I. Bill of Rights. 

The Chairman. Well, as a matter of fact, if we are putting our own 
background in there, I went directly from high school to law school. 
I never had a degree except a law degree. I never went to college, so- 
called, or preparatory couree. 

Mr. IciiOKD. I would state to the chairman that one of the most com- 
petent lawyers that I know of in Missouri is a lawyer who studied 
at a law office and never attended 1 day of college, ]\Ir. Chairman. 

Tlie CiiAiRMAX. By the way, the dean of our bar in Louisiana was 
just such a gentleman and, by the way, he became head of the State 
Board of Education, the head of LSU. 

Mr. IcHORD. As long as w^e are discussing that point, w^e have a 
former President of the United States, and who happened to be from 
Missouri, whom historians are now recording as one of the greatest 
Presidents. 

The Chairman. Belatedly. 

Mr. IcHORD. President Truman. I don't believe he ever attended a 
day of college. 

Mr. Tuck. Mr. Chairman, since we are getting into backgrounds, 
I have no college degree, only 2 years in college, but several years 
after I got out of college, they sent for me and gave me a degree. 

The Chairman. Well, I woidd say. Governor Tuck, we got by. We 
have been pretty good hogback lawyers at that. 

Mr. Tuck. Well, I don't think I am so good, but I have a lot of folks 
down there who think so. 

The Chair3ian. That is the important thing. 

Mr. ]\LvHAN. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I hope that the committee is 
able to come out with a bill this year and soon, and put us back to work. 
Tlie Chairjman. Thank you. 
Mr. ]\L\han. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Ichord. Mr. Chairman, I have one question of the gentleman. 
We had considerable discussion about legal sanctions which may or 
may not be triggered by a finding by the Board that a given organiza- 
tion is a Communist or Commmiist- front organization. 

The chairman indicated that he did not feel that the provisions of 
any bill passed by the committee should provide for sanctions, that 
this would be merely a finding that the organization was Communist 
or not. 

Do you feel, Mr. Chairman, that any sanctions should be provided 
for because of the finding of the Board ? 
Mr. Mahan. I believe that a person in the Communist- 



The Chairman. The type of sanctions provided in the present law 
have been thrown overboard. 

Mr. Mahan. No ; a man can't work for the United States Govern- 
ment and he can't 



352 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 

The Chairman. That is still in the law, that is right. 

Mr. Mahan. And he can't work in a defense facility. 

The Chairman. Tliat is right. 

We had some trouble in defense, with the defense facilities. 

Mr. Mahan. It is before the Supreme Court now. It is the Robel 
case. 

The Chairman. The other provisions of the act have been pretty- 
well carried out. 

Mr. IVIahan. In this Robel case, I might state that last year the 
Supreme Court heard arguments. On the last day of the court, they set 
it for rehearing. So there is going to be a hearing on the Robel case. 

Mr. Ichord. Well, let us pursue that, then. It is your understanding 
that under this legislation, if a given individual were a member of, say, 
a Communist-front organization and you should make a finding that 
the organization was a Communist-front organization, that any mem- 
ber of that organization would be prohibited from holding Government 
employment ? 

Mr. Mahan. That is correct, and also members of Communist-action 
groups are denied defense facility employment. 

Mr. IcHORD. Wliat provisions or procedures for appeal from the 
SACB findings would be available? 

Mr. Mahan. Under the bill that you have before you, it is my under- 
standing that if a person is found to be in one of these Communist- 
action organizations, he could later come before us and state, as the 
chairman has mentioned, that he was no longer a member of the Com- 
munist Party, he was duped into belonging, and he wants his name 
erased ; and he would have that right. 

So I think it is safe in relation to that. He could go before our Board, 
in other words. 

Mr. IcHORD. You mean he could go before the Board and say that "I 
was a member of the Communist Party, but I am not now a member of 
the Communist Party," and that sanction would not operate against 
him then ? 

Mr. Mahan. Of course, he would have to have adequate proof. Tlie 
Federal Bureau of Investigation might have evidence on the other 
side to be presented by the Attorney General to be considered by the 
Board in making a determination in relation to whether he was, 

Mr. IcHORD. Yes, of course, certainly I believe that he should, by 
reason of his membership in the Communist organization, or Commu- 
nist-front organization, be a suspect individual, and those things 
should be considered by persons responsible for his hiring. 

But as you testified, it is my understanding that once you found that 
an organization was a Communist-action organization and that an in- 
dividual was a member of that organization that he would be prohib- 
ited from holding Government employment until he acted affirmatively 
to remove that stigma or sanction. 

Mr. Mahan. That is correct. I don't think he should be allowed to 
work for the United States Government. 

Mr. Watson. Mr. Chairman, in that regard, I am sure that you ap- 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 353 

pi-eciate the fact, Mr. Malian, that under the provisions of tlie legisLi- 
tion that we are considering now, yon would have the authority to 
determine wliether or not an organization or an individual or an or- 
ganization in this regard is either one, Communist, Communist-action, 
Communist- front, or Communist-affiliated. 

Mr. IVLvHAN. That is right. 

Mr. Watson. Or infiltrated, I mean. Infiltrated is the word. 

Mr. Mahan. Yes. 

Mr. Watson. Is it your interpretation that once you have made such 
a determination that the law would preclude anyone who is a member 
in either of those classifications 

Mr. ISIahan. Not infiltrated. 

Mr. Watsok. Well, I haven't finished my question. 

Mr. Mahan. I am sorry. 

Mr. Watson. Is it your interpretation that the law would preclude 
them from Federal employment and/or defense facility employment, if 
they were a member of any of these groups ? 

The Chair]man. Not infiltrated. 

Mr. AL\HAN. That is right ; every one but infiltrated. 

Yes. Tlie infiltrated was a special law that Congress passed, I think, 
in 1954, an amendment to the act. 

The Chairman. Tell me, based on court decisions, do you know of 
any court decision trying to spell out what infiltration means in teniis 
of percentage ? Do you know of any ? 

In other words, you see, you can put a drop of ink in a glass of water, 
and it will be diluted and it will be infiltrated with, ink, but up to what 
percentage ? Is there any rule of thumb to measure what infiltration is ? 

Mr. Mahan. I don't think there are any court decisions on it. 

The Chairman. I didn't think so. I wanted the benefit of your 
thought. 

Mr. Mahan. But in relation to your question, a member of a Com- 
mmiist front or a Communist-action group, such as the Communist 
Party, can't have Government employment. 

Mr. Culver. Mr. Mahan, in the 17 years' existence of the SACB, 
how many final registration orders have you issued? 

Mr, Mahan. I have the chart here. 

Mr. Culver. I don't need your chart, just numbers. 

Mr. ]VL\HAN. Forty-four as to individuals. 

Mr. Culver. Groups ? 

Mr. Mahan. No ; individual cases. 

Mr. Culver. Party organizations. How many final registration or- 
ders have you issued in 17 years? It is eight, isn't it? 

Mr. Mahan. We are counting them. 

Mr. Culver. Is that Mr. Hunter ? 

Mr. Mahan. No, Mr. Dirlam. I am sorry. 

We left a record of every case here for you, and what has happened 
to it, since the Board started. 

Mr. Culver. It seems to me for 17 years — and at your own sugges- 
tion, you haven't been very busy— you would know how many groups 



354 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

you had requested to finally register under the law, particularly if 
it is 

Mr. Mahan. Eleven, sir. 

Mr. Culver. Eleven. We received information from Mr. Frank 
Hunter, General Counsel of the Board, that there had been eight. 
How many of the 11, assuming 11 is the correct figure, how many of 
the 11 are now defunct? 

Mr. Mahan. While he is checking that, I wish to make this comment : 
In many of the cases that have been petitioned by the Attorney Gen- 
eral, the organizations dissolved before any final registration orders 
came about. The courts have stated that this means that the purposes 
of the act, and more, have been accomplished. These, of course, are 
in addition to the groups that have been finally ordered to register. 

Mr. AsHBROOK. Are you sure it is the intent of the act to stop them ? 
It is the intent of the act to bring information to the public so they 
mil know. 

Mr. Mahan. That is correct, but if an organization dissolves — I 
have the information on them here, such as youth organizations. 

The Chairman. You mean Communist youth ? 

Mr. Culver. Mr. Mahan, if I might at this point, in view of the fact 
that the General Counsel of your Board provided my office some 
information that the Board has issued eight final registration 
orders 

Mr. Mahan. Well, say that is correct, then. 

Mr. Culver. You will say it is correct. I wondered what the other 
three were, if you give me the list of eight. 

Mr. Mahan. We have this list here for you. We just counted it in a 
hurry, but if he said eight, eight is right, because Mr. Hunter would 
say exactly what it was. 

Mr. Culver. Of those eight, then, I w^onder how many are now 
defunct ? 

The Chairman. It has been my experience that you can't very well 
measure with accuracy how long a front organization would last. It 
will try to last as long as its objective is not achieved. That could be 
weeks, that could be months, that could be even days. Isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Mahan. Correct. 

Mr. Culver. Mr. Chainnan, again the General Counsel apparently 
could be more precise. He suggested that seven are now defunct of 
the eight, and only the Communist Party 

Mr. Mahan. Is not defunct. 

Mr. Culver. Is not defunct. 

The Chairman. I don't dispute that, if he said it. 

Mr. Mahan. No, I don't dispute it. 

Mr. Culver. And what has been the annual budget of your organiza- 
tion for the past 17 years ? 

Mr. Mahan. It has averaged about $300,000. It is about $5 million 
the taxpayers have paid in 17 years to determine how far you can go 
to balance freedom of the individual against national security. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 355 

Mr. (^ULVER. I am just interested in ^'our budget. And your current 
budgetary request for the administration of your Board is $480,000? 

Mr. ]\L\UAN, No ; it is $295,000, which was approved by the House. 

Mr. Culver. What is this $480,000 figure? Would that be about the 
average, would you suppose? Just roughly, estimated? 

Mr. Mahan. $289,500 was what they gave us last year. 

Mr. Culver. That is what you received last year ? 

Mr. Mail\n. That is correct. 

Mr. Culver. And you have five people on your Board ? 

Mr. Mahan. Well, Mr. Sweeney died day before yesterday. We have 
four. 

Mr. Culver. You have five positions authorized under the law ? And 
those are $26,000 each? 

Mr. Mahan. That is correct. 

Mr, CuL^'ER. I liaveno further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Tuck. Mr. Mahan, as I understand it, under the present pro- 
cedure, the Board is powerless to take any action unless the proceeding 
is instituted by the Attorney General. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. Maiiax. That is correct, Governor. 

Mr. IcHORD. Well, Mr. Chaimian, the gentleman from Iowa brought 
out that of the eight findings you have made, seven of the organizations 
are now defunct. 

Would you say — I don't want to ask you leading questions — but 
would you say that the decision of SACB contributed to their now 
defunct status? 

Mr. Mahax. I agree with that. Absolutely. 

That is what the Assistant Attorney General of the United States 
testified to yesterday in the Senate committee that I mentioned earlier. 

Mr, Watsox. Mr. Chairman, I have one final question. 

I believe, if this bill passes, that it would be your judgment that the 
processes would be expedited and you would not be confronted with 
all of the delays that you liave encountered in the past. 

Mr. Maiiax'. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Watsox'. There is no process presently whereby you could go 
directly to the Supreme Court, rather than allowing these defendants 
to extend and prolong the litigation, even up to 10 or 11 years? 

Mr. ^NIaiiax. Today, what they do is they go to a three-man district 
court and then they go directly *from t]iat"^to the Supreme Court, and 
they bypass the court of appeals. 

Mr. Watsox'^. But there is no process whereby you could go directly 
to the Supreme Court? 

Mr. Mahax . That is correct. 

Mr. Watsox. Tliank you. 

The CirAiRMAx\ Xo other questions? 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. Maiiax. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

(The court opinion referred to by Mr. Mahan on p. 342 follows:) 



^toJi Slat^fi (Ewxtt of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA dRCTJIT 



No. 19,880 
No. 19,881 

The Commtjnist Party of the 
United States of AivfEKTCA, appkt.t.ant, 

V. 

UinTED States of America, appellee. 



Appeals from the United States District Court 
for the District of Columbia 



Decided March 3, 1967 

Mr. John J. Abt, of the bar of the Court of Appeals 
of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with 
whom Mr. Joseph Forer was on the brief, for appellant. 

Mr, Kevin T. Maroney, Attorney, Department of Justice, 
with whom Assistant Attorney General Teagley, Messrs. 
David G. Bress, United States Attorney, and George B. 
Searls, Attorney, Department of Justice, were on the brief, 
for appellee. Mr. Frank Q. Neheher, Assistant United 
States Attorney, and Mr. Joseph A. Lowther, Assistant 
United States Attorney at the time the record was filed, 
also entered appearances for appellee. 



857 



358 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 



Before Pbettyman, Senior Circuit Judge, Da2taheb and 
McGowAN, Circuit Judges. 

McGowAN, Circuit Judge: These consolidated appeals 
are from judgments of conviction under two indictments 
returned, respectively, on December 1, 1961 and February 
25, 1965. Each charged appellant, a voluntary association, 
•v\ith eleven counts of failing to register as a Communist- 
action organization as required by the Subversive Activi- 
ties Control Act of 1950, and one count of failing to file 
the statement which Congress directed should accompany 
the act of registration. 64 Stat. 987-1005, 50 U.S.C. 
§ 781-98 (1964). Appellant was convicted on all counts 
of sboth indictments,^ with the exception of the registra- 
tion statement count of the second indictment which the 
Government abandoned when forced by the trial court 
to elect between it and the corresponding count in the first 
indictment. The maximum punishment of a $10,000 fine 
in respect of each count was imposed. Because we have 
concluded that the results of the statutory scheme for the 
control of appellant, when viewed as a whole in relation 
to these particular punishments, are hopelessly at odds 
with the protections afforded by the Fifth Amendment, 
and that scheme if here applied would particularly run 
counter to the Fifth Amendment's ban on compelled 
incrimination, we reverse the convictions. 

n 

The Board order which appellant is charged with failing 



^ The existence of two indictments is explained by the fact 
that an earlier conviction on the first was reversed by this 
court in Communist Party v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 
61, 331 F.2d 807, cert, denied, S17 U.S. 968 (1964). Before 
proceeding to try appellant again, the Government sought a 
second indictment founded upon the same facts as the first, 
but seeking punishment in respect of continuing violations 
occurring later in point of time. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 359 



to obey was before the United States Supreme Court in 
Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 
367 U.S. 1 (1961). Challenges of various kinds to its 
validity were made and, with one exception, explicitly 
rejected. The exception was one founded upon the Fifth 
Amendment's self -incrimination clause. The prevailing 
majority of the Court were of the view that it was pre- 
mature to resolve the claim that the statute was unconsti- 
tutional insofar as it embraced any requirement that the 
Party's officers or governing members comply with the 
registration requirements on its behalf. The disposition 
of this issue, so it was said, could .await the time, when, 
if ever, "enforcement proceedings for failure to register 
are instituted against the Fatty or against its officers." Id. 
at 109. (Emphasis supplied). Four members of the Court 
dissented from this staying of the judicial hand, and, with 
varying shades of emphasis, expressed doubts as to the 
in\Tilnerabihty of the statutory scheme to Fifth Amend- 
ment attack. 

This was the state of higher authority when appellant's 
first conviction came before us. We reversed that convic- 
tion (Note 1, supra) on the ground that (1) the self- 
incrimination privilege was available to the officers of the 
Party, (2) that privilege had in fact been adequately 
asserted, and (3) to the extent registration could, under 
the regulations, be effected by an "agent" or "other 
person," conviction must, at the least, rest upon proof 
of the availability of such a person.' We left the consti- 



2 The Act affirmatively requires a Communist-action 
organization to register as such, and to accompany the 
registration with a registration statement containing certain 
information spelled out in the statute. The Attorney General 
is, however, given the power to prescribe by regulation the 
form to be used in each instance. The regulations first issued 
under the Act prescribed a single form which was to be 
signed by an officer or member of the governing body of 



360 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 



tntional issues unstirred for the most part, stating" 
expressly that we ventured "no opinion concerning the 
Communist Party's duty to submit the data demanded." 
118 U.S.App.D.C. at 69, 331 F.2d at 815. 

Since this action on our part, a number of things have 
happened. One is, of course, that the Government has 
re-tried appellant, and a second conviction is before us 
on this appeal. Another is that the Supreme Court has 
addressed itself further to certain aspects of the Sub- 
versive Activities Control Act* The most significant of 



the organization. After Communist Party was decided by 
the Supreme Court, the regulations were amended so as to 
provide separate forms for registration, on the one hand, 
and for the accompan3nng registration statement, on the 
other. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 11.200-11.201 (1966). Under the 
amended instructions, neither was required to be signed by 
an officer, but could be signed instead by a •'member, em- 
ployee, attorney, agent, or other i)erson filing the registra- 
tion statement . . . [who] shaU certify in writing that he 
has been authorized by the Communist organization to file 
the registration statement on its behalf." Form IS-51a, 
issued under regulations tuprtL 

»In Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 878 U.S. 600 (1964), 
the Supreme Court, on due process grounds, invalidated 
Section 6 of the Act, which made it unlawful for any member 
of a Communist organization required to register to apply 
for or use a passport. See also Mayer v. Rusk, 878 U.S. 
579 (1964). More recently the Court remanded to the Board, 
because of the staleness of the records made in the admin- 
istrative proceedings, two orders requiring Communist-front 
organizations to register. American Committee for Protec- 
tion of Foreign Bom v. SACB, 880 U.S. 503 (1965) ; Vet- 
erans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade v. SACB, 380 U.S. 
513 (1965). In each case Justices Douglas, Black, and 
Harlan were of the view that the constitutional issues should, 
without remand, be faced and decided as long overdue. It is 
also of interest to note United States v. Brown, 881 U.S. 
48? (1965), in which the Court struck down, as a bill of 
attainder,. Section 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 ggj 



these later adjudications for present purposes is Alhcrtson 
V. Subversive Activities Control Board, 382 U.S. 70 (19G5). 
In that case the Court made short shrift of our emulation 
of its restraint in dealing with the self-incrimination claim 
in the earlier Communist Party case; and, without await- 
ing a tender of the issue in criminal enforcement pro- 
ceedings, invalidated under the Fifth Amendment a Board 
order requiring, in default of registration by the Party 
and as commanded by the Act, registration by persons 
found to be members of the Party. Although Alhertson 
exhibits the self-incrimination issue in a somewhat different 
posture from that involved in this^-appeal, both the- mode 
and the manner of the Court's decisive intervention to 
vindicate the pri\dlege in that case suggest that- it is in 
order for us to come to grips with the issue deferred by 
it in the Communist Party case, that is to say, the essen- 
tial question of whether, because of its ' pact on the 
Party membership, the weapon of compelled disclosure 
can, consistently with the Fifth Amendment, be trained 
upon appellant. 



and Disclosure Act of 1959, which made it a crime for a 
member of the Communist Party to serve as an officer or 
employee of a labor union — a disqualification which, as the 
dissent pointed out, is almost exactly the same as that pre- 
scribed in Section 5 (a)(1)(E) of the Subversive Activities 
Control Act. 381 U.S. at 470. The Government has recently 
told the Court that it need not even address itself to the 
legality of the provision in the so-called medicare statute 
which denies benefits to individuals who are members of 
organizations required to register under the Subversive 
Activities Control Act. This provision was, on November 
14, 1966, held unconstitutional by a three-judge District 
Court in the Central District of California (Reed v. Gardner, 
No. 66-1224-TC Civil) ; and the Government has decided not 
to appeal in the face of Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11 
(1966). Cf. Appellee's Suggestion of Mootness, Weiss v. 
Gardner, judgment vacated, 35 U.S.L. Week 3278 (February 
14, 1967) (No. 904). 



362 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

6 

m 

The Supreme Court's decision in Comrmmist Party pre- 
sumably retains enough vitality to suggest that there is 
very much indeed that Congress may do in the pursuit of a 
single purpose to regulate the Communist Party by the 
device of disclosure. The difficulty is that the purposes 
of Congress in respect of the Communist Party have not 
been single in nature. They have, rather, sought in effect 
to compel both disclosure by the Party and. at the same 
time, the incrimination of its members. The Congressional 
enactments applicable to the Communist Party have, 
severally but simultaneously, exposed it in substance to 
outlawry as well as to an obligation to disclose its records 
and affairs. We may assume for the moment that either 
approach was, and is, constitutionally feasible. We can 
not, because of the Fifth Amendment, safely assume as 
much in the case of the co-existence of both purposes. 

In Albertson, the Court noted (382 U.S. at 79) that 
the self-incrimination claims there made were "not asserted 
in an essentially non-criminal and regulatory area of 
inquiry, but against an inquiry in an area permeated vdi\\ 
criminal statutes, where response to any of the form's 
questions in context might involve the petitioners in the 
admission of a crucial element of a crime." Earlier in 
that opinion (at 77) the Court had identified the member- 
ship clause of the Smith Act, 18 U.S.C. '^ 2385 (1964), 
and Section 4(a) of the Subversive Activities Control Act 
as "only two federal criminal statutes" it might mention as 
exposing members of the Party to prosecution. The Court 
coincidentally characterized itself as having already held 
that, short of membership, "mere association with the 
Communist Party presents sufficient threat of prosecution 
to support a claim of privilege." Ibid, Also in Albertson, 
the Court confirmed the conclusion reached by us in appel- 
lant's appeal from its first conviction that the immunity 
provision contained in Section 4(f) of the Act falls short 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 3^3 



of the dimensions necessary to blunt the Fifth Amendment 
claim. 

An aspect of Alhertson not least in significance is tlie 
concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Clark, one of those 
who voted to defer the Fifth Amendment issue in the 
review proceeding of 1961. lie noted (at 85) that tlie 
invalidation effected in Alhertson had been "forecast in 
1948" in a letter by him as Attorney General to the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, responding to a request for 
the views of the Department of Justice on one of the 
bills wliich led ta the eventual passage of the Act. That 
letter voiced the opinion that "the measure might be held 
(not^^dthstanding the legislative finding of clear and 
l^resont danger) to deny freedom of speech, of the press, 
and of assembly, and even to compel self-incrimination. 
C/. United States v. White (322 U.S. 694)."" 

Attorney General Clark, as he then was, was far from 
alone in his fear that Congress was following a dual 
approach to the Communist Party which might well be 
self-defeating. A bill which started out as an effort to 
treat the Party like other political parties in terms of 
disclosure ended up as legislation which singled the Party 



* Hearings on H.R. 5852 before the Senate Committee on 
the Judiciary, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. 423-24 (1948). The 
significance of the Attorney General's reference to White 
lies in this: The bill to which his comments were addressed, 
H.R, 5852, was introduced in the 80th Congress and known 
as the Mundt-Nixon bill. Unlike the later bills and the 
Act as it finally emerged, H.R. 5852 required only the reg- 
istration of organizations, as distinct from their members. 
The Attorney General must, therefore, be taken as expres- 
sing a constitutional doubt, deriving from the self-incrimina- 
tion privilege, even where associations alone are involved. 
His reference to White, a case which we discuss in detail 
hereinafter, suggested his awareness that a differentiation 
might perhaps be made between organizations and indi- 
viduals in the availability of the privilege. But api)arently 
White did not lay his doubts to rest. 



364 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

8 

out for subjection to the combined sanctions of compelled 
disclosure and criminal punishment. As this duality began 
to take shape more clearly, more and more voices in 
Congress were raised in warning that irreconcilable goals 
were being sought; and that, to the extent that publicity 
for the Communist Party and disclosure of its affairs 
for all to see was the paramoimt Congressional objective, 
it was being jeopardized by parallel efforts to put the 
Communist Party and its members under the restraints 
of the criminal law." In floor debate, Senator Humphrey 
referred to "the testimony of noted lawyers, such as 
Charles Evans Hughes, Jr., and John W. Davis, who 
have doubts as to its constitutionality. They believe that 
it may be in violation of the Fifth Amendment, which 
provides that a man shall not be required to testify against 
himself." 96 Cong. Reg. 14487 (1950). Several other 
Senators voiced Fifth Amendment objections, noting the 
interplay between the disclosure requirements, on the one 
hand, and the substantive prohibitions of the bill plus 
the already enacted Smith Act, on the other. E.g., S. Rep. 
No. 2369, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 12-13 (1950) (Minority 
Views). Senator Lehman observed that "registratioii 
would constitute self-incrimination, if not under the term5 



^ The Attorney General's letter just referred to noted thif 
intermingling, which was the source of his Fifth Amend- 
ment doubts, in these terms: 

The bill represents two distinct statutory efforts — one 
directed to the prohibition and punishment of sub- 
versive activities as such, and the other a registration 
statute calculated to effect disclosure of the identity and 
propaganda of individual Communists and Communist 
organizations. Within this framework there have also 
been incorporated certain other regulatory provisions 
relating to the general problem. The subversive activi- 
ties and registration sections of the bill cannot, from 
a legal standpoint, be separate, but must be judged as 
a whole. 
Id. at 423. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 3^5 



of this law, then under the terms of the Smith Act"; and 
that to require it the sfime bill the registration of Com- 
munists and their jailing for being Communists was "a 
parody on legislation." 96 Cong. Reg. 14190, 15694 (1950). 
President Truman, although addressing his veto message 
largely to the practical futility of the measure, captured 
the essence of the legal objection in his characterization 
of the final product as tantamount to "requiring thieves 
to register with the sheriif." 96 Cong. Rec. 15630 (1950). 

Quite apart from the impact of other provisions of the 
1950 legislation upon the registration requirements, there 
was the problem of the Smith Act, which had become 
law in 1948. On the same day the Supreme Court upheld 
the Board's order as against every attack except that of 
self-incrimination, it also affirmed the criminal conviction 
of a Communist Party member under the so-called mem- 
bership clause of the Smith Act. Scales v. United States, 
367 U.S. 203 (1961). With this decision, any doubts 
about the constitutionality of the Smith Act in its fullest 
reach — and there had been many, both before and after 
its enactment — were set at rest, with the most ominous 
criminal implications for the Communist Party and all 
those associated in any way with it. Such chance of con- 
stitutional sur\dval as the disclosure approach to regula- 
tion of the Communist Party may have theretofore had 
perhaps foundered upon the reef of Scales. 

Congress's very success with its direct assault upon 
the Communist Party through the sterner medium of the 
criminal law could only have had the effect of under- 
mining the constitutional foundations of its disclosure 
approach. So long as the self-incrimination clause of the 
Fifth Amendment endures, activity may be made criminal, 
but the actor cannot be compelled to characterize it as 
such and to disclose it* If Congress would do the one. 



« Although Lewis v. United States, 348 U.S. 419 (1955), 
and United States v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22 (1953), concerned 



34-351 O - 67 



366 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 

10 

it may have to forego the other. The choice by Congress' 
of the means it believes more effective remains with it. 

IV 

It may be questioned whether appellant is helped even 
if these premises are accepted as true and the result in 
Alhertson embraced as a necessary consequence of them. 
If the self-incrimination privilege is personal in the sense 
of not being available to corporations and associations, how 
may appellant — a self-described voluntary association — 
interpose the privilege as a shield against criminal prose- 
cution of itself for failing to make the disclosures required 
by the Act? This question is highly pertinent and not 
easy of resolution. We think, however, that it rests upon 



the constitutionality of a federal wagering tax which required 
those subject to it to register with the taxing authorities 
despite the illegality of such an occupation under the laws 
of the jurisdictions where the cases arose, the grounds 
offered in support of the sustaining of the gambling tax in 
those cases are not relevant here. The Court there found 
that registration was only a condition to wagering in the 
future and hence did not require confessing to any criminal 
acts that had theretofore been committed. It is worthy of 
note that in an array of cases, amongst them Costello v. 
United States, 352 F.2d 848 (2d Cir. 1965), cert, granted, 
383 U.S. 942 (1966), the Supreme Court has accepted for 
review the question: "Do not the Federal wagering tax 
statutes here involved violate the petitioner's privilege 
against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amend- 
ment? Should not this court, especially in view of its recent 
decision in Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board 
. . . overrule United States v. Kahriger . . . and Lewis v. 
United States . . .?" Inter alia, Marchetti v. United States 
(No. 38), Markis v. United States (No. 43), summarized 
at 35 U.S.L. Week 3009 (July 5, 1966). See generally 
Mansfield, The Albertson Case: Conflict Between the Privilege 
Against Self-incrimination and the Government's Need for 
Information, 1966 SUPREME COURT Review 103, 151-58 (Kur- 
land ed.). 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 367 

11 

premises formulated in respect of circumstances vastly 
different from those involved here — so much so, indeed, 
that the policies they serve are mostly irrelevant to the 
issues which must be faced in the present context. 

The doctrine that corporations and associations have 
no privilege has largely been enunciated in cases where 
an individual was sought to be criminally punished for 
refusing to produce records belonging to the entity and 
kept in the course of its business^ It was thought that 



' An early such case was Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 
66-70 (1906), where it was held that corporate officers 
must testify as to corporate activities and produce cor- 
porate documents before a grand jury investigating Sher- 
man Act violations where such individuals are accorded 
immunity from subsequent antitrust prosecution. In Wilson 
V. United States, 221 U.S. 361 (1911), the doctrine was 
extended to require a corporate officer to produce corporate 
documents even when he pleaded they might incriminate 
him personally. It has since become settled that officers of 
corporations cannot escape contempt liability for refusing 
to produce corporate books and papers on a claim that they 
contain incriminating information. E.g., Nilva v. United 
States, 352 U.S. 385, 392 (1957) ; Heike v. United States, 
227 U.S. 131 (1913) ; Dreier v. United States, 221 U.S. 394 
(1911). The rule extends, the Court has held, to compelling 
former corporate officers to produce papers that had passed 
to them when the corporation was dissolved. Grant v. United 
States, 227 U.S. 74 (1913) ; Wheeler v. United States, 
226 U.S. 478 (1913). Nonetheless an officer may refuse to 
give oral testimony as to corporate matters if they would 
personally incriminate him. See Shapiro v. United States, 
335 U.S. 1, 27 (1948) ; Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 
361,385 (1911). 

The doctrine that the privilege is not available to protect 
corporations from criminal punishment has become almost 
an article of faith, although the question did not arise as 
early or as often as did cases concerning orders directed to 
cori>orate officers. See, e.g., United States v. Bausch & Lomb 
Optical Co., 321 U.S. 707, 726-27 (1943); Essgee Co. v. 
United States, 262 U.S. 151 (1923) ; Baltimore & Ohio RR. v. 



368 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

12 

to hold that the privilege applied would interfere intol- 
erably with the visitatorial powers of government over 
artificial entities existing by public sufferance; and it 
seems clear that effective governmental regulation was 
regarded as jeopardized by conferring a constitutional 
cloak of secrecy upon corporate proceedings. If corpora- 
tions were to be made legal at all, then their internal 
affairs should be amenable to public scrutiny.® 



ICC, 221 U.S. 612, 622 (1911) ; American Lithographic Co. v. 
Werckmeister, 221 U.S. 603, 611 (1911). A factor in the 
widespread acceptance of the doctrine is of course that, after 
denying corporate officers the privilege for reasons relating 
to the necessity of regulating corxwrations, it would seem 
incongruous to grant such a privilege to the corporation itself. 
The Court's recent decision in Albertson would appear to 
extend in scope to officers of an association who apparently 
differ in no wise from corporate officers in terms of official 
capacity, from which it can only be inferred that the Court 
takes some account of differences in the natures of the arti- 
ficial entities involved. 

® See Meltzer, Required Records, The McCarran Art, and 
The Privilege Against Self-incrimination, 18 U. Chi. L. Rev. 
687, 701-04 (1951). Professor Meltzer has directed the same 
discerning eye he has turned upon the merits of the Fifth 
Amendment privilege itself to criticism of the various 
theories offered to support denying it to corporations. He 
finds most of these rationalizations less than cogent: viz, the 
theory that by becoming a corporate officer an individual 
has "waived" his privilege against self-incrimination dis- 
tinguishes inadequately assertion of the privilege in the 
corporate record context from occasions where its invoca- 
tion is thought legitimate, as when he is called upon to testify 
o^allJ^ Professor Meltzer notes also that, although the doc- 
trinal arguments based upon the necessity of corporate regu- 
lation were undoubtedly the "considerations of expediency" 
underlying the refusal to grant the privilege to corpora- 
tions, they "begged the essential question — the extent to which 
the visitor ial power was subject to the constitutional provi- 
sions against self-incrimination." Id. at 702. Perhaps that 
centra] question can be resolved only in individual circum- 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 369 

13 

In a contempt prosecution of a labor union official for 
failing to produce union records before a grand jury, a 
claim of privilege was similarly unavailing, and for essen- 
tially the same reasons. The absence of a privilege assert- 
able by or on behalf of the union, an unincorporated asso- 
ciation, was said by the Supreme Court to be dictated by 
the need to assure effective regulation of "the scope and 
nature of the economic activities of incorporated and 
unincorporated organizations." United States v. White, 
322 U.S. 694, 700 (1944).® As in the case of corporations, 



stances, when the interests of the government in disclosure 
are balanced against the individual or associational interests 
represented by the privilege. It is worthy of note that the 
case in which the absence of the corporate privilege was first 
noted arose out of antitrust charges. Cf. Hale v. • Henkel, 
supra note 7. 

^ The Court's reference in White to the necessity of effec- 
tive regulation of the "economic" activities of incorporated 
and unincorporated organizations is not without significance. 
One who invests in a corporation or joins a labor union 
commits himself to the collective pursuit of economic ends, 
and the unit itself is mainly significant as a vehicle for the 
accomplishment of these joint economic purxx)ses. Perfectly 
lawful in itself and, indeed, permitted only to exist by the 
favor of the law, a business corporation may in operation 
fall afoul of a multitude of public purposes embodied in 
regulatory laws with criminal sanctions. If these may be 
frustrated by the self-incrimination clause, then the only 
answer may be to abandon the corporate or associational 
concept — an exigency which few would now regard as in 
the public interest. An association of those who come 
together because of mutually congenial religious or political 
principles is arguably of a different stripe. The First 
Amendment has long been thought to be concerned with 
reasonable latitude to do just this, whereas the right to form 
a corporation or labor union is nowhere guaranteed in terms 
by the Constitution. Moreover, a man's beliefs are cus- 
tomarily regarded as closely akin to his "purely private or 
personal interests," and not even his association with a 



370 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

14 

the public interest in continuing access to the information 
relevant to regulation justified this restriction of the 
pri\dlege. The test for allowing or withdrawing the priv- 
ilege was formulated bv the Court in these terms (322 
U.S. at 701): 

This conclusion is not reached by any mechanical 
comparison of unions with corporations or with other 
entities nor by any determination of whether unions 
technically may be regarded as legal personalities for 
any or ail purposes. The test, rather, is whether one 
can fairly say under all the circumstances that a par- 
ticular type of organization has a character so imper- 
sonal in the scope of its membership and activities 
that it cannot be said to embody or represent the 
purely private or personal interests of its constitu- 
ents, but rather to embody their conunon or group 
interests onl)\ If so, the privilege cannot be invoked 
on behalf of the organization or its representatives 
in their official capacity. 
A standard of differentiating between organizations in 
terms of their "impersonal," as distinct from their "per- 
sonal," character is admittedly elusive in meaning and 
difficult of application. It is clear, however, that the 
Supreme Court was not prepared to say that the pri\alege 
was 'wdthout significance in respect of any and all organiza- 
tions under anv and all circumstances.^" 



church or a political party converts them into the property 
of the entity. It is because the Communist Party has 
appeared to offend in this regard more than any other that 
it has become entangled with the criminal law, but this 
involvement is the occasion of our Fifth Amendment prob- 
lem and not its solution. 

^^ The Court has, since White, found renewed life for 
the privilege as it relates to associational activities. In 
Curcio V. United States, 354 U.S. 118 (1957), the contempt 
citation of a union official who refused to tell the where- 
abouts of documents which he saiu v c^e not within his 
control was reversed on the ground that, despite White, the 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 371 

15 

Short of trjing, in the abstract, to sort out associations 
for whom the privilege has meaning from those for whom 
it does not, it is useful to recall the reality which underlies 
them all. Although the law has made room for the concept 
of an artificial entity which, for some purposes at least, 
has a life separate and distinct from the individuals 
who comprise it, it remains the fact that no such entity 
can act other than through human instrumentalities. 
Behind the corporate veil or the associational facade, there 
are always people— officers, stockholders, members. In 
the case of business corporations and labor unions, deci- 
sions like Wils07i and White mean that the constituent 
individuals cannot, by reason of a claim of privilege, be 
excused from acting to provide the information demanded. 
This is because the public interest in the disclosure of 



privilege continued to protect oral testimony. McPhaul v. 
United States, 364 U.S. 372 (1960), does not control our 
decision here. In that case the Court upheld the contempt 
conviction of an officer who refused to produce records of 
his organization, the Civil Rights Congress, before the House 
Committee on Un-American Activities. McPhaul arose out 
of an essentially informational Congressional investigation 
rather than a pervasive regulatory scheme of disclosure 
administered by the Executive branch in a criminal area; 
and the decision went off on the point, strongly contested 
by the dissent, of whether the government's failure to show 
the existence of the records and the defendant's ability to 
produce them before the contempt citation was entered 
violated the presumption of innocence in his favor. Rogers 
V. United States, 340 U.S. 367 (1951), cited in McPhaul as 
indicating the unavailability of the privilege, is dictum on 
that point, for that case turned on waiver of the privilege 
in circumstances where the witness had already admitted 
her membership and office in the Communist Party to the 
grand jury and had invoked the privilege only as an "after- 
thought" when she was brought before the District Court. 
See 340 U.S. at 370-72; id. at 379 n.7 (dissenting opinion of 
Mr. Justice Black). 



372 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 

16 

the particular entity^s affairs is deemed to be paramount; 
and, since that disclosure can only be effected by the act 
of some individual, he may be compelled to respond 
despite the Fifth Amendment If he does not, both he and 
the entity, which necessarily remains inert without his 
action, can be subjected to criminal sanctions. 

But, in the case of appellant and the Subversive Activi- 
ties Control Act, we have heretofore held that criminal 
punishment may not be imposed for failure of appellant's 
officers lo make the required disclosures on appellant's 
behalf. Communist Party v. United States, 118 U.S.App. 
D.C. 61, 67, 331 F.2d 807, 813, cert, denied, 377 U.S. 968 
(1964), And now the Supreme Court has, in Alhertson, 
declared that the members of appellant may not, in the 
face of a claim by them of the privilege, be criminally 
]iunished, as contemplated in the Act, for failing to supply 
the principal item of information called for by the statute, 
that is to say, the membership list. The reasoning of 
Alhertson with respect to members of the Party would 
appear to have clear application to ofl&cers who are, if 
ami:hing, even more dangerously exposed to self-incrimi- 
nation. This, to say the least, leaves appellant in a posi- 
tion sharply contrasting with that of the artificial entities 
involved in cases like Wilson and White. It has been 
commanded by the Congress, on pain of criminal punish- 
ment, to come forward and reveal its affairs, but the 
Court has said that, in the climate of criminality created 
by other legislation, the persons who could accomplish 
those revelations need not do so by reason of the Fifth 
Amendment. 

To the lay observer equipped only with a sure sense 
of logic and unconfused by the legal lore of the assertedly 
personal nature of the privilege, this all might suggest 
that the Act, like King Canute, vainly conunands the 
impossible; and that the legislative scheme has a flavor 
of irrationality in a due process sense. But this condition 



■ AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 373 

17 

of ineffectiveness to encompass the criminal punishment 
of appellant for something it lacks the means to accom- 
plish derives in the last analysis from the Fifth Amend- 
ment's pri\dlege against self-incrimination. The result is 
surely the same whether it be stated in terms of the 
availability of the privilege to appellant because of its 
distinctive nature or whether it be said that it is a viola- 
tion of the privilege concededly available to the individuals 
associated with appellant to condition its exercise upon 
the sacrifice of their First Amendment rights to associate 
together as a ])olitical party. In either formulation, it is 
the First Amendment which provides the distinctive back- 
ground against which the reach of the Fifth must be 
defined; and, in either formulation, the Constitution, on 
the facts of this record, stands between appellant and the 
criminal punishment sought to be laid upon it. 

It is important to recall that no political party, including 
most especially the Communist, is automatically guaran- 
<"eed against regulation by means of disclosure." It is 



" In 1954, four years after the passage of the Act with 
which we are concerned, Congress purported to find and 
declare that appellant is not a political party at all and 
"should be outlawed." This statute — the Communist Control 
Act of 1954, 68 Stat. 775-77, 50 U.S.C. 841-44 (1964) — 
purported to deny to appellant all of the rights, privileges, 
and immunities available to other legal entities, but it 
included a statement to the effect that nothing in it should 
be construed as amending the Internal Security Act of 1950, 
of which latter statute the Subversive Activities Control 
Act is a part. This prudential proviso reflected the appre- 
hensions of those in Congress who thought that the regula- 
tion-by-disclosure approach of the last-mentioned statute was 
gravely jeopardized, in its applicability to appellant, by the 
1954 law. In Communist Party, decided seven years later, 
the Supreme Court, although relying heavily on the legisla- 
tive findings of the 1950 statute in upholding the registra- 
tion order as against First Amendment attack, referred to 
the 1954 findings only in a context of saying that there 



374 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

18 

when the legislative judgment is that disclosure is not 
enough and goes on to fashion criminal prohibitions as 
well that the efficacy of disclosure is imperilled by the 
Fifth Amendment. What we say here imposes no limita- 



was nothing to indicate that the Board had been prejudi- 
cially influenced by them in reaching its decision that appel- 
lant should register as a Communist-action organization. 

The majority in Communist Party did not intimate that 
appellant was not a political association within the general 
purview of the First Amendment. It held, rather, that it 
was a currently erring one, which could restore itself to 
grace by mending its ways; and that the First Amendment 
did not protect appellant from disclosure because, as a party, 
appellant could be found by the evidence to have come under 
the dominance of a foreign country and thereby to have 
become but one of the sections, in the Congressional lan- 
guage, "of a world-wide Communist organization . . . con- 
trolled, directed, and subject to the discipline of the Com- 
munist dictatorship of such foreign country." Although 
these words today may have an ironic ring in the ears of 
the foreign power in question, and in any event have not 
appeared to constitute the sole assumption upon which our 
foreign policy has been conceived and executed since they 
were placed on the statute books, we may assume that, as 
did the Supreme Court in Communist Party, they were true 
as of that time. Compare Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135 (1921), 
with Chastleton Corp. v. Sinclair, 264 U.S. 543 (1924), in 
which latter case Justice Holmes observed that, to the extent 
a Congressional declaration of fact looks to the future, "it 
can be no more than prophecy and is liable to be controlled 
by events." Id. at 547. The efficacy of the legislative findings 
in this instance has been very considerable indeed, in that 
they appear to have been given great weight by the Supreme 
Court in upholding the registration order as against First 
Amendment challenge, thereby making it possible for the 
Congress to regulate appellant by the disclosure technique. 
They do not conclude the issue of the possible Fifth Amend- 
ment impediment to the utilization of that approach coinci- 
dentally with that of the criminal law. Were it otherwise, 
there would have been no reason for the Court to have 
reserved the Fifth Amendment issue. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 375 

19 

tions upon the exertion of either approach in its fullest 
sweep. We speak only to the self-incrimination problem 
presented by the simultaneous employment of both. 

It is important to turn from generalities to an examina- 
tion of the position in which this record shows appellant 
to have been placed. At a time when, as the Supreme 
Court has now said, appellant found itself in "an area 
permeated with criminal statutes," where even mere asso- 
ciation vriih, much less membership in, appellant presented 
a serious "threat of prosecution," appellant is first declared 
by the Board to be a "Communist-action organization" 
which, by statutory definition, is an-organization "substan- 
tiaUy directed, dominated, or controlled by the foreign gov- 
ernment or foreign organization controlling the "\v*orld Com- 
munist movement referred to in . . . this title," and which 
"operates primarily to advance the objectives of such world 
Communist movement ..." By virtue of this declaration, 
appellant is required to register itself as a "Communist- 
action organization" and to supply, in addition to its name 
and address, the names and addresses of its officers and 
members (including those who have been such during the 
preceding 12 months) ; a statement of the functions and 
duties of the former; the aliases, if any, of such indi- 
viduals; all moneys received and expended, including 
sources and objects; and a list of all printing presses or 
machines owned, controlled, or possessed by any of thoni. 
Once so registered, an annual report of all such informa- 
tion is required. There is a further requirement that each 
such registered organization shall keep accurate records 
of receipts and expenditures, and of the names and 
addresses of its members and of all persons who actively 
participate in its affairs. 

Faced ^^ith these requirements, appellant wrote a letter 
to the Department of Justice on a letterhead showing the 
Party's name, address, and telephone number. The letter 
was signed in appellant's name "by its authorized officers." 



376 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

20 

It advised the Department that its officers declined, by 
reason of the Fifth Amendment privilege, to supply, or 
to authorize the supplying of, the additional information 
called for by the registration requirements. The letter 
also advised that appellant, on behalf of its members, 
asserted the privilege of each of them against self-incrimi- 
nation by the listing of his name or the furnishing of the 
other information called for. 

The Government rejected this claim of privilege, and 
appellant was indicted. Its first conviction was reversed 
by us as hereinabove described. At the second trial, the 
Government sought to supply the deficiencies of proof 
alluded to by us in our opinion of reversal. The new 
elements of proof at the second trial consisted of two 
witnesses who had joined appellant in 1953 and who had 
served as paid informers of the Federal Bureau of Inves- 
tigation throughout their entire periods of membership. 
Each testified to a willingness to sign the registration 
forms and to supply the requisite information if it were 
made available to them by appellant, which is to say, 
by some officer or member of appellant. 

The record is devoid of any suggestion of the avail- 
ability of any officer or member of appellant (not a paid 
informant), or indeed of any third person, with access 
to the necessary information, who has the requisite author- 
ity and capacity to supply the information called for, and 
who is prepared to do so. Atbertson teaches that any such 
person cannot, consistently with the Fifth Amendment, 
be made to do so. Since? appellant cannot, in the nature 
of things, act except through such a person, a legislative 
scheme premised upon such action in essence compre- 
hends the collective punishment of persons for their con- 
stitutionally protected right as individuals to refrain from 
that action. 

For appellant to file a list of its members exposes every 
person on that list to a serious and substantial **threat 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 377 

21 

of prosecution." The only people with the authority and 
capacity to compile an authentic such list and to authorize 
its use for registration purposes would, by that very act, 
subject themselves to a like threat. No such person has 
demonstrated a ^\dllingness to act. To differentiate under 
these circumstances between the criminal punishment of 
the association, on tlie one hand, and the individuals who 
make of it a collective personality, on the otlier, seems 
to us incompatible with the purposes and values under- 
lying the Fifth Amendment. It is to make the mere fact 
of association the vehicle for subjecting the individuals, 
collectively as v/ell as personally, to criminal prosecution, 
shorn of thp, protection of the self-incrimination iDrivilege.^^ 
The statutory scheme before us accordingly must yield 
to the urgency of continuing recognition of the vitality 
of the Fifth Amendment protections. Liability of the 
appellant to the command of the statute can not be 



^2 Alhertson now assures to each individual Party member 
his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself by 
registering under the Act. If the Party is denied the 
privilege, the membership of the individual must be dis- 
closed in the course of the Party's registration. Under such 
circumstances, the privilege against self-incrimination is 
effectively conditioned upon abstention from association with 
others of like persuasion. In .Ap^keker, Note 8 svpra, the 
Government argued that a member of a registering organiza- 
tion could recapture his freedom to travel by abandoning 
his membership. But the Supreme Court turned this con- 
tention aside by saying that "[S]ince freedom of association 
is itself guaranteed in the First Amendment [citations 
omitted], restrictions imposed upon the right to travel can- 
not be dismissed by asserting that the right to travel could 
be fully exercised if the individual would first yield up his 
membership in a given association." 378 U.S. at 507. In 
two very recent decisions, Garrity v. New Jersey and Spevack 
V. Klein, both decided January 16, 1967, the Court has 
stressed the importance of free and unfettered choice to 
assert the self-incrimination privilege. 35 U.S.L. Week 4135, 
4140 (Nos. 13, 62). 



378 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

22 

vicariously imposed because of the failure of its members 
to meet the requirements of registration where, as the 
Supreme Court has made clear, they as individuals are 
so protected. 

In the areas of First Amendment concern, such as poli- 
tics and religion where the association of people together 
is of the essence of meaningful observance and expres- 
sion, we see no inescapable necessity to limit the reach 
of the Fifth Amendment by technical theories of artificial 
legal piersonality. If Congress chooses to find some prin- 
ciples and practices of politics or religion so abhorrent 
as to warrant criminal liability, it may conceivably do so 
in a proper case. But to be placed beyond the pale of 
the First Amendment is not to be deprived of the Fifth. 
It is, rather, the verj^ reason for its being; and that 
reason invalidates the criminal convictions of appellant 
under the circumstances of this case. 

The judgments of conviction appealed from are 

Reversed. 



Prettyman, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring: I agree 
that the disclosure pro\dsions of this statute are valid 
in and of themselves, and I agree further that the pro\i- 
sions for criminal sanctions are valid in and of them- 
selves, separately. Upon the problem whether the com- 
bination of the two, as presented to us on this record, 
is valid, I reach the same result as do my brethren, but 
by a slightly different course of reasoning. 

The Communist Party is an unincorporated associa- 
tion, and, being an incorporeal entity, it can perform 
physical acts, such as signing and filing, only through the 
instrumentality of human individuals. Therefore, when 
the statute requires the Party to sign and file, it is in 



AMENDING THE IXTEKXAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 379 



23 

reality requiring some individual to sign and file. The 
Government seeks, by tlireat of punishment of the Party, 
to compel an individual to sign and file a list of the Party 
members. 

Membership in or association with the Communist Party 
involves such a threat of prosecution as to give rise to 
Fifth Amendment rights in members or associates. The 
Supreme Court so said in Alhertson,^ and in that case 
the Court held that members of the Party cannot be 
compelled to sign and file on behalf of themselves a state- 
ment that they are members. It seems clear to me that 
in view of that decision Party members cannot be com- 
pelled to sign and file on behalf of anybody or anything 
else a statement that they, the signing individuals, are 
members of the Party.^ The constitutional protection is 
against compulsory incrimination of oneself. The means 
or method of the compulsion are immaterial so long as 
there is compulsion. Therefore the members cannot be 
compelled to incriminate themselves in order to protect 
the Party against punishment. 

Furthermore, since the Party is an unincorporated group 
of individuals, the fine upon the Party is in reality a fine 
upon the individuals comprising the Party. I think no 
member of an unincorporated group can be compelled to 
incriminate himself in one respect in order to avoid another 
criminal punishment threatened against him as a member 
of the group. 

In this consideration it makes no difference whether the 
group as such is constitutionally protected or not. The 
individual is protected as an individual, no matter in what 



^ Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 882 
U.S. 70 (1965). 

^Cf. Communist Party of the United States v. United 
States, 118 U.S. App. D.C. 61, 331 F.2d 807 (D.C. Cir. 1963), 
ceH. denied, 377 U.S. 968 (1964). 



380 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 



24 



capacity. If the compulsion is visited upon him through 
the intermediary group as a conduit, the compulsion is 
forbidden. The cases, like White,^ which hold that an 
officer of an association can be compelled to incriminate 
himself by revealing group records, rest upon the thesis 
that the public interest in the visitorial power over asso- 
ciations nullifies the individual officers' Fifth Amendment 
protection. But that thesis does not apply here, because 
Albertson held that the Fifth Amendment rights of Party 
members do not yield to the public interest in the dis- 
closure of the Party membership. 

The suggestion is made that a volunteer might come 
forward and register the Party and that the two F.B.I. 
agents (undercover members) are such volunteers. But 
those two, willing though they be, do not have the where- 
withal to register the Party; they do not have the list 
of the membership. So the question is whether the officers 
or some member can be compelled to supply the willing 
volunteers with copies of the list. The purpose for which 
the volunteers want the list is to file it, thus bringing 
upon the listed members a threat of criminal prosecution. 
It seems clear to me that a person cannot be compelled to 
supply another ]ierson (volunteer or not) with the means 
by which to incriminate the first person. This is two-step 
incrimination, but it seems to me that the person is 
incriminating himself just as effectively as if he himself 
handed the list to the Government; and he cannot be 
compelled to do it. 

The same reasoning as that outlined in the preceding 
paragraph applies to the suggestion that the Party might 
hire an agent and pay him a fee to execute the registra- 
tion. It might, of course, but our problem is whether it 
can be compelled to do so. It seems to me close to frivolous 
to suggest that a person protected by the Fifth Amend- 



3 United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694 (1944). 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 381 

25 

ment can be compelled to hire an agent, furnish him with 
the means to instigate a criminal prosecution against him 
(the giver), and then authorize him (the agent) to do so. 

I think the Government cannot compel people to incrimi- 
nate themselves, either by testifying or by supplying docu- 
mentary evidence, and either by themselves supplying an 
incriminatory docmnent or by giving it to a volunteer or 
a hired agent to give to the Government. In short, I think 
a person cannot be compelled to incriminate himself, either 
directly by his own action or by a second-, third- or fourth- 
hand action through some complicated intermediary process. 

I emphapiTp that no part of my thought rests upon Fifth 
Amendnjent flights of the Party itself. I am concerned 
only with the Fifth Amendment rights of the individual 
members or agents. 

I think a statute which requires members or agents of 
an unincorporated organization to incriminate themselves 
in order to protect their organization against a fine in a 
criminal action is invalid as thus applied. 



84-351 O - 67 



382 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

The Chairman. Our next witness is Mr. Stanley Tracy, former 
Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 
Stanley, will you come forward, please ? 

STATEMENT OF STANLEY J. TRACY.^ TOKMER ASSISTANT 
DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BXTREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Tracy. 

Mr. Tracy. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee : It is a 
pleasure to appear before your committee, and in connection with 
the proposed legislation in H.R. 10390. 1 have been engaged in internal 
security work for many years. I was associate counsel of the Com- 
mission on Government Security that studied all the Federal security 
programs in 1956-1957 and submitted a report to the Congress in 1957. 
We made recommendations for legislation in each one of the Fed- 
eral security programs. 

Now, I have followed the work of this conmiittee for many years, 
and I would like to congratulate the present members and past mem- 
bers of the committee for the work that you have done. 

I think that this committee has run into many difficulties, has been 
subject to much abuse over the years, and I think you have done an in- 
valuable sei'vice in protecting the rights of American citizens in this 
field of internal security. 

I don't think that we have been faced, in the history of our coun- 
try, with greater threats than we are today, internationally. Our foes 
have more formidable means of destruction than they ever had; 
therefore, I hope that this committee will consider the recommenda- 
tions of the Commission on Government Security, because it was the 
Congress that created the Commission. 

In 1955 the Congress itself found it is the policy of the Congress 
there shall exist a somid Government program. 

Secondly, the Congress found, in Public Law 304, passed in 1955, 
it is vital to the welfare and safety of the United States that there be 
adequate protection of the national security, including the safeguard- 
ing of all national defense secrets and public and i^rivate defense in- 
stallation against loss or compromise arising from espionage, sabotage, 
disloyalty, subversive activities, or imauthorized disclosures. 

It was pursuant to this policy statement that we studied every pro- 
gram and made our recommendations. So I ask that this committee, 
in these hearings today, include the summary of recommendations 
which is contained in the front of our report. 

It only covers five or six pages. It is very short, and I ask that that 
be included in the record. 

The Chairman. Well, it will be added, if it is only four or five 
pages long, in the record at this point. 

Mr. Tracy. Yes, sir, it is very short. 

(The infonnation follows :) 

1 Stanley J. Tracy, an Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 13 
years prior to Ills retirement in 1954, is presently a member of the strategy staff of the 
American Security Council. He served as associate counsel of the Project Survey Division 
of the Commission on Government Security. 1956-57. He received his LL.B. degree from 
the George Washington University Law School in 192i5, is a member of the bars of the 
State of Utah and the District of Columbia, and has been admitted to the U.S. Supreme 
Court bar. Prior to joining the FBI in 1933, he had served with the Department of Labor, 
the Naturalization Service and the Veterans Administration. 



[Report of the Commission on Government Security — 85th Cong., first sess., S. Doc. No. 64] 

Summarv of Recolnm«'Il«lation^ 



The ( nriHiiiv'iim'* rrronimendations, if put into efTcrl. Hi>uld etihanrp 
the prntectioM afforded national security wJiile substantially increasing the 
protortion of the individual. 

The Commission recommends retention, with fundamental revisions, of 
the programs aflecting Federal civilian and military personnel, industrial 
security, port security, employees of international organizations, the classi- 
fication of documents, passport regulations, and the control of aliens. In 
addition, the Commission recommends an entirely new program to safeguard 
national security in the vital operations of our civil air transport system. 

At the core of the Commission's plan for a uniform, comprehensive, and 
practical security mechanism is its recommendation for a Central Security 
Office to provide a continuous study of security needs and measures, conduct 
loyalty and security hearings, and furnish advisory decision? to heads of 
government departments and agencies. 

And at the very basis of ihf Commission's thinkinjj lio the separation of 
the Invativ proMpjn from that of suitability and security. All loyalty cases 
are se<;un!s case>, but the converse is not true. A man who talks too freely 
when in his cups, or a pervert who is vulnerable to blackmail, may both 
be security risks although both may be loyal Americans. The Commission 
recommends that as far as possible such cases be considered on a basis of 
suitability to safeguard the individual from an unjust stigma of disloyalty. 

Some problems, such as the maintenance and use of the Attorney General's 
List, the right to subpona witnesses, and the extent to which the principle of 
confrontation is applicable in security cases, rut across the entire field of 
loyalty and security problems and are subjects of special re< ommendations. 

Centr.\l Security Office. — -The Commis."«ion recommends an indej>endcnt 
Central Security Office in the executive branch of the Covrrnment. One 
of the principal deficiencies of past loyalty and security programs has been 
a shortage of trained, qualified personnel to administer them. Hence, the 
first duty of the director of the proposed central oflTice would be to select 
eminently qualified personnel, including hearing examiners to conduct loyalty 
hearings under the Federal civilian employe program and security hearings 
under the industrial, atomic energy, port and civil air transport programs. 
The Central Security Office would also assist the various agencies, through 
consultations and conferences, in training screening and other security per- 



383 



384 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

sonnel. A Central Review Board would review cases, on the record, ais 
appealed from adverse decisions of the heads of agencies. Decisions of both 
hearing examiners and the Central Review Board would be advisory only 
to agencv heads. The various loyalty and security programs of the Govern 
mcnt would be reviewed and inspected to insure uniformity of rules, regula 
lions and procedures; however, the Central Security OfTice would not have 
•iiilhoritv to review secret or other files of any agency. Complaints from 
industry relating to the various industrial security programs would be received 
and, through conferences with industry and the interested Government 
agencies, inconsistencies and duplications would be corrected. 

Attorney General's List. — The Commission believes that the Attorney 
General's list of proscribed organizations, or something similar to it, is 
essential to the administration of the Federal loyalty and security programs. 
\\ hile it therefore recommends continuance of the list, the Commission also 
recommends a number of major changes to minimize possible abuses. The 
Commission recommends a statutory basis for the list and that future list- 
ings be authorized only after FBI investigation and an opportunity for the 
organization to be heard by examiners of the Central Security Office, with the 
right of appeal to the Central Review Board. Decisions of the examiners 
and the Central Review Board would be advisory to the Attorney General. 

Sl'BPENA PoWEK. — In the past, neither the Govenmient nor any person in- 
volved in loyalty or security cases could compel attendance of witnesses at 
hearings. The Commission would give the hearing examiners the power of 
subpcna, with wide discretionary latitude to prevent excessive casts, unneces- 
sary delays, and obstructive tactics. Witnesses would be allowed travel and 
per diem expenses. The Government would pay witness costs unly for an 
individual who was cleared by the hearing. 

Confkontation. — The Commission recommends that confrontation and 
cross-examination be extended to persons subject to loyalty investigations 
whenever it can be done without endangering the national security. Those 
whose livelihood and reputation may be affected by such loyalty investiga- 
tions are entitled to fair hearings and to decisions which are neither capri- 
cious nor arbitrary. It is the prime dutv of Government to preserve itself, and 
in the carrying out of this duty it has the indisputable obligation to avail 
itself of all information obtainable, including information from confidential 
sources. P^uU confrontation, therefore, would be obviouslv imj>ossiblc with- 
out exposing the Government's counterintelligence operations and personnel 
with re-ulting paralysis of the Government's efTorts to j)rotect the national 
security. The Commission recommends that, where lovallv charges arc in- 
volved, no derogatory information, except that supj)lied bv a regularh estab- 
lished I onfulential informant engaged in intelligence work for the Government 
whose identity may not be disclosed without compromising the national 
security, shall be considered over the objection of the individual involved 
urdess such individual is given the opportunity to cross-examine under oath 
the person supi)lying such derogatory information. Where the informant 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19r)0 385 



is not available for process by reason of incompetence, death or other cause, 
the derogatory information may be considered, but due regard must be given 
to the absence of opportunity to cross-examine. 

Federal Civilian Employees. — The program recommendt-d for civilian 
Government employees consists of a loyalty program applioablp to all posi- 
tions and a suitability program within the framework of civil service regula- 
tions. In the executive branch, the Commission would exclude the Central 
Intelligence Agency and the National Security Ag»MH v from the program. 
The Commission recommend^ chHngn* in <-iv ij s^-rvi««- •< miUflons to allow 
the transfer of "loyal securitv <i«k.s ' to noii.'vnjiiitiNr |» »it»'n nr their dis- 
missal under normal civil service procedures. Th» ( wmri)i*nion recom- 
mends equal treatment on loyalty and suitability grounds for veterans and 
nonveterans in Federal employ. The Commission has also strongly urged 
that all departments of Government be treated alike and therefore the legis- 
lative and judicial branches should develop loyalty and security programs. 

Military Personnel, — The Commission recommends that the standard 
and criteria for separation, for denial of enlistment, induction, appointment, 
or recall to active duty in the Armed Forces, including the Coast Guard, 
should be that on all the available information there is a reasonable doubt 
as to loyalty. The Commission recommends that the opportunity for a 
hearing presently afforded inductees rejected for security reasons be ex- 
tended to enlistees who are rejected on loyalty grounds, if requested. The 
cost of such hearings should be borne by tiie Government and military coun- 
sel should be assigned, if requested. TS« rr<-«>tnineiHlalion8 in other programs 
for subpcna and confrontation wowki also apply in the military personnel 
program. The Commiasioa also recommendB that in loyalty separations, the 
type of discharge given a serviceman should depend solely upon the conduct 
of such serviceman during the term of his military service, including the 
period of membership in the active or inactive reserve, and that, except to 
the extent that there has been falsification of his oflBcial papers, preservice 
conduct should not be considered in determining the type of discharge to be 
given. 

Document Classification. — The ckanges recommended by the Com- 
mission in the present program for ciatsiBcation of documents and other 
material are of major imjwrtance. The moat important change is that the 
Confidential classification be abolished. The Commitsion is convinced 
that retention of this classification serves no useful purpose which could 
not be covered by the Top Secret or "Secret classification. Since the recom- 
mendation is not retroactive, it eliminates the immediate task of declassifying 
material now classified Confidential. The Commission also recommends 
abolition of the requirement for a personnel sanirity check for access to 
documents or material classified ConfidentiaL The danger inherent in such 
access is not significant and the present dearaace requirements afford no 
real security-clearance check. 

xix 



386 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 



The report of the Commission stresses the dangers to national s«<:urit\ 
that arise out of overclassification of information which retards 8cief»tili« 
and technological progress, and thus tend to deprive the country of th* W«<! 
time that results from the free exchange of ideas and information. 

Atomic Energy. — The Atomic Energy Commission is an employrr ■ ' 
Federal civilian workers and also operates an industrial security progran. 
In general, the Commission's recommendations are designed to bring ho«jr 
AEC's Federal civilian employee and its industrial security programs in I in* 
with the comprehensive programs planned for general application througit 
out the Government. 

Industrial Security. — Uniformity of regulations, of procedures an.! 
their application, and of administration appeared as the needed goal o\ 
any reform of the present industrial security program. Therefore, \\w 
Commission recommends the establishment of a Central Security Office u: 
the executive branch of the Government, as previously noted. With thi* 
arrangement, the hazards of consolidation of all industrial security programt 
into a single agency are avoided, but the benefits of a unified program wiii 
be available by means of a monitoring system exercised through such a 
central office. The Director of the Central Security Office will advise with 
the heads of the various government agencies as to issuance of uniform 
regulations, the interchangeabihty and transference of clearances from one 
agency to another, the adoption and use of uniform forms for applicants {<>t 
clearance, and the provision for hearing officers to preside over hearings 
afforded applicants for clearance whose clearance has been denied or 
revoked. 

To insure uniformity within the armed services with respect to the Depart- 
ment of Defense Industrial Security Programs, the Commission recommends 
establishment of an Office of Security within the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense. This office would integrate, control, and supervise the industrial 
security programs of the three services, thus eliminating duplicate clear- 
ances, investigations, fingerprinting and repetitious execution of clearance 
applicant and related forms, and accomplishing a streamlined administra- 
tive pattern eliminating delay resulting from use of chain-of-command com- 
munications regarding security matters. Classification guides would be 
issued by such office, and close scrutiny maintained on the classification 
of materials contracted for by the services. Downgrading and declassifi- 
cation programs would be monitored from this office, as well as disposition 
of classified material upon completion of contracts. 

Confrontation and subpeiia powers are recommended as discussed in the 
Commission's general recommendations on that subject. 

Replacement of the present security standard by a more practical and 
positively worded one is recommended, namely, that clearance for access to 
classified material should be denied or revoked if it is determined on the 
basis of all available information that "access to classified information and 
materials will endanger the common defense and security." Also, ambiguous 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 5 387 



criteria relative to associations are omitted in the Commission's recommenda- 
tion, and the test of refusal to testify at an authorized inquiry has been 
added. 

Port Sf.curity. — The Commission's study revealed deferts in the regula- 
tions and the operation of the port security program. The Commission 
therefore recommends that the Commandant of the Coast Guard be vested 
with full jurisdiction to administer the program with the exception that desig- 
nated Army and Navy installations continue to be administered by the cogni- 
zant military authority. The Commission further recommends that 
clearance* for port workers by the Coast Guard, Army, and Navy be inter- 
changeable. 

The (.ommission emphasizes the importance of administration hv recom- 
mending that personnel of the Coast Guard assigned to duties in the security 
program be thoroughly trained in security matters and be assigned to duty 
in the program on a full-time basis. 

One of the problems which has arisen in the administration of the security 
program by the Coast Guard has been the failure to give an applicant for 
clearance adequate notice of the reasons for a denial of clearance. The 
Commission recommends that in the future the applicant be given specific 
and detailed notice to the extent that the interests of national security permit. 
The Commission recommends that standards and criteria for clearance in 
the Coast Guard be uniform with the standards in other major security pro- 
grams. The Commission also recort»ni«<d« th«f hearing heretofore con- 
ducted bv the Coast Guard be the r#»f>»>ni»fi»lkv »n the future, of the Central 
Securit\ ' Hfire. Compliance Hitli this rerommmdation will promote uni- 
formity 'fi standards and proredur* throughout the Government 

AiB Transport Seciiiitt.— -The Commission recommendations for a 
security program in civil air transport recognizes the need for initial Federal 
action at the industrywide level in this important field. At present, only the 
employees of CAA. CAB, or other Federal agencies involved in air transport 
are subject to the formal program, required under Executive Order 10450. 
TTie Commission has recommended, however, that only those employees 
actuallv in a position to do substantial damage should be included in the 
program. 

The recommendation that CAB have final authority as to admission to 
"restricted" facilities under its jurisdiction refVcts the opinion of the Com- 
mission that, when such authority is divided among CAA, CAB, and military 
agencies sharing civil air transport facilities, there is strong likelihood that 
overall national security interest cannot be adequately protected. The agency 
which has the responsibility for such protection should have sole authority 
for implementing measures for that protection. The Commission, however, 
recognizes the important dual interests of CAA and CAB in national security 
in civil air transport and recommends that, subject to other recommendations, 
the Secretarv of Commerce and the CAB should have joint responsibility for 
airport security. 

Z3d 



388 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

International Organizations. — The existing loyalty program for United 
States nationals employed by international organizations should be contin'r<l. 
but the standard should be broadened to include those who are security r>«k» 
for reasons other than doubtful loyalty. The standard should be whetbn r 
not, on all the information, there is reasonable doubt as to the loyalty of th« 
person to the Government of the United States or reasonable ground for 
believing the person might engage in subversive activities against the I luled 
States. 

The Commission is recommending amplification of the criteria, recon- 
stitution of the International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board and 
streamlining of its operations to minimize delays, and the rights of 8ubp«'na 
and confrontation applicable to other programs. 

Passport Security. — In the passport field, Congress should enact legi> 
lation defining the standards and criteria for a permanent passport secliritx 
program. The procedures would continue to be defined by regulation. 

Proposed amendments to the criminal statutes would make it unlawful 
for a United States citizen to travel to any country for which his passport 
is declared invalid, and would penalize willful refusal to surrender a passpuri 
lawfully revoked. 

The Commission also recommends that the legal adviser of the Depart 
ment of State determine the legal sufficiency of all passport denial case< 
before final action by the Secretary. 

In the operational phase, the Commission recommends that, at all leveU. 
there be strict compliance with the provision of the regulations that notice 
in writing and the reasons for decisions shall be stated as specifically as secu- 
rity considerations permit. An applicant would also be required to state 
whether, as the result of any security investigation or proceedings, he ha* 
been advised of an adverse finding. The Commission also proposes that a 
single fingerprint be required on the application and on the passport itself. 

The Commission believes also that qualifications should be specified for 
Passport Office employees charged with responsibility for security decisions 
and that there should be a training program for such employees. 

Immigration and Nationality. — The Commission recommends in the 
field of immigration and nationality that the functions of visa control, ex- 
cept for diplomatic and official visas, be transferred from the Department of 
State to the Department of Justice and that the Attorney General be author- 
ized by law to maintain personnel abroad to carry out these functions. 

The Commission also found that the admission to the United States of any 
large group of aliens en masse creates a serious security problem. It, 
accordingly, recommends (1) that the parole provision of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act of 1952 be amended to clarify with greater specificity 
the intent of Congress relative to its use, (2) that the status of refugees 
admitted under such emergency conditions not be changed until all havt- 
been adequately screened, and (3) that the Government sponsor an Ameri- 
canization program for all refugees ultimately granted permanent status. 

xxii 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 389 



Ovprhauling of the deportation provisiotis of the Immigration and Na- 
tionality Act is also recommended to provide: 

(ll suspension of the issuance of all but diplomatic and official visas 
and of the use of bonded transit by nationals of any country which 
refuses to accept a deportee who is a natit)nal, citizen, or subject 
of such country; 
( 2 I detention at this discretion of the Attorney General of any alien 
against whom a final order of deportation is outstanding more than 
6 months, if required to protect national security or public safety; 
(3 I greater specificity in the conditions under Hii.rh deportable aliens 

will be subject to supervision; and 
(4 1 authorization for the Attorney General ti- tSfdera deportable alien 
to refrain from subversive activities or asstK.ialions. 
The Commission also recommends that, if the visa control function is 
shifted to the Department of Justice, the Immigration Service fix a definite 
date by which all alien crewmen will be required to have individual visas. 

The Commission also urges that the provisions of the Act for fingerprint- 
ing and registration of aliens remain in force, and that an adequate training 
program be conducted for personnel engaged in the discharge of visa 
functions. 

New Legislation. — Two new substantive laws are recommended. 
The first would penalize unlawful diarlosures of classified information 
with k II. * ledge of thrir clasnitiivl i-iiiirtt< ter by perMu- i ut?ide as well as 
within 'hf Governnirnt. In the pH*i oniy di«closurf« b\ (ittvernntent em- 
ployees have been punishable. 

The *r«'find recommended legislation would make admissible in a court 
of Ian evidence of subversion obtained by wiretapping by authorized 
Governtnent investigative agencies. Wiretapping would be permissible only 
by specific authorization of the Attorney General, and only in investigations 
of particular crimes affecting the security of the Nation. 



ISote. — The foregoing Summary of Recommendations is necessarily a brief 
and concise statement of conclusions. However, for a better understanding of 
the report, please note respective chapters Mhirh set forth a full discussion and 
rationale of each program briefed. 



xziU 



390 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

Mr. Tracy, Now, the 18th National Convention of the Communist 
Party, I think, focused attention on what we are faced with. The 
speech of Gus Hall at that convention in New York, in June 1966, 
outlined that "The Party has started to grow, both in membership and 
influence," and he said, "We are a factor in the left stream of the mass 
currents of the country. The overall policies and tactical line projected 
by the Party have been sound." 

It is interesting that the first meeting of the 18th National Conven- 
tion was the only meeting at which they admitted members of the mass 
media. And they were instructed, the photographers were instructed 
to photograph only those who w^ere on the platform. 

Now, I think the record of Hall is well known to this committee. 
He has been a member of the party since 1920. He was convicted 
back in 1934 in connection with riots; he was prosecuted under the 
Smith Act and was apprehended after he escaped to Mexico. He was 
apprehended and was brought back to serve his sentence. 

Now he is the leader today, just as he was in the early days. And 
when the meetings of the Communist Party, U.S.A., were terminated 
in 1959, the last meeting, he was the head of it then. They did not hold 
conventions again because of possible prosecutions, I gather, and he 
was, naturally, I think, and everyone expected it, reelected. 

So we can expect continued activity of the party to disrupt the 
various movements in this country, every movement they can possibly 
get into. 

The Chairman. And one of the prime, two of the prime targets are 
this committee and the agency which you were connected with in 
the past, the FBI ; isn't that true ? 

Mr. Tracy. I think that is absolutely correct, and has been for 
many, many years. 

Now, with reference to the experience of this committee at the San 
Francisco hearings several years ago, the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police published an article, the result of a very fine iuA^esti- 
gation into what happened at the time: and if that has not been 
introduced before this committee as a matter of record, I would like 
to ask that it be accepted at this time. 

The Chairman. It will be received for the files. It is too long for the 
public print. 

Mr. Tracy. In the Security World magazine there are three splendid 
articles, very short, which explain later activities. 

The Chairman. Those will be received for the files. 

Mr. Tracy. Now, I think, personally, I think it is tragic that educa- 
tors and administrators in our colleges today permit spokesmen for the 
party, after the Supreme Court decision declaring it was an agent of 
a foreign principle, to speak on college campuses, without having 
another speaker on the same program to tell those students precisely 
what his public record is. 

I don't think it is education unless students get both sides of the 
question. 

The Chairman. You are absolutely right. 

Mr. Tracy. Now, the Keyishian case in New York, which I gathered 
the members of this committee are quite familiar with. I think is quite 
disturbing. That was the one decided January 23, 1967. It concerned 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 391 

four members of the faculty, each of whom had refused to sign certain 
affidavits or statements or forms. 

Justice Chirk, our former Attorney General, and most knowledge- 
able in this area, filed a dissenting opinion, and T would like to read 
just a couple of paragraphs of that dissenting opinion. 

The Chairman. Now I have lost your trend. What did the majority 
ruling hold ? 

Mr. Tracy. The majority ruling held the Feinberg Law of New 
York was unconstitutional. 

The Ciiairmax. With reference to employment of Communists in 
the State educational system ? v 

Mr. TR.VCY. Eight. 

The Chairman. Was it teachers, in that particular case? 

Mr. Tracy. Yes. There were four; three were full-time faculty, and 
one employed in the library was part-time faculty. 

The Chairman. And they held this State law to be unconstitu- 
tional ? 

Mr. Tracy. Right. 

The Chairman. But Justice Clark dissented. Now will you read 
two paragraphs, from his dissent ? 

Mr. Tracy. His dissent, I think, is very illuminating and very, very 
pertinent. 

It is cleax that tihe reinljerg Law, in wlxidh this Court foxind "no constitu- 
tional infirmity" in 1952, has been given its death blow today. * * * No court 
has ever reached out so far to destroy so much Avith so little. 

* * * * * * * 

The majority says that the Feinberg Law is bad because it has an "over- 
broad sweep." I regret to say^ — and I do so with deference — ^that the majority 
has by its broadside swept away one of our most precious rights, namely, the 
right of self-presiervation. Our public educational system is ttie genius of our 
democracy. The minds of our youth are developed there an'd the character of 
that development will determine the future of our land. Indeed, our very exist- 
ence depends upon it. The issue here is a \ery narrow one. It is not freedom of 
fepeedh, freedom of thought, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, or of asisocia- 
tion. even in the Communist Party. It is simply this: May the State provide 
that one who, after a hearing with full judicial re\aew, is found to have wilfully 
and deliberately a^lvocated. advised, or taught that our Government .should be 
overthrown by force or violence or other unlawful means ; or to have wilfully 
and deliberately printed, published, etc.. any book or paper that so advocated 
and to have personally advocated such doctrine himself; or to have wilfully 
and deliberately become a member of an organization that advocates such doc- 
trine, is prima facie disqualified from teaching in its university? My answer, 
in keeping with all of our cases up until today, is "Yes" ! 

I dissent. 

I think that is a very pertinent comment in that particular decision. 
Justices Harlan, Stewart, and White joined with Justice Clark in the 
dissent, and the decision, I think, in this case makes it doubly imj^or- 
tant that the Internal Security Act of 1950 be amended along the lines 
of the bill before you now. 

Mr. Cut-,ver. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield for a 
question ? 

Mr. Tracy. Surely. 

Mr. Cflver. I wonder, Mr. Tracy, if you would draw a distinction 
between a State-employed university instructor Avho was found guilty 
of a factual situation, as suggested in this case, and that of a visiting 
lecturer to a university campus who espoused Communist views. 



392 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

I was interested in your suggestion that you feel that this should 
not be permitted. I have always been of the persuasion that certainly 
at the university level, in a free society, that the student should be 
able to make a determination and a judgment individually as to how 
meritorious the advocacy of any position is. And it is fmidamental. 

The Chairman. I think his point 

Mr. CuL\TER. And I think it is fundamental also that our free society 
as suggested in the first amendment that we have a confidence in the 
marketplace of ideas, and an idea rises or falls on its merit in com- 
petition with other ideas. 

And certainly, if we are all agreed that international communism 
represents the greatest threat to our own security, I think it is be- 
holden upon us in a free society to know as mucli about it as we can. 

Mr. Tracy. I am in full accord. 

Mr. Culver. So we can most effectively challenge. 

Mr. Tracy. I am in full agreement with you. 

Mr. Culver. In the case of Mr. Carmichael, I think it has been very 
useful. He has been able to talk himself out, and I think the credibility 
of his position was much more persuasive before he talked too much. 

In terms of his appeal to certain elements of our o^vn society. So 
I am a little disturbed by this broadside arbitrary suggestion. I have 
more confidence, frankly, in the intellectual discrimination and 
sophistication of those products of a free society to make those judg- 
ments independently. 

I think it is basic and fundamental, as an expression of the confi- 
dence of our own system and our own way of life. 

And I think to fight fire with fire only means to trade one form of 
despotism for the other. 

Mr. Tracy. My point was, I am in favor of all speakers, whether 
Nazi, Fascist, or Communist. I think our young people in our schools 
need to know. But they need to know both sides at the same time, the 
same audience. 

Mr. Culver. Is that essential? Are they incapable intellectually 
of carrying an argument in their head for an liour or for later or 
until they have an opportunity to discuss it with some of the other 
students, or until they have an opportunity to meet with other speak- 
ers on a regular basis, who very properly, and as far as I am con- 
cerned, desirably, are advocating an alternative way of life? 

They get a pretty heavy diet of that. 

Mr. Tracy. Let me give one example. 

Gus Hall spoke to an audience of approximately 12,000 at the Uni- 
versity of Oregon a few years ago. A conservative speaker spoke later, 
and the audience was 800. Now the students and others in tliat audience 
that heard Gus Hall did not hear what and who and why Gus Hall 
was and is, and I think they should get both sides of the question to 
the same audience, is my point. I have no objection to any speaker. 

Mr. Culver. Isn't life itself an educational trial ? 

Isn't it? You suggest to me today, for example, that the proper re- 
sponse to the problem of the urban ghettos is X. Now is it essential 
for me to make what might objectively be the right determination on 
what is the best response to have somebody else here advocating Z 
simultaneously with you ? 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 393 

Or do you think that I could carry some of that poison around with 
me for an hour, or for 24 hours, until I bump into Z and say, "Say, Z, 
I think the best response to the problem of the urban ghettos is X, and 
what do you think?"' 

And he said, ''You are nuts, because," and all of a sudden I say to 
myself, ''You know, Z makes a lot more sense than X." 

I don't doubt that I have carried around stupid ideas for years, 
and there are members of this connnittee that wholeheartedly agree 
with that, but that happens to be Avhat I think, and I respect their righl 
to think what they think. 

Mr. IcHORD. You can only think. 

Mr. Culver, And you can only think, and I think that the sugges- 
tion that I have got to be in some 1984 world where wham ! I get it on 
the right cheek, and wham ! I get it on the left cheek simultaneously, 
somehow that delicate brain of mine is going to get poisoned in the 
absence of simultaneous innoculation is absurd. 

Mr. Tracy. Well, in our colleges, where our students are being edu- 
cated, I think that is the one place 

Mr. Culver. TV^liat is education ? Wliat is education ? 

Mr. Tracy. They should receive both sides at the same time. The 
same time. 

Mr. Culver. A shot in the right arm and a shot in the left, like the 
Army induction center physical line? Wliat is educational experience? 

Mr. Tracy. They should get both sides of the same question, the 
same students. 

Mr. CuL\'ER. At the same time, just like lining up for shots, going 
into the service. 

Mr. Tracy. I think so, when you have a Supreme Court decision 
stating what the Communist Party is, and Gus Hall is its spokesman. 

Mr. CuL^•ER. They can read what the Supreme Court of the United 
States said, and I agree wholeheartedly with the majority. 

Mr. Tr.\cy. They don't. Our young people don't read the way we 
older folks do. 

Mr. Culver. Oh, I disagree with you. I have spoken to every one 
of the 82 high schools, parochial and public, in my district, and I can 
assure you that the questions among the young people in America 
are far more provocative and enlightened and intelligent than any- 
thing I ever encounter in adult service clubs. 

I can assure you of that, without question. As far as reading more, 
students read 10 times as much. 

Mr. Tracy. I think that is right, but 

Mr. CuL\T)R. I think the trouble with most adults is that they start 
working for a living, they quit reading, and they just drift along 
with their prejudices the rest of the way. 

I think it is about time we ventilated some of this, and talked, if we 
are really going to meet our problems. I disagree wholeheartedly 
witJi you that somehow, you get older, you get smarter. A lot of people 
get older and, regrettably, don't get one bit smarter. 

Mr. Tr.\cy. I still think our young people should have both sides 
in the schools. 

Mr. Culver. Well I am all for both sides. My problem was, based 
on your formulation, if they would ever get it. 



394 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

Mr. Tracy. I think they would. In my opinion, they should have 
it at the same time. 

Mr. IcHORD. Will the gentleman yield at that point? 

Of course, Mr. Tracy, we are now in a field where students of free 
societies, both modern-day and ancient, insofar as they had them, have 
been very much confused and very disturbed. 

How far do these individual freedoms extend? We have been dis- 
turbed ever since the beginning of the Nation about how far freedom 
of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of assembly extend. 

But I wish to return specifically to the bill at hand. 

This decision of tlie Supreme Court, you mentioned in your state- 
ment, held that a man could not be compelled to sign a certificate that 
he was not a Communist. I wonder if in this legislation we should have 
the sanction that was brought out earlier, in order to make the legisla- 
tion effective ? 

Should we retain the provision that a mere finding of the 
SAC Board would preclude a man from employment, or should we, 
in order to be practical, to accomplish the objective in mind, go more 
over to what the chairman indicated, that we only have disclosure as 
such, and then let this finding have its own force, in order to inform 
members of the public ? 

"\Miat is your feeling on this ? I do not think in light of this decision 
and others that the Supreme Court has passed down that it would 
liold that we could validly have a finding of the SAC Board preclude 
a member from Government employment. 

Mr. Tracy. I think the chainnan's views as expressed today are 
very, very pertinent, and I think that disclosure of membership in the 
party is very important. And sanctions and criminal penalties I don't 
think are important. 

Mr. IcHORD. This is a very difficult field in which to legislate, and 
it is one in which sometimes so-called conservative lawyers will become 
liberal and so-called liberal lawyers will become conservative. 

And here we have got to be careful in draAving this piece of legisla- 
tion. It is very hard to use unambiguous language in dealing with the 
problem that we are attacking. 

Mr. Tracy. I do think it would help very greatly if the Congress, 
in this bill and in any other bills involving the national security, made 
it clear that it is the intent of Congress that this be done. And I think 
that is one thing that has been missing in some of the bills in the 
past, failure to make the intent of Congress clear. 

The Chairman. Well, I think that should be part of the report on 
the bill. I have always been opposed to "whereas" clauses in a bill. 
They are for contracts, and I don't think the Congress should be called 
upon to hold certain things to be sacrosanct and then proceed from 
that and legislate. So I don't agree with you in this respect. I don't 
know that we can do more than to say, in other words, that intent must 
be drawn by the courts from the words employed. 

Mr. IcHORD. That is all you haAO. 

The Chairman. That is all you can possibly do, but in the report, 
you can spell it out, and so if you have a problem in your mind as to 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 395 

how to spell intent, I wish you would say it in short order, so that 
maybe I would fa\or putting it in the report, but I doubt that it would 
be appropriate in the bill. 

Mr. TiLvcY. Well, I was thinking of the Nelson case, Mr. Chairman, 

The Chairmax. That old Nelson case about sedition? 

Mr. TiLVCY. The Nelson case is where the Supreme Court said the 
Federal statutes touch a held in which the Federal interests are so 
dominant 

The Chairman. That is the preemption field. 

Mr. TiLvcY. Yes. That the Federal system must be assumed to pre- 
clude enforcement of State laws. 

The Chairman. Well, to be entirely honest about it, I think that is 
what the Constitution says. 

The Constitution provides that this Constitution and the acts of' 
Congress made pursuant to it shall be the law^ of the land, and both 
an act of Congress and the Constitution, when they conflict, the State 
law must yield. That is what the Constitution says. 

I think what we should do — and the Judiciary Committee does 
that very frequently, did it in the riot bill and many other bills — 
is to say what is not the intent. It is not the intent of Congress that 
by entering into this portion of this field that State laws shall be 
struck down. 

I think that should be in these bills, and that has been the policy of 
the Judiciary Committee. 

Mr. Tracy. That is the point on intent that I think is important. 

The Chairman. Is that the point you are making? 

Then I agree with you. 

Mr. Tracy. That is the point I am making, because the Supreme 
Court has specifically told the Congress it is assuming congressional 
intent. 

The Chairman. I agree with you, and I agree with the Court, be- 
cause that is what the Constitution says, but I fully approve that 
there should be language in the bill when it is deemed desirable that 
that bill, entering as far as it goes, shall not be deemed to strike and 
deaden and kill State laws, 

I completely agree with you. But that should be in it. 

By the way, I have been an advocate of that procedure for years 
and yeai-s, and the Judiciary Committee very, very, very frequently — 
here is Governor Tuck to support me — does that very thing. Is that 
right. Governor ? 

Mr. Tuck. I think that is right. 

Mr, Tracy. Now the Federal Government is, for example, very 
active through the NLRB in the labor field. Does that mean that if 
a case went up, the Supreme Court might hold, because of the Federal 
interest, all State laws are out of date and unconstitutional? 

I am concerned about this particular point. 

The Chairman. Tlie Nelson case has been the subject of litigation, 
I mean, of judicial, of legislative action three times, by the House. 

We repealed that decision on the floor of the House three times, 
under the cliairmanship of Judge Smith. But it died in the Senate. 
We did it three times, to override the Nelson case. 



396 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 

Now if you can straighten it out, it will accord with your views 
and my views, but we never Avere able to do it. 

Mr. Tuck. We preclude abolishing preemption. 

The Chairman. That is right. 

Mr. Tuck. "We have precluded the abolishment of preemption doc- 
trine and the passage of a lot of legislation since then. 

The Chairman. That is right. 

Mr. Tuck. The bells have rmig for a quorum, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Yes, I am afraid they have. You are not going to 
be too long, are you ? 

Mr. Tracy. No, I am usmg my text here merely as a guide, but I 
think it is absolutely clear as you have stated, the responsibility for 
the security of the Nation is on the Congress and the President, and 
is not on the Supreme Court. 

The responsibilities are here ; therefore, intent or any other factor, 
I think, is the responsibility of the Congress to pass legislation, mak- 
ing it completely clear. 

Mr. Tuck. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we recess imtil to- 
morrow\ 

The Chairman. Well, I think that is a good suggestion, because it 
comes to my observation, somebody tells me, and that is my guess, 
that yesterday there were seven quorum calls, and we are going to 
have some more, so if you don't mind, we will adjourn at this point 
until 2 o'clock, and then, Mr. Tracy, to complete your testimony, we 
would be glad to hear from you at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. 

How about that ? 

Mr. Tracy. That will be fine. 

The Chairman. But we now stand adjourned until 2 o'clock this 
afternoon. 

Mr. Ashbrook. You are going to hear him tomorrow at 10. 

The Chairman. I am sorry, we adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow 
morning. 

Mr. Tracy. Right. 

The Chairman. Wait. We have a witness for today. We do have an 
afternoon session. We have a scheduled meeting. I properly said 2 
o'clock, because we were supposed to hear a witness that we scheduled 
at 2 o'clock. 

So we will stand adjourned and recess until 2 o'clock, and then at 
that point, we have a scheduled witness, but we will be glad to hear 
from you for the balance of your testimony at 10 o'clock in the 
moniing. 

Mr. Tracy. Tomorrow morning, fine. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., Wednesday, August 16, 1967, the com- 
mittee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m. the same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1967 

(The committee reconvened a 2:10 p.m., Hon. Edwin E. Willis, 
chairman, presiding.) 
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 397 

STATEMENTS OF HON. HENRY C. SCHADEBERG, A U.S. REPRESENT- 
ATIVE FROM WISCONSIN; THE MILITARY ORDER OF THE WORLD 
WARS ; AND THE NATIONAL WOMAN'S CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE 
UNION 

The Chairman. Before proceeding witli our next witness, the chair- 
man wishes to make a part of the record at this time the following: 

A statement of a former member of this committee, Henry C. 
Schadeberg; the position letter of the Military Order of the World 
"Wars, favorable to these bills; and, also in favor of the bill, the letter 
from the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union. 

These will be printed in the record. 

(The statements follow:) 

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY C. SCHADEBERG, A U.S. 
REPRESENTATIVE FROM WISCONSIN 

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to have an opi>ortunity to join with my colleagues 
in urging this committee's support of legislation which I have cosponsored, de- 
signed to bring the Internal Security Act into conformity with current legisla- 
tive practice and interpretation. 

It is not necessary for me to detail my complete supiwrt of the Internal 
Security Act which is the principal legal tool available today in opposing sub- 
version. As a former member of this outstanding committee, my views on this 
subject are a matter of record. I recognize, however, that, in order for the act 
to continue to be oijerative and effective, it will have to be amended. 

In the light of the crises Ave are facing today in this Nation of ours, both 
internally and externally, it is imperative that the Internal Security Act be 
made as constitutionally taut as possible so that our Federal oflScers uiay carry 
out their duties with efficiency and dispatch. The conforming amendments* in this 
legislation, endorsed by so many Members of this House, will buttress the act 
sufficiently to assure its continuing effectiveness. 

I urge your early and favorable action on H.R. 10391. 

Thank you very much. 



STATEMENT OF THE MILITARY ORDER OF THE WORLD WARS 

The Military Order of the World Wars, 

Washington, D.C., llf August 1967. 
The Honorable Edwix E. Willis, M.C. 
Chairnum, House Committee on Un-American Activities 
Rayburn fildg. 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Co^•GRESSMAX Willis : I regret that other commitments will prevent me. 
as Commander-in-Chief of The Military Order of the World Wars, from appear- 
ing in person before the House Committee on Un-Amferican Activities in connec- 
tion with H.R. 10390 and allied bills. However, on behalf of this Order. I desire 
to go on record as assuring you that the legislation which you propose to amend 
and strengthen the Internal Security Act of 1950 has the unqualified endorse- 
ment of The Military Order of the World Wars. 

I request that this communication be entered as part of the official records 
of your hearings. 
Sincerely, 

/s/ Louis .1. Fortier 

Louis J. FORTIER. 

Brigadier General, USA Ret. 

Commander-in-Chief. 
L,TF: ras 



84-3.51—67- 



398 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL WOMAN'S CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE 

UNION 

National Woman's Christian Temperance Union, 

Wash ington, D.C., Auffust 13, 1967. 
House Un-American Activities Committee 
Hon. Edwin E. Willis, CJir 
Cannon Bldg 
Washington, B.C. 

Dear Sir : I regret that it is not possible for me to attend the hearing of 
H.R. 10390, 10391 and H.R. 10681 but I would like this statement of support 
entered in the record of the proceedings. 

I became particularly upset when I noted in the Congressional Record of 
August 2 (S 10783) of Senator Tydings desire to abolish the Subversive Activities 
Control Board. I am a resident of Maryland and Tydings is supposed to represent 
Maryland but he does NOT represent me. 

I realize the Control Board has been victimized by petty politics and has been 
shorn of its major duties by the Supreme Court but I also understand that the 
above mentioned bills which are sponsored by an impressive list of Congressmen 
would right the situation. 

I feel it is vitally necessary to have a reliable public register of the Communist- 
controlled or aflSliated organizations. 

H.R. 10390 and its companion bills conform to Supreme Court decisions and its 
passage would restore the effectiveness of the registration provisions which the 
Supreme Court took away. 

It is very necessary that there is available somewhere a list of organizations 
and individuals which are Communist connected or engaged in subversive 
activities. 

I am sure there are many organizations that need this information. As a 
free-lance writer I have found this list invaluable. As a civic and church worker 
I have found the list indispensable. It is amazing the propaganda that seeps into 
these places. Truly motivated Christians will stand up and insist that such and 
such an organization is Communist. Unless I had the actual list of Communist 
groups they would never believe me when I refute their statements. I firmly 
believe the Communists are doing as much (or nearly so) damage in maligning 
our truly patriotic organizations as they do in implanting their insidious 
propaganda. 

I write the Washington Letter for the Union Signal (WCTTJ organ) and take 
every opportunity to introduce facts about subversive activities in the United 
States so as to alert our members to the other dangers in their midst. I frequently 
get inquiries from members, particularly in small towns USA who are astounded 
at these revelations. They want to know more. They want to know what they can 
do. I need to have facts to give them. If the Control Board is abolished and/or 
if these bills are not activated I will have no way of knowing the truth. 

The amendments as indicated in these bills seem valid and are vitally necessary. 
Indeed I feel much valuable time has been lost because of the enforced inactivity 
of this Board. 

I realize that it is extremely necessary that experts handle this job of assembling 
this information. If you will report them out of Committee with recommendations 
for favorable action we can hopefully get the Board back in business. 

This seems particularly necessary in this time of unrest, riots and wholesale 
disturbances. We need to know who is doing what ; we need to be able to point a 
finger at tlie offenders and need to have an authenticated yardstick to measure 
those who are guilty. 

I beg that you expedite these bills all possible so as to restore the efficacy of the 
Internal Security Act of 1950 ; so that not only will top government authorities 
be able to identify those individuals and organizations and make their case stick 
in court but for me and countless other "little people" who are trying to maintain 
American ideals of this country where we live and work. 
Most sincerely, 

/s/ Mildred B. Harman 
Mildred B. Harman 
Rep, Bureau of Legislation 

National WCTU 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 399 

STATEMENT OF HON. SPEEDY 0. LONG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM LOUISIANA 

The Chairman. A colleague of ours, and from my own State, Speedy 
Long, was to be a witness, the first witness this morning. He could not 
appear because of reasons beyond his control. I now insert his state- 
ment in the record. 

(Mr. Long's statement follows : ) 

STATEMENT BY HON. SPEEDY O. LONG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM LOUISIANA 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Comimittee : 

I am very pleased to be here today to speak in support of Mr. Willis" bill, H.R. 
10390. which, incidentally, I was honored to a.ssociate myself with at its intro- 
duction. 

Since the Supreme Court saw tit to hold luiconstitutional certain elements of the 
Internal Security Act, relating to the compulsory registration of Communist -front 
organizations, 1 have felt that the Congress must act to shore up this area of our 
national security. H.R. 10390, 1 believe, effectively accomplishes this purpose. 

I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the mechanics of the bill here 
today, because these can be explained to the committee far more efficiently by 
your staff and by the legal experts among your membership. I do think it proper 
that I express myself on the grave need for this legislation. 

A i>erson does not have to be a "'Chicken Little" to recognize the grave danger 
of subversion by such groups as the Communist Party continuously spins off its 
main body. These front groups are virtually unrecognizable to the casual ob- 
server — that is, the majority of the population — -which only increases their danger 
to the Republic. 

H.R. 10390 is an admirable effort to establish a national policy and the ma- 
chinery for dealing effectively with the front groups which harass the flanks 
of representative government. Its chief virtue is that it unmasks the subver- 
sive group and casts the light of justice upon its Communist connections and di- 
rection. Invariably, when discovered, such organizations shrink and quickly 
disappear. 

The fact that they very often reappear in another guise soon after is only more 
reason to e.stablish this law, for vigilance is still the price of freedom. 

Mr. Chairman, permit me to urge most strenuously the committee's support 
and passage of H.R. 10390 and call upon the Congress to enact this critical leg- 
islation. I firmly believe that I can rest in the sure knowledge that thi^; commit- 
tee, and hoiJefuUy the Congress, shall do its duty by the people of this Nation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Our first witness this afternoon will be Mr. Marvin 
Karpatkin of the American Civil Liberties LTnion. 

Let us defer for just a minute. 

Sir, do you have a prepared statement? 

Mr. Karpatkin. Mr. Chairman, I regret I do not. I was only invited 
to testify in the last few days, and it was insufficient time to prepare a 
statement.^ 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr, Karpatkin. May I proceed, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 



iThe director of the ACLU Washington oflBce had requested in June 1967 that he be 
notified when hearings were to be held on H.R. 10390 and H.R. 10.391 so that he could 
appear and present testimony. His oflSce was accordingly notified when the date of the 
hearings was definitely set. The Washington ACLU oflBce, in the absence of its director, made 
arrangements for Mr. KariJatkin to testify in his place. Mr. Karpatkin was not invited to 
testify by the committee. 



400 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 

STATEMENT OF MARVIN KAEPATKIN, FOE THE AMERICAN CIVIL 
LIBERTIES UNION, ACCOMPANIED BY MARK GINSBURG ^ 

Mr. Karpatkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am appearing here at the request of the American Civil Liberties 
Union. I have the honor of being a member of the national board of 
directors of that association. 

The ACLU will soon be celebrating its 50th birthday. The organiza- 
tion consists of more than 100,000 Americans with affiliates in, I be- 
lieve, 43 of the States and with chapters in many of the States. 

The sole aim and function of the American Civil Liberties Union 
is to exist as a voluntary organization of Americans dedicated to 
preserving and furthering and maintaining the constitutional free- 
doms and liberties of Americans under the Constitution and laws of 
the United States. 

I might personally say that I am an attorney in private practice 
in the city of Ne\v York. I am a graduate of Yale Law School and 
I have a master of laws degree from Yale. 

I wrote amicus curiae briefs in a number of cases in the Supreme 
Court of the United States, including several dealing with the consti- 
tutionality of the Internal Security Act of 1950. 

I would also very much like the record to show, sir, as a point of 
personal privilege, that I started my legal career as an assistant to 
the Honorable Thurgood Marshall, when he was chief counsel for the 
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. 

Since that time, I have been in private practice. 

I shoukl like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I am certainly most appre- 
ciative of the personal courtesy in letting me apj^ear, particularly the 
courtesy extended to me in lettmg me appear in the afternoon when it 
was originally requested that I appear in the morning. I am deeply 
appreciative of that. I must, however, add that it is my professional 
responsibility and duty to state for the record that in the view of my 
organization, a view which I certainly share, the existing statute is 
unconstitutional in a number of respects, and we do not feel that any 
of the constitutional problems will in any way be lessened by any of 
the proposed amendments. 

I wnll go into the consideration of each of the amendments seriatim. 

I think that candor also requires me to say that the American Civil 
Liberties Union has for many years called for the abolition of the In- 
ternal Security Act of 1950, the repeal of the act, and the xVmerican 
Civil Liberties Union has likewise called for many, many years for 
the abolition of this conunittee. 

With all respect for Congress and for the chairman and members of 
the committee, we feel that under the first amendment of the Constitu- 
tion there is no proper legislative function that can be performed 

The Chairman. Can you cite a case that holds that ? 

Mr. Karpatkin. I believe the case of Watk'ms v. United States^ 354 
U.S. 178 (1957). _ _ • _ 

The Chairman. It certainly does not. That is not my understanding 
of the Watkins case. 



' Mark Giiishui-ff. a third-yoar Rtiulent at Harvard Law School and law interne, summer 
1967, wa8 assigned to the Washington oflBce of the ACLU by the Law Students Civil Rights 
Research Counsel. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 401 

The Watkins case held only that the pertinency of the question to 
the subject matter of the hearing must be adequately explained to the 
witness. That is all that case held, and that the committee has always 
tried to do when asked by a witness. And, as a matter of fact, in that 
decision four Justices found that the relevance of the contested ques- 
tions had been ade<]uately explained to Mr. Watkins. 

Mr. Karpatkix. Mr. Chairman, 1 would be delig:hted to <>ive you 
my views and the views of my ori!:anization concerninji^ the Committee 
on Un-American Activities. I believe that you will find, Mr. Chairman, 
lantjuaire in the Watkins case which says virtually verbatim, "There is 
no right to expose for exposure's sake." 

The Chairman. The Court did not hold that we were doing it. It 
said it would be wrong if we did it. Isn't that right? 

Mr. Karpatkix. We are both lawyers, and I certainlj^ would not 
wish to suggest that my evaluation of the law is suj^erior to that of the 
distingaiished chairman of this committee. 

The Chairman. That is a reading of fact. It is a fact that the Court 
did what we would consider to be oh Her dictum^ said that it is wrong 
to expose for the sake of exposure, as an abstract proposition, to which 
I completely subscribe. 

But did the Court accuse the committee as a whole that it had done 
that ? Please answer that "yes'' or "'no.'' 

Mr. Karpai-kix. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that question can 
be answered "yes" or "no," but I believe it could be answered more 
"3'es" than "no." 

I believe that the Court was clearly suggesting that at lesist insofar 
as the investigation of the witness in that case was concerned, there 
was at least a tendency to indulge in ex2:)osure for exposure's sake. 

The Chairmax. Why didn't the Court say so I 

Mr. Karpatkix. It was a narrow majority of the Court, and in cases 
subsecpiently majorities of the Court have tended to make determina- 
tions concerning the work of this committee on much narrower 
grounds. 

The strongest statement is in the Watkins case. In other cases the 
Court has nullified convictions on other than constitutional grounds 
and other than free speech grounds. 

The Chairmax. That I concede, that on narrow questions of proce- 
dure it has so lield. But talking about the Watkins case, I am telling 
you that it is my opinion it did not hold and did not even say that this 
committee was guilty of exposing for the sake of exposure, but sug- 
gested for any committee to do it, including this committee, would be 
wrong. 

Isn't that the statement ? 

Mr. Karpatkix. Mr. Chairman, may I be presumptuous enough 

The Chairmax. I see no point in this. 

Mr. CuL^•ER. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it is not appropriate to 
remind the witness that we are here today to consider the merits of 
specific legislation, and I do not tliink the constitutional construction 
of a court case or indeed the constitutionality of the existence of this 
committee is revelantto this purpose. 

We are all very busy. We are extremely interested to have your state- 
ment and we respect your views, and I for one would very much prefer 
you to address yourself to that question. 



402 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

Mr. Karpatkin. Mr. Cong^'essman, I will proceed to that immedi- 
ately. I think now in the interests of candor, I would 

Mr. Culver. I think the members of the committee are familiar with 
your organization. 

Mr. Karpatkix. I think it is relevant to give a bit of background of 
the history of tliis statute and the decisions of the Supreme Court and 
other courts which have brought forth the legislative proposals which 
are before this committee today. 

As I am sure the members of the committee laiow, in oiily one deci- 
sion has the Supreme Court of the United States held any portion of 
the Internal Security Act of 1050 to be constitutional. 

The Chairman. Isn't the reverse true, that it has indicated only 
that section 6 dealing with passports is unconstitutional ? 

All right, name me a case that held any other section or any other 
sentence in the act to be unconstitutiontal except the one dealing with 
passports. 

Mr. Karpatkix. I Avould like, Mr. Chairman 

The Chairmax^. You would like to, but you cannot ? 

Mr. Karpatkix'. I would like to develop my testimony as I had it 
prepared, but I would be delighted to answer your question. 

I believe in the case of AJhertson rmd Proctor against the Siihver- 
slve Act? rifles Control Board [382 U.S. 70 (1965)] which, according 
to the Congresf<io7ial Record., the chairman says he agrees with, the 
Supreme Court held that certain individual registration provisions of 
the statute 

The Chairmax^. I agree that the Supreme Court held tliat no one 
could be compelled to register and to sign that he is a Communist, 
and I said that I agree with that decision. 

But it didn't hold the section unconstitutional. It simply held — after 
having held in 1961 that the act itself was within the powers of Con- 
gress and was a valid act, so far as disclosure proceedings are con- 
cerned — then in 1965, in implementing or in carrying out the details of 
the act, it held that // a witness invoked the fifth amendment against 
an order to register himself as a Cormnmiist, the order could not be en- 
forced because it would, in eifect, be compelling him to testify against 
himself, and I agree with that decision. 

Mr. Karpatkix'. That Avas a unanimous decision, with Mr. Justice 
Clark pointing out in his concurring opinion tliat he had warned 
against it Mhen he was Attorney General under President Truman. 

If the Court stated that a certain provision cannot be constitutionally 
operative, it seems to me that is equivalent to a holding of unconsti- 
tutionality. I don't think we need to quibble. We both agree with the 
decision and we both know what it means. 

What I wish to point out is concerning the basic requirement of tlie 
statute, the requirement of registration of allegedly Communist- 
action 

The Chairmax. And this present bill does not so require. We de- 
liberately, with our eyes wide open, cautiously respected the decision 
in the case referred to on that very point. 

Mr. Karpatkix. Mr. Chairman, I am quite aware of that. My point 
is that the holding of constitutionality in Commun'ist Party v. Suh- 
versire Activities Control Board, in the 1961 decision, that 115-page 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 403 

decision by Mr. Justice Frankfurter, whicli you and I have read many 
times, a 5 to 4 decision, Mr. Justice Frankfurter makers it very clear 
in his analysis of the statute, in his analysis of the legislative history, 
in his discussions of the tindin<rs of necessity, of the detinitions and of 
the criteria, that we are only talkinoj about one thing now, he says, we 
are only talking about the registration of the Conmiunist Party, per 
se, we are not talking about self-incrimination, we are not talking 
about 

The CiiAiKMAX. You mean in upholding its constitutionality? 

^Ir. Karpatkix. Yes. 

The Chairmax. I understand that. 

Mr. Karpatkix. He made it very clear. 

The C'hairmax. Pie made it clear and left the door open for a proper 
lioding in a later case that to compel someone to register was improper 
if he invoked his fifth amendment rights. I agree with the holding. If 
I had been a judge, I would have held the same way. 

Mr. Karpatkix. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that you would have 
voted with the dissenters and provided a fifth vote, because our opinion 
is the stronger argument is with the four who dissented, that the act 
violates the first amendment in a number of respects. 

The CiiAiRMAX. In what respects? 

]\Ir. Karpatkix. I think it can be stated most succinctly in the words 
which Mr. Justice Black used, not in his lengthy dissent back in 1961, 
but in 1065, in the case involving the so-called Communist-front orga- 
nization, where Mr. Justice Black said : 

I thiuk that among other things the Act is a bill of attainder ; that it imposes 
cruel, unusual and savage punishments for thought, speech, writing, petition 
and assembly ; and that it stigmatizes people for their beliefs, associations and 
views about politics, law, and government. The Act has borrowed the worst 
features of old laws intended to put shackles on the minds and bodies of men, 
to make them confess to crime, to make them misei'able while in this country, 
and to make it a crime even to attempt to get out of it. It is difficult to find laws 
more thought-stifling than this one even in countries considered the most be- 
nighted. * * * 

What I have just read for the record is from Mr. Justice Black's 
dissenting opinion in the case of American Committee for Protection 
of Foreign Born v. Suhversive Activitief^ Control Board. 

The Chairman^. I am glad you mentioned Justice Black, because it is 
significant that only one of the dis.senting Justices, and that is Black, 
took the position that the act is violative of the first amenchnent. Is 
that true ? 

Mr. Karpatkix. That is true, but 

The Chairman'. If it is true, let^s not .say, "It is true, but" — Proceed. 

Mr. Karpatkix. "We think Justice Black is a very authoritative in- 
teq:)reter of the meaning of the first amendment, Mr. Chairman. 

I think it is a melancholy fact — this thought was suggested by Mr. 
Justice Black, saying that this statute reminds us of the most benighted 
countries with thought-.stifling laws. 

I think it is a melancholy fact that the totalitarian dictatorship run- 
ning the Government of Argentina at this time lias recently proposed 
legislation to ban certain organizations, purportedly for the purpose 
of fighting communism in that countiy, and it has stated it has adopted 
as its guide the Internal Security Act of 1950. 



404 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

The press has never carried the verbatim text of the Argentine law, 
and I have not read it. But it is a thought that Americans can consider, 
that one of the most totalitarian coimtries in this hemisphere has to 
borrow a law from the United States. 

Mr. Chairman, the point that I was trying to make from the narrow 
decision by Mr. Justice Frankfurter, and I am not going into self- 
incrimination now, but into the basic first amendment argument, is 
that the constitutionality was narrowly sustained in terms only of the 
Comnumist Party of the Ignited States, because of the fact that a 
Communist-action organization was intimately related, or at least held 
to be intimately related, with aspects of foreign affairs involving direct 
efforts and threats at the violent overthrow of the Government and 
the substitution of a totalitarian government in its stead. 

By very definition, the findings, the legislative history, the defini- 
tions and the criteria do not make the same accusations with respect to 
so-called Communist- front organizations. 

All that is said with respect to so-called Communist- front organiza- 
tions is that they "aid" or "support" and similar words. 

The ChairmajST. I think I am going to urge the objection of my col- 
league to my right, that you should address your opinions to the 
business at hand. 

I take it you are against the legislation at hand ? 

Mr. Karpatkin. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

May I point out that in the per curiam decision of the Court in 
the case of American Committee for the Protection of Foreign Born, 
it is ix)inted out : 

Our Commnnist Party decision on the Communist-action provisions did not 
necessarily foreclose petitioner's constitutional questions bearing on the Com- 
munist-front provisions. * * * 

The Chairman. I don't contend that. Did I say any word 



Mr. IvARPATKiisr, I am not suggesting that you did, Mr. Chairman. 
This is addressed to the argument of unconstitutionality, which we 
are making, directed toward section 1 

The Chairman. You are just arguing your case like you would 
before a court. Although you don't like this committee you must 
realize, as a lawyer, that this is not a court, and this committee, by the 
way, today is not exercising its investigative powers, but its bill- 
hearing powers ; so I wish you would address yourself to the question 
at hand. 

Mr. Karpatkin. I am sure of that, but I am sure a committee 
manned by as many able lawyers 

The CiLMRMAN. iPlease don't pay us a compliment that will over- 
whelm us. I am liable to fall off my chair. 

Mr. Cul\t:r. May I have the citation in the last case you made 
reference to? 

Mr. Karpatkin. Yes, that is from page 2 of the slipsheet opinion. 
I will get you the United States Eeport citation shortly. [It is 380 U.S. 
503 (1905).] It is at that point that the Court drops a footnote and 
cites President Truman's veto message, and certain provisions of it. 

The Chairman. Is that outfit still existing, American Committee 
for Protection of Foreign Born ? That is one of the oldest cited front 
organizations in America. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 405 

'Mr. Kakpatkin, Mr. Chairman, I would not have the slightest 
idea whether it is existing or not. 

The CiiAiiniAX. I am told it is. All right. 

Mr. Karpatkix. Mr. Chairman, section 1, I am addressing myself 
now to II.Iv. 10390, the bill which is before this committee. Section 
1 expands the detinition of Connniinist-front organization to include 
''substantially directed, dominated, or controlled by one or more 
members of a Communist-action organization." 

The previous definition was "substantially directed, dominated, or 
controlled by a Communist-action organization." 

I take it that the purport of the amendment is to allow for a situa- 
tion of control where it is not by an organization but by one or more 
members thereof. 

The Ciiairmax. That is the nub of it all, and you heard previous wit- 
nesses agreeing with its desirability. 

Mr. Karpatkin. Unfortunately, I did not have the privilege of 
being here to hear previous witnesses, but I would assume from pub- 
lished statements that some of the witnesses would have indicated 
that they were in favor of this amendment. 

We are opposed to it for the primary reason that we believe that 
there is no constitutional power to proscribe Communist-front organi- 
zations of any kind, whether by this definition or by any other defi- 
nition. 

^Ve believe that the Court, when it next acts, is going to redeem the 
hint which it gave in that one sentence which I read from the American 
Conmiittee case and ride that while by a 5 to 4 vote it found constitu- 
tional power for Congress to act against the Communist Party of 
the United States because it is intimately tied up with a foreign- 
dominated military conspiracy 

The Chairman, Do you agree with that statement you just made 
there? 

Mr. Karpatkin. Mr. Chairman, my personal views as to events in 
world history are really of no relevance whatsoever. 

The Chairman. I am glad you want to hew the line of admissibility. 
Proceed. 

Mr. Karpatkin. Very good, Mr. Chairman. I try not to hew to 
any line. I try to develop my thoughts as they come along and as I 
feel they are relevant. 

It seems to me that it must be acknowledged that there are certain 
limits to congressional power in the area of the first amendment. There 
must be some point beyond which the constitutional power to restrict 
the free speech of Communist-action revolutionaries, which is pre- 
sumably the reason the Court gave its approval 5 to 4 in the 1961 
case, cannot be stretched. This cannot be a limitless power subject 
only to any determination which the Board might make with any 
organization. 

There are many persons, unfortunately, in Government as well as 
out of Government, who would include a large number of organiza- 
tions such as, for example, the Socialist Party or the National Associa- 
tion for the Advancement of Colored People or Women's Strike for 
Peace or the Americans for Democratic Action or our own organiza- 
tion, the American Civil Liberties Union — there are unfortunat/ely 



406 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

many persons who would say these organizations should be included 
in the rubric of Communist-front organizations 

The Chairman. You have not heard me say that, have 3^ou? 

Mr. Karpatkin. No, I have not, and I wish you wouldn't take my 
remarks personally, if you are. 

The Chairman. What does it have to do with the materiality of 
the case? 

Mr. Karpatkin. I think it does. There is a grave danger, while the 
act allows the stigmatizing of so-called Communist-front organiza- 
tions, that many organizations which have liberal views are going to 
be threatened. 

The Chairman. Are you in favor of the front organizations — — 

Mr. Karpatkin. Am I in favor of front organizations? 

The Chairman. — dominated or controlled by Communists? 

Mr. Karpatkin. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the first amend- 
ment, and I am in favor of the greatest freedom of the exchange of 
ideas, even by organizations that call for radical changes in American 
society, as long as these radical changes are called for in terms of ad- 
vocacy and not overt acts. 

I hope that answers your question, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman, It does not, but proceed. 

Mr. Karpatkin. I think, however, that in addition to the general 
objection, the general constitutional objection, there is a further ob- 
jection to the amendment in section 1. 

If the statute were to be amended so as to provide 

]\Ir. Culver. Excuse me. Are you back on section 1 now ? 

Mr. Karpatkin. Yes. 

Mr. CuL\'ER. Have you completed j-our testimony with regard to 
section 2 ? 

Mr. Karpatkin. I don't believe I have gone into section 2, ]Mr. 
Culver. 

Mr, CuL^'ER. I am sorry. I thought yx)u were addressing section 2. 

Mr. Karpatkin. Do we have the same print ? I am talking about 
H.R, 10390. I am talking about section 1, which would expand the 
definition of Communist-front organizations. 

Mr. CuLAT-m. Fine. 

Mr. Karpatkin. According to this definition, the Board would be 
free to brand any organization as a Connnunist -front organization if 
it were determined 1:hat it was substantially dominated, directed, or 
controlled by even a single person who Avas a member of a Communist- 
action organization. 

There are many scientific congresses, many international organiza- 
tions, where scholars, learned persons, scientists, humanities experts 
from our country come in contact with persons of similar scholarly- 
specialization from Communist-dominated countries. 

Many of these organizations have persons from Communist coun- 
tries on their executive boards as part of the international scientific 
intercourse. Indeed I would suppose that in some of these organiza- 
tions there is a provision for the rotation of chairmansliip, so that it 
might Very well be that at some international congress on microbiology 
or geophysics, or whatever, the president or the director-general or 
the secretary or what-have-you in an}^ one j'ear 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 407 

The Chairman. I think you are forgetting- the last i)art. of the deiini- 
tion has the disjunctive "or"' in two instances, then it winds up under 
(C), "and is primarily operated for the purpose of giving aid and 
support to a Communist-action organization, a Connuunist foreign 
govermnent.or the world Connnunist movement * * *." 

You have got to prove that, too. 

Mr. IvAKrATKix. 1 take it, Mr. Chairman, that you agree with me 
that there might l)e a problem with that poi-tion of the definition which 
I have just been criticizing. At least 1 would h()})e that you agree 
with it. 

The Chairman. I have agreed with you more often than you have 
agreed with me. 

Mr. CiTL\TR. Mr. Chairman, certainly the witness is much too good 
an attorney to say that l)e.cause you establish a defect in part it is all 
tainted. You read the whole relevant section of the statute in law. It 
has no real basic legal objection, does it? 

Do vou feel the imperfection permeates the entire language of the 
statute ? 

Mr. Karpatkin. While I could generally agree with you, Mr. Con- 
gressman, it seems to me that a person concerned with constitutional 
liberties should 

Mr. CuLVKR. In your hypothetical that you pose, which I think is 
most interesting and a useful one, my only concern is whether it is — 
whether it has any relevancy to any objection you see in this statute. 

I cannot even envision a situation where the case you pose is likely 
to be at all affected by a proper interpretation of the language as 
drafted. 

Mr. Karpatkin, Assume that some American organization of 
scholars or otherwise decides in its best interest that it should affiliate 
with some international organization, and assume that in any par- 
ticular year the majority of the members of the executive of that inter- 
national organization come from so-called neutralist or Communist 
countries, so that there is a balance that is not pro-American in one 
particular year. 

Mr. Culver. Can we further assume for the illegality under the 
statute that it is primarily operated to give aid to a Communist for- 
eign government or the world Communist movement referred to in 
section 2? 

Mr. Karpaiivin. I would assume that the members of this commit- 
tee and most persons would probahly agree that persons who rej^re- 
sent 

Mr. Culver. Can you answer the question ? 

]\Ir. Karpatkin. I don't think that this is altogether fanciful, Mr. 
Chairman. I can easily conceive of something like that occurring. 

]\Ir. Culver, Fanciful that they are operated for the purpose 

]\fr. Karpatkin. I can conceive of that accusation being made. 

Mr. Culver. Lawsuits can be brought of the most fanciful nature, 
but suing the bishop's daughter, as we all are familiar with in first: 
year law, is one thing. To make it establish in court the elements of 
crime is quite another. 

Mr. Karpatkin, We didn't learn about it. Maybe it has been so long 
since I was in first -year law school I don't remember the bishop's 
dauohter. 



408 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

It seems to me you have to read tlie words of the statute and g:ive 
a reasonable interpretation of what it may mean. 

Mv. CuL\TR. I couldn't a^iTee more. I am in full accord with that 
statement. A reasonable interpretation of what it means, one, and 
secondly, read it all. 

Mr. Karpatkix. That is right. 

Mr. Cx"L\T,R. Perhaps we are both 

Mr. Karpatkin. This is in answer to the question 3'ou asked previ- 
ously, Mr. Culver, that any element of unconstitutionality in the statute 
shoidd not cause us to say that we should tiy to weigh it and see if it is 
not outbalanced by the other elements that are not constitutional. 

The CiiAiRMAisr. Are you suggesting that if a court holds that one 
section or one facet of the statute is unconstitutional that necessarily 
the others are tainted to the point where they can be claimed to be 
unconstitutional ? 

Mr. Karpatkin. No, Mr. Chainnan. There is a legal rule, a rule of 
construction, to deal with this. This is a rule of whether the clauses 
are dependent or independent, separable or nonseparable, and in each 
case the statute would be studied to detennine 

The Chairman. This is a conjunctive clause I have be«n reading. 

Mr. Karpatkin. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr, CtTLVER. A statute in part may well be viewed as unC/Onstitu- 
tional, without additional language or qualification that certainly could 
be defective, but I think it is essential if we are going to make that ob- 
servation that it be made in total and complete constniction of the 
reading of the statute in context. 

Mr. Karpatkin. Mr. Culver, let me follow this with you, if I may. 

Assume an international organization of agricultural experts which 
makes a determination that in one particular year a special team is to be 
sent to study the problems of agriculture in Communist Yugoslavia, 
It seems to me that it can be contended that the requirements of the 
statute can be met in that particular year — assume for example that 
it was outvoted, that there were suggestions for India 

Mr, CuLATJt, Is that your suggestion ? Could it be said that this par- 
ticular organization, then, as an organization, is primarily being oper- 
ated for the purpose of giving aid and support to a Communist -act ion 
organization, a Communist foreign government, or the world Commu- 
nist movement? 

Mr. Karpatkin. In that particular year when the control of the 
organization made that determination over presimiably the minority 
votes of the American members, or even if they didn't vote 

Mr, CuL^T.R, Totally independent of tliat. We could have American 
niembei-s who were Communists, 

I think that is the key question to address ourselves to, and also 
I think, as far as the statutory authority of this Congress, we can only 
address oureelves to the activities of native American groups. 

Mr. Karpatkin. Yes, but I believe the activities of the native Ameri- 
can groups 

Mr. Ciil\t:r. "Would that be chnracterized as a native American 
group, the international organization you suggest, or would it be 
chartered? Probably it would be an international authority, wouldn't 
it? 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 5 409 

^Tr. Kahi'a'ikix. If 3'()u will liiiish your <|uesii()ns, 1 will answor 
tluMH. Shall I wait, or try to answer tlieiu all to^etlier^ 

Mr. Culver. Whatever you find most comenient. 

Mr. Kakpatkin. You are the Member of Conj^ress. Ask nie the ques- 
tions, and 1 will try to answer them. 

The CiiAiRMAx. Are you construing this bill as beino- applicable 
to international or<i;anizati()ns? 

Mr. Karpatkix. 1 think this bill is a])plicable to an American or<>a- 
nizatioii which may engage in any act, temporary or permanent, of 
afliliation with an international or<ranization. 

The CiiAiRMAxr. And whose primary purpose is to give aid and sup- 
port to a Comnuniist-action organization, a Connnunist foreign gov- 
ernment, or the Communist world movement. Is that what you are 
talking about? 

Mr, IvARPATKiN, That is exactly what I am talking about, Mr. Chair- 
man. 

The Chairman. You mean that international organization, an inter- 
national organization is formed for that purpose, but American na- 
tionals belong to it ? 

Mr. I\l\RPATKix. I believe it says primarily, "operated," Mr. Chair- 
man. It does not say ''organized.-' "Operated for the purpose of giving 
aid and support." 

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that I can see a petition being drawn stat- 
ing that 

The Chairman. If you draw^ it, you could conceive quite a lot of 
things. I know that. But you wouldn't draft that petition. 

Mr. Karpatkin. Mr. Chairman, I hope it would never be necessary 
to draft that jjetition, because I hope this committee will not favorably 
report out this proposal, and if it is favorably reported out, I hope, 
with all respect, it will not receive the support of the House. 

The Chairman. It received the support of the Senate full Judiciary 
Committee ; you know that. 

Mr. Karpatkin. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did you appear there ? 

Mr. IvARPATKiN. No, Mr. Chairman, I did not. I certainly w ould have 
liked to though. 

Mr. AsHBROOK. Go back to what you wanted to say. You were mak- 
ing a point. 

The Chairman. You felt that this act applied to international or- 
ganizations to which American nationals belonged. That is the ques- 
tion, I thinli:. 

Mr. Karpatkin. The answer is, Mr. Chairman, that the act applies 
to American organizations. 

The CiiAiPtiiAN. Then your answer to my question is "no" ? 

Mr. Karpatkin. I think that is correct. My answer to your question 
is "no," but I think in further explanation it should be pointed out 
that what we are talking about now is a definition : What is the defini- 
tion of this organization ? And what I am criticizing is an attempt to 
introduce as a new element of this definition the fact that this organiza- 
tion of Americans might be substantially dominated, directed, or con- 
trolled by even one person who was a member of a Communist-action 
organization. I am saying that this can be implemented within the 



410 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

Words of this proposed amendment, so as to proscribe a group of 
American scientific experts who affiliate with an international organi- 
zation, where an international organization makes a determination tliat 
is in accord with either the foreign policy or the domestic policy of any 
Communist government. I gave as an example the sending an agricul- 
tural team to Yugoslavia rather than sending it to India, assuming 
that tliere is a divided vote on that, and that the majority of persons 
representing Commmiist organizations swings the votes and they allo- 
cate the money to send the agricultural team to help agriculture in 
Communist Yugoslavia, 

Mr. AsHBROOK, Could I ask you a question, an (a), (b) question? 

Is this, (a), a question where you think nothing should be done, or, 
(b), you think it is an area where something should be done, but you 
disagree with this? 

Mr. Kaepatkin. Mr. Congressman, the ACLU is unalterably op- 
posed to the statute. 

Mr. AsHBROOK. But is this an area where you think something 
should be done ? 

Mr. Karpatkin. This is an area where we felt there was adequate 
legislation before the Internal Security Act, and we are against it for 
constitutional grounds, essentially, sir. 

If a distinction has to be made, it can be made between the holding 
of constitutionality insofar as requiring the registration of the Com- 
munist Party as a Communist-action organization with foreign in- 
volvements, and any kind of actions with regard to so-called Com- 
munist-front organizations, which the Supreme Court has not ruled on, 
and which the only thing the Supreme Court said is a hint that it might 
be unconstitutional in a per curiam opinion in the American Com- 
mittee for Protection of Foreign Born case in 1965. 

I started off my argument by saying we are against everything that 
has to do with CFO's, Communist-front organizations, but assuming- 
it exists in the statute, we believe that greater dangers of the guilt by 
association and greater dangers of harming Americans by reason of 
their associations can result 

The Chairman. And the illustration you give to prove that guilt by 
association is that one or more American nationals might join an inter- 
national organization of some kind ? 

Mr. Karpatkix. There are many ways in Avhich it could happen, 
Mr. Chairman, One or more American nationals might join an inter- 
national, or an American group might affiliate with an international 
organization as a whole. That is another way in which it might happen. 

Mr. Culver. In a report in the 87th Congress, it defines the term 
"Conununist-action organization" as "any organization in the United 
States.-' 

Now, certainly, I could envision a situation where an international 
organization were formed and operated on a charter witliin the United 
States for some of the purposes you suggest, but I think it is important 
to give proper acknowledgement of the language of the statute whicii 
does require ruling out "primarily operated for the purpose of giving 
aid and support" 

Mr. Karpatkin. If you will be kind enough to read the language a 
bit further, it says that a Communist- front organization by definition 



.\MENDING THE IXTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 411 

is un organization which has a certain rehitionship with either a Com- 
munist-action organization or a Connnimist foreign government or 
the Avorkl Communist movement. 

^Ir. Cit^l\t:r. You are reading where now ? 

Mr. IvAitPATKiN. From the hmguage in the existing statute. 

Mr. Cul\t:r. Subsection (C) ? 

Mr. l\L\RPATKiN. Yes. And that is in the 1950 act and we still have 
it today. 

I think we are getting close to the limits of what Mr. Justice Frank- 
furter for a majority of five held to be constitutional i:>ower. 

It said here we are dealing with something foreign, wath military 
force, with what happened in Hungary, with a situation where it is 
not just ideas. But once we move away from that hard core, we are 
involved with ideas. 

I am not saying the Supreme Court said it ; it did not, it specifically 
held it open. 

What it said on it was in 1965, per curiam, in the American Commit- 
tee case, it went out of its way to say that the constitutional questions 
were open for an appropriate case. 

^Ir. AsiiBROOK. One point is that where the group assumes the mask 
of anonymity to conceal its operations, Congress has the right to re- 
move that mask. 

I hate to quote someone else's words back, but I think you said you 
were against everything that has to do with CFO's. 

Are you opposed to any legislation of that kind ? 

Mr. Karpatkin. Yes, I am. I would suppose that any organization, 
a so-called "front" or otherwise, which engages in overt acts is cer- 
tainly subject to legislative regulation in the interests of internal and 
external security of this country. 

Mr. AsHBROOK. I am glad you said that because what you said before 
indicated that your organization was against any legislation. 

Mr. Karpatkin. Our organization distinguishes between acts and 
advocacy. Even the most perf ervid advocacy is ])rotected. 

Mr. AsTiBROOK. What about concealment ? Do you think they have 
the right to conceal purposes ? 

Mr. Karpatkin. The genesis of this language is some of the words 
of Mr. Justice Frankfurter in his 115-page opinion. 

Mr. Ashbrook. This is a very important thing. The mask of ano- 
nymity which many groups seek to conceal, particularly CFCs, as 
you have referred to, how about legislating in this area ? 

Mr. Karpatkin. I think Mr. Justice Frankfurter was very clear to 
say that we are talking about only a Communist-action organization, 
and nothing else. 

He said there is enough on the other side of the balance to outweigh it. 

Mr. Ashbrook. Are you saying that a Communist-front organiza- 
tion has to find itself in a different category and therefore legislation 
should not be proposed in that area ? 

Mr. Karpatkin. I believe what the Court said in American Com- 
jnumcatlons Association v. Bonds [339 U.S. 382 (1949)]. Mr. Justice 
Jackson said that he could not conceive of any constitutional justifica- 
tion which would require Democrats or Eepublicans or Socialists to 
wear armbands. But he added that the Communist Party is different 

In Sweezy v. New Hampshire [354 U.S. 234 (1957)] 



412 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

The Chairman. In what way different ? 

Mr. Kabpatkin. Accordmg to a five-man majority of the Supreme 
Court 

The Chairman. I have said this time and again, and I said it in my 
opening statement, and you are correct in what you are saying there, 
that if the Communists were required to put a bandage on and to have 
hibels on their package of deceit, labeling it as conunmiism, Americans 
won't buy it. Basically, a front organization is basically deceitful. Isn't 
that true ? 

Mr. Karpatkin. I'm not so sure, Mr. Chairman. I'm not so sure. 

The Chairman. It is fronting 

Mr. Karpatkin. Mr. Chairman, I know about one of the so-called 
front organizations, because I did the amicus curiae brief for the Vet- 
erans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, and I read a good deal about 
the Spanish civil war, including the book written by Mr. Thomas, the 
English historian, which received such good reviews. 

There is a question in the minds of scholars as to the extent of Com- 
munist dommation, of the Coimnunists in those activities. Cei-tainly 
there was participation, but domination, that is the problem when you 
get mto front organizations. 

Mr. Ashbrook. Are you willing to take the next step and say it is 
our legitimate concern as Congress to try to determine, difficult though 
it may be, to determine the ground rules for detennining the extent ? 

I admit it is difficult. 

Mr. Karpatkin. I think that is around the bend, as the English 
say. I tliink that is beyond the legislative power of the Congress of the 
United States. 

Mr. Ashbrook. It may be beyond our ability, but not beyond our 
power. 

Mr. Karpatkin. I am sure it is within your ability, but I think it is 
beyond your power under the first amendment. 

Thank you for being so kind in letting me take this much time. 

The Chairman. You mean you are still in the introductory part? 

Mr. Karpatkin. By the way, if my voice is loud, forgive me. I have 
a cold which is affecting my ear, and I cannot tell how loud I am 
speaking. 

The Chairman. You are doing all right. 

Mr. Karpatkin. Thank you. 

Section 2_of the bill and also section 5(c) (1) and 5(c) (2), all deal 
with what is obviously something of great concern to the cliairman, 
the problem of self-incrimination, which was raised by the unani- 
mous decision of the Supreme Court in the Albertson case, and the 
proposals here are three in number, to provide for — I say substan- 
tively three in number, since there may be other technical things — 
to provide for a procedure for individual registration, for registra- 
tion of individual members. 

The Chairman. Not by the members themselves. 

Mr. Karpatkin. I understand that, to provide adversary proceed- 
ings for the registration of individual members. Is that a fair state- 
ment of it, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Yes, it is. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 413 

;Mr. KARrATKix. It provides for registration of members of CAO's, 
us well as CFO's and CIO's, too, I suppose. I should say for the record 
we are talkino; about Comnnniist-action organizations and Com- 
numist-front oriranizations and Communist-infiltrated or^ranizations, 
CAO's, CFO's, and CIO's, respectively, and it provides innnunity 
from prosecution of persons subpenaed to be witnesses. 

I take it those are the es.sential provisions of the attempt to react 
to the dex?ision of the Su])reme Court in the Albertson case. 

With all due respect, I suggest that the self-incrimination problem 
will still remain. 

Self-incrimination, as I understand it, from reading Counselman 
V. Hitchcock [142 U.S. 547 (1892)], and the Albertson case and otlier 
decisions on the fifth amendment, and Dean Griswold's book, The 
Fifth Amendment, written aljout 10 years ago, is any kind of pressure, 
constraint, sanction, or compulsion which causes an individual to 
either indirectly or directly provide testimony which can be used to 
subject him to a criminal sanction or a civil forfeiture. 

The CHAiRiiAN. Criminal action or civil forfeiture? 

]Mr. Karpatkix. Yes. To go further, I know that in the State of 
Xew York, and in many other States, a person in a matrimonial pro- 
ceeding does not liave to answer a question involving adultery. So I 
suppose it would involve civil sanctions as well as criminal sanctions. 

The scheme of the amended statute, I suggest, w^ould have the ef- 
fect of attempting to do indirectly that which the Supreme Court said 
you can't do directly. 

How? A person would presumably be the recipient of a notice or 
a subpena or some invitation or request or advice of the fact that a 
petition has been filed to have this person register in an adversary 
proceeding as a member of an organization. This person would have 
the choice of either responding affirmatively, responding negatively, or 
of not appearing. 

Decisions which this person would make to respond or not to respond 
and how to respond, obviously must be made bearing in mind the very 
real possibility of incrimination precisely as indicated by the Supreme 
Court in the Albertson case. 

There is the same possibility that this person, if he gives testimony, 
can be subjected to a sanction by providing a link of evidence to find 
him guilty of violating the membership provision of the Smith Act or 
critnmal provisions of the Internal Security Act. By not testifying he 
can be subjected to sanction by allowing himself to be branded or 
stigmatized as a member of an organization because the consequences 
of opposing such possible stigmatization would have been to provide 
links of testimony against himself. 

I think this comes well within the many decisions of the courts on 
self-incrimination that say when you give the person this kind of 
choice, the choice of avoiding penalty A by acceptmg penalty B, there 
is still self-incrimination. 

I am sure the chairman would agree if he were here. 

The bible of immunity cases is the Supreme Court case of CounseJ- 
mmi V. Hltchx-och some years ago, and it makes it very clear that for 
an offer of immunity, for a provision of immunity to be effective — 
remember that the immunity was held to be ineffective in the Albertson 

84-351 — 67 10 



414 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 

case — in order for it to be effective, it must be as broad and all-embrac- 
ino- as to cover any possible sanction to which the person to whom 
immunity is ^ranted is subjected. 

I Avould like to find you the exact words from the Albertson case, 
because I think they were very instructive. 

Mv. CuL\'ER. Is this Albertson? 

Mr. Karpatkix. Yes, A7hertson^ 382 U.S. TO. It is a quote from 
C OKVsehnan contained in the Albertson case : 

"that no [immunity] statute which leaves the party or witness subject to 
proserntion after he answers the criminating question put to him, can have the 
effect of supplanting the privilege . . ," and that such a statute is valid only if 
it supplies "a complete protection from all the i>erils against which the constitu- 
tional prohibition was designed to guard . . ." by affording "absolute" immunity 
against future prosecution for the offence to which the question relates." * * * 
[382 U.S.. at 80.] 

The Court went on and it said that not just immunity from prose- 
cution, but even the use of an admission as an investigatory lead to a 
prosecution must be cruarded against. 

Mv. Cttl,\^r. Of that individual? The investigative lead 

Mr. Karpatkin. The language of the Court is — the Court lield 
that the previous immunity provision was ineffective because, "it does 
not preclude the use of the admission as an investigatory lead." 

It did not go into the refinement of that question which you are 
suggesting, whether it could be an investigatory lead against others. 

Unfortunately, I think the Court has made clear in other cases that 
the privilege is personal and he cannot protect others unless he can 
show there is a relationship that would involve him in the incrimina- 
tion of another. 

Mr. AsHBROOK. Could you tell us how this provision falls within 
your objection? 

Mr. Karpatkix. Yes. I think this provision does not track the lan- 
ouage of the Supreme Court decision under which it would have to be 
broader. This provision does not make clear that information obtained 
in such a proceeding could not be used in such an investigatory lead. 
But, Mr. Ashbrook, I can well understand you or the distinguished 
chairman saying to me, "Well, you are quibbling. We can redraft to 
make it stronger." 

Mr. AsiiBRooK. That type of quibbling makes a good court case, 

Mr. Karpatkin. I know that. If this could not be made a constitu- 
tional argument in deciding constitutional cases — we argue good and 
bad i:)olicy here, too — it seems to me the very purpose for which the 
self-incrimination purpose was intended, as Dean Griswold points out 
in his book, is to protect not only against sanction, but against public 
disgrace and infamy, to ]3rotect against a person degrading himself 
and making himself an object of ridicule before his fellows. 

Mr. Ashbrook. To interrupt on that point. Do you take the posi- 
tion in a pure hypothetical case that no provision by statute can really 
be proper, constitutionally — an immunity statute ? 

Mr. Karpatkin. I don't know whether my organization has taken 
a position on it 

Mr. Ashbrook. You seem to be saying it. It would be hard to give 
immunity, an immunity statute that wouldn't entail that. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 415 

Mr. Kari'Atkin. Tiiat is a ^ood question, if you will for<^i\e my 
presumption iu sayin<!: so. 

1 would say that within tlie area of any in(iuiry as to l)eliefs, associa- 
tions, ideas, or as to ad\ocacv, that this type of inimunity is improper 
and contrary to the spirit of the protection against self-incrimination 
which we have inherited from Anglo-American law. 

Mr. CuL^'ER. How about treason? 

Mr. Karpatkix. Treason is a crime defined in the Constitution, the 
only crime I know defined in the Constitution. I believe it requires 
two witnesses to the same overt ju-t, and I believe it is defined as the 
levying of war against the Ignited States or giving aid and comfort to 
the enemy in time of war, and the same overt act must be testified to 
by two witnesses. 

Xow, are you, sir, asking me how I would feel about a statute which 
would be designed to give immunity to one person w^ho could be such 
a witness? 

Well. Mr. Chairman, I haven't thought about it, and I will say that 
I am open on it. I can see considerations on both sides. We are certainly 
not calling for the repeal of the constitutional prohibition of treason, 
nor — — 

Mr. CirL\'ER. I was interested in probing a little further how per- 
suasive and sweeping you wanted to stand on the suggestion that you 
would insulate, without exception, the whole area of belief, thoughts, 
and so forth. 

I just wondered whether or not it wouldn't be worthy of additional 
pause and reflection. 

Would you include any immunity situation in this admittedly deli- 
cate and sensitive area ? 

Mr. Karpatkix. I don't think that we have had any bad constitu- 
tional experiences with the treason clause. 

Mr. Culver. It is quite an academic and esoteric exercise 

]Mr. IC\rpatkin. Since the treason clause can be invoked only on 
the declaration of war, I hope and pray there will never be any 

Mr. Cul\t:r. Could you answer my question ? 

iSIr. Karpatkix. My organization has said every time it has testi- 
fied in opposition to this law and other loyalty-security legislation that 
we tliink the law's punishing treason and espionage and sabotage are 
fine. They fulfill a purpose. Tliev did so in World War I and World 
War 11^— 

^h\ Culver. Whether there is a purpose or not, it certainly doesn't 
negate your sensibilities or sensitivity to encroachment upon fifth 
amendment privileges. 

Mr. AsHBROOK. I would like to hear what he was going to say. 

Mr. Karpatkin. Of course not, and one of the reasons for our 
basic antipathy to this legislation is that we feel the only thing 
that can be encroached by congressional power is overt acts, and we 
already have laws enough to deal with any and all overt acts. 

That is essentially what I was saying. I was going to use this 
occasion as an opportunity to go back into that area, which the 
chairman told me at the beginning I shouldn't concentrate on. 

Mr. Asiibrook. But setting up a Communist front is an act, and 
actions they take can be overt. It is not always speeches and pam- 



416 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

phlets. Many times they call for specific acts, blocking a troop train, 
and dozens of things. 

Mr. ICvEPATKiN. In that case, the blocking of the train is the act 
that is punishable. 

The Chairman. Yet, the Pool bill which deals with that very prob- 
lem, you opposed it. 

Mr. Karpatkin. I haven't, read the Pool bill, JNIr. Chairman 

The Chairmaist. It said blocking a train supplying material to our 
Armed Forces, a train or plane or ship supplying material to our 
Armed Forces in Vietnam — you opposed that bill. 

Mr. Karpatkin. I have enough confidence in whoever had the 
honor of testifying for my organization to feel that he was consistent 
with the policies and purposes of the American Civil Liberties 
Union. 

The Chairman. You usually are against this committee, or 100 per- 
cent against, but now and again when the Court does sustain the con- 
stitutionality of a sensitive act of Congress, you take the Court to 
task, don't you ? 

Did you not take the Court to task when they upheld the contitu- 
tionality of this very statute we are talking about ? 

Mr. Karpatkin. Of course w^e did, Mr. Chairman; we submitted 
an amicus curiae brief against it and we think the Court will change, 
and the majority will change. 

Once upon a time racial discrimination was legal in this country, 
racially segregated schools were legal. 

Once upon a time Jehovah's Witnesses' children could be expelled 
from public school, and perhaps even sent to jail because their religion 
wouldn't allow them to salute the flag. 

You are not suggesting that there is any impropriety in our stating 
that we are dissatisfied with a Supreme Court decision? 

The Chairman. Not at all. I have exprssed myself and our posi- 
tions on decisions, too. 

Mr. Karpatkin. I am sure you have. [Laughter.] 

I am sure we can all agree, Mr. Chairman, that this expression of 
our position should be temperate. 

Mr. Ashbrook. Even that is hard sometimes. 

Mr. Karpativin. Yes, that is hard sometimes, I suppose. 

The Chairman. '^Vliat, if any, security laws has ACLU ever testified 
in favor of ? 

Mr. Karpatkin. I have just finished saying in response 

The Chairman. You said you were for the statutes that provided 
for overt acts. 

Mr. Kj^rpatkin. Yes. 

The Chairjman. Does the Smith Act jjrovide for overt acts ? 

Mv. Karpatkin. Mr. Chairman, in our view, the Smith Act is essen- 
tially a punishment of advocacy. 

The Chairman. No, because it requires advocacy of force and vio- 
lence 

Mr. IvARPATKiN. But it is still advocacy, isn't it, Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. What? 

]\Ir. Karpatkin. It is still advocacy. 

We feel there is time enough, Mr. Chairman, that there is time 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 417 

enoiia'li wlien a clear and present danger is readied, and we feel tliat 
the Smith Act allows 

The Chairman. Is not conspiracy an overt act ? 

Mr. Karpatkin. Sometimes it is and sometimes it is not, Mr. Chair- 
man. 

The Chairman. I nuist say I do not agree. It seems to me I agree 
with you a number of times, and you have yet to agree with me on any 
problem. 

Mr. Karpatkin. I think I have agreed with you. I think we agree 
we should all be glad the Supreme Court decided the Albertson case 
the way it did. That is one area where we agree. 

If I can move on, gentlemen 

The Chairman. Off the record. 

( Discussion off' the record. ) 

]\Ir. Karpatkix. If I may address myself now to section 4, this 
amends section 10 of the statute, so as to include a requirement of a 
statement of Communist auspices to accompany an oral solicitation 
and presumably to fill a gap which was caused by the present statute, 
which applies to printed material and w^hich applies to oral state- 
ments which are electronically or by broadcast means transmitted, but 
does not include, presumably, a solicitation made at a public speech. 

"Well, of course we are opposed to this for the same reasons that we 
are opposed to all the other requirements about this kind of labeling. 

The Chairman. I imderstand that, and I think that should really 
be sufficient. 

Mr. Karpatkin. Yes, but I have something extra to say here which 
you might be interested in, Mr. Chairman. Here we run into special 
problems of fairness and of procedural due process. 

Eveiy lawyer knows that there is a difference between libel, a written 
defamation, and slander, an oral defamation. The proof required for 
slander is always greater. The per se doctrine which exists, exists in 
the libel and slander laws of most States, is to protect against the possi- 
bility of injustices being done because of the difficulty of remember- 
ing and transmitting and recording in court what somebody is sup- 
posed to have said on a certain occasion as compared to what somebody 
is supposed to have written, of which there is a record. 

I can conceive of injustices being done, where a person's oral state- 
ment is subjected to sanction. What will be the question of proof be- 
fore the Board? "Wlio said what? And when? And who heard him 
say it ? 

There is a difference between an inflammatory pamphlet and some- 
thing which somebody has said — did he make a statement, or did he 
not make a statement, and who heard him, and so forth ? 

It seems to me there are serious due process problems here. 

Section 5 (a) , if I may move on 

The Chairman. You certainly may. 

Mr. Karpatkin. I take it here the purpose is to deal with the Labor 
Youth League case. 

The Chairman. That is right. 

Mr. Karpatkin. We agree on a number of things, Mr. Chairman. 
We agree on the legislative history. 

The purpose here is to create a register of dissolved organizations, 

I respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this can produce the ex- 



418 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

traordinary procedure in American law of determination of onilt 
without hearing. One can say in response that it is not criminal <r\u]t 
and there isn't any criminal sanction, and also no requirement of annual 
report. But nevertheless it is a determination that Organization A, B, 
or C, which was dissolved after the filing of tlie petition, was a Com- 
munist-front organization, and by definition, since the organization 
dissolved, there may not be any person who can testify to rebut ariy 
possibility of error which may have been made. 

Perhaps all of the testimony was by informers, by the same kind of 
infoiTner testimony which caused the Supreme Court to send the 
Communist Party case back twice. 

Yet this kind of determination of guilt without a hearing would be 
brought into American law for what might well be the first time. 

Mr. AsiiBROOK. If the people are still alive, are you saying they 
couldn't 

Mr. Karpatkin. This places upon them the burden. 

The Chairman. Did they all die? 

Mr. Karpatkin. "Didn't they all die" ? 

The Chairman. Did they ? 

Mr. Karpatkin. I don't know, Mr. Chairman, but since the Labor 
Youth League was an organization of young people, I would assume 
they didn't all die. 

The Chairman. "Why wouldn't they be available, then? 

Mr. Karpatkin. What I am suggesting is that this provision of the 
statute as I read it allows for a determination to be made without 
a hearing, because of the fact that the organization has been dissolved. 
There may be no one who was qualified to speak for it. 

The organization may have dissolved in a great big ideological split. 
There are many kinds of ideoloofical splits and bifurcations in the area 
of the left and radical left. There may have been some great big 
"bruhaha'' at the end, and the organization dissolves in a lot of noise : 
and yet there is a determination subsequently made that this was a 
Communist-front organization and there is no person who has the 
right to come forward and say, "This is what happened at the last 
convention," because others might say, "I was there and it happened 
otherwise." 

There is a real possibility of determination of guilt without a 
liearing. 

Mr. AsHBR0f)K. But fundamental to all justice and rule of evidence, 
we don't oi:>erate in the courtroom or anywhere on the basis of every 
single piece of evidence that might come in. 

Xo prosecutor ever presents his case, or defense lawyer presents his 
case — it is on what is available and what can be achieved. Justice 
would never be 

Mr. Karpatkin. Yes, but, Mr. Ashbrook, if the organization is 
dissolved, it has no spokesman. Its funds have been liquidated, its 
property has been liquidated, and it has no organizational entity. 

Mr. Ashbrook. But that is no different than the crime being over, 
and you try to brin^ the facts out with the witnesses that you have. 

Mr. Karpatkin. T am glad you agree, because we feel the stigma 
liere is similar to the stigma of a crime. There is no provision in Ameri- 
can law of which I am aware for finding a pei-son guilty in absentia. 
That happens in the Congo, perhaps, but not in the United States. 



AMENWXG THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 419 

If I can move on to section 5(d) (2), Avhicli makes two amendments, 
and this is the last comment I will make l)efore a conclusoiy peroration, 
if the chairman will allow me. Section 5(d) (2) amends sections l-i 
(d) (3) and 13(d) (-i). Section 13(d) (3) is amended so as to make it 
a crime to "'misbehave" before the Subversive Activities Control Board, 
or before any examiner of that Board. 

I sliould think, with all due respect to you, Mr. Chainnan, that 
after all that the Supreme Court has said with respect to the vagueness 
of certain types of statutes, in tlie loyaltj- oath cases and other cases, 
I would liave thou^rht it would be impossible for any careful lawyer 
to try to make a crime out of "misbehavior." 

What does "misbehavior" mean? 

Does it mean I violate the smoking rule or spill some water on the 
table or 1 don't speak loud enough or I speak too loud? 

Misbehavior in the presence of the Board is made a crime. 

If it means overt acts of misbehavior, it is unneceSvSary. I suppose 
if I would pick up this pitcher of water and throw it at a member 
of the committee I would be guilty of assault and 

The Chairman. Are you familiar with the fact that in the code, in 
the question of contempt before the court, the word ''misbehavior" 
is used? 

Mr. AsHBROOK. I think that is the only word used in title 18. 

The Chairman. Contumacious conduct. 

Mr. Karpatkin. AVe know what contumacious conduct is. We don't 
know what misbehavior is. 

The Chairman. I do not think so. I think there are certain norms 
about appearance in a courtroom and how one sliould conduct himself 
and present himself if he is a lawyer, and how the jury should react in 
that box. 

I think misbehavior is not a bad term at all. 

Mr. Karpatkin. Mr. Chairman, I am not a betting man, but I 
would like to make a small wager that no appellate court, which- 
ever gets to see the word "misbeliavior"" in tliis context, would not rule 
that it is void for vagueness. 

In a context where it is linked to contumacious conduct in the i)res- 
ence of a court, that would be something else. 

The Chairman. If the type of misbehavior is such as inadvei'tently 
smokmg or spilling water, or something of that nature, I doubt that 
any reasonable and self-respecting lawyer for the Government would 
present such a claim for prosecution under any statute. 

Mr. Karpativin. I would hope not, Mr. Chairman, but the incum- 
bents of various Government positions 

The Chairman. Let us not go into the improbable. 

Mr. Karpatkin. The last amendment, Mr. Chairman. 

The CnAreMAx. I camiot stay here past 3 :30, and I hope you won't 
say I shut you up. 

Mr. Karpatkin. No, Mr. Chairman, you have been extremely cour- 
teous to me. I appreciate it. 

The last amendment is an attempt to eliminate judicial review of 
nonfinal Board action. I suggest that it is in part unconstitutional. 

It is in part unconstitutional because I don't think you can take 
away from an American court or from an American citizen the right 



420 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

to have immediate redress when there is an irreparable constitutional 
injury. 

This Congress, of course, sets the jurisdiction of Federal courts 
and can expand it or contract it, but it cannot take away from Federal 
courts the right and duty to protect a citizen who is subject to imme- 
diate or irreparable injury under the Constitution. 

Assume, for example, that Congress would pass a law allowing con- 
demnation and confiscation of property by an administrative agency 
and not allow judicial review until it has gone through the adminis- 
trative process. 

I would say the statute that set that up, that a Federal court would 
say, Xonsense, the constitutional right not to have property taken with- 
out just compensation would be abridged. 

The Chairman. I am inclined to agree with you. May we pause 
now ? 

Mr. Karpatkin. If I may conclude, Mr. Chairman, I thmk — I am 
sure that this suggestion is not going to fall on welcome ears, but I 
am going to make it anyway. 

We have had the Internal Security Act for 17 years. In 1950 it re- 
flected the tensions and the trepidations of that era, the period of 
Korea, wlien the Communist movement was monolithic , had its head- 
quarters in Moscow under the totalitarian regime of Stalin. 

The world is much more complicated now, and different. There is 
no longer a monolithic Communist world. Indeed, if anything, the seat 
of major security concern has shifted from Moscow to Peking. 

The satellites are no longer satellites in the same sense of the word. 
There are differences which our foreign policy seeks to encourage and 
to expand and to develop. 

Mr. Justice Frankfurter in that same decision allowed for the possi- 
bility that the time may come wdien there is no longer a single Com- 
munist totalitarian dictatorehip. 

We have many problems, foreign and domestic. I don't think any 
of the problems we have faced in the last 17 years have been seriously 
faced up to by this statute. 

I think the greatest contribution this committee coidd make, a con- 
tribution which would truly be a statesmanlike one, and would assure 
that the present members of this committee would be remembered in 
constitutional history, would be not to recommend any amendments 
to the statute, but w^ould be to recommend that the entire statute be 
repealed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Cpiairman. Thank you veiy much for your appearance. 

Mr. Culver. May I also take this opportunity to thank the witness 
for his very useful remarks. I am sure they will be considered by the 
connnittee. 

Tlie Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock 
tomorrow morning. 

(Whereupon, at 3:^)0 p.m., Wednesday, August 16, 1967, the com- 
mittee recessed, to reconvene, Thursday, August 17, 1967, at 10 a.m.) 



HEARINGS RELATING TO H.R. 10390, H.R. 10391, AND 
H.R. 10681, AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY 
ACT OF 1950 



THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1967 

United States House of Representatives, 

Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington, D.C. 
public hearings 

The committee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in Room 429, 
Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C, Hon. Edwin E. 
Willis (chairman) presiding. 

Committee membere present: Representatives Edwin E. Willis, of 
Louisiana, chairman ; William M. Tuck, of Virginia ; Joe R. Pool, of 
Texas ; Richard H. Ichord, of Missouri ; Del Clawson, of California ; 
and Richard L. Roudebush, of Indiana. 

Staff members present : Francis J. McNamara, director ; Chester D. 
Smith, general counsel ; and Alfred M. Nittle, counsel. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Mr. Tracy was 
ill the course of completing his testimony yesterday. Will you come 
forward, Mr. Tracy? I miderstand that you are just about concluding 
your statement. 

Mr. Tract. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. May I remind you this : this is no direction, but the 
House is going into session at 11 this morning, and we have quite a 
few witnesses to hear, so will you get on with the meat of your pres- 
entation ? 

Mr. Tracy. Right, sir. 

STATEMENT OF STANLEY J. TRACY— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Trac}', before you proceed, did you hear the 
representative of the American Civil Liberties Union yesterday? 
Were you in the room when he testified yesterday ? 

Mr. Tracy. No, sir. I heard Dr. ]Morris and I heard the Subversive 
Activities Control Board Chairman. 

The Chairman. I am talking about the opposition witness, ACLU. 
You did not hear him ? 

Mr. Tracy. No, sir ; I was not here. 

The Chairman. Well, he harangued a bit about this bill, which was 
to be expected. It did not surprise me. It was par for his particular 
course, in my opinion. But tliat does not influence you ; you are still 
for tliis bill Avholeheartedly then ? 

Mr. Tracy. Very strongly. 

421 



422 AMEXDIXG THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF JOHN W. MAHAN, CHAIRMAN, 
SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BOARD 

Tlie Chairman. Okay. By the way, let me say, Mr. Tracy, yester- 
day Mr. Mahan, the Chairman of tlie Subversive Activities Control 
Board, testified in person, })ut I received this mornino; an official letter 
of the Board itself, and so at this point, I will insert the Board's letter, 
official endorsement of the bill. 

(The document referred to follows:) 

Subversive Activities Control Board. 

Washington, D.C., August 16, 1961. 
Honorable Edwin E. Willis, 
Chairman, 

Committee on Un-American Activities, 
House of Representatives, 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Congressman Willis : Ton have requested our views on H.R. 10390 and 
H.R. 10391, identical bills to amend certain provisions of the Internal Security 
Act of 1050. Court decisions which have interpreted some of the provisions of the 
Act and have ruled upon the constitutionality of other provisions make amend- 
ments necessary, in our view, in order to effectuate the national policy as de- 
clared by the Congress in the Act. 

Section 1 of the bills apparently is designed to alleviate the problems which 
could arise as the re.sult of the interpretation of the definition of a Communist- 
front organization as made in the opinion of the Court of Appeals in National 
Council of Americ-an-Soviet Friendship, Inc. v. Subversive Activities Control 
Board. 322 F. 2d 375 (D.C. Cir.. 1963). The section would ease difficulties with 
which the Board has been faced in reaching conclusions of fact in cases involving 
allegedly Communist-front organizations. As to matters of evidence and proof 
under the section, those involved in presenting evidence before the Board are 
better able to comment on that aspect. 

Our attorneys believe that section 2 of the bills would provide a means for the 
disclosure of members of Communist-action organizations without the constitu- 
tional infirmities found to exist in the present scheme b.v the Supreme Court in 
its opinion in William Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 382 U.S. 
70 (1965). 

Compulsory self-registration by members of "action-organizations" is elimi- 
nated in the bills by the rewriting of section 8. However, the bills retain the 
present section 7 and the provisions of section 13 for the registration of "action" 
and "front" organizations pursuant to orders of the Boardi. We are aware that 
the bills eliminate criminal penalties for the failure of organizations to register. 
Our attorneys think that the proposed approach remains of doubtful constitu- 
tionality under the Supreme Court's opinion in the Albertson case and the opinion 
of the Court of Appeals in Communist Party of the United States v. United 
States (Nos. 19.880 and 10.881. D.C. Cir., March 3. 1967). For these reasons we 
suggest that the same approach be taken for the disclosure of Communist or- 
ganizations as is taken in the bills with respect to members of "action" or- 
ganizations. 

If such approach is taken, we would suggest the addition of a section 9 to the 
bills to authorize the Board to modify previously issued registration orders so as 
to conffirm to the new provisions. 

Other provisions of the bills involve primarily matters of policy. The members 
of the Board res;iectfully refrain from commenting on policy matters. We do not 
see any substantial problems in carrying out such of those provisions as apply 
to proceedings before the Board. 

The Bureau of the Budget has advised by telephone on August 15, 1967, that 
the time factor does not permit the Bureau giving its clearance on the views 
contained in this letter. 
Sincerely, 

/»/ .Tohn W. Mahan 

John W. Mahan, Chairman. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 423 

STATEMENT OF STANLEY J. TRACY— Resumed 

The C'nAiRMAx. Proceed, Mr. Tracy. 

Mr. Tr.\cy. I think it is vitally iniportanf 

The C'haikmax. Mr. Tracy, for the audience, will yon identify your- 
self airain ? 

Mr. 'Tit.\CY. Stanley J. Tracy, associate counsel of the Commission 
on (Tovernment Security, 1056-57. 

The Chairmax. And you were formerly with the FBI ? 

Mr. Tracy. Yes, sir: I retired from the FBI as Assistant Director 
in VXA. 

Tiie Chairmax. And you were with the FBI for liow long-? 

Mr. Tr-\cy. Over :20 years. 

The Chairmax. Thank you very nuich. Proceed. 

Mr. Tracy. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I feel 
that it is vitally important that the Internal Security Act of 1950 be 
amended because of the 18th Cono-ress of the Communist Party last 
year. It is g;oing — and the stated purposes are, it is going to move into 
the civil rights movement, and it already has. 

Mr. Chairmax. Is that an official policy declaration? 

Mr. Tr.\cy. Official policy declaration. 

The Chairmax. Would you have something in writing about that? 

Mr. Tracy. Yes, sir; I have the citation in my text. It is a statement 
by Gus Hall, the secretary, general secretary of the party. 

The Chairmax. Didn't they also decide to move in the political 
arena and to have candidates for public office, too? 

^Ir. Tr.\cy. Well, in his official statement to infiltrate and infiuence 
civil rights organizations. 

The Chairmax. You mean, arc those words in there? 

Mr. Tr.\cy. Those words are in a statement filed with the Senate 
last year, as to the precise motives of the party, and you have it 
complete. 

The Chairmax. You mean, out of the lips of Gus Hall? 

Mr. Tracy. Xo; those were not his precise words. 

The Chairmax. That was the characterization of the Senate? 

Mr. Tf„\cy. Pardon? 

The Chairmax. Was tliat the characterization of the Senate? 

Mr. Tr.\cy. That was the characterization of it. 

This committee has, I Ix'lieve, Hall's official statement, which would 
be supplementary to this. 

The Chairmax'. We do, and it will be considered. 

Mr. Tracy. And that the party's views that the Xew Left is a fer- 
tile field for party exploitation and that in the New^ Left protest dem- 
onstrations and hostility to our Government lie potential recruits. 
In other words, it is the considered opinion of those who know what 
the party is doing that they are going to get behind every movement 
they can get into to cause demonstrations and unrest and chaos and 
civil disobedience. 

The Chairmax. Well, I might say that this committee has under 
consideration the question of what and to what extent, if any, have 
subversive elements been at play in connection with these riots that 
have plagued our Nation in the last couple of years. 



424 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

Mr. Tracy. I hope that this committee can get to the bottom of that. 

The Chairman. And by subversive elements, I mean something 
much broader than commmiism. Because there are certain activities 
conducted by certain groups that I certainly, as chairman, would 
not characterize as coimnmiistic, but certainly subversive. 

I gave this illustration yesterday, let me repeat it. This committee, 
by direction of the House, undertook a full-fledged investigation of 
the Ku Klux Klan. 

Xow I never found, and there is not a word of testimony to justify 
a hint or holding or finding that the KKK is dominated or controlled 
or infiltrated by the Communists. 

That would be a rank injustice to them, whatever they are or might 
be. However, this committee found, and I personally am convinced, 
that they are subversive in the sense that they are subverting and tliey 
don't conform to our way of government, so a subversive element is 
something very much broader than the ultimate, such as a Communist, 
meaning. 

Mr. Tract. I agi-ee, sir, and I think the Nazi movement and the 
Muslim movement fall in that same identical category. 

The Chairman. I might tell you, sir, that at the same time that I was 
directed by the committee before the full-fledged KKK investiga- 
tion — personally, I was ordered to make a preliminary inquiiy into 
the activities of the Black Muslims, and the Rockwell tribe. 

Mr. Tract. That is the Nazi group. 

The Chairman. I made a report to the committee and I advised 
against holding hearings or giving Brother Rockwell a forum to vent 
his spleen. What he would want would be for this committee to dig- 
nify him with a hearing, so that he could see himself in the press, and 
perhaps on TV some of these days. 

And the same, I think, goes for the Minutemen. I personally, maybe 
it is too strong a characterization but I have a belief, a deep-rooted 
belief, because I conducted the preliminary inquiry myself, that the 
Minutemen is sort of a little racket by the man by the name of DePugh. 
I have had correspondence with former and present Minutemen to 
show that DePugh would like to get some more money. 

He is hui'ting for members. He is hurting for money, just like Rock- 
well, and I personally would not dignify the Minutemen with a full- 
fledged investigation. They are not worth it in my book. 

Would you disagree with that ? 

Mr. Tract. I would not disagree with that. 

The Chairman. In other words, I hate to give these birds a forum. 
That is what they want most — publicity. It was different witli the 
KKK, be<*ause they certainly meant business, I abhor, I detest Rock- 
well's activities, but he is not a threat to this country. I might say 
this, in the investigation and preliminaiy inquiiy, at no time, if I 
recall, has Rockwell had more than 85 members, at the peak of his 
power, so-called. 

Mr, Tract. I agree, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Tract. I would like to call to the attention of the committee a 
statement made by retired Lt. General Arthur G. Trudeau before a 
Senate subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, in which ho 
said : 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 425 

I wish to make an unequivocal statement that the demonstrators in the streets 
of the cities of the United States are a force in direct support of tlie Vietcong 
killing our troops in Viet Nam ; and the leaders are taking orders and being 
supplied from the identical high command — the Central Committee of the 
Communist Party of the U.S.S.R. I am sure many demonstrators are unaware of 
this situation. 

Now the full text of General Trudeau's remarks will be found in 
part 7 of the hearings before the Senate Subcommittee To ln\estigate 
tlie Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal 
Security Laws. 

The Chairman. And those hearings are available to us. 

Mr. Tract. Yes, sir. It seems to me, gentlemen, that with the unrest 
in the world, that the Nazi threat in Germany was pretty well taken 
cai-e of, and the Facist threat in Italy was pretty well taken care of, 
but international comnuinism, the Soviet communism, has not been. 

Tliis country has been involved around the world, hel])ing coun- 
tries, foreign aid, the Korean situation and the Vietnam situation, and 
yet the Conmiunist threat, international communism, has continued 
to grow around the world. 

.Vnd personally I feel that the grassroots of America is not receiving 
enough information, and I certainly hope that the Congress would 
triple or quadruple the appropriation of this committee so it can get 
more information out to the American public. 

The Chairman. Well, I appreciate your saying that, because we 
have our problems. You see, every year, and she is not in the audience 
today, but she was in the audience day before yesterday, distributing 
literature in this room — oh, is she with us ? Mrs. Allen, and she is the 
official registered lobbyist of the national committee to abolish this 
conmiittee, and they yackety-yak about this committee depriving them 
of liberty and freedom of the press, and they come — and freedom of 
movement and freedom of speech and all the rest. 

And Mrs. Allen, I asked you yesterday if you cared to take the 
witness stand and tell us what you think about this bill. You are 
still welcome to do it after this witness. 

Mrs. Allen. Professor Vern Countryman has written an analysis 
of the bill which we have available, and it was that that I gave to the 
press, and I did not pass it out to anyone, not a single soul. I gave it 
to the press only, and it was nothing about this committee whatsoever. 

The Chairman. In other words, you want to be nice and quiet, so 
you gave it to the press. Is that right ? 

Mrs. Allen. It is available to the press in any case. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman, is Mrs. Allen going to appear before 
the committee ? 

The Chairman. I invited her to appear yesterday, I am inviting her 
right now. 

^Irs. Allen. No, thank you. 

The Chairman. That is all right. 

Mr. Tracy. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that under our form of gov- 
ernment. Congress has the full and complete responsibility as its 
elected representatives. It is not the responsibility of the Supreme 
Court, nor of the executive branch. It is here. And therefore the 
American public should be informed from the Congress. And this 



426 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

committee, I feel, needs a much bigger appropriation in order to 
I'each more i>eople. 

The Chairman. I started to say that every year we have a troika 
attack: first, they try to abolish the committeeYthen, number two, they 
try to kill our appropriations, and then deprive us of money which 
is'to operate with; and then, third, they try to transfer our jurisdic- 
I :()n to the Judiciary Committee. 

I have got news for them, if ever they transfer it to the Judiciary 
Committee, I am number three man on that, and the chances are I am 
almost positive that I will be chainnan of the subcommittee handling 
tliis very problem, if ever they transfer to the Judiciary Committee. 

Mrs. ALi,EN. That is wdiy we want it abolished. 

The Chairman. Pardon ? 

Mrs. Allen. That is why we want it abolished. 

The Chairman. Oh, because you would not want to see me chairman 
of the Judiciary ? Is that right ? 

Mrs. Allen.' We don't want any conmiittee to do the things this com- 
mittee has done. 

Mr. RouDEBUsiT. It sounds highly personal. 

The Chairman. I am sorry that you take that position, Lady, and 
you make it hard for me to restrain myself and my words. As a matter 
of fact, I may as well come out, because I have come out on things. You 
know, you have been held in contempt of Congress. 

]Mrs. Allen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. For your cutting up in connection with hearings of 
this very committee. 

Mrs. Allen. I did not cut up at all, and got thrown out. 

The Chairman. You did not cut up ? 

You had a big show in the hall, Avith TV. ]My friend on my right, 
Governor Tuck, was around. You might comment on that. 

Mrs. Allen. Yes, the ladies did not like being called Communists. 

The Chairman. All right. I won't dignify it with any further 
comment. 

Mr. Tract. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call attention to section 
8 of the first article of the Constitution, which specifically justifies the 
responsibility of Congress, and the constitutionality of this commit- 
tee, I think, is perfectly clear under that section of the Constitution, 
and that 

The Chairman. Read it. I am familiar with it, but I always like to 
hear the Constitution reread. 

Mr. Tracy. To "provide for the common defense and general wel- 
fare." Now that is the Congress' responsibility and this coimnittee is a 
legal committee of the Congress. 

The Chairman. In other words, you envision the common defense 
as more than military attack, but the defense against ideologies. Is 
that right ? 

Mr. Tracy. "Common defense and general welfare" are the words 
of section 8 of the first article of the Constitution. I think that it is 
perfectly clear and I think that this committee should be able to do a 
much greater job and bigger job on behalf of the American people. 

Now, I feel that the hand of the President needs to be strengthened, 
and that can be done only by legislation, such as the bill now before us. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 427 

I don't think there is the slightest question that the American public 
does not want connnnnisin. I don't think there is any question about it. 

The CiiAiKMAX. I completely agree Avith you. As a matter ol' fact, 
I said yesterday, and I asked your comment on it, if the word "com- 
munism'' was wrapped up around the ugly package that they tried to 
sell, I don't think the American public would buy it at all, would it? 

Mr. Tracy. Not at all. 

The Chairmax. Unless deceit was its primary mode of operation, I 
don't think they could get by anywhere. 

Don't you agree ? 

Mr. Tracy. 1 certainly agree, and I would like at this point to com- 
pliment The American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars and 
others who are doing such a wonderful job. 

The Chairman. Incidentally today we are to hear from the head of 
the National Americanism Commission of The American Legion. He 
had a little plane trouble and he won't be here until 10 :oO, but we have 
again with us today a representative of the Veterans of Foreign Wai-s, 
wlio will succeed him, I understand, who is here. 

Mr. Tracy. They are doing a wonderful job, and I have three very 
short items written by an attorney who was on the staff of the Com- 
mission on Grovernment Security. One was published by The American 
Legion. Another one was published by the American Society for In- 
dustrial Security, and I would like to submit these for consideration 
of including. 

The Chairman. Since they are short, they will be included in the 
record at this point. 

Mr. Tracy-. Thank j'ou. 

The Chairman. They will be placed in the appendix to the record, 
Mr. Tracy.i 

Mr. Tracy. Xow, as to the bill before us, section 1 of the bill clarify- 
ing the definition of Communist-front and Communist-action and 
Communist-mfiltrated, I think, is very good, and I hope it will be 
adopted. 

Section 2 of the bill will impose the duties of filing reports, state- 
ments, and so forth, upon organizations required to register, but which 
have not done so. I agree, and I think that amendment should be 
adopted. 

Section 3 of the bill before this committee refers to the registration 
of organizations and the maintenance by the Attorney General of a 
public register. 

The Chairman. That is right. 

Mr. Tracy. The addition of Communist-infiltrated organizations, 
which have been determined to be such, to be added to the existing law. 

The Chairman. Now I ask this question : I doubt that anyone can 
answer it as a matter of percentage, but could you define, could you 
give me an idea of what you consider to be a sufficiently infiltrated out- 
fit to be termed as such? In other words, as I expressed it yesterday, 
if you add even a drop of ink to a glass of water, it will be tainted, so 
you can have infiltration, infinitesimal. 

Mr. Tracy. I feel that whenever the policies and the obje.ctives of 
an organization are controlled by Communists, that is sufficient. 

1 For these articles, written by Harold Ranstad, see appendix pp. 491-506. 



428 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 

The Chairman. That is exactly the point. That part is in the act 
itself. 

Mr. Tracy. Right. 

The Chairman. In other words, you would consider an infiltration 
that tyjDe of infiltration which in net result amounts to domination or 
control ? 

JVIr. Tracy. Right. For example, if you liave a hundred thousand 
or a million membership organization, and all the ofRcei^ are members 
of the party, that is sufficient. 

Ten people out of a million would be sufficient, under that type of 
a circumstance, because they control it, in my opinion. 

The Chairman. "Well now, the ACLU man yesterday took us to task, 
because he said it was inconsistent with his notions of legislation to 
say that an organization can be dominated by one or more. 

There is nothing impossible about that, is there ? 

]\Ir. Tracy. I do not know. I do not think so. 

The Chairman. If it is sufficient!}' small, it certainly can be domi- 
nated by a strong-willed individual, be he a Communist or Baptist, 
or Republican or a Democrat. I know enough about public life to know 
that. 

Mr. Tracy. And that is a question of fact to be determined by proper 
liearing before the SACB. 

Xow I would like to suggest for the consideration of this committee 
where the wording of section 2 indicates a public register maintained 
by the Attorney General. I hoj^e you tn-iII consider putting that in the 
Subversive Activities Control Board. 

The Chairman. Well, I a.m glad to have you say that, because Mr. 
Mahan, the Chairman of the Board, was here, and he expressed a 
preference that the bookkeeping of keeping the register sliould be not 
in the hands of the Attorney General, but in tlie hands of the Board. 

Yesterday I had quite a conversation with Mr. Yeagley. You know 
Mr. Yeagley. 

Mr. Tracy. Oh, yes. 

The Chairman. He is head of the Internal Security Division of the 
Department of Justice. I don't want to say that he categorically is 
of that opinion ; I got from liim that that ^s-ould at least not displease 
liim or the Department of Justice that the keeping of the register of 
the names and addresses of persons determined as a matter of fact by 
th» Board to be Communists, to be Communist organizations or front 
organizations, that register, according to ]Mr. Yeagley, he at tlie very 
least would not inter|)ose any objection to the keeping of tlie books by 
the Board instead of the Attorney General. 

Mr. McNamara nods his head that that is his general understanding 
of Mr. Yeagley's remarks. 

Mr. Tracy. The Attorney General, as I see it, being a Cabinet officer 
and part of the administration, ha^^^ng the responsibility of prosecu- 
tion, should not perform a, function such as maintaining a list 

The Chairman. In other words, I think I can read there your mind 
what you are now addressing yourself to is that so sensitive is the 
principle of separation of powers that you don't want to vest in the 
Attorney General a power of duality of function. 

Mr. Tracy. Right. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 429 

The Chairman. One for taking the action before the Board against 
respondents and, at the same time, one which is in the nature of an 
executive job. such as the keeping of a register. 

So you would prefer for that reason, out of respect for division of 
powers, as I understand, since as you say the Attorney General is a 
Cabinet officer, a Cabinet member, and is a part of the executive, you 
would jirefer that he be removed from that duty. 

]Mr. Tracy. Yes, sir; I think it would enable him to do a more 
objective job in removing names or adding names, if it were not in 
his own personal custody. 

The Chairman. Well, I am glad to get your views, and I asked Mr. 
Mahan to talk to our general counsel and to suggest words of an 
amendment that he might consider, and by consider, I don't say 
adopt. 

With nine members, I can't run this committee. But I would like 
to have, would like to see what wording it would take for the bill to 
accomplish the transfer of the keeping of the register out of the 
hands, out of the proposed hands of the Attorney General to the 
hands of the SACB. 

Mr. Tracy. Eight, sir. 

The Chairman. I certainly submit it for consideration to the 
committee. 

Mr. Tracy. Thank you. 

Section 4 of the present bill adds a provision that any solicitation 
of money, property, or other things, made orally or by mail on behalf 
of any organization registered, shall be preceded by the statement, 
"This solicitation is made for or on behalf of (blank), which has been 
determined by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board 
to be a Communist organization." 

I see nothing wrong with that and I hope that that would be 
adopted. 

Xow, section 5 of the bill, to me, is the most important part of it, 
of the entire bill, and I would like to call attention to the Albertson 
case, 382 U.S. 70, decided November 15, 1965, which held a statutory 
requirement of registration by individuals to be unconstitutional. 

The Chairman. Well, to me, that is the most important element of 
the bill, too. 

Mr. Tracy. It was a unanimous decision, and I have no quarrel with 
the decision. 

The Chairman. And I have none, either. I applaud it. If I had been 
a member judge of that Court, I would have so ruled myself. Perhaps 
for different reasons than motivated some of the judges, but neverthe- 
less, the net result would be that I would have voted for that decision. 

IMr. Tracy. Now, the Court made it clear then in that case, and I 
quote : 

The risks of incrimination which the petitioners take in registering are 
obvious. Form IS-52a requires an admission of membership in the Communist 
Party. Such an admission of membership may be used to prosecute the registrant 
under the membership clause of the Smith Act * * * or under §4(a) of the 
Subversive Activities Control Act * * *, to mention only two of federal criminal 
statute.s. * * * 

Now, the proposed amendment would enable the Attorney Gen- 
eral to seek only a determination of membership, and it seems to 

84-351—67 11 



430 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

me that would fully meet the objections of the Court in that case. 

The Chaesman. And I think that is what Congress had in mind 
in the first place ; don't you ? 

Mr. Tract. I would think so. 

The Chairman. Yes; the keeping the people and the Congress in- 
formed of the names and addresses of persons who are members or 
who have to do with Communist conspiracy. 

Mr. Tract. Yes, and I think the section permitted — permitting 
an organization or an individual to make application for cancella- 
tion at any time is better than it was, and to require the SACB to 
receive evidence and proceed to a determination of the issues is good. 

The Chairman. Well, that is then in the nature of a judicial review, 
and I am certainly for that, too. 

Mr. Tract. And in this connection, I would like to emphasize, as 
I mentioned yesterday, I feel it is vitally important that Congress 
make the congressional intent clear in all of these internal security 
laws, and that I think it might be well that a provision be included 
in this bill that it is not the intention of Congress to nullify any 
State laws then in the area of internal security. 

The Chairman. Well, the Judiciary Committee has that subject. 
That is almost — I say "almost," because it is not in every instance, 
but in many, many instances that is almost a stereotype provi- 
sion of criminal bills out of the Judiciary Committee, and that has to 
do with the Nelson case to which you referred, a sedition case. 

In other words, there is a general clause in many of our Judiciary 
bills, which provides that the act under consideration shall not be 
construed to mean that the fact that Congress enters into this field 
or that field, that the field is to be considered to be totally occupied, 
and that there be left no room for State law. Governor Tuck, I think 
you reason as I do, and we might give consideration to putting such 
a provision in this bill. 

Mr. Tract. Yes, I think that would be wise. 

Tlie Chairinian. We will give it consideration. 

Mr. Tract. Thank you. I was greatly concerned in the Keyishian 
case with a paragraph in the majority decision, in which the follow- 
ing words appear : 

In Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11, we said. "Those who join an organiza- 
tion but do not share its unlawful purposes and who do not participate in its 
unlawful activities surely pose no threat, either as citizens or as public em- 
ployees." * * * We there struck down a statutorily required oath binding 
the state employee not to become a member of the Communist Party with 
knowledge of its unlawful purpose, on threat of discharge and perjury prosecu- 
tion if the oath were violated. We found that "[ainy lingering doubt that pro- 
scription of mere knowing membership, without any showing of 'specific intent,' 
would run afoul of the Constitution was set at rest by our decision in Aptheker 
V. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500." 

The Chairman. You are talking now about the case about the 
Feinberg law? 

Mv. Tract. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The case in connection with the New York Fein- 
berg law? 

Mr. Tract. Yes, sir, right; and I am quoting from the majority 
opinion: 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 431 

In AptlKkcr \vi> held tliat Tarty nitMiiborship, witliout kiiowiedtrt^ of the Party's 
luilawfiil purposes and specific intent to further its unlawful aims, couhl not 
constitutionally warrant deprivation of the rij^ht to travel abroad. * * * 

Now, I submit tliat- 



Tlie CiiAimtAX. I mii^lit mention, althout^h I would doubt that I 
would M'ant to go on record as agreeing with it, that on the same 
reason or along tlic same basis, along the same line, the courts struck 
down section 6 of the act we are dealing with now, having to do with 
issuance of passpoi-ts to members of the Communist Party. 

You are familiar with that. 

Mr. Tracy. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I don't think I want to go so far that I agree with 
the holding in that case, but you are familiar with it. 

Mr. Tracy. Yes, sir. 

Now, I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that no decent, law-abiding, 
patriotic American citizen would join the Communist Party, U.S.A., 
after the Supreme Court determination that it is an agent of Soviet 
Russia and knowing its unlawful purpose. 

Now, those who join with knowledge, giving support to the enemy 
merely bv joining or encouraging, should not be employed, in my 
opinion, m any public service on any level. Federal, State, or local. 

The Chairman. In other words, you would not go as far as the 
Supreme Court went. 

Mr. Tracy. No, sir. I don'^t think public tax money should be used 
to subsidize its own destruction. 

The Chairman. And that because of the language of Justice Clark, 
who said that the law of self-defense is one of the most important laws 
to the stability and continuity and life of a nation. 

Mr. Tracy. Right. 

The Chairman. Okay. 

Mr. Tracy. They used the term "knowing laiowledge" in the ma- 
jority decision in the Keyishian case ; now, "knowing knowledge," to 
me, IS synonymous with guilty knowledge. 

If one joins the Communist Party, knowing it is an agent of Soviet 
Russia, dedicated to overthrow this country, to me that is guilty 
knowledge rather than "knowing knowledge." 

The Chairman. Well, it seems to me that I can detect a little bit 
of inconsistency in the Court's saying that there must be knowing 
knowledge of the membership with eyes wide open on the one hand, 
and then turning around and saying that you cannot be compelled to 
register because of the Smith Act, and to be consistent, they should 
have held the other way, it seems to me. 

Don't you agree ? 

]\Ir. Tracy. I do, and there is another statement in the same Keyish- 
ian decision, majority decision : 

Thus mere Party membership, even with knowledge of the Party's unlawful 

goals, cannot suffice to justify criminal punishment, * * * hqj- niay it warrant a 
finding of moral unfitness justifying disbarment. 

Now that I think is an astonishing statement. 

The Chairman. That is a little too much for me tO' swallow. 

Mr. Tracy. I hope that this committee has the greatest of success, 
that this bill be passed, and I hope that eventually this country will 
be able to defend itself ao-ainst international communism. 



432 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

Thank you, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testi- 
mony a great deal. 

Mr. Tuck. Mr. Tracy, as I recall it, yesterday near the conclusion 
of your testimony 

Mr. Tracy. Pardon ? 

Mr. Tuck, As I recall it, yesterday near the conclusion of your testi- 
mony, you were being interrogated in regard to the subject of freedom 
of speech and the appearance of such a man as Gus Hall on the 
campuses. 

Mr. Tr.vct. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tuck. Of various colleges in the countiy. 

Mr. Tracy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tuck. I come from a State which, I think, claims the privilege 
of being one of the first to enunciate the doctrine of free speech, in our 
precious Virginia Bill of Rights, penned by George Mason. I take it 
tha.t you make a distinction between teaching about communism and 
advocating coimnunism ? 

I take it, for instance, that Gus Hall would be advocating commu- 
nism. I take it, for instance, that those four professors who were in- 
volved in the decision of the Supreme Court m the Feinberg case would 
be supposed to advocate communism. 

On the other hand, the American Bar Association, with certainly 
a good many members, advocates teaching aibout communism, so as to 
inforui them. Personally, I see no objection to teaching about com- 
munism, because the public ought to know about it, but I do have 

The Chairman. Well, as a matter of fact, in your great State, thei-e 
is a very fine institution called the Freedom Studies Center, where 
people are inf omied or taught all about communism. 

Mr. Tuck. Do you agree with me that there is a vast distinction be- 
tween advocating communism, such as the appearance of Gus Hall 
and these four professors, and teaching about communism ? 

Mr. Tracy. Very definitely. I have been a member of the criminal 
law section of the American Bar for over 25 years. We liave wrestled 
with this problem on education against communism and civil dis- 
obedience and what-have-you. 

I retired from George Washington University in 1965, where I was 
concerned with the problem of speakers before our students on the 
campus for several years. 

The finest definition of education and the problem of outside speak- 
ers on campuses is in the American Association of University Profes- 
sors, June 1967 publication, written by James Kreuzer, dean of stu- 
dents at Queens College at the City University of New York, and how 
they solve it. The article is entitled "A Student 'Right' Examined." 

The CHArRMAN. Although I am a member, I have not read it, so I 
will suggest that it be made a part of the record and retained in com- 
mittee files. 

Mr. Clawson. ]\fr. Cliainnan, let's hear the definition. I am curious. 
You were going to give us the definition of education. Let's hear it. 

Mr. Tracy. I agree with the way they solved it at Queens College, 
in which they had a committee of three faculty members, a committee 
of three students ; and when any student organization wanted a speaker 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 433 

of any type or kind, those two committees considered it and made tlieir 
decision in favor or against. 

If they, both of them, voted against a speaker, then the student or- 
ganization, by majority vote, could override them and have the speaker 
anyway. 

Now that, I think, is one approach to the problem. 

The Chairman. And if they voted to hear, what would be the result ? 

]Mr. Tracy. If they voted to hear, the speaker automatically came, 
and there is no problem. 

Now, the professor writing this article points out, what does the ad- 
ministration and faculty do if the students want to bring in a dope 
addict to tell the students about the joys of taking dope'^ 

There is a problem administration and faculty have to decide, 
whether this is education or not. 

The Chairman. I think one of the witnesses yesterday would have 
an answer to that, because he advocated that if somebody would be 
that nervy to talk about the joys of dope, at least, at the same time, a 
doctor would come and say how evil that habit would be. 

Mr. Claw^son. Mr. Chairman, it was Mr. Tracy who made that 
comment. 

The Chairman. In other words, you would want both sides ? 

Mr. Tr^vcy. Both sides. 

The Chairman. Well, I am glad of your broad approach. In other 
words, you don't necessarily oppose speakers, even Communists, on 
the campus ? 

Mr. Tr.\cy. No. 

The Chairman. Provided an invitation is issued, at least, to someone 
on the opposite side ? 

Mr. Tracy. Or someone who completely can introduce that person 
for what they are on the public record. 

The Chairman. All right. Now I think that is a good addition to 
your position. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Tracy. 

Mr. Tracy. Thank you very much, sir. It was a privilege to be here. 

The Chairman. You have been a wonderful witness and you have 
made a terrific contribution to our hearings. 

Mr. Tracy. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Our next witness is Mr. Stover, director of the Na- 
tional Legislative Service of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I know 
Mr. Stover is in, because I shook hands with him. We welcome you, 
Mr. Stover. 

You may proceed according to your choice. 

STATEMENT OP FRANCIS W. STOVER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEG- 
ISLATIVE SERVICE OF THE VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF 
THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. Stover. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman and Members of the 
Committee: Thank you for this opportunity to appear before this 
committee in behalf of legislation which will make the Subversive 
Activities Control Board more effective as contained in several bills 
under consideration. 



434 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

My name is Francis W. Stover, and I am director of the National 
Legislative Service of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United 
States, 

By way of introduction — the membership of the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars of the U.S. is near an all-time high — almost 1,400,000. Our mem- 
bership has always deeply concerned itself with the menace of com- 
munism and all other subversive organizations, whose declared intent 
and purpose has been to violently overthrow our Government by any 
method or means, which they may deem appropriate. 

The Chairmax. In other words, you go one step further than the 
Smith Act which talks about overthrow of the Government by force or 
violence. You are against the advocacy of overthrowing the Govern- 
ment by any mamier of means, and you think that ideological means 
is just as severe as armed or forcible means? 

Is that correct ? 

Mr. Sto\t:r. That has been our position, yes, sir. 

The ChairMxVN. In other words, in a way, sometimes the ideology is 
even stronger than a modicum amount of force. Isn't that right? 

Mr. Sto\T3R. That is right, sir. 

The CriAiRMAN. Or in fact, as I see it, if you take all the formal 
Communist Party members in America, of whom there may be 12,000 
now, if you let them try to play violent, I don't think they could do as 
much damage as if these 12,000 continue to do what they want, and 
inculcate the ideology of commmiism in the minds of the American 
public. 

I see a greater threat in this particular instance, numerically speak- 
ing, in the ideology — in the ideological means, than in the capacity to 
use forcible means. 

Mr. Sto^s^er. That is right. 

The CHAiR]\rAN. Do you disagree with that? 

Mr. Stover. I certainly do not. In fact, that has been our position 
down through the years. 

Tlie Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Stover. It was this kind of background and history which led 
our membership to strongly support the creation of the Subversive 
Activities Control Board in 1950. It will be recalled that the purpose 
of the establishment of this Board was to reveal to the American people, 
the Communist front. Communist-infiltrated organizations, and the 
members of the Communist organizations because such groups and 
persons, according to the findings of the Congress, constituted a real 
and continuing danger to our national welfare. Again the VFW lent its 
fullest support when legislation amending and enlarging the scope of 
the Board again was approved by the Congi^ss in 1954. 

It has come as a ghock to our organization to leani that legislation 
has been introduced in this 90th Congress which would abolish this 
Board. 

The Chairman. Ijet me say there has been very much of that. 

Mr. Stover. We welcome, therefore, the legislation wliich is before 
you, which will continue to allow the Board to caiTV out the purpose 
and intent of the Congress when it established this Board. 

Our organization is controlled almost exclusivelv by the mandates 
adopted by the delegates to our most recent national convention. Many 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 435 

of our membei*s were cognizant of the lack of activity of the Subversive 
Activities Control I^oard when our convention was held in New York 
City August iy()() — just about a year ago. 

As a result of this concern over the weakening of the Internal Se- 
curity Act which had shrunk the jurisdiction of the Board 

The Chairmax. Well, I will repeat this remark, which I in effect 
made yesterday. Despite the opposition of those who are against this 
bill, if the time ever came when the Supreme Court were up on its 
calendar of cases, and someone should have the temerity to abolish the 
Court, you would have a hair raising on the part of the same people 
who arc advocating the abolishment of this Board. 

]Mr. Sto\'er. Right. 

The Chairman. And by the wa}-, I would join them in that in- 
stance. 

^Ir. Stom^r. Our position is found in the resolution that our orga- 
nization adopted last year, at our most recent convention, identified 
as Xo. 268, which is entitled "To Strengthen Internal Security Act," 
which reads as follows : 

WHEREAS, decisions of the United States Supreme Court have greatly weak- 
ened the Internal Security Act of 1950 ; and 

WHEREAS, the Veterans of Foreign Wars was one of the sponsors and strong 
supporters of the Internal Security Act and amendments thereto since that 
time ; and 

WHEREAS, the Veterans of Foreign AVars has always led the fight to expose 
and identify communists and others who would undermine and destroy our Gov- 
ernment and way of life ; and 

WHEREAS, there is now pending in the S9th Congress a bill, H.R. 16.584 

The Chairman. By the way, that was the number of my bill last 
year. 

Mr. Stover. That is right. 
"We support that very strongly. 

— which would greatly strengthen and improve the Internal Security Act and 
overcome the decisions of the Supreme Court which have greatly weakened the 
Internal Security Act ; now, therefore 

BE IT RESOLVED, by the 67th National Convention of the Veterans of For- 
eign Wars of the United States, that the Veterans of Foreign Wars supports 
H.R. 165S4: and works for its advancement and approval by the Congress. 

And this legislation today before you. Gentlemen, is a logical suc- 
cessor to this resolution. 

Pursuant to this resolution, together with a host of other resolutions, 
which indicates the great concern of our organization with commu- 
nism and its threat, both external and internal, to the American way 
of life, we strongly support the purpose and intent of the bills before 
this committee. 

We do not come here as experts, but only to lend our support to 
legislation which will make the Board effective in registering Com- 
munists and other subversives, as defined in this legislation, so that 
the American people can know who they are and to what extent they 
are a danger or threat. 

It cannot be emphasized too much that the Subversive Activities 
Control Board is the only agency in the executive branch which has 
the authority to provide this type of information to the American 
public. 



436 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

The Board, however, does not operate in the dark — behind closed 
doors. On the contrary, it provides a full and fair hearing if there 
ever was one. It is a quasi-court which can hear and decide cases only 
after they have been brought before the Board by the Attorney Gen- 
eral of the United States. All hearings are public. Like a court pro- 
ceeding, there are reporters who keep a stenographic record of all 
that is said and copies of the hearings are printed. The Board before 
it makes its decision must make written findings of fact and conclu- 
sions of law. Lastly and most important, any final decision or order 
by the Board is subject to judicial review, and when appealed the 
Board's orders *annot become effective until they have been reviewed 
and sustained by the court. 

During the past 17 years, this Board has performed a magnificent 
contribution in exposing Communists and others of the same ilk as de- 
fined by the Internal Security Act. Unfortunately, the language of 
the act has been construed on several occasions to be in conflict with 
the Constitution, which has greatly diminished the jurisdiction of the 
Board and apparently has been a great deterrent to the Attorney Gen- 
eral in bringing more cases before the Board, Coupled with this are 
the long and lengthy appeals which have kept the orders of the Board 
tied up in the courts for long periods during which it was inadvisable 
to proceed with similar or other cases until a final decision had been 
handed down by tlie court. 

The fact that there has been little activity on the part of the Board 
is the most compelling reason that this legislation should be favorably 
considered and reported by this committee. Something is wrong with 
the present law and should be remedied as quickly as possible. 

Because there have not been any or many cases before a court of law 
does not mean that we want to destroy or eliminate the court. 

Rather we want to strengthen the court. Similarly we want to 
strengthen tlie Board so that it can do the job Congi'ess intended back 
when it established the Board in 1950 and, I am sure, wants the Board 
to continue in 1967. 

In summary, the Veterans of Foreign Wars commends this com- 
mittee for taking the initiative in counteracting other legislation wliich 
has been introduced in the 90th Congress of recent date which would 
abolish the Board. 

Your approach is the correct one so far as the Veterans of Foreign 
"Wars is concerned and is the remedy that our organization advocated 
through the voice of our delegates at our national convention in New 
York last August as embodied in Resolution No. 268, as outlined above, 
and the forthright statement of our commander in chief, Leslie M. 
Fry, which he issued to the press on July 24, 1967, concerning efforts 
to abolish this Board, a copy of which is attached. 

(The news release follows:) 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 



437 




NEWS 



Telephone 
Lincoln 3-2239 



FOR RELEASE: 




Washington Memorial Building 

Veterans of Foreign Wars of tfie U. S. 

200 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Washington, OX. 20002 



V. F.W. SUPPORTS SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BOARD 



WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 24) -- The National Conunander-in-Chief of the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, Leslie M. Fry, Reno, Nevada, today announced "full support of the U. S. 
govemnMnt 's Subversive Activities Control Board." 

Coanander Fry said the V.F.W.'s action is necessary "because the present effort to 
discredit or abolish the Board has already been seized upon in the continuing efforts of 
Coranunist elements in this country to do just that." 

In his statement the V.F.W. Commander noted that the present attack on the Sub- 
versive Activities Control Board followed the President's appointment and the Senate's 
conflraation of Mr. Simon McHugh, formerly of the Small Business Administration, as one 
of the Board members. 

"The McHugh appointment, which has been confirmed by the Senate, is incidental to 
the issue of the compelling need for the continued existence and functioning of the 
Subversive Activities Control Board," Commander Fry said. "Those who are out to 
destroy this anti-Comiminist government agency are simply using the McHugh issue as a 
pretext and snoke screen for their attack on the Board." 

Aaplifying the V.F.W. position, Commander Fry said, "we of the V.F.W. vigorously 
support the Subversive Activities Control Board because it is needed in the interests of 
the defense of our government. This Board is the only agency in the Executive Branch 



43S AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

of the govemsBnt for detemining and infonning the Anerican people as to the identity 
of Coamunists and other subversive groups working for the destruction of our governnenx." 

Continuing, Coaaander Fry eaphasized: "It is no cere coincidence that this attack 
on th6 Board coses at this very time when the Board is putting tha p-oblic spotlight on 
th<j W. E. B. CuBois Clubs which have been agitating so viciously against our Nation's 
stand against Contunist aggression in Vietnam. 

Obviously, if the enemies of the Subversive Activities Control Board ara successful 
in destroying the Board, they will be successful in protecting the CuBois club organi- 
zation and its reported pro-Coiranunist activities aimed at the American Youth. 

"We of the V.F.W. believe that the citizens of our country are entitled to know 
who those are who are trying to destroy our country. This is a priBary and necessary 
function of the Subversive Activities Control Board. 

"To cut its appropriation or eliminate it would assist the CooBtaiists and handicap 
patriotic Aaaricans." 

Continuing, Coanander Fry said, "the V.F.W. believes that instead of the Board 
being undercut or destroyed when it is so critically needed, it should be strengthened 
At th« present time," he pointed out, "there are two bills pending before Congress to 
strengthen the functions and status of the Board, These bills, essentially the saae, 
have been introduced by a total of about SO Denocrats and Republicans. This underlines 
the non-political nature of the support of the Board. 

*The V.F.W. takes this position for a very basic reason. At a tine when Aaerican 
fighting Ban are dying to resist Comriunist aggression in Vietnam, we oust keep our 
faith with thm by resisting Connrunist subversion at home. 

"It is the purpose of the Subversive Activities Control Board to help our citizens 
in this sacred endeavor. Our citizens must not be deprived of their right to know who 
tiaa Coaounist elements are. The Aoarican people are entitled to have this infbraation, 
which they can get only through the existence of the Subversive Activities Control 
Board." 

Mr. Stover. Accordingly, the Veterans of Foreign Wars strongly 
recommends that this Board not only be kept alive and functioning, 
but that it be given the tools which it so needs to disclose and regulate 
the operations of the Communist conspiracy in this country. To fail to 
approve the legislation before you to strengthen the Subversive Activi- 
ties Control Board will be to permit the Communists to win a 17-year 
battle by default. 

You are strongly urged to favorably consider this legislation and 
report it to the House at the earliest opportunity, with the hoj^e that it 
will go on through the Congress and be enacted into law at an early 
date. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I don't know what might happen when it reaches 
the floor, but I can tell you that I am pretty sure that this bill will be 
reported out of this committee, and after that, it will be up to the 



AMENDES'G THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 439 

leadership. The first step, of course, after we approve it, and I am con- 
fident we will, will be to get a rule. 

I will attend to tliat, try to get a rule, and then open up the door of 
the lioor of the House for consideration. I will plead for that. 

I was heartened to hear yesterday that the Senate, the other great 
deliberative body, for which they so pride themselves, and I congrat- 
ulate them about it, beat us to the punch, at least to the committee 
action, that the Senate Judiciary Committee approved what amounts 
to this bill, because Senator Dirksen introduced a bill, which he said 
on the floor a few days ago was the Ed Willis bill, and he applauded it. 
And I am glad to see that action of the Senate committee and I am 
hopeful that we will give similar treatment to this bill in this commit- 
tee, and I am quite sure we will, and that therefore it will become law, 
and I compliment you, I salute j'ou, sir, for the position you have taken. 

]Mr. Ston'er. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Any questions. Gentlemen? 

Mr. RouBEBusH. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to comment. I cer- 
tainly want to join with our chairman in welcoming Francis Stover 
before this committee. 

The Chairman. Did not you give him a nickname a while ago ? 

]\Ir. RouDEBUSH. Well, he is generally known as Smokey Stover, but 
I call him Francis today. I am aware of the VFW position. I was with 
the commander in chief, Leslie Fry, when he issued his statement in 
July, in strong support of the Subversive Activities Control Board, and 
I certainly concur with his stand and I join with our chairman in his 
determmation and his desire to see this legislation reported favorably 
by this committee as quickly as possible. 

Mr. Stover. Thank you very much, Mr. Roudebush. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Sto\ter. Thank you, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. O'Connor, chairman of the Americanism Com- 
mission of The American Legion, as I indicated a while ago, had a 
little plane trouble. He is not here but I see that Mr. Mears is here. 

Do you have any views as to when we might expect him, sir? 

!Mr. ]Mears. I don't, ]Mr. Chairman; I am sorry. I got a call from 
Xew York this morning about 9 :20 and they said that the 8 :30 plane 
malfunctioned and they were trying to get him on another one, or 
hopefully would get him on the 9 :30 one. 

The Chairman. It is our hope that he will be here wathin the next 
20 minutes. We estimated that he would probably be here by 10 :30. 

]Mr. Roudebush. We are in session now. 

The Chairman. We will be in session at 11 o'clock. Is that a written 
statement ? 

]Mr. ]Mears. This is his prepared statement. If you would care for 
me to substitute for him. 

The Chairman. Do you mind reading it, because we M^ould like to 
move along. 

]Mr. Mears. About the only substitution I can do for Mr. O'Connor 
is read his statement. 

The Chairman. That will be wonderful. By the way, tell Mr. O'Con- 
nor — give him my best wishes. It was such a joy for me to appear 
before The American Legion in Portland, Oregon, at the annual meet- 
ing last 3^ear. 



440 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

Mr. JVIears. I was in that audience, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I hope you thought I performed fairly well. 

Mr. Mears. I did, sir. 

The Chairivian. Proceed, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL J. O'CONNOR, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL 
AMERICANISM COMMISSION OF THE AMERICAN LEGION, PRE- 
SENTED BY MR. MEARS 

Mr. Mears. Mr. Chairman and Members of this Distinguished Com- 
mittee : Tlie American Legion is happy to be afforded the opportunity 
to appear here today to present the position of our organization on 
this vital legislation. We believe that the effectiveness of the Subver- 
sive Activities Control Board must be increased in order that the 
internal security of our country be strengthened. 

H.R. 10390 and related bills, will breathe new life into the Sub- 
versive Activities Control Board and provide the necessaiy safeguards 
to our internal security which are needed at the present time and in the 
years ahead. 

It is of utmost importance that the term "Communist-front" orga- 
nization be clearly defined so that there can be no judicial interpreta- 
tion which would excuse a Communist-front organization from the 
requirement of registering as such with the Subversive Activities 
Control Board. 

II.R. 10390 would correct this present situation resulting from 
the decision in the case of National Council of American-Soviet 
Friendship^ Inc. v. Subversive Activities Control Board (322 F. 2d 
375) where the court reversed a decision of the Board requiring the 
council to register as a Commmiist- front organization. 

The relationship between the Communist Party and a front orga- 
nization must be clearly established. It is folly to conclude that no 
communication exists between the parent Communist Party and the 
members of the Communist Party who control a s]3ecific front orga- 
nization concerning the aims and objectives of the Conmiunist Party. 

The legislation pending before you today will eliminate any re- 
quirement for self-registration by members of the Communist-con- 
trolled organizations. A significant factor in the proposed legislation 
authorizes a person who is no longer a member of a Comnmnist-front 
organization to file an affidavit establishing the fact that he or she 
is no longer a member of such Communist- front organization. This 
will encourage those who have made a bona fide a]i)andonment of any 
connection with the Communist conspiracy. 

Registration by the Attorney General as provided in this bill must 
be part and parcel of the new law designed to protex?t our country 
against Communist organizations and Cornmunist-f ront organizations. 

Congress has required lobbyists and others to register with the ap- 
propriate agencies of Government concerned with their activities. 
Certainly Congress has the right to l)ro^•ide the machinery for the 
control of the Communist consiiiracy whether it is acting oiDcnly or 
covertly through a front organization. 

One of the more salient provisions of this legislation is the require- 



AMENDDSTG THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 441 

meiit that radio and TV stations broadcasting specific proj^rams iden- 
tify each ()r<2:anization, fonowcd l)v tlio statement that it is a Com- 
munist or Communist-front oro-anization. This is very important be- 
cause we have been propagandized by radio and TV programs which 
have used the sly approach to sell communism over the airways. 

1 cannot overemphasize the importance of this particular provision 
Ijecause the members of The American I^egion feel very strongly that 
Communists and Connnunist f rontei-s shsould not be allowed the use of 
radio and TV to sell their insidious doctrine to millions of Americans, 
yomig and old, without making a frank disclosure of their origins 
and athliations. 

There is another safeguard in the bills before you which would 
require any mail solicitations by a Communist organization for dona- 
tions to include a statement disclosing its true identity. If Americans 
are asked by mail to contribute to an organization, they are entitled 
to know that the organization soliciting the donation is in fact a Com- 
munist or Communist-front organization. 

The American Legion believes that a Communist-controlled organ- 
ization should not be allowed to dissolve then after action has been 
instituted by the Attorney General to cause such organization to reg- 
ister as a Communist organization. 

This legislation would provide that the action of the SACB is valid 
and, when snch dissolved organization is listed, that the dissolution 
be made a part of the record. 

"We believe, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, that 
when an individual is contemptuous when appearing before the Sub- 
versive Activities Control Board, such conduct should be treated as 
contempt and punished. This legislation places the authority in the 
Subversive Activities Control Board to deal with a contempt case. 

AVe will not attempt here today to take your time to go into every 
facet of these proposals. However, we strongly recommend to this 
committee that you report favorably on H.R. 10390 or a similar bill. 

We have all witnessed the Communist Party's return in recent years 
to its image of the thirties, where its members are bold enough to ac- 
tually seek political office in this land of freedom. If the live^ and 
destinies of the people of this country are to be jDrotected, we must have 
effective legislation adopted which will put teeth into laws controlling 
subversive activities and provide that the SACB shall execute its 
legally constituted mandates without being hampered by judicial de- 
cisions and dicta which render the board ineffective. 

May I direct your attention to that part of an official pronouncement 
by Gus Hall, general secretary of the Communist Party of the United 
States, at a meeting of the National Committee of the Communist 
Party in December 1966 ? 

Plall stated in part as follows : 

AVe must ask again : Is it correct or is it false to say that political independence 
is a process that is proceeding on many different levels, in many different forms? 
And are there not periods when the process takes on a qualitative surge? We are 
at such a moment now. 

This characterization dictates two tactical considerations. One is that our 
leadership must consider problems of work on all levels. The second is that the 
qualitative shift calls for more initiative, more boldness, more experimentation 
with independent forms. 



442 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

I would summarize tbe three levels of independence as follows : 

(1) Independent movements within the two parties — 

The Chaikman. Are you still quoting from Hall there ? 
Mr. Mears. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

(2) Independent movements politically and organizationally outside of the 
two parties, but still using the two parties' electoral process, especially in the 
primaries. 

(3) Broad, Left independent movements which very often include ourselves, 
the Communists. 

On behalf of 2,600,000 members of The American Legion and 
1,000,000 members of the American Legion Auxiliary, I urge you 
gentlemen to seriously consider the legislation before you because we 
believe that in your hands lie, in large part, the security of these 
United States of America. We are confident that you will accept the 
challenge and see to it that legislation is enacted which will help con- 
trol Communist and Communist-front organizations. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, in closing I want 
to emphasize that it is imperative that this committee and the Congress 
take affirmative action to insure that the Subversive Activities Control 
Board can function as it was originally intended by Congress and 
thereby carry out its duties and responsibilities as defined in the In- 
ternal Security Act of 1950. 

If this is not done the American people will have been rendered a 
great disservice. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the opportunity to 
present this statement to you. 

The Chairman. I thank you very much for your contribution, and 
tell Mr. O'Connor hello for me. 

"Sir. ]\Iears. I know he will be sorry he could not appear, sir. 

The Chairman. Now the Chair would like to ask the members to 
remain for a while. 

The committee will stand in receSs until 10 o'clock tomorrow morn- 
ing, when we will hear from additional witnesses. 

(TYliereupon, at 11 :15 a.m., Thursday, August 17, 1967, the commit- 
tee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, August 18, 19G7.) 



HEARINGS RELATING TO H.R. 10390, H.R. 10391, AND 
H.R. 10C81, AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY 
ACT OF 1950 



FRIDAY, AUGUST 18, 1967 
United States House of Representatives, 

C0]MMITTEE ON Un -AMERICAN ACTIVITIES, 

Washington^ D.C. 

PUBLIC HEARINGS 

The committee met at 10 :10 a.m. pursuant to recess, in Room 429, 
Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C, Hon. Edwin E. 
Willis (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: Representatives Edwin E. Willis, 
of Louisiana, chairman ; Richard H. Ichord, of Missouri ; John C. Cul- 
ver, of Iowa ; and Del Clawson, of California. 

Staif members present: Francis J. McNamara, director; Chester 
D. Smith, general counsel ; and Alfred M. Nittle, counsel. 

The Chairiman. The committee will come to order. 

Our first scheduled witness this morning is the Honorable Mr. Jus- 
tice Michael A. Musmanno of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. 

Judge, I am delighted to see you again. I have had the pleasure of 
meeting you before. 

Judge Musmanno. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In connection with hearings in New York. Do j-ou 
remember ? 

Judge Musmanno. I will never forget. 

Tlie Chairman. You, Bernard Baruch, and Teddy Roosevelt's son 
were regular attendants at those hearings. 

Judge Musmanno. Yes, and we haven't lost any of our zeal since 
then. 

Tlie Chairsian. In fact, when we talked about a few minutes ago — 
you remember, one famous, or infamous, witness was Pete Seeger. Do 
you remember? 

Judge Musmanno. Yes, I remember. 

Tlie Chairiman. And he came with his guitar ? 

Judge Musmanno. Yes. 

The Chairman. Tell what you reminded me of, that he was trying 
to emulate his life compared with whom ? 

Judge Musmanno. With our Lord. 

Tlie Chairman. With our Lord, that is right. And Tad Walter 
backed him down. 

Judge Musmanno. Oh, yes. Yes, indeed. You and I were ready to 
support him, too. 

443 



444 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

The Chahuvian. That is right. 
Judge MusMANNO. Shall I proceed ? 
The Chairman. Yes, please do. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL A. MUSMANNO,^ PENNSYLVANIA 
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE 

Judge MusMANNO. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee : 

I recommend to this honorable committee the approval of H.R. 10390, 
amending the Internal Security Act of 1950. 

Federal courts, and I say this with respect, have, in the application 
of the first and fifth amendments to the Constitution, dismantled many 
guns of the Internal Security Act. It is imperative that those guns be 
repaired and reactivated. H.R. 10390 provides the tools, the materials, 
and the armament required to reestablish the Internal Security Act 
as the supreme redoubt defending the American people, American in- 
stitutions, and American freedoms from Communist assault within our 
own borders. 

I do not know whether the language in the original act of 1950 was 
inadequate to meet the situations appearing in the various cases which 
have resulted in holding the United States forces at bay in their pros- 
ecution of the enemies of our country, but I do know that, under some 
decisions of our courts. Communists, spies, and Soviet agents have been 
able to turn the fifth amendment into a fifth column marching against 
the security of the Nation. 

Obviously, I do not criticize the judicial branch of the Government, 
of which I am a part, but I would be disappointed if the legislative 
depai-tment of the United States did not take whatever steps are re- 
quired to outgeneral the fifth column and restore faith in the people 
that our Government has the required brain power and resourcefulness 
to defeat the circumvention of the Communists and those whose pur- 
pose it is to overthrow our Government. 

The original act defined a Communist-front organization as any or- 
ganization which is substantially directed, dominated, or controlled 
by a Communist-action organization. 

This language imposed on the Government a burden of proof that 
was unnecessary and gave to the accused Communist-front organiza- 
tion an undue advantage because it might be difficult for the Govern- 
ment, if not actually impossible, to establish that the Communist Party 
itself, by official action, directed the action of a particular Communist- 
front organization. 

Tlie CHAiRMAisr. Judge, I have expressed it this way, that the Com- 
munist Party doesn't go around handing out powers of attorney, yet 
the Court required technical proof of express agency, which is an im- 
possible burden. Don't you agree ? 

Judge MusMANNo. Yes, that is right, Mr. Chairman, and I agree 
with that completely. 



''^ Judge Michael A. Mnamanno, formerly a judge on the International War Crimes Tri- 
bunal at Nuremburg, has been a judge of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court since 1952 and 
has also served as a member of the Commission on International Rules of Judiciary 
Procedure. A graduate of four universities, he was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar in 
1923. served in the Pennsylvania State Legislature, 1929-31, and as a county court and 
common pleas court judge during the years 1932-51. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 445 

It certainly should be enough to show that the questioned or<2:a,niza- 
tion is a Communist-front organization when the Government proves 
that a member of the Communist Party is directing the Connnunisl- 
f ront acttvities. 

A member of the Commmiist Party is a person committed to the 
very definitely recognized aim of the Communist Party, namely, to 
overthrow our Government b}^ force and violence. This aim is never 
distant from the Communists' thoughts, and it never disappears from 
his plan of operations. 

Tne direction, domination, or control by a member of the Commu- 
nist Party in the activities of an organization is like a firebrand. It 
burns whatever it touches. Therefore, there should be no need to go 
further than to prove Communist Party membership of the person in 
question. 

I, therefore, believe that conditions of today demand tlie adoi)tion 
of the clause B outlined and described in the Section by Section 
Analysis of H.R. 10o90 prepared by tliis committee. 

After the decision of tlie District of ( 'olumbia Circuit ( 'ourt in the 
case of National Council of American-Soviet Friendships Inc. v. Siib- 
versive Activities Control Board., 322 F. 2d 375, it became the duty of 
this committee to advise Congress of the demanding necessity of 
amending the Internal Security Act as here indicated. 

The Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Alhertson 
and. Proctor v. Subversive Activities Control Board., 382 U.S. 70, held 
that when a Communist-action organization fails to register, it would 
be unconstitutional to require a member of the Communist organiza- 
tion to register under section S of the Internal Security Act because 
this would impel self-incrimination enjoined by the fifili amendment. 

I congratulate this committee on having found a method to combat 
the Communists who use the fifth amendment as a fifth column to 
march on the security of our country. Imder section 2 of H.R. 10390, 
the Conmiunist Party member is not asked to identify himself as such. 
The Attorney General petitions the Subversive Activities Control 
Board to determine the membership as to each individual he has rea- 
son to believe is a member of the Communist Party. 

I congratulate this committee on this plan, which will outwit and 
outgeneral the Communist who seeks to use the fifth amendment of the 
Constitution to destroy the very Constitution under which he seeks 
protection. 

Section 3 of H.R. 10390 plugs up another hole in the Internal Se- 
curity Act, discovered or caused by the decision in the Albertson- 
Proctor case, so that the Attorney General will now maintain a public 
register of Communist-action, Communist-front, and Comnuuiist-in- 
filtrated organizations. 

Section 4 of H.R. 10390 will protect people who unwaringly con- 
tribute funds to organizations committed to the overthrow of our 
Government l)y force and violence by requiring that any Communist 
organizatio]! using the mails or employing television or radio for the 
collection of funds declare tliat : ''This solicitation is made for or on 
})ehalf of , whicji has been determined b}- linal order of the 

Subversive Activities Control Board to be a Comnumist organization.'" 

Mr. Chairman, so far as I am concerned, I cannot quite understand 



S4-a51— 67 12 



446 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

why we allow any organization to use the facilities of our Government 
and tlio free air of free America in any project designed to demolish 
our freedoms, ensla^'e the mind, and enchain the spirit of the American 
people. 

It has been proved by hundreds of congressional investigations, 
thousands of witnesses, and billions of words of testimony, as well as 
countless irrefutable acts of revolutionary planning, plus demonstrated 
violence, that the Communist Party in America is a predatory wolf 
on an ever-lengthening leash from Eussia. 

Yet we temporize with this outlaw gang of traitors and spies, alloAv- 
ing them to poison the wells from which our youth drink and per- 
mitting them to derail the trains of law and order. 

However, since we still have those Avho believe the first and fifth 
amendments may be used as Trojan horses by seditionists and Quis- 
lings, I suppose we have to employ the method outlined in section 4 
to protect people wlio still cannot distinguish between a wolf and a 
sheep dog. 

Section 5 of the House bill under consideration provides another 
laudable method to prevent Communists from using the fifth amend- 
ment to strangle the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights. 
^\nien a Communist fails to register, the Attorney General will peti- 
tion the SACB to determine that person's meml^ership in the Com- 
munist Party. 

Section 5 of the bill arms the Attorney General with an excellent 
weapon to fight what the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia in Labor Youth League v. Suhverslve Activities 
Control Board., 322 F. 2d 3648, regarded as a dead dragon — but one 
which could well prove to be a live dragon only playing dead or asleep. 

The court,, in that case, stated that if a Communist- front organiza- 
tion ostensibly dissolves after the Attorney General has filed pro- 
ceedings to compel its registration, all proceedings against it must 
cease, since it is not an "existing entity." 

Socton 5 provides that even though a Communist- front organization 
lias declared its dissolution, the Attorney General may still petition 
the SACB to conduct hearings on the activities of the supposedly dead 
dragon and publish a report of those activities. This proceecUng wnll 
make it difficult for the Commimist within the skin of the dead dragon 
to crawl out and operate within the skin of another animal. 

The U.S. court of appeals in the Labor Youth League case falla- 
ciously argued that to require a dissolved Communist-front organi- 
zation to register would do harm to those who had been innocently 
entrapped into the organization and that if the organization were 
required to register, these guiltless persons would be "enveloped in a 
cloud." 

I cannot quite understand this overbalancing of sympathy for sup- 
posed dupes as against society which needs to be protected from Gov- 
ernment wreckers. After all that has been printed, shown, and demon- 
strated about the metluKls of Communists it must be a rather careless 
individual who allows himself to be entrapped by them. But if a per- 
son has actually l)een entrapped, it is to his advantage that the method 
of entrapment be made public, rather than that his involvement should 
become a skelefon in a closet ready at any time to jump out and rattle 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 447 

(Hit an accusation of disloyalty when he will not have the resources of 
the Goxernnient to assist him in proving^ that he had l)een criminally 
pushed hito the pit of Communist conspiracy. 

1 would like to interject here that a person who has actually imio- 
cently become involved in some Communist-front oroanization, if he 
really didn't know what they were doing, should welcome an oppor- 
tunity to come l)efore the Board or go before the public and explain 
how he was fooled, deceived, and entrapped. 

Xot only would this action clear his name, but it would protect 
others who might similarly be pushed into the pit of apparent self- 
involvement. 

In the etl'ectuation of the procedure outlined in this secticm, wit- 
nesses who can supply needed information and data on the activities of 
file osrensil)ly dissolved Communist-front organization may be granted 
immunity from prosecution if they refuse to testify under fear of self- 
incrimination. 

Section 5 of the bill wisely provides that misbehavior before the 
SACB may be punishable as contempt of court. 

The Chairman. Judge, at tliis point, a witness before this commit- 
tee in opposition to this bill, a representative of the ACLU — the 
American Civil Liberties Union — took the view that defuiing the ac- 
tions of someone before the Board as "misbehavior" was such a vague 
thing that no one could construe it. 

Isn't that the term used in all of these statutes — "misbehavior" or 
"contumacy'' ? 

Judge MusMANxo. I agree with you totally. 

The CiiAiR3iAx. In other words, as a matter of fact, cei-tainly no one 
could, and no one will try to, prosecute someone for raising his eye- 
brows or doing some kind of thing that is not ph3^sical and overt mis- 
behavior. 

I don't see tluxt there is anything vague about the word "misbe- 
havior." Do you? 

Judge Mrs3tAxxo. No. Xo, on the contrary 

The Ch.\ir]max. That is the word in the statute right now. 

Judge MusMAXNO. I gi\'e instances here when I say that too long 
have Communists and Communist accomplices been allowed to make 
a mockery of judicial proceedings through the use of obstructionist 
methods — as, for instance, excessive shouting, disturbing noises, and 
clownist grotesqueries. 

I am sometimes 

The CiiAiRMAx. As a matter of fact, Judge, something ought to l)e 
done to pmiish misbehavior before a quasi- tribunal, such as the SACB, 
as well as the court. Don't you agree with that ? 

Judge Mfsmaxxo. Oh, yes. The American Civil Lijjorties Union is 
given to straining at a gnat and svv'allowing a camel. 

In another held entirely, they are constantly arguing that the word 
'"obscenity" isn't clear, and, therefore, we cannot possibly have any 
laws to punish obscenity and pornography, because there ai-e so many 
ditferent interpretations of tliose two words. 

And when they ask me to define "obscenity," I say that the word 
"obscenity'' is about as vague as the word "cat.'' When one sees some- 
thing obscene, he doesn't need any meticulous definition of what is 
obscene. He is re^oltod. 



448 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

And SO the same thing is true ^Yith "•misbehavior.'' If someone comes 
here and begins to jump up and down, and screams, I think you 
could leave it to any jur^^ to determine whether that was misbehavior 
or not. 

This is merely a scheme on the part of the American Civil Liberties 
Union to try to turn this honorable and distinguished connnittee that 
is doing so much to protect the liberties and the security of our coun- 
try into a mockery. 

Mr. Culver. Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Culver. If the gentleman would yield, isn't "obscenity" some- 
what like "beauty,"' in that it is in the eyes of the beholder ? 

Judge Mus^viANNO. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr, Culver. "Obscenity'' to some is one thing, and "beauty'' to some 
is another. 

Judge iML'SMANNO. Well, no. Now, Mr. Congressman, I wouldn't go 
along with that. No. Because I think that something that is beautiful, 
is beautiful to the world. 

Mr. Cul\t:r. Is that true ? What about modern art ? 

Judge Mus:manno. I don't like that comparison, because then you 
would say that an individual who is steeped in filth and mire, and 
whose thoughts are constantly permeated with pornograpliic images, 
might not be revolted at what would be obscene in the eyes of the 
average citizen. 

Mr. Cui^VER. A'^Tiat I was trying to suggest is, the difficulty, I tliink, 
in using a term such as "obscenity" for objective evaluation and assess- 
ment is that it is really a subjective determination. 

Obscenity to a Calvinist minister may well be a miniskirt. Is that 
obscenity in the context of modem American moi'es ? 

Judge iSIusMAXNO. No, but I am 

Mr. Culver. Pardon? I didn't hear your answer. Yes or no? Is a 
miniskirt obscenity in the context of modern American mores, even 
though it miglit well be deemed obscene in the eyes of a Calvinist 
minister? 

Judge MusMAXNO. Well, my ansvrer is as follows : I am perfectly 
willing to leave to a jury of 12 people, chosen from all walks of life, 
to determine whether something is obscene or not. In otlier words, 
my criterion is community standards — not the view of a Calvinist 
minister or the view of a roue. 

Mr. Culver. I think that is an entirely different thing tlian what 
you initially suggested, however. 

Judge MusMANxo. I only gave this as an illustration. 

Mr. Culve:r. That obscenity can be uniformly agreed upon ? 

Judge MusMANNO. According to community standards. That is my 
criterion. 

Mr. Culver. I have had the pleasure of reading several of your 
books and I was interested in your references to the ACLU. 

I wondered, on the occasion of your very courageous defense in the 
Sacco- Vanzetti case, when you slept on the floor in Boston 

Judge MusMANNO. Oh, I thank you for reading my book. You cer- 
tainly have 

Mr. Culver. — if you had the support of the ACLU in that effort? 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 449 

Jiid^e MusMANNO. I didn't liave the support of the ACLU. The 
ACLU was ill there, makin|r liay for their own selfish purposes. The 
Communist Part}' was collecting money from poor laborers — — 

Mr. CuL^^^K. "Why are you so comfortably prepared to say that the 
motivation of the ACLU is distinguished from your own as being 
self-interested, and 3'ours was a compassionate, humanitarian, vol- 
untary exercise in the highest traditions of the bar? 

Judge MusMAXNO. Mr. Congressman, I do not deny for one mo- 
ment the American Civil Liberties Union has done some wonderful 
tilings — has defended people who have been persecuted. 

It may interest you to know that the American Civil Liberties Union, 
in 1932, conferred upon me their aAvard in the State of Peimsyl- 
\'ania 

Mr. CiLATER. You didn't 

Judge MrsMAXNo. — for courageously defending the rights of cer- 
tain students at the University of Pittsburgh. 

Therefore, when I make this statement, I don't blanketly condemn 
the American Civil Liberties Union. 

]Mr. CuL^TiK. I am pleased to hear that. 

Judge MusMANNO. But I certainly do point out that when they 
come before this committee and argue to you that "misbehavior" is so 
vague a term that people might be improperly punished for doing 
what ordinarily is just merely a demonstration of excessive zeal, I 
say that they are using bad logic. And then I gave as the illustration 
what they have said about obscenity. 

Now that's how we happened to get into this field of discussion. 

Mr. CuiA-ER. As I understand their testimony on that occasion — 
You please correct me, Mr. Chairman, because I ha>'en't made my 
own determination yet whether I find it sufficiently vague or not for 
this purpose. But I think what they were concerned about was the 
ordinary usage. I think they preferred a word of art, a term of art 
that had a more long-standing judicial construction. 

Judge MusMANXo. What would that be? 

Mr. Culver. In the courts, like the other words that the chairman 
suggested, '"contmuacious conduct.'' 

Judge Mus3iAXNO. Yes, I know, but 

Mr. Culver. Wliere you have precedents and you have some ex- 
amples. And I think that particularly in this very delicate area — and 
I think you would agi'ee, Judge — reasonable men could differ on that. 

Judge MusMAXNO. Oh, absolutely. 

Mr. CuL\rER. And I haven't made my own determination. 

Judge jMusmax'xo. I agree with you, Congressman. 

Mr. Culver. And I was just interested in one last cjuestion here, if 
I rasLj. 

On page 3 of your statement, at the bottom of the paragraph, you 
write that : "So far as I am concerned, I cannot quite understand why 
we allow any organization to use the facilities of our Government and 
the free air of free America in any project designed to demolish our 
freedoms, enslave the mind, and enchain the spirit of the American 
people." 

Judge Musmanno. Yes. 



450 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

Mr. Cul\t:r. Now, in the context again of the Sacco-Vanzetti case, 
wasn't one of the great difficulties you encountered the political climate 
of the period ? 

Judge MusMANNO. Yes. 

Mr. Culver. And the irrationality^ that some of their very unortho- 
dox political view elicited in the Boston community ? 

Judge MusMANNO. That is right. 

Mr. Culver. And served to poison the merits of the issues in\olved 
in their particular alleged crime ? 

Judge MusMANXo. Yes. Yes, I agree with you completely, but I 
want to make this explanation and differentiation. 

Congress, during the last 25 or 30 years, has held countless hearings 
on the subject of the Communist Party. Anyone who today will say 
that he doesn't know the aims of the Communist Party is either delil)- 
erately falsifying or is quite stupid. 

Mr. Culver. Well, if I may, Judge, what I am concerned about is 
5'ou say : "So far as I am concerned, I cannot quite understand why we 
allow any organization'*^ 

Judge MusMANXo. Oh, wait, now. 

Mr. Culver. The bottom of page 3, sir, in the last paragraph, "any 
organization to use the facilities of our Government and the free 

Judge MusMANXo. In any project designed to demolish our 
freedoms. 

Mr. CuiA'EK. Now, on Beacon Hill, at the time of the Sacco-Vanzetti 
case, if you took a poll and you said : "Does advocacy of socialist polit- 
ical theory represent (a) demolishment of our freedoms, (b) enslave- 
ment of the mind, and (c) enchainment of the spirit of the American 
people?" — T\niat do you think the poll result would have been on 
P>eacon Hill in that period of American history ? 

Judge MusMANNO. Mr. Congressman, you must take it that this 

The Chairman. I agree with the judge as a matter of construction, 
but I think you have got to take the whole sentence. 

Judge MusMANNO. The whole sentence, and you must take the whole 
paragraph. 

The Chairman. Any organization designed to do that thing — demo- 
lish our freedoms. That is the controlling sentence. 

Judge MuMANNO. Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but I follow it up. 
The following sentence is descriptive of the preceding sentence. 

The Chairman. Of the type of organization. 

Judge MusMANNO. "It has been proved by hundreds of congres- 
sional investigations, thousands of witnesses, and billions of words of 
testimony, * * * plus demonstrated violence, that the Communist 
Party in America is a predatory wolf on an ever-lengthening leash 
from Russia." 

That is the organization that I refer to in the j)receding sentence, 
when I say "^'\^iy we allow any organization." 

Mr. CuL\TER. So you say "any organization," and you have specific 
reference here to the Communist Party ? 

Judge MusMANNO. Oh, yes. Absolutely. 

Mr. Culver. What about a known Communist, Gus Hall, being in- 
vited to address the campus at the University of Pennsylvania? 
Would you favor that or oppose it ? 



AMENDING Till': INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 451 

-ludgeMusMANNO. I not only iint';i\oi' it, 1 coudeinn it. I think that 
it is absohitely a misuso of the tax]ni,vers' funds to allow a Communist 
fii'eln'and, a traitor, a subvei'sive 

Mr. CuLVKK. AVJiat if it is a i>rivate institution ^ 

Jndae iVIi'siMAKNo. It mioht be dilferent. 

Mr. Cn-VKK. Where tliere is no taxi)ayers' money involved? 

Judo:e MusMANNo. It mifiht be ditferent with a ])iivate iustitvition. 

Mr, Culver. Your concern woiUd be, then, whether or not it was 
consistent with the taxpayer's attitudes in terms of what the university 
does or doesn't do ? 

Do you thinlv the individual tax])ayer has the standinjo- to challeno-e 
an academic determination of a State-supported institution as to 
uliether or not tliey give instruction on birth-control pills, or anything 
else? 

Judge iSfus^rANNO. He certainly has the right to know what is Ijeing 
done with his money. And if that money is being used to gi\'e aid and 
comfort to a Communist, who has only one purpose, and that is to de- 
stroy our Government, then I say that he has a right to complain. And 
Gils" Hall should not be invited to speak to students whose tuition is 
being paid for in great part by the taxpayers. 

Mr. Cu7a-p:r. But you might distmguish for the private institu- 
tions 

Judge MusMANxo. Yes, I could. 

Mr. Culver. Thank you, ]Mr. Chairman. 

Judge Musmanno. Now I would like you to consider this particular 
paragraph i of section 5, which I think may run into trouble. I am for 
it, Imt I would like to have you consider it. 

That paragraph provides that no court, of the United States shall 
have jurisdiction to question proceedings before the Board after the 
hearing in question has been completed. 

I doubt that the Supreme Court would sustain a legislati\e enact- 
ment of this kind, because it can be argued tliat this prohibition seeks 
to impair the functioning of the courts. 

In behalf of court intervention it can be said that if the appeal to the 
court, is a fri^'olous one, the court can quickly so declare. 

I would say that the suggested amendment is a salutaiy one be- 
cause, as the analysis well points out, "The amendment is designed to 
remedy a serious problem in the administration of the title, by pro- 
hibiting a 2:)ractice frequently resulting in inordinate delays and the 
frustration of the purposes and orderly procedures of the title." 

You are confronted here with a ^^eiy extraordinary situation, and 
I am perfectly willing to go this far. But I can understand, as a judge, 
that the judicial^ in general might look askance upon any legislative 
enactment which would say to the courts that you may not take juris- 
diction of a petition or a comphdnt in mandamus or for an injunction. 

I do not believe tliat sections 6, 7, and 8 require any comment, because 
tliey provide for certain conforjuities because of changes already 
described or A\hich need no explanation. 

I cajinot express too emphatically the intense gratification I feel 
in the initiative action taken by this committee to hold firmly with the 
Inte]-nal Security Act against those who would seek to destroy it, 
too-ether with tliis coniinit lee, wliich deserves the gratitude of the 



452 AJVIENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 

entire country for its courage in doing its duty, regardless of the 
attacks made upon it by disloyalists and those who, while lo^-al to this 
country, do consideralile damage to its free institutions by ill-informed, 
misguided, and wholly unfounded criticisms, censures, and 
animadversions. 

A Senator of the United States has declared in a book that this 
committee is "a scourge of the individual whose loyalty to his country 
the members of the Committee may suspect." 

This committee is not a scourge to any j^erson. Xo person who comes 
before this committee is denied the fullest opportunity to tell the 
truth so that he may stand before the world revealed in the best possible 
raiment his own words may clothe him in. Nor can it be said with 
fairness that merely because a. person is invited or subpenaed to 
testify that this stigmatizes him as being unloyal, 

il tiiist that H.E. 10390 will be enacted into law without excessive 
delay, because too long have the Communist Party, its members, and 
members of Communist -front and Communist-infiltrated organiza- 
tions treated with scorn the long-considered and formally enacted laws 
of the United States Congress dedicated to protecting the security of 
the United States. 

Edward S. Montgomery, reporter for the San Francisco Exmmnei\ 
in testifying before the Senate Internal Security committee, said: 

Congress seems to have lost all power in dealing with subversion. For all 
intents and purposes the Smith Act has been gutted. The Internal Security 
Act has been rendered inept. I feel sure I am not alone in feeling that some- 
thing must be done at the legislative level to rectify the havoc that has been 
wrought. 

I do not agree that the Internal Security Act has been rendered 
inept, but there can be no doubt that legislative action is required to 
bring a proper balance to the conflict between the United States Gov- 
ernment and those who would destroy it. 

Legislative action is particularly required to undo the damage done 
by those who are in no way involved with the Communist Party but 
who, by their words and deeds, offer a cloak of protection to those 
intent on overturning the Government of the United States by force 
and violence. 

It has become almost a vogrie among a certain class in the United 
States to treat with scorn those v\'ho see a serious threat to the security 
of our Nation in the machinations, plottmgs, propaganda, and tumult 
engineered by the Communist Party. 

I don't know what kind of myopia afflicts those who still speak 
casually and lightly of Communists in .Vmerica. They utterly ignore, 
as if it did not luippen, the appallingly monstrous fact 

The Chairmak. Judge, at this i)oint, I want to say that I admire 
your sense of balanced judgment in questioning the literal meaning 
of section 5(d), page li, lines 1 to 15, of the bill, because, like you, 
I believe that Ave cannot, and ought not even try to, deny judicial 
review of the actions of the Board. 

However, I point this out, that my interpretation, in fact, in tlie 
analysis of the bill, it is stated that the intent of that sentence is that it 
would deny jurisdiction of Federal courts to entertain dilatory col- 
lateral proceedings, and so on. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 453 

Now, with those qualifying words, I think probably that would be 
lustified. In other words, you take, for instance, the jrreat writ of 
habeas corpus, which is the ori'eatest, I think, of all writs. 

As yon know, that writ has been used by certain people as an oppor- 
tunity to have tlie Federal lower courts review the decisions of the 
hi<rhest courts in the States, by one repetitious writ after another. 
You are familiar with that. 

Judo:e MusMANNo. Yes, I am. 

The Chairman. And three times I was author of, and succeeded 
in pilotinor on the tloor, an amendment — I mean a proposal— which 
would tighten up that practice, so that the great writ of habeas 
corpus should not, in my opinion, as sacred as it is, be used as a tool to 
permit Federal district courts the right to review and overrule, in 
effect, decisions of the highest courts of a State. 

So I say I admire your sense of balanced judgment in raising that 
issue about the wisdom or lack of it in connection with this particular 
section of the bill. But I don't think, however, we are too far apart, 
because my interpretation of it and my idea of its meaning is that it is 
to stop dilatory collateral proceedings of attack, just as you have dila- 
tory attacks in connection with the writ of habeas corpus by low Fed- 
eral court reviews of decisions of highest State courts. 

We can't overrun or modify the letter of a bill by a report, but at 
least we have a right, as a matter of legislative history, to put the intent 
in a report. I mean by that language that no court should be used as a 
means of attacking collaterally and dilatorily the proceedings of the 
Board. 

In that context you wouldn't object too much, would you? 

Judge MusMANNO. The only reason I go along completely with what 
the honored chairman has said is that, being a judge myself and having 
lived in a climate of judicial proceedings now for close to 4 decades, I 
am afraid that if these collateral, dilatory proceedings were per- 
mitted, a judge would wait too long before making his decision. 

If judges were prompt and would quickly dispose of something 
obviously frivolous — and something obviously introduced only to 
delay proceedings — then I don't think you would need this. 

Mr. IcHORD. Will the chairman yield at this point? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. IcHORD. I want to compliment the judge at this time. It is a ^reat 
pleasure, Judge, to have you before the committee. You are making a 
very, very wonderful statement. 

I studied the particular provision under discussion at the present 
time, in my office, before coming to the committee meeting this morn- 
ing, and I feel very strongly that the committee will have to doctor 
up the language of this provision. 

The Chairman. I may agree with you. 

Mr. IcHORD. I think an amendment is in order. 

Now, I agree entirely. I am in total agreement with the chairman 
insofar as his objectives 

Judge MusMANNO. Yes, yes. 

Mr. IcHORD. — are concerned. And I am sure the witness this morn- 
ing is also in agreement. These collateral attacks are being used to de- 
stroy the dispensation of justice, rather than to help the dispensation 
of justice. 

84-351 O— 67- 13 



454 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

Now, the lan^iage reads as follows at the beginning of page 11 : "The 
authority, function, practice" would be 

The Chairman. Would the gentleman yield ? 

Mr. IcHORD. If I may finish this 

The Chairman. I agree. Please proceed, because I want to agree with 
what you are saying — but with one modification, that we may go along 
together, even, on what you say. 

Mr. IcHORD. I think we are all together if we can find a proper 
amendment and the proper language. 

At the top of page 11 is the following: 

The authority, function, practice, or process of the Attorney General or Board 
in conducting any proceeding pursuant to the provisions of this title shall not 
be questioned in any court of the United States, nor shall any such court, or 
judge or justice thereof, have jurisdiction of any action, suit, petition, or pro- 
ceeding, whether for declaratory judgment, injunction, or othrr\vi*e, to question 
such, except on review in the court or courts having jurisdiction of the actions 
and orders of the Board pursuant to the provisions of section 14, or when such 
are appropriately called into question by the accused or respondent 

The Chairman. That is the meat of it all. 
Mr. IcHORD. [Continues reading:] 

as the case may be. in the court or courts having jurisdiction of his prose- 
cution or other proceeding (or the review thereof) for any contempt or any 
offense charged against him pursuant to the provisions of this title. 

Now, the provision seeks to prohibit any collateral attack upon the 
proceedings. 

The Chairman. That is right. 

Mr. Ichord. Before a final order. 

I am wondering if the judge could suggest some approach, some 
different approach. Could we not, perhaps, provide for more prompt 
disposal of such collateral risk, that would be the proper approach, 
rather than prohibit it altogether? 

Judge MusMANNo. Yes, I think that if you would add a period of 
limitation within which the court must act, and if it fails to act within 
that period, then automatically those proceedings would terminate and 
be of no further obstruction in the proceeding of the Board in con- 
nection with the matter before it. 

I think that would be it, because that is the only fear I have. Con- 
gressman, and I know that judges have human frailties and like to 
put aside 

The Chairman. Judge, I want to compliment both you and my 
colleague from Missouri for this colloquy. It is clarifying a lot of 
things in my mind. 

I think the nub and the crux of all of this is that, in effect. I was 
right when I said it prohibits or seeks to limit the raising of dilatory 
and collateral issues. 

In effect, what this statute is saying is that you are entitled to — 
and it sj^ecifically says that you are — a review, but you must first raise 
those points before the Board. That is the nub of it^all. 

Don't you agree with that? 

Judge MusMANNo. But I can see 

Mr. Ichord. I shall visualize a set of circumstances and facts whereby 
there could be need for an immediate appeal — or a collateral attack. 
I can't prohibit it in all cases. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 455 

Therefore, I think that the best procedure would be to limit- 



The Chairman. We could use the word "prompt" or something. 

Judge MusMANNO. I think you should actually indicate a chrono- 
logical limitation. "Prompt" comes back to misbehavior; "prompt'" is 
really a relative term. 

The CiiAiRMAx. Yes. Will counsel keep that in mind before we have 
an executive session on this bill, please ? 

Judge MusMANNo. I would be willing to withdraw any adverse com- 
ment on that provision, if you include that in any appeal to the courts, 
the court must decide within 30 days the objection, and on failure of 
such disposition of the appeal, the Board would proceed as if it had 
not been interrupted in its proceedings. 

Mr. Culver. Sir. Chairman. 

What is the case. Judge, if you have a laz}^ judge'? 

Judge MusMAXNO. That is what I am talking about. 

Mr. Culver. And he is so lazy that even the congressional intent 
doesn't manage to prod him into consideration of the merits of the 
collateral matter before him ? 

Judge MusMAXNO. But that is the reason I say, if he is a lazy judge 
and does nothing for 30 days, the appeal falls. 

Mr. Culver. That really penalizes the person bringing the appeal, 
doesn't it? 

Judge MusMANNo. Yes, it does, unfortunately. But I don't know 
of any other Avay to get around it. 

Certainly, he can then appeal to the Board and say : "I am before 
a lazy judge, and I want this to be on the record." 

And then, eventually, when the case comes up on appeal before a 
final court, the sloth and indifference of this judge may be brought to 
the attention of the people, and he may not like that so much. And 
other judges may be a little more prompt. 

Mr. Culver. That might be very appropriate retribution for the 
lazy judge, but what about the poor individual that didn't have the 
consideration on the merits of his appeal ? 

Judge MusMAxxo. We are hoping 

Mr. CuL^'ER. That's the one to protect, isn't it? 

Judge MusMAxxo. But we are hoping that in the final disposition 
of the case his rights will l^e absolutely guaranteed. 

Mr. IcHORD. If the gentleman will yield, I would point out to the 
gentleman that there would be review. There would be review later on. 

Judge MusMAxxo. Oh, yes, of course ; and the bill provides for th£it. 
The bill provides for a final review. 

Mr. IcHORD. Justice in the law is never going to be any better than 
the human element. 

Judge MusMAxxo. I have in mind an absolutely guiltless individual 
who is brought l3efore the Board, and the Board really has no juris- 
diction. They have nothing to do with this man, and he is being 
harassed, and his name is being slandered, so he goes into court. 

He says : "Now, there is something absolutely wrong about this. My 
fundamental constitutional rights are being violated." 

He should have the right to go into the court, and the court should 
have the duty to dispose of it Avithin a reasonable time. I would say 
"reasonable time" means within 30 days — or even 10 days. If it is a 



456 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

dilatory and irrelevant move, any trained jiidgre can see that in a 
matter of 2 minutes. He doesn't need to ponder on it and sleep on it 
and <ro fishing over it. 

Let him decide, and if he doesn't decide, let the Board proceed. 

I wouldn't say "30 days.'' I would say "10 days." 

Mr. IcHOPU). Wouldn't the witness agree that we have many prece- 
dents in the law, where this lias been speeded up, that we could possibly 
draw from to arrive at the best language? 

Judge MusMANNO. Oh, yes. Yes, you will have no trouble in locating 
the precise language which would achieve this. 

The Chairman. In fact, the right of review itself is limited to a 
matter of days or months ; isn't it ? 

Judge MusMANNO. Oh, yes; certainly. 

The Chairman. As fundamental as that is 

Judge Musmanno. Oh, we have statutes of limitations all through 
the codes. 

Mr. Culver. But in that situation, Mr. Chairman, the burden is on 
the individual, if he has an appeal or if he desires a consideration by 
the court on an appeal, to bring it within a reasonable time. 

The thing that concerns me here is that we are penalizing the indi- 
vidual in the case of a dilatory judge or a lazy judge, and we have no 
recourse to his negligence. 

Judge Musmanno. Yes, but I am sure that as against one dilatoiy 
judge 

Mr. Culver. And the accused is penalized. 

Judge Musmanno. There are hundreds of perfectly conscientious, 
active judges, so that we have to consider the whole picture, and we 
can't build a system of jurisprudence around one lazy, slothful, dila- 
tory, indifferent, incompetent judge. 

The Chairman. And for that kind of judge, you have the writ of 
mandamus. 

Judge Musmanno. Yes. 

Mr. Culver. "Wliat about the doctrine 

Judge Musmanno. And I am for the elective system of the judiciary, 
as we have in our State, so that he can be taken care of. 

The Chairman. To which I say, "Amen." 

Mr. Culver. Judge, is that 10-day limitation 10 working days of the 
judge? Or how are you going to define it? 

Judge Musmanno. For the lazy judge, there will be no "working 
days." [Laughter.] 

Mr. Culver. Say that you are ordered to dispose of this within 10 
days, as I understand it 

Judge Musmanno. I make it 10 calendar days. 

Mr. Culver. Ten calendar days? 

Judge Musmanno. Yes, because I work on Saturdays and Sundays, 
as well as through the week. 

Mr. Culver. You certainly aren't, probably, the "lazy judge." You 
are at the other end of tlie pole. But I think we have to think in terms 
other than the abnormal situation like yourself. 

Judge Musmanno. I don't tliink that he requires 

Mr. Culver. I am sorry? 

Judge Musmanno. I don't think that the situation calls for more 
than 10 days of deliberation. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 457 

Mr. Culver. Would you say characteristically that judges in 
America, regardless of jurisdiction, arc for the most part — their 
dockets are incredibly heavy and their work load is almost too 
burdensome, in most jurisdictions'? 

Judge MusMAXNo. Well, I would like to say this: That a lot of 
crocodile tears are being shed for judges. They are overworked, they 
are harassed, and they are just falling over from exhaustion because 
of the enormous work load, anel yet you will find them on the golf 
links, very often, during the week. 

Mr. Culver. I am sure judges are not free of human imperfections, 
but I think wc have to talk about this in the light of the real world. 
Not judges that work night and day and weekends, but judges in 
terms of the performance of their normal duties as understood in 
the society. 

Judge MusiNiANNO. Yes. But getting back 

Mr. Culver. My concern is if you say 10 days, most judges, you 
know, have as you are well aware, far more 

Judge MusMANNO. I have it; yes. 

Mr. Culver. And to say to him that Congress would like you to 
turn to this matter in 10 days, but if you don't, and you say, "I am 
just very sorry, and in terms of equity and justice in my courtroom, 
even though this is a matter of presenting your pressing urgency and 
even though I appreciate the legislative history that gives rise to this 
timetable" 

The Chairman. May I suggest the consideration 

Mr. Culver. — "I can't turn to that in fairness before I take care of 
these other matters, even if I work weekends." 

Judge MusMANNO. Yes, yes. 

The Chairman. Would the gentleman yield? May I suggest the 
consideration, perhaps, I say only perhaps, of a middle figure. Judge ? 

The good witness, the judge, at first suggested 30 days. He amended 
it to 10, which raises a question in my mind. Would you two perhaps 
be together on this if we made it 20 days ? 

Judge Musmanno. Yes. 

Mr. Culver. Is this a political body? 

The Chairman. Or — well, you certainly can't be disassociated com- 
pletely from politics. When people call me a politician, I say, "I don't 
object to that, provided you call me a good one." [Laughter.] 

Judge Musmanno. I am perfectly 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman, I would go along with the 10 days or 
the 20 days, because I really can't see much point 

The Chairman. The gentleman is the one who prompted the whole 
discussion. 

Mr. IcHORD. Yes; and I can't see much point 

The Chair3ian. I would ask him to join with counsel in trying to, 
as you put it, doctor up this passage a little bit ; would you? 

Mr. Ichord, I shall, Mr. Chairman, but I can't see where the days 
are too important in the case of an indolent or a dilatory or slothful, 
incompetent, lazy judge. Thirty days would be just as bad for him, or 
a year. He might not work for a year. 

The Chairman. If you set a period of limitation you have cut that 
out. That is the whole idea, isn't it. Judge? 



458 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

Judge MusMANNo. That is it, and if it comes within the purview 
of the phrase you haA-e used, dilatory, that should stand out like a bill- 
board to a judge when he glances at the papers. 

The Chairman. By the way, let me say this, my colleague from 
Missouri. I have just looked at the language again. I don't find the 
word "dilatory" in there. I would be willing for you to put the word 
"dilatory" there. 

Mr. IcHORD. I think we can come to the proper language. 

The Chairman. I think so. 

Will you consult with coimsel on that ? 

Mr. IcHORD. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Clawson. Mr. Chairman, before you leave this subject, I don't 
believe that the time element resolves the question in the mind of Mr. 
Culver. He is concerned here about the protection of the individual as 
far as this provision of the act is concerned. However, the observation 
might be made that a dilatory or a lazy judge, of course, is doing dam- 
age to any individual who might be on his docket, wiiether it is in tliis 
act or whether it is in the other act. 

Mr. Culver. Yes, I certainly agree with the gentleman. The exam- 
ple of a lazy judge, not as the isolated extreme, but I think frankly to 
suggest that in the context of the American judiciaiy it would be 
very difficult for any court., upon review of a lower judge's action, 
in this particular situation, to say confidently that this judge was neg- 
ligent in not taking care of it during this timespan. 

Regardless of his own individual work habits, I think that all of 
them are sufficiently burdened, either rightly or wrongly — at least it 
is accepted by every appeal court, that they are. I again am con- 
cerned about the remedy you suggest. I am not interested in penalizing 
the judge, either by defeat at the polls, by writ of mandamus, or by 
criticism upon appeal. 

I don't think that gets to be the problem. For all the frivolous col- 
lateral actions, delaying and dilatoiy tactics, which I find very of- 
fensive, and I w4sh we could reach the problem, what concerns me is 
what do we do with the meritorious one? 

Judge Musmanno. Right. 

Mr. Culver. Wliat do we do with the meritorious one ? 

Now let's hypothetically for a minute consider a case not in terms of 
the Communist obstiiiction tactics, which I can assure you are as of- 
fensive to me as anyone else. This is a comitry founded on laws and 
it is a comitry, too, I hope, concerned more than any other society, with 
justice. 

What about the case where we do have a veiy legitimate and meri- 
torious collateral action pending, and it goes to a judge, and 10 
days, 30 days, 40 days, and he is Judge Learned Hand and he just does 
not get to it ? 

And he knows this, but he has got a workload and a docket here, 
and in terms of his responsibility of discharging fairness and equity 
before the law of the land to everybody that, conies across his desk, 
that order of priority does not permit him to get to that case in time, 
and so, because of his inability, regardless of his work habits, regard- 
less of his ability, physically, to deal with this matter and to give it 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 459 

the proper judicial consideration that he deems it necessary to give 
it to make a judgment, then the right of that individual is lost. 

Judge Ml sMANNO. Yes. 

Mr. Culver. It is no satisfaction to me that that judge is repri- 
manded upon appeal by a higher court saymg, "This is typical of the 
way you work." 

It is no satisfaction to me that somebody can vote him out of office 
at the next election. That is little compensation — in fact, none — to the 
individual who has lost his right, a very legitimate right of appeal. 

Now I realize it is a difficult problem. It is an extremely difficult 
problem, and I just pose that situation and I think it does merit 
serious and sober consideration. And the fact that we are slapping 
the judge's hands has nothing to do with it; it is the individual we are 
concerned about. 

Judge MusMANNO. Yes; but I think that you will concede that the 
hypothetical situation which you have very ably and excellently pre- 
sented is an unusual case. You bring Learned Hand in there, and he 
was a verj' unusual judge. There are very few, and I am sori'y to say, 
Learned Hands in the judicial world, although there are some. 

I don't mean to criticize judges. As a general rule, they are very, 
veiy able, and competent men and jurists, but I don't thiiik that you 
should :penalize the individuals involved in 99 cases because of this 
one case which stands out like a sore thumb of deprivation of consti- 
tutional rights. 

Mr. Cltlver. My concern. Judge, woidd be does it defy the imagina- 
tion of man to come up with a formula that would bring forward 
prompt consideration — I mean, if we can give it additional thought — 
and at the same time, wouldn't have it, unplicit in it, this danger? 

Judge MusMANNo. Yes, yes. I am perfectly willing to run that risk, 
because eventually there is a complete review of the case. And you 
say it is no solace to the individual whose rights have been violated 
that the judge is later reprimanded, but that would be a very miusual 
case, and that would be the price he probably would have to pay, as 
agamst orderly procedure, for the protection and the security offered 
in our comitry. 

So that I am willing to run that risk, of this one individual being 
harassed, embarrassed, and annoyed, so that the othei-s, the other 
cases, may proceed properly and expeditiously. 

Mr, Culver. Do we have administrative evidence to date to justify 
that risk to an individual? Has our exjierience wath regard to col- 
lateral actions and the ability of the court in the normal course to 
dispose of them promptly been so totally unsatisfactory that we are 
willing to run the risk of this one individual or this handful of indi- 
viduals over the course of time having meritorious actions which 
are lost? 

I am asking as a point of information. 

Judge MusMANNO. Well, Congressman Culver, you know that our 
law books, our statute books are just filled with statutes of limitations. 

The Chairman. That is right, this is the point. 

Judge MusMANNO. My heavens, our whole system of law is based 
upon 



460 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

Mr. Culver. But let's look at the burden upon the statutes of limita- 
tions. The burden on the statute of limitations is on the Government 
or the State to bring a criminal action within a certain period, not on 
the individual. Now 

Judge MusMANNO. All right. 

Mr. Culver. Now it is on the individual, tliat is in the case where he 
has a civil action, a potential civil action, which he might wish to see 
ripen. Well then, he has to, within a certain time, for very excellent 
reasons, make known in the appropriate way before the appropriate 
courts, and the individuals involved, that he has this action and he 
wishes to exercise it. 

But this is a far different situation than putting the burden on a 
judge, who has no interest particularly whatsoever as an arm of the 
Stat«, as an instrument of the State, in tenns of prosecution, or cer- 
tainly as an individual with a just grievance, where he has a legal 
recourse under our laws to exercise it. 

We are talking about the protection of this individual, and the 
statutes of limitations are used to bring about meritorious considera- 
tion and the cause of action is lost, as you fully appreciate, by that 
individual, if he does not do it within the time specified. But that is a 
far different thing than saying that individual's cause of action is lost 
if the judge does not wish to comply with the so-called statute of 
limitations. 

Judge MusMANNO. Yes. 

Mr. Culver. Isn't that true ? 

Judge MusMANNO. That is true, but I still come back to the proposi- 
tion that you are confronted with a condition and not a theory. The 
Board must act. The security of the Nation is involved in a given 
situation. 

And the attorneys for the individuals being questioned go into court 
with no other purpose than to delay proceeding. They have, in this 
particular registration business, done so now for 15 years. 

Mr. Culver. Seventeen, Judge. 

Judge MusMANNo. All right, 17. And the judge, he is overworked. 
I will go along with that, and he just does not get to it. And because 
of the statute of limitations, this man's rights have in some way been 
infringed. Eventually he will be vindicated by the court of appeals. 

I don't see that he is going to be harmed so much that we can jettison 
the rights in the other 99 cases, because of this one unfortunate and 
rarely to happen case of a judge who is so absolutely overworked or so 
unconcerned about responding to his conscientious duty that he will 
allow a simple motion made for delay to remain on his desk, gathering 
dust, for months or years. 

Mr. Ichord. In other words. Judge, you wouM say that you might 
feel differently in the case of a criminal proceeding, and I think we 
have gotten a little out of context ; this is not a criminal proceeding. 

Judge MusMANNO. That is right, and we must keep in mind that 
here the Board is seeking to get facts so as to register these Communist 
organizations. 

Mr. Culver. I think you would be the first to agree that we are 
dealing with an area where the civil, criminal distinctions hardly 
apply. At best, we are in a gray area here, and certainly the social con- 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 461 

sequences of having a reputation tarnished by association with the type 
of situation that wo are involved in now, certainly, is similar if not 
the same as a criminal action, in terms of the sensitivity of our courts. 

Judge MusMANNo. I agree with you. 

Mr. CuLVEK. I think it almost approximates that. 

Judge JSIusMANNO. Oh, yes, yes. I agree with you that a man's name 
is his greatest wealth and should not be tarnished unjustly. 

Shall I proceed, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Yes, please. 

Judge MusMANNO. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what kind of 
myopia afflicts those who still speak casually and lightly of Commu- 
nists in America. They utterly ignore, as if it did not happen, the 
appalling monstrous fact that it was a Communist who committed 
the most infamous crime of the century — the murder of the President 
of the United States. 

They do not seem to equate the foe in Vietnam with the Communist 
Party, but the fact remains that every American soldier killed in the 
jungles of Vietnam is done to death by a fanatic adherent of the same 
revolutionary policy, which is the guiding plan of the Communist 
Party in America. 

They do not see any connection or, if they do, they assign to it no 
significance, that the vile creatures who burned the flag, the symbol of 
our Nation, in Central Park, New York, and in other places in the 
country, were Communists. 

The Communist Party in America is an organization that has but 
one purpose and that is conspiratorially to aid Russia in establishing 
the dictatorship of the proletariat in America. 

I know that for a certain period the Communist Party in America 
seemed to have lost its potency, but we have it on the authority of no 
less an informed and authoritative person than J. Edgar Hoover, 
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who said that the 
Communist Party has surfaced as a "unified, hard-hitting, well-orga- 
nized conspiracy," to promote a "class revolution in the United States." 
He said further that "The party has been watching with uninhibited 
glee the rise of so-called 'new left' organizations and groups, which 
have culminated in 'peace' marches, protest demonstrations against 
American policy in Vietnam, and turmoil on college and university 
campuses." 

He said in addition that the Communist Party has been able to put 
on a youth drive since it gained new freedoms of action mider Supreme 
Court decisions invalidating portions of the 1950 Internal Security 
Act. 

By H.R. 10390 this committee seeks to repair the holes below the 
waterline of the Internal Security Act resulting from some decisions 
of our Federal courts, and I trust that the Congress will quickly adopt 
the committee's recommendations. 

I would respectfully suggest that the committee go further and 
make additional recommendations. The Federal courts have nullified 
State laws enacted to protect the inhabitants of those States from 
subversive elements and influences. Where the security of our coimtry 
is involved, Congress should look with a zealously scrutinizing eye on 



462 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

decisions of the courts which weaken the Nation's defenses against the 
Communist fifth column. 

Wliere self-preservation is involved, Congress should draw on its 
constitutional powers to assert the supremacy of the j^eople, the sov- 
ereign jurisdiction of the United States. 

In the case of Keyishian v. The Board of RegerUs, decided January 
23, 1967, Justice Clark, speaking for a minority of four against a ma- 
jority of five, said, "the majority has by its broadside swept away one 
of our most precious rights, namely, the right of self-preservation." 

The Chairmax. Self-preservation ? 

Judge MusMANNO. In that case, the Supreme (^ourt, I rei>eat, by a 
vote of five to four, invalidated the laws of New York, and, of course, 
all the laws of States throughout the United States. 

The Chairman. You are talking about the Feinberg law t 

Judge MusMANNO. Yes, which empowered school boards and school 
superintendents to dismiss teachers and professors who advocated in 
the schoolroom the overthrow^ing of our Government by force and 
violence. 

The majority opinion said that there should be no infringement on 
academic freedom, and I submit that from the majority opinion could 
flow^ not academic freedom, but academic anarchy. 

Under the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Keyishian case, a 
Communist who has been instructed in Moscow on how to blow up 
schoolhouses and assassinate the President of the ITnited States, Mem- 
bers of Congress, and the Supreme Court itself may not be denied 
a job in the schools of the United States where he may teach the doc- 
trine that the Government of the United States should be destroyed 
by armed might and physical turbulence. 

The most elementary jurisprudence, to say nothing of the supreme 
law of self-preservation, repudiates the proposition that a Communist 
has the right in our schools, or anywhere for that matter, to advocate 
the destruction of our Government by bombs, steel, and fire when all 
of America's might, wealth, resources, and blood are today committed 
to protecting ourselves — our very lives, to say nothing of our dignity 
and right to worship God — from Communist annihilation. 

Most of the calamities of the world and mankind since the end of 
World War I have been due to the Communists. There would have 
been no World War II if Communist Russia had not allied itself Avith 
Nazi Germany to destroy Poland, and thus break open the dikes of 
unrestrained sanguinary war. 

I am a Justice of the Supreme Court of Pemisylvania and have worn 
the judicial robe now for some 35 years. I would be the last person in 
the world to cast any discredit on our judicial system, but I have no 
hesitancy in saying that what the majority of one Justice said in the 
Keyishian case is not a reflection of the law of the land, the spirit of 
the land, and the God-p-iven ri.qfht to unhold one's ^jelf-presei-^^ation. 

Nevertheless the Keyishian decision is the law of the land, and I 
believe that this committee should recommend to the Congress that 
that decision be overridden. Our Government is one of checks and bal- 
ances, each department checking on the actions and powers of the 
other two. 



AMENmNG THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 463 

I believe, and I recommend, that where national security is at stake, 
Congress should exercise its constitutional power to \^eto decisions of 
the Supreme Court which in their natural application could alter the 
democratic institutions on which this Nation was foimded and even- 
tually imperil the lives of its people. 

Particularly should this be true where the decisions of the Supreme 
Court are rendered by so scant a majority as one judge. We have heard 
much of the doctrine of one person, one vote, but we should not have 
the doctrine of one judge, one law for the United States. 

I entertain not the slightest doubt that such a law enacted by Con- 
gress would be constitutional. The power of the Supreme Court to de- 
clare unconstitutional laws enacted by Congress does not appear in 
the Constitution. 

I agree it is an inevitable and proper interpretation of the Con- 
stitution and I submit that that same interpretation would apply to 
congressional power to overrule 5 to 4 decisions of the Supreme Court. 

As Congress may override the veto of the President on a two-thirds 
\'ote, it should have the same power, under the circumstances I have 
here outlined, to veto by a two-thirds vote the decisions of the Supreme 
Court where, I repeat, national security is involved. 

I thank you. 

The Chairman. Judge, I think you have made a magnificent state- 
ment and a great contribution to the purpose of this legislation. I 
thank you immensely. 

Judge MusMAXNO. You are very welcome, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CuL\TER. Mr. Chairman, may I also thank the judge for your 
kindness in testifying before us and your very useful observations. 

Judge MusMANNO. Thank you, and Congressman, your observations 
have helped me considerably in evaluating this entire situation. 

Mr. Cl.vwsox. May I ask just one question ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Clawsox, Judge, you have indicated one apparent weakness that 
you felt was in section 5, paragraph 4. Are there any others in the 
language of this bill which you feel need carrection or amplification ? 

Judge MusMANNO. No, no, on the contrary 

The Chairman. And your suggestion w^as so valuable that it prompts 
me to tell you that it is going to be given very careful consideration, 
that paragraph 5(d) you talked about. 

Judge Musmanno. Yes, I am very happy I could be of help. That 
provision hit me immediately as I read it. 

The Chairman, That is why I compliment you and your balanced 
judgment. You have very pronounced views, but they are well balanced. 

Judge Musmanno. Thank you very, very much. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. IcHORD. Judge, I was very interested in the last two paragraphs 
of your statement. It is your opinion then that a proper interpreta- 
tion of the Constitution would give the Congress of the United States 
the power to override a decision of the United States Supreme Court, 
the same as it explicity has in the case of a Presidential veto? 

Judge Musmanno. By a two-thirds vote, yes. 



464 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

Mr. IcHORD. You think the proper interpretation would give Con- 
gress that authority, without the necessity of a constitutional amend- 
ment ? 

Judge MusMANNo. Yes, without the necessity of a constitutional 
amendment. I feel not only does it have that power, but I believe that 
conditions demand that the power be exercised. I cannot possibly accept 
that Keyishian decision. 

The Chairman. And you would make the fraction three-fourths. 

Judge MusMANNO. Two-thirds, but even three-fourths, if neces- 
sary. 

The Chairman. Instead of two-thirds, for the overruling of a veto ? 

Judge MusMANNO. Yes, I would be willmg to put it that way, be- 
cause this would be a drastic procedure. In other words, the decision of 
the Supreme Court of the United States should be so appallingly of- 
fensive to our concept of what is needed to protect our comitry 

The Chairman. Let me say this, sir. Up until about 4 years ago, I 
was chairman of an active subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee 
called the Special Subcommittee To Study the Decisions of the Su- 
preme Court of the United States. 

One decision reviewed was the Nelson case, to which you made col- 
laterial reference, and that decision was — let me put it this way — I 
found this: That once the Supreme Court reaches a constitutional 
issue, then we are locked in a box. 

As long as it involves an interpretation of an act of Congress, there 
is no doubt of our ability to do something. But once the decision rests 
on constitutional gromids, then we are faced with the constitutional 
provisions regarding its amendment, and I must say that your sugges- 
tion about the power of Congress to overrule a decision of the Supreme 
Court has some appeal to me, but I would say in differing slightly with 
you that that would require a constitutional amendment. Offhand, I 
would say that. But it appeals to me so much that I might offer such a 
proposed amendment some of these days. 

Judge Musmanno. Very well. I would be very happy if you would. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman, while we have the distinguished jurist 
before us, I would like to ask the counsel one question, and perhaps 
would like to have the jurist comment upon what he believes we should 
do. Now, Mr. Counsel, section 6 of the Internal Security Act reads as 
follows : 

"Wlien a Communist organization as defined in paragrapli (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 unla\\^ul for any member of such orga- 
nization, with knowledge or notice that such organization is so registered or 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. 

Now this bill does not touch that section of the Internal Security 
Act. 

The Chairman. Well, that section, section 6, was declared uncon- 
stitutional, but I can say this, that I have introduced a bill to respect 
tliat court decision which would give effect to section 6. 

I have a bill to try to cure that, in other words. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 465 

Mr. IcHORD. Well now, if I may proceed, this is one of the sanctions 
which will come into operation if the individual is found by final order 
of the Board to be a Connnunist; whether or not it will stand up is 
another question. 

It has been stricken out. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mv. IcHORD. I thought that was the question that I had. The Su- 
preme Court case had negated that provision 

The Chair]man. Yes. 

Mr. IcnoRD. — of the Internal Security law\ Then, Mr. Chairman, 
do you not feel that we should deal with this section and try to obtain 
the proper amendment that will stand up in this law>i That is my 
question. 

The Chairman. May I suggest something? I would be tickled to 
death to then submit to the gentlemen a bill that I have addressing it- 
self to this limited point about section 6. 

Mr. IcHORD. You feel that should be dealt with in separate legisla- 
tion? 

The Chairman. No, not necessarily. I would be so happy if the gen- 
tlemen and I could word my broad bill in such short style that maybe 
it could be made part of this very statute that we are trying to enact. 

Do you see what I mean ? Maybe we could lock my bill on to this, if 
it appeals to you. 

Mr. IcHORD. Yes, well, let's discuss that. 

The Chairman. Yes, we will discuss that. 

Mr. Ichord. I have other questions dealing with various provisions 
of the legislation, but I think we can take that up in executive session. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. IcHORD. Thank you very much. Judge, for your appearance to- 
day. 

Judge Musmanno. You are very welcome indeed, Mr. Chairman. 

I feel honored to have been invited to appear here and I trust that 
I may have submitted 

The Chairman. It was a pleasure and an honor to have you, sir. 

Judge MrsMANNO. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Our next scheduled witness is the Honorable Loyd 
AVright, formerly president of the American Bar Association and 
Chairman of the Commission on Government Security. 

Mr. Wright, we are delighted to have you. 

STATEMENT OF LOYD WRIGHT/ FORMER PRESIDENT, 
THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 

Mr. Wright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Do you have a prepared statement? 

Mr. Wright. I have one that I will work from. 



^ Loyd Wright, a former president of the American Bar Association (1954-55), is the 
only lionorary life president of the International Bar Association. A practicing attorney in 
I..OS Angeles since 1915, he received his LL.B. from the University of Southern California, a 
doctor of law degree from Ottawa University, and has served as president of both the 
Los Angeles County Bar Association and the State bar of California. He is a graduate of 
the Command and General Staff School at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, served as Chairman 
of the Commission on Government Security (1955-57) and is presently chairman of the 
National Strategy Commission of the American Security Council. 



466 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 

The Chairman. Oh, I have it right before me. I am sorry. 

Mr. Wright. Yes, sir. 

I notice in reading testimony that generally, the witness identifies 
himself. 

The Chahiman. And states for the record the capacity in which he 
appears. 

Mr. Wright. Yes, sir; my name is Loyd Wright. I was admitted 
to the bar in California June 15, 1915. 

The Chairman. That is slightly before the day before yesterday. 

Mr. Wright. Yes, sir. 

I have practiced continuously in my native city and State since 
then, excepting for an enforced absence during the First World War, 
for about 18 or 19 months, and for a year and a half when I was here 
acting as Chairman of the Commission on Government Security. I 
have had many honors from my profession, and I am past president 
of the Los Angeles County bar, the State bar of California, and the 
American Bar Association, and I am the only honorary life president 
of the International bar. I am not here testifying for any bar as- 
sociation. 

I am here testifying as an individual, interested in this country, 
concerned, frustrated at what is going on. 

Mr. Clawson. Mr. Chairman, may I as a fellow Californian welcome 
Mr. Wright here ? He is well known in our community, and his opin- 
ions and philosophy and background have the respect of almost every 
Californian in our State, not only in his own Los Angeles area, but 
throughout our State and the Nation, I am sure, and I am happy to 
see him as a witness here today. 

Mr. Wright. Thank you. Congressman Clawson. Mr. Chairman and 
Gentlemen of the Committee : I would first like to express my appre- 
ciation for this opportunity to discuss the vital necessity of the Con- 
gress approving the substance of H.R. 10391 or H.R. 10681. Before 
launching upon a discussion of the merits, as I see them, may I be 
privileged, on behalf of the millions of Americans who seem to be 
inarticulate, but who thoroughly applaud the tenacity with which 
you, Mr. Chairman, and your distinguished associates of the com- 
mittee have followed through to protect the security of our Nation 
against the insidious, criminal conspiracy of the gangsters of the 
Kremlin and others, such as Castro, who would subvert us and destroy 
that form of government under which our Nation has grown great 
and under which form of government our people have enjoyed priv- 
ileges and opportunities and freedoms never before known to man- 
kind. You have been damned by various leftist groups, but I want to 
assure you that an overwhelming majority of our citizens believe in 
you and your work, and applaud your efforts. 

Not only does this committee have the confidence of the majority 
of loyal Americans, but a vast majority of them would hope that the 
Congress would increase your appropriations so that you can combat 
the accelerated efforts to subvert our form of government. On the 
scene, comparatively new, is Castro, who threatens revolutions 
throughout the south; Red China is exerting its influence in Africa 
and throughout the world; the various satellites to whom we give 
our taxpayers' money are furnishing arms and support to the enemy 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 467 

in Vietnam; and it is absolutely essential that this committee be suf- 
ficiently financed to keep pace with the current accelerated efforts 
of our enemies. 

The security of the Nation has been imperiled by the decisions, gen- 
erally 5-4 or 6-3, of a Supreme Court which has taken to itself the 
prerogative of invading the legislative function of our national Gov- 
ernment and imposing its will on the several States irrespective of 
the provisions of the 10th amendment. They have written into law 
ideological philosophies, often in complete disregard of the established 
law, and have well-nigh destroyed congressional efforts to preserve 
our national security. 

As I understand it, we are here to rectify some of the tragic damage 
done to the statutes that have been passed by the Congress to secure 
our Nation against the Communist conspiracy and kindred influences. 

I have with me, and seek permission, Mr. Chairman, to introduce 
as an exhibit, a rather detailed analysis of many of the decisions that 
have caused havoc to our security program, written by the Honorable 
Harold W. Kennedy, county counsel of Los Angeles, and which report 
points out in considerable detail the transgressions of the Court upon 
commonsense and common understanding of the law. 

The ChairMx\n. Sir, just as a matter of personal information to 
guide my ruling, about how many pages does that involve? 

Mr. Wright. What, sir ? 

The Chairman. About how many pages are involved ? 

Mr. Wright. I have 12. 

The Chairman. How many ? 

Mr. Clawson. That is Mr. Kennedy's 

The Chairman. I am talking about the Kennedy study. 

Mr. Wright. Oh, no, no. 

Mr. Clawson. It is longer than that, I think, Mr. Wright, because 
I have read this, too. 

Mr. Wright. I don't think you will have it, as yet. It is of great 
length. 

The Chairman. Well I would say then the document will be re- 
ceived and kept in our files, and carefully read and considered, but 
in view of its length, I don't think I would burden the record with 
printing it at this point. 

Mr. Wright. No, my purpose is to assist. 

The Chairman. All right, it will be received for the file and for 
consideration. 

Mr. Wright. And I have also the copy of the report of the Special 
Committee on Coimnunist Tactics, Strategy and Objectives of the 
American Bar Association, which also analyzes these decisions, and I 
will seek permission to introduce that. 

The Chairman. Well how^ many pages in the analysis of the de- 
cisions ? 

Mr. Wright. It is quite long. 

The Chairman. Well, then I had better receive it for the file 
only. You see what I am after. A document of reasonable length is 
usually welcome to be printed in the record at the point involved, but 
in this case I think I had better receive them only for the files. 

Mr. Wright. Mr. Chairman, I am perfectly agreeable. 



468 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

The Chairman. Is that satisfactory? 

Mr. Wright. My purpose in bringing them is to be of assistance to 
the staff. 

The Chairman. Thank you so much, and I am sure they will be 
carefully read and considered. 

Mr. Wright. I could talk a week on these decisions to no purpose. 
They are all there. 

The Chairman. All right. 

I might suggest this bare possibility, sir, that maybe at least analysis 
by the American Bar committee of the documents of the Kennedy 
brochure referred to, that that might be made a part of the appendix 
of this record. But we will consider what to do with them, but in any 
event we appreciate the offer, and they will at the very least be care- 
fully considered and received for the file.^ 

Mr. Wright. Mr. Chairman, I have additional copies of the Ken- 
nedy report, which I wall give to Mr. McNamara. 
The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Wright. And I will have sufficient copies of the other, I did 
not bring them this morning because they are too heavy. 
The Chairman. It is all right. 

Mr. Wright. It is regrettable that the members of this distinguished 
committee should be compelled to play legal chairs with what was 
generally accepted, before 1952, as the greatest Court in the history 
of the world. It is a difficult undertaking to repair legal fences, and 
I commend the committee and its staff for the splendid job it has 
undertaken in H.R. 10390 and the identical bills introduced therewith. 
One of the finest expositions on communism and the responsibility 
of the Congress in expressing the wnll of the people in dealing there- 
with, was the report of the American Bar committee. 

The Chairman. I might point out that these companion bills, 
10390 and 10391, represent a completely bipartisan approach to this 
problem, because one of them I introduced under a new provision 
of the House rules permitting multiple sponsorship, and 24 Demo- 
crats joined me in doing so, and immediately the same day, the 
minority leader on this committee, Mr. Ashbrook of Ohio, joined by 
24 Republicans, introduced his bill, and this is the greatest number 
of Members of the House to introduce a bill in the history of the 
House. 

Mr. Wright. I was surprised and greatly pleased at the number of 
people who advocated it. 

The Chairman. Under the new rule. 

Mr. Wright. I had the privilege, Mr. Chairman, of reading the 
testimony of Mr. Stanley Tracy at your preceding meetings, and I 
would like to identify myself with that testimony and adopt it. 

I find myself in complete agreement w^ith the objectives of H.R. 
10390, except for two particulars about which I will subsequently 
comment. In my opinion, each proposal is constitutional and valid. 
The question arises, however, how to compel the majority of the 
Supreme Court to apply the law in lieu of their personal predilections. 



1 Documents retained in committee files. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 469 

A law of course is useless if it is not enforced. Attorneys General make 
incredible statements that, in my opinion, run counter to fact and 
weaken our whole eti'ort to contain the Communists. By way of an 
example, on August 17 of last year. Attorney General Katzenbach 
said, "'There was no indication that the riots (which were sweeping 
the country) were planned, controlled or run by extreme left wing 
elements.*" But rather he took an academic excursion and said that 
the ''agitators responsible for recent riots were disease, despair, job- 
lessness, hopelessness, the rat infested housing, and long impacted 
cynicism." 

There is ample evidence to prove to the contrary : The FBI reports 
on the W. E. B. DuBois Club, the statements by Director Hoover by 
testimony before grand juries, and by speakers known to be Com- 
munists urging people to riot, make it impossible for me to under- 
stand how a man so high in Government circles, and so important in 
the proper functioning of controlling this evil, could make such a 
statement. 

I have been searching in my own mind for some way to control the 
explosive statements that are made both by people in Government and 
by people such as Carmichael or Luther King. I have not been smart 
enough to evolve anything that I could present to this committee, but 
I hope sometime someone will. The people of the Nation are entitled to 
have emphasized and to know what is going on, and they are kept in 
the dark, in spite of the great acceleration in the transmission of news. 
Ml'. Chairman, you and this distinguished committee are now con- 
fronted with what is going to happen when the Supreme Court gets 
the opportunity to distort H.R. 10390 or some of its important provi- 
sions. I took the trouble to make a compilation as of 1958 of the 
Supreme Court decisions, and this is what I found : 

Since 1919 through Jmie 2, 1958, the Supreme Court rendered 
84 decisions involving Communists and their subversive activities 
in cases where the position of the individual Judge could be 
determined. 

In the 24-year period from 1919 to 1942, when a majority of the 
Court were experienced Judges who had had training either on 
the bench or in practice, the Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction 
of but 11 of these cases. During that time such men as Brandeis, 
Cardozo, Hughes, and other great Judges were members of the 
Court. Of these 11 cases, 7 were decided against the Communist 
position and in favor of the Government and in 4 the Communist 
position was sustained. 

Since 1943, 73 cases involving Communists or subversion have 
been taken on and decided by the Supreme Court. Thirty-four of 
these were taken over during the period 1943-1953, and in 19 of 
these cases the Court held contrary to the position advanced by the 
Communists, and in 15 cases upheld the position taken by the 
Conmiunists. 

Since October 1953 to and including June 2, 1958, or in a period 
of approximately 5 years under the Chief Justiceship of Warren, 
the Court accepted jurisdiction in the fantastic total of 39 of 
these cases. Thirty of these decisions, almost every one a split 



84-351 O— 67 14 



470 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

decision, sustained the position advocated by the Communists, and 
only nine sustained the position of the Government. 

In reference to the individual voting. Justice Black participated 
in 71 cases, and 71 times he voted to sustain the position advocated 
by the Communists; Justice Douglas participated in 69 cases, and 
voted 66 times for the Communist position; Justice Frankfurter 
participated in 72 cases, and his record is for the Communist 
viewpoint 56 times, anti-Communist 16 times; Chief Justice War- 
ren has participated in 39 cases, and voted pro-Communist 36 
times and anti-Communist 3 times. 

I have not the facilities or the staff to bring this sad story down to 
date, but should it be brought down to date I am positive that the 
record would be no better than it was at the end of 1958. In fact it 
would probably be worse. 

Mr. Clawson. The copy we have says 68, and you mean 58. 

Just a typographical error in the copy there, I see. 

Mr. Wright. Oh. 

Mr. Clawson. It may not be on yours, but it was on ours, Mr. 
Wright. 

The Chairman. What page is that? 

Mr. Clawson. It is on page 8, second line. 

Mr. Wright. I don't mean, of course, by inference to suggest that 
these distinguished men are Communists, but I do mean that if the 
Government is wrong so many times, then there is something wrong 
with the Government, and I have always had confidence in my Govern- 
ment and I still have faith in it. 

We are suffering from a Court predominated by men who do not 
recognize the restraint that they should exercise, and that has been the 
constant preachment of every great Justice that has been on the Su- 
preme Court, starting with Chief Justice Marshall and ending with 
Justice Black, just a few months ago. 

Now there are one or two provisions that I have a question about. 
One was discussed by the distinguished judge. The word "misbehave." 
Mr. Chairman, I can just see certain other judges licking their chops 
when this comes before them. What is "misbehave"? 

I think it is too uncertain and too indefinite to lay down ground 
rules. I will give you an example. A couple of weeks ago, in a Los 
Angeles Superior Court, a little girl came in dressed in one of these 
miniskirts, and the judge sent her home, told her she should not come 
to court unless she was properly clothed. 

She came back the next day, fully dressed. In the adjacent court- 
room a lady judge was having her picture taken in a miniskirt. So who 
is going to tell what conduct is, unless you tie it down? 

I have had clients who insisted on chewing toothpicks when on the 
witness stand. And I think, except for my long friendship with the 
judge, he would probably have been held m contempt. You can go to 
some courts in the cow counties and they don't pay any attention. 

So I would think that it be essential that either you spell out what 
conduct is, by reference to the judicial canon of ethics or the Ameri- 
can bar canon of ethics for lawyers or that you have the Subversive 
Activities Control Board adopt rules of ethics. 

It is a disgrace what has happened in this room from time to time. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 471 

I know menibei"s of the American Civil Liberties Union have, in my 
opinion, prompted witnesses to misbehave so that they have another 
bow, another arrow, when they went up to court. 

You can't depend upon emotional people to conduct themselves 
properly in court, and this is a quasi-court. 

Another matter about the bill that distresses me somewhat 

The Chairman. Mr. AVritrht, have you thought about a different 
word or a phrase to substitute for "misbehavior' ? 

Mr. "\\"mGiiT. I think you have got to relate it to well-established 
custom of the Federal courts or State courts. We have built up over 
the years 

The Chairman. In other words, "the behavior shall conform to," 
and so on. 

Mr. AYright. It has got to be specific, I am afraid. Don't forget this 
very Supreme Court tliat is going to pass on this has said that the 
Govermnent has got to prove that a member who joins the Communist 
Party knew what the purposes were. 

If there was anyone old enough and smart enough to join anything 
who does not know what the Communist purpose is, I don't know 
how you would impress it on hmi. 

In a matter of trying to cure the effect of Justice Goldberg's deci- 
sion in the Aptheker case versus the Secretary of State, dealing with 
passports, I find no basis for the statement that a passport is a matter 
of right. There is nothing in the Constitution that says so. There is 
nothing in the Bill of Eights that says so. It is a privilege. And priv- 
ileges are only handed to those who are worthy. 

Now if I so conduct myself that by my associations or by my past 
conduct or by my past record it is indicated I want to go down to 
Mexico and stir up trouble, why should I have a passports 

Or take another example, take Dr. Luther King, w^ho is advocat- 
ing — I think he calls it^ — civil disobedience. Well, there is no such 
thing as civil disobedience. All disobedience of law is criminal. Asso- 
ciate Justice Wliittaker, retired, wxnt around the country making a 
speech. And he forcibly pointed that out. 

But let's take King, as today. After he has been i^ublicizing that 2 
weeks hence we will have civil disobedience all over the Nation, and 
suppose he wanted a passport, to go to Panama, Venezuela, or Mexico 
to stir up civil disobedience ? Is he entitled to it ? 

I say "no," I don't think it is commonsense and I therefore urge 

The Chairman. By the way, Mr. Wright, I have a pending bill 
which is designed to take care of the passport decision you referred to 
which invalidated section 6 of the Internal Security Act, Hearings on 
it will be held later, 

Mr, Wright. I have read that bill with a great deal of interest and 
1 approve it, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to propose, however, that every passport that is issued 
bear the fingerprint of the person to whom it is issued. You have to do 
that when you get a driver's license. 

Your files are filled with cases where spurious passj)orts were used 
by Communists to get into this country, and the only identification 
that is any good is your fingerprint. 

We know^ what happened when these foolish people went over to 



472 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

Spain and fought with the Communists. The Americans went over, 
and many Commmiists said : "Well, you let us have your passports, 
and we will keep them for you. And they will be safe." 

Well, of course, they never got them back. And the Communists 
went all over their own country, found people who looked enough 
like these miserable passport, pictures, and they all came in here to 
America. 

So I think we are long overdue for that kind of commonsense pro- 
tection. It does not, in my opinion, violate my rights. 

Just as a driver's license is a privilege, so is a passport a privilege. 
And if you have got my fingerprints on it, I can't sneak over to Switz- 
erland and make a deal with some foreign agent. 

I believe the Congress has been remiss in not doing it, and I would 
like, Mr. Chairman, if the statf would peruse the report of the Com- 
mission on Government Security, in regard to certain recommenda- 
tions, we recommend that the matter be transferred primarily to the 
Attomej' General. 

There are less political considerations in the Attorney General's 
office than in the State Department. And we recommend the finger- 
printing. 

I have one suggestion that I would like to make. I have tried it out 
on many lawyers that I think are staimch constitutional lawyers, and 
that is this : 

First, remember that there is reposed in the Congress the full au- 
thority to set forth the rules of appeal, the jurisdiction of appeal 
to the Supreme Court. The right to go to the Court, as I said before, 
is not a matter of right. It is a grant, and it is a privilege. 

You can't demand certiorari. The damage has been done, in my 
opinion, practically wholly by the split decisions, as a result of which 
the law which has been accepted for years has been changed or the 
concept of the Constitution that has been accepted for a number of 
years has been changed. 

It ends up frequently that one man, who has no responsibility di- 
rectly to the |)eople, who is politically appointed, amends the Con- 
stitution, if they are five to four; or if it is a six to three, it is three 
men. 

Yet when you have a constitutional amendment proposed, it is 
required that three-fourths of the States approve it before it becomes 
effective. 

Wliy not, Mr. Chairman, require every decision of the Supreme 
Court of the United States dealing with a State constitution or the 
United States Constitution have the same proportion of signatures 
before it is valid ? 

I was very much interested in the argument this morning with the 
distinguished gentleman. I got the uncomfortable feeling we were 
trying to make laws and recommendations for the lowest average 
of citizenship and were penalizing the higher percentage. 

There is, of course, no average. Everybody is equal under the law. 
But we have got to be realistic. We have got to recognize that the 
Supreme Court is filled by political favors, to appointees, and until 
and imless somebody has got the courage to get through legislation 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 473 

or a constitutional amendment that the best shall only be appointed, 
we will continue to have this trouble. 

Now we have run the gauntlet of it in States. We have adopted the 
Missouri system that works very well. We have something similar in 
most of the States now, where an effort is being made to take the ap- 
pointment of the judiciary' out of the gutter, out of the political gutter, 
and I don't think we are going to improve it in the Federal bench. 

Both parties are at fault. The Democrats appoint nothing but Demo- 
crats, and the Kepublicans appoint nothing but Republicans. Once in 
awhile, to make a grandstand play, iu\ administration will appoint one 
of the opposite party, but not very often. 

It sems to me that tlie only way that you can safely attack this, or 
you will be constantly in here trying to remedy what the Court says 
about your bill — I think your bill is good. It should be held constitu- 
tional, but I do hope that you might attach, or get the Congress to 
adopt, a provision that requires three- fourths of the Court, if the case 
involves the Constitution. 

Mr. IcHORD. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Wright a question at this 
point? 

The Chairman. Surely. 

Mr. Wright. Surely. 

Mr. IcHORD. Has such a resolution been entertained by the American 
Bar Association, Mr. Wright ? 

Mr. Wright. That I am proposing? 

Mr. Ichord. Yes. 

Mr. Wright. Yes. I proposed it first about, oh, 15 or 20 years ago. 

Mr. Ichord. I know it has been proposed. Has it been considered ? 

Mr. Wright. No ; they have done nothing about it. 

Mr. Ichord. Has a formal resolution been passed ? 

Mr. Wright. No. I am sorry to say, they are sometimes as emotional 
as other people. But I haven't found anyone that has a valid objection 
to it. 

If they are going to change the Constitution, if they are going to 
upset the State constitutions, w4iy in the name of high heaven shouldn't 
they do it by enough votes, so that it has merit? 

And it doesn't depend upon just one. Look at what the Court has 
done in criminal activities. A policeman has got to 

The Chairman. Well, sir, the Constitution itself speaks of fractions 
when it comes to amending it ; doesn't it? 

Mr. Wright. Well, if the Constitution provided that the Supreme 
Court should have appellate jurisdiction, as a matter of right, that 
would be one thing. But I have read you these figures. It shows an 
instability that I can't understand. 

They seem to jump at a criminal case where there is a technicality, 
where a man, a felon — You have in Washington a fellow who has, I 
think, been up for murder four times, whom they let loose. 

It just isn't natural. Now what does it amount to? I don't know. Why 
the Court has that disposition, I don't know. 

Mr. Ichord. Mr. Wright, do you feel that the membei-s of the Su- 
preme Court should be required to have prior judicial experience, 
either in the lower Federal courts or in the State courts ? 

Mr. Wright. Very definitely. How else are you going to appraise 
whether he is capable or not ? 



474 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

Mr. IcHORD. Well, I point out to you that there are many of us who 
have the courage to speak out, if that's the way you put it, on the 
subject. But it is necessaiy to have a majority to pass such a law. 

I know that 2 or 3 years ago I made a speech on this very subject, 
pointing out that at that time on the Supreme Court of the United 
States there was only a total of 13 years of prior judicial experience, 
and 8 of those 13 years were held by one man. 

I believe Judge Brennan has about 8 years of prior experience on 
the bench. And to get that 13 years, you have to count 1 year as a justice 
of the peace. 

Mr. Wright. I think the bar is earnestly trying to get the question 
resolved. I know Pennsylvania, for instance, is now engaged in con- 
sidering constitutional amendments. 

I had the pleasure of sending to David Maxwell, who is on the 
commission — I guess they call it — a copy of our law where a judge 
may be removed. 

You know, Congressman, it has worked out rather well ? The statis- 
tics don't show it so well, because too many of them have resigned, 
but 

Mr. Clawson. The fact the law is there, though, is the very condi- 
tion that causes this to take place. 

Mr. Wright. If anyone can find a valid weakness in my proposal, 
I would enjoy hearing it. 

Mr. Clawson. Mr. Chairman, there are proposals for a change in the 
constitutional decisions where the two-thirds majority would be used, 
as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, and that fraction is much 
easier with the nine men, I am sure, than the three- fourths would be. 

So it may be we would have to look at it from the standpoint of the 
number of men who serve on the Court and use that as our criteria. 

Mr. Wright. That is better than what we have now, certainly. 

Mr. Clawson. That is right. It would be better than what we have 
now. There have been such proposals introduced in the House. I don't 
know of any in the Senate, but I know they have been in the House. 

Mr. Wright. My feeling is that we have been living in a fool's 
paradise, and we are no longer realistic people. And for myself, if they 
are going to fool with the Constitution, I would require all of them 
to sign it. But you would never get that by 

Mr. Clawson. You need to be practical about that, too. 

Mr. Wright. Yes, we have got to be practical. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the privilege of being here. I hope I 
have contributed something to your thoughts. 

The Chairman. Mr. Wright, it has been a great treat to listen to 
you. You have made a great contribution to these hearings. 

Mr. Wright. I hope the Congress thinks so — and will require these 
fellows to put at least two-thirds of the signatures down when they 
are going to fool with the Constitution. 

I might say, Mr. Chairman, I forgot — I think we held our meetings 
in this room, and I was on the commission created by the Congress 
to consider and recommend raises of salaries for the Congress and the 
judiciary. 

The Chairman. That is right. 

Mr. Wright. I didn't want to say that first. I didn't want to 
influence anyone. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 475 

Is there any question, Mr. (^haimiiin, that I mi^jht answer? 

The Chairman. No, sir. You have made, so far as I am concerned, a 
very complete and dignified and intelligent presentation, for which 
I am very grateful. 

Mr. "Wright. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CluVWSox. I have no further questions. 

The Chairman. Thank you, very much, Mr. Wright. 

(Mr. Wright's prepared statement follows :) 

STATEMENT OF LOYD WRIGHT 

Mr. Chairman, Gentlemen of the Committee, I would first like to express my 
appreciation for this opiwrtiinity to discuss the vital necessity of the Congress 
approving the substance of H.R. 10390, or alternatively, H.R. 10391 or H.R. 10681. 
Before launching upon a discussion of the merits, as I see them, may I be 
privileged, on behalf of the millions of Americans who seem to be inarticulate, 
but who thoroughly applaud the tenacity with which you, Mr. Chairman, and 
your distinguished associates of the committee have followed through to protect 
the security of our Nation against the insidious, criminal conspiracy of the 
gangsters of the Kremlin, and others, such as Castro, who would subvert us 
and destroy that form of government under which our Nation has grown great, 
and under which form of government our people have enjoyed privileges and 
opportunities and freedoms never before known to mankind. You have been 
damned by various leftist groups, but I want to assure you that an overwhelming 
majority of our citizens believe in you and your w^ork, and: applaud your efforts. 

Not only does this committee have the confidence of the majority of loyal 
Americans, but a vast majority of them would hope that the Congress would 
increase your appropriations so that you can combat the accelerated efforts 
to subvert our form of government. On the scene, comparatively new, is Castro, 
who threatens revolutions throughout the south ; Red China is exerting its 
influence in AJrica and throughout the world; the various satellites to whom 
we give our taxpayers' money are furnishing arms and support to the enemy in 
Vietnam ; and it is absolutely essential that this committee be sufficiently financed 
to keep ixice with the current accelerated efforts of our enemies. 

The security of the Nation has been imperiled by the decisions, generally 5-4 or 
6-3, of a Supreme Court which has taken to itself the prerogative of invading 
the legislative functions of our national Government and imposing its will on the 
several States irresi)ective of the provisions of the 10th amendment. They have 
written into law ideological philosophies, often in complete disregard of the 
established law, and have well-nigh destroyed congressional efforts to preserve 
our'national security. 

As I understand it, we are here to rectify s'ome of the tragic damage done to 
the statutes that have been passed by the Congress to secure our Nation against 
the Communist conspiracy and kindred influences. 

I have with me, and seek permission, Mr. Chairman, to introduce as an exhibit, 
a rather detailed analysis of many of the decisions that have caused havoc to 
our security program, written by the Honorable Harold W. Kennedy, county 
counsel of Los Angeles, and which report i>oints out in considerable detail the 
transgressions of the Court upon common sense and common understanding of the 
law.' 

It is regrettable that the members of this distinguished committee should be 
compelled to play legal chairs with what was generally accepted, before 1952, as 
the greatest Court in the history of the world. It is a difficult undertaking to 
repair legal fences, and I commend the committee and its staff for the splendid 
job it has undertaken in H.R. 10390 and the identical bills introduced therewith. 

One of the finest expositions on communism and the responsibility of the Con- 
gress in expres.sing the will of the people in dealing therewith was the report of 
the American Bar Committee on Communist Tactics', Strategy and Objectives,* 
which rer>ort resulted in resolutions adopted by the House of Delegates of the 
American Bar in a February 1959 meeting, and which are as valid today as when 
first announced. 



1 Report retained in committee files. 



476 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

I seek permission, Mr. Chairman, to introduce into the record photostatic copies 
of the report, which contains affirmative recommendations which I believe will 
be helpful to the committee and your staff, and with which I thoroughly agree. 
I also seek permission to introduce a reix)rt which is appended to the resolutions 
and which is a thorough dissertation of cases which the lawyers of the Nation 
felt were questionable, and while the report and the dissertation cover a broad 
scope of the influence of communism, there are many disciissions not directed to 
the bills under consideration ; nevertheless the whole has a dire<t bearing upon 
the problems being now presented to this distinguished committee, and 1 believe 
will be most helpful as a reference topic for this committee and its distinguished 
staff. While this report was rendered in 1959, its reasoning and the basis of its 
observations are as valid today as when made. 

Mr. Chairman. I have had the privilege of reading the summation of the 
testimony of Mr. Stanley Tracy at your preceding meetings, and I wish to identify 
myself with the testimony of Mr. Stanley Tracy. 

Mr. Chairman, I find myself in complete agreement with the objectives of 
H.R. 10390, except for two particulars about which I will subsequently comment. 
In my opinion, each proix)sal is constitutional and valid. The question arises, 
however, how to compel the majority of the Supreme Court to apply the law in 
lieu of their personal predilections. A law of course is useless if it isn't enforced. 
Attorneys General make incredible statements that, in my opinion, run counter to 
fact and weaken our whole effort to contain the Communists. By way of example, 
on August 17 of last year. Attorney General Katzenbach said, "There was no indi- 
cation that the riots (which were sweeping the country) were planned, controlled 
or run by extreme left wing elements." But rather he took an academic excursion 
and said that the "agitators responsible for recent riots were disease, despair, job- 
lessness, hopelessness, the rat infested housing, and long impacted cynicism." 

There is ample evidence to prove to the contrary : The FBI reports on the 
W.E.B. DuBois Club, the statements by Director Hoover by testimony before 
grand juries, and by speakers known to be Communists urging people to riot, 
make it impossible for me to understand how a man so high in Government 
circles, and so important in the proper functioning of controlling this evil, could 
make such a statement. 

There are many other instances of people high in Government who have for 
one reason or another attempted to throw suspicion upon the causes of our 
disturbances, when commonsense and a little bit of bookwork would disclose 
Communist dictation. 

Mr. Chairman, you and this distinguished committee are now confronted with 
what is going to happen when the Supreme Court gets the opportunity to distort 
H.R. 10390 or some of its more important provisions. I took the trouble to make 
a compilation as of 1958 of the Supreme Court decisions, and this is what 
I found: 

Since 1919 through June 2, 1958, the Supreme Court rendered 84 decisions 
involving Communists and their subversive activities in cases where the 
position of the individual Judge could be determined. In the 24-year period 
from 1919 to 1942. when a majority of the Court were experienced Judges 
who had had training either on the bench or in practice, the Supreme Court 
accepted jurisdiction of but 11 of these cases. During that time such men 
as Brandeis, Gardozo, Hughes and other great Judges were members of the 
Court. Of these 11 cases, 7 were decided against the Communist position and 
in favor of the Government and in 4 the Communist position was sustained. 
Since 1943. 73 cases involving Communists or subversion have been taken 
on and decided by the Supreme Court. Thirty-four of these were taken over 
during the i>eriod 1943-1953, and in 19 of these cases the Court held con- 
trary to the position advanced by the Communists, and in 15 cases upheld 
the position taken by the Communists. 

Since October 1953 to and including June 2, 1958. or in a period of approxi- 
matel.v 5 years under the Chief .Justiceship of Warren, the Court accepted 
jurisdiction in the fantastic total of 39 of these cases. Thirty of these deci- 
sions, almost every one a split decision, sustained the position advocated 
by the Communists, and only nine sustained the position of the Government. 
In reference to the individual voting. Justice Black participated in 71 
cases, and 71 times he voted to .sustain the position advocated by the Com- 
muists; Justice Douglas participated in 69 cases, and voted 66 times for 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 477 

the Communist position ; Justice Frankfurter participated in 72 eases, 
and liis rei-ord is foi* the Communist viewpoint 50 times, anti-Communist 
IG times; Chief Justice Warren has participated in 39 cases, and voted 
pro-Communist 30 times and anti-Communist 3 times. 

I have not the facilities or the staff to bring this sad story down to date, but 
should it be brought down to date I am iK>sitive that the record would be no 
better than it was at the end of liKlcS. In fact it would probably be worse. 

Mr. Chairman. I previously stated that there were one or two provisions of 
the bill that I questioned. My tirst question refers to subparagraph (3), page 10, 
wherein the language states : "Any i>erson who, in the course of any hearing be- 
fore the Board or any member thereof or any examiner designated thereby, 
shall misbehave in their presence," etc. I resi>ectfully suggest that this is lan- 
guage tJiat the present Supreme Court would love to pass upon. What is mis- 
behavior V Recently a Los Angeles judge sent home a divorcee w^ho appeared in 
court in a miniskirt with the admonition that she properly dress before she 
enter the courtroom again. I have known of witnesses w^ho have insisted on 
chewing toothpicks on the witness stand. I have known of witnesses being ad- 
monished by the court for chewing gum on the witness stand. I am very fearful 
that if the present language is presented the Court will jump at the opportunity 
of declaring it vague and uncertain. Remember they have already declared that 
the Government must prove that a person who joins the Communist Party must 
understand and know that the party has as its objective the overthrow of our 
Government. I therefore suggest that the definition of what the committee con- 
siders misbehavior be spelled out or that the Subversive Activities Control Board 
adopt rules of ethics similar to the rules of the traditional judicial ethics so that 
the behavior of a witness or a person attending a hearing is specifically set forth. 
We are unfortunately dealing with an emotional people. There are members of 
the American Civil Liberties Union who, in my opinion, prompt witnesses to 
misbehave so that they can go to the upper Court and reverse decisions handed 
down. There are misguided peojile, many unwillingly carrying out the Communist 
philosophy who are exhibitionists and unless their conduct is prescribed in 
rules or in the bill we will run into trouble. 

Another matter that concerns me about the bill as presently written is the 
matter of trying to cure the effect of Justice Goldberg's decision in Apthckcr v. 
The Secretary of State. I respectfully suggest that the recommendations of the 
Commission on Government Security in reference to passports be inserted in 
H.R. 10390. I find no basis for the statement that a passix>rt is a matter of right. 
I violently disagree with the philosophy that I can demand a passport and go 
to a foreign country and talk against my Government or inject myself into 
foreign ix)licy decisions made by the Secretary of State. The obtaining of the 
passport is a privilege and, it being such, if my conduct, my associates, or my 
past history indicates that I could possibly be a disturbing element in the security 
of my country, I should not be entitled to a passport. W^e have tragic examples 
of openly advocating the overthrow of our Government by citizens traveling with 
U.S. passports. We have Dr. Luther King who has brought forth a strange 
philosophy called civil disobedience. Tliere is no such thing as civil disobedience. 
Any disobedience is criminal disobedience at whatever level. Perhaps the best 
exposition that I have ever read or heard of is that of former Associate Justice 
Whittaker, who emphatically states there is no such thing as civil disobedience. 
With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I suggest we are living in a fool's paradise. 
We are i)ermitting people to transcend the couunon rules of decency in reference 
to our Government and nothing is being done about it. I know of no constitutional 
reason why the Congress should not invoke its responsibility to protect and pre- 
serve our Government, and do all tho.se things that are necessary to stem the 
erosion of the fundamental principles which have been accepted ever since we 
became a Nation. 

We are dealing with a unique problem in the history of our country and of 
our Court. Keeping in mind that there is no inherent right to api>eal to the 
Supreme Court, but certiorari is a matter of grace, or favor if you will, granted 
by the Court, the situation becomes more alarming. Tlie calendar is crowded, 
and yet on the wave of popular emotion the Supreme Court seems to jump 
at certain cases of certain classifications like trout jump for a fly. Special Courts 



478 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

are convened, to hear cases that have a iwpular api>eal, but the regular business 
of the Court drags. It took the Court 10 years to determine the constitutionality 
of the Smith case. It almost seems, in retrospect, that someone was waiting imtil 
assured of a favorable climate to negate the will of the people as expressed 
through the Congress. 

A cursory examination of the security cases will show that the damage 
has been done by split decisions. There is reposed in the Congress sole juris- 
diction to determine the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court excepting 
as to those rare instances specifically set forth in the Constitution. And ere 
the Court turns loose upon an unsuspecting public any more Communist spies 
and traitors to our country I recommend that Congress pass appropriate legis- 
lation requiring that in any decision dealing with the Constitution of a State, 
or of the United States, that no decision .shall be deemed effective or valid unless 
the prevailing opinion is signed by the same proportion of Justices as is re- 
quired of the States to adopt a constitutional amendment — three-fourths. The 
Court has no direct responsibility to the people ; it has shown its antagonism 
to the legislative branch of our Government. In order to support their own 
predilections, the majority has on numerous occasions ignored the expressed 
will of the Congress and has used the 1st, 5th, and 14th amendments as vehicles 
to pronounce ideological decisions that have no sense, or no validity in law, 
and unless the Congress restrains this tendency to amend the Constitution by 
judicial decree, it is difficult to anticipate what we will have left of our funda- 
mental concepts so long as the Court is as presently constituted. I had hoped 
that new appointments would be made from sound Judges who have had ex- 
perience and whose conduct, temperament, and abilities could be judged before 
being elevated to our highest Court, but both parties continue to play politics, 
which of course is contrary to every intention of our forefathers who were the 
architects of our form of government. 

I have discussed this proposal, Mr. Chairman, with many whom I think are 
the best constitutional lawyers in the country, and without exception they 
agreed that it would be a proper and constitutional act of Congress, and sadly 
they agree that it is essential, under present circumstances, that this be done. 

I am opposed to drastic measures such as denying the Court the right to 
grant certiorari. Hence the only logical, practical answer to the question that 
appeals to me is what I have proiwsed. If a decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States has the effect of interpreting, or perhaps amending, the Con- 
stitution as it has been understood by the people and lawyers, then certainly 
we are entitled to have more than one man decide the issues. We should have the 
same proportion that is requisite to amend the Constitution by the States. 

I thank you for the opportunity of being heard. I hope I have contributed 
something of substance, and I pray to God the Congress will support you in 
your efforts to protect our Nation. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF A. LEO ANDERSON FOR AMERICAN VETERANS OF 

WORLD WAR II 

The Chairman. At this point the Chair will insert in the record 
the statement of Mr. Leo Anderson, national commander of the 
AMVETS, who w\as to be here but couldn't physically be here. 

(The statement follows:) 

STAl-BMENT BY A. LEO ANDERSON, AMVETS NATIONAL, COMMANDER, 
TO COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES, U.S. HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of this Committee : 
AMVETS appreciates the privilege of expressing our views with respect to the 
intent of H.R. 10390 and other similar bills being considered by this committee. 

Before taking up the .specific matters which are to be considered here this 
morning, I would like to express on behalf of every AMVET their appreciation 
of the long-continued and unremitting vigilance which the Committee on Un- 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 479 

American Activities has exerciswl in the interest of our beloved country's wel- 
fare and se<'urit.v. All too often the sound, constructive, and positive action taken 
by its members and staff have gone unrecognized and, I am afraid, imappreciated. 
For such >ati.-faction as it may be to this distinguished committee and its staff, 
I would like to assure you that AMVETS individually and collectively are aware 
of its many accompIi>hments and strongly support its purposes and activities. 

WiUi respei-t to H.R. 103!)0 and the associated bills, AMVETS shares fully 
the misgivings of those who find disquieting the renewed campaign for the 
abolisliment of tlie Subversive Activities Control Board and against the pur- 
pose of these bills, which would restore a full function and resi>onsibility to this 
Board under a strengthemnl Internal Security Act. Through the years both have 
suffered erosion and weakening modification, the result of a number of factors, 
including limiting interpretation of judicial decisions and widely varying opin- 
ions as to correct application of these decisions. 

AMVETS attaches particular significance to the timing of this latest on.slaught 
uix)n the Board's existence, upon a pretext such as the device of questioning par- 
ticular apiX)in.tments to tlie Board. This latest onslaught is not mere hapi^en- 
stance, particularly when the Board is demonstrating that it can effectively dis- 
charge its functions and responsibilities by alerting and informing the American 
public concerning the background, comix>sition, actions, and .si>onsorship of such 
questionable organizations as the W.E.B. DuBois Clubs. These have been and are 
continuing, in every po.ssible misleading fashion, to undermine and attack our 
Nation's ix)licy and actions in our defense of the Vietnamese people again.st an 
implacable Communist organization. The people of America are entitled to know 
everything about them under the law. 

The obvious advantage to subversive groups of whatever kind, abolishing the 
Board and further weakening the Internal Security Act would be, hardly needs 
detailed statement. The protective cloak of anonymity appears so close to 
being torn asunder in this case by the action of the Subversive Activities Control 
Board, which is the same kind of action which has had the careful .scrutiny and 
minute consideration of the United States Supreme Court on several occasions, 
and the constitutionality of the act and of similar action under the act and 
the constitutionality of the function of revealing the true identity and purposes 
behind such "faceless" organizations could not be better expressed than in the 
words of the Supreme Court in the case of Communist Party v. Subversive Activi- 
ties Control Board (367 U.S. 1) which upheld the disclosure requirements 
with respect to Communist Action Organizations. The Court concluded : 

'•Where the mask of anonymity which an organization's members wear 
serves the double purpose of protecting them from popular prejudic*e and of 
enabling them to cover over a foreign-directed conspiracy, infiltrate into other 
groups, and enlist the support of i>ersous who would not, if the truth were 
revealed, lend their support * * * it would be a distortion of the First 
Ajuendment to hold that it prohibits Congress from removing the mask." 

AMVETS feels that the device of attacking H.R. 10390 by directing inappropri- 
ate attention to the character or qualification of individual members or proposed 
appointees to the Board is a transparent one. In a substantial sen.se, it has 
nothing whatever to do with the function of the Board, whose record over 17 
years has been excellent, acting as it has within somewhat severe limitations. 
The conduct of its proceedings and its highly informative reports have provided 
the Nation with material it had a right to know, which was of real value and 
service to the development of informed public opinion and action. The continuous 
efforts of Communist and other organizations to hamstring its activities and 
to raise unending constitutional questions as to the procedures of Board func- 
tions in some areas, in all fairness cannot be attributed to the fault of the Board, 
for failing to accomplish more than it has. 

It is both the strength and weakness of our sy.stem of law and government 
that in providing safeguards for the innocent it furnishes the unscrupulous and 
subversive possibility for prolonged legal delays. This, too, cannot be attributed 
to fault in either the Internal Security Act or to the Subversive Activities Control 
Board. It would be and is ridiculous to suggest that because legal procedures are 
time consuming and. frustrating to those chargetl in carrying out their duties 
imder the law in behalf of the Nation's security, that we abolish both law and 
Board. Frustrating indeed has been the record to date of the attempts of the 
Board to investigate and inform the Nation as to the activities of the W.E.B. 



480 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

DuBois Clubs in America. Its experience shows the need for a stronger statute. It 
is indeed unfortunate that the Supreme Court decisions which .so clearly indicated 
both the need and direction for amending the basic law, the Internal Security 
Act, have not been made in the period since 1961. As a result, the difficult proc- 
esses of eliminating the identified loopholes in the law, through sound legislative 
drafting and enactment, has been made more difficult by the raising, one at a time, 
a series of related constitutional questions in case after case, as one decision 
disposes of previously raised questions. It is unfortunately true that in any 
representative, democratic form of governmeut. such as we enjoy, the appropriate 
and proper functioning of any new element in our system is closely related to and 
dependent upon tlie effective, cooperating exerci.se and discharge of their re- 
sponsibility by other related Government elements. This is nowhere so true as 
in the case of the Subversive Activities Control Board, which is without authority 
to initiate action on its own authority, but is dependent upon the Attorney General 
of the United States. 

The recent events throughout the length and breadth of our land at least raises 
the question in the minds of even the most skeptical that there is a pressing need 
for a thorough investigation into tlie real underlying causes and policies being 
advocated ; the accurate identification of both the leader.ship and the sponsorship, 
both financial and organizational, if such covert and anonymous leadership exists 
in a coordinated, organized, and centrally dii'ected way. The Subversive Activities 
Control Board, both by experience, performance and law, is the organization best 
designed to undertake such a revealing study. Under an effective Internal Secu- 
rity Act, such as herein proposed, it could unquestionably perform a needed vital 
.service to the Nation at a time when half a million Americans are resisting un- 
remitting communistic aggression in Vietnam. No less should be done in the case 
of other subversive groups. 

The experience of the Nation during and following World War II amply 
demonstrates the need for a strong Internal Security Act and the appropriate 
means to effectuate it. The record of the Subversive Activities Control Board 
through the years de.serves the respect and support of all citizens. The Board has 
demonstrated its willingness and its ability, under existing handicaps, to provide 
some needed services ; it would do immeasurably better under the proposed 
changes. 

We wish to assure the committee and its staff that AMVETS supports fully the 
purpose of the legislation under consideration and is ready as a national orga- 
nization of veterans who have served their country, in hot war and cold, that 
we stand ready to undertake with the committee any portion of the task of 
informing our fellow citizens, in every appropriate way. of the importance and 
significance of this legi-slation. 

In closing I wish again to express my personal appreciation for the opportunity 
to express the support of AMVETS for a .strong Internal Security Law. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES J. DAVIDSON, JR.^ 

The Chairman. That will conclude the hearincrs up to this point. 
We may or may not — and we probably will not — have more hearings. 
But I want to inake this statement, that this record will remain open 
for the insertion of additional statements for or against this proposal 
for an additional 12 days. 

I want to comment m that comiection that one of the statements I 
expect to receive is that of a former member, a former president, of 
the Bar Association of Louisiana, my very good friend, J. J. Davidson 
of Lafayette, Louisiana. 

(Mr. Davidson's statement follows:) 



1 Janips J. Davidson, past president of the Louisiana State Bar Association, has practiced 
law in Louisiana since beins admitted to the Louisiana bar in 1927. He is a graduate of 
Tulane University, having received both an A.B. and J.D. degree from that institution. 
Presently he is a vice president of the Council of the Louisiana State Law Institute, as well 
as a member of the American Law Institute and many other legal organizations. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 481 

STATEMENT BY J. J. DAVIDSON, JR. 

Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of this Committee : 

I am pleased to be actordetl the privilege of making a statement in support of 
H.R. 10:{!X) by Mr. Willis, which seeks to further strengthen the hand of the 
Federal Government in seeking to protect itself against the very real dangers 
posed by Communist activity in our country. 

It has long been a source of distress to the ordinary patriotic American citizen 
that those provisions of our fundamental law which afford the individual pro- 
tection against encroachment by' Government on fundamental rights of the 
individual should be used by those whose stated objective is to destroy and 
overthrow our democratic system of government in order to shield them from 
interference in their efforts to carry out their objectives. Tlie fifth amendment 
to the Constitution effectively affords protection against self-incrimination, and 
the present legislation presents a plan which vrill apparently maintain the full 
constitutional guaranties to our citizens, and yet, to a large extent, remove 
the power of the Communist Party (and tho.se associated with it) to use it 
as a shield for their activities. Although it is clear that a person, or an orga- 
nization, cannot be compelled to testify against himself or itself, or to give testi- 
mony which might result in his or its prosecution, it would appear that there 
is no reason why the provisions of this act should not be implemented so as to 
require the registration and publication by the Attorney General of the names 
of the individuals and organizations declared to be communistic and communistic- 
controlled. Through this means a major weapon of concealment is effectively 
destroyed, and the American public may be fully advised so that it can protect 
itself against the imminent dangers presented. The principle of "disclosure" is 
not a new one in our legislation, and the adoption of this principle, without any 
violation of the provisions against self-incrimination under the fifth amendment, 
would go far toward arming the Federal Government and the American people 
with a weapon to effectively use against our common enemy. 

The spectacle of disruption, obstruction, and even violence at committee hear- 
ings in order to disrupt the activities and prevent the committee from achieving 
its aims has been a dark blot on our governmental shield. The present act, through 
the process of contempt and by placing upon the Attorney General the require- 
ment that he proceed to prosecute those who are guilty of such action, repre«- 
sents much needed legislation. 

Time does not permit a discussion of all of the various provisions of the bill, 
but it now suflBciently defines a "Communist Front" so that it would include 
those organizations which are operated or infiltrated by members of the Com- 
munist Party, and would to a great extent eliminate the difficult problem of 
developing and presenting sufficient proof of Communist control of a "front" 
organization to result in judicial determination and action. It likewise prevents 
the "stalling" of actions begun against recognized Communist-front or Com- 
munist-action organizations through the medium of dissolution of the organiza- 
tion involved, and permits the authorities to proceed with the action which may 
have been instituted and to carry it to a final determination, instead of having 
the action declared to be moot so that the activities conducted by that parieular 
organization may be simply transferred to some other media and continued. 

The present bill affords a protection to the American people which is greatly 
needed. It require.s those organizations making solicitations to the American 
public for fimds to identify themselves as having been determined to be Com- 
munist organizations, and this should go far toward protecting the average 
citizen against innocent contributions to organizations with high-sounding 
names, which are in truth dedicated to the overthrow of our entire system. 

The present act seeks to close previously existing loopholes and to make more 
effective the power of Government to protect itself against those who strike at 
its very foundation. Today, as never before in our history, is it necessary that 
Americans be on guard against those many forces which strike at and seek to 
change, modify, and even overthrow our system of constitutional government. 
We should all welcome legislation such as this, which seeks to reduce the dangers 
with which we are confronted. 

I would respectfully urge the approval of this legislation and its ultimate 
adoption by the Congress. 



482 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

STATEMENTS OF JOHN C. SATTEKFIELD ^ AND PEYTON FOED ^ 

The Chair]vIx\n. Also, I underetiind the following, among others, 
will be submitting statements : Mr. John Satterfield, a former presi- 
dent of the American Bar Association and Mr. Peyton Ford, a good 
friend of mine and former assistant to the Attorney General of the 
United States under Tom Clark, then Attorney General of the United 
States and until recently a Justice of the Supreme Court. 

(The above statements follow:) 

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. SATTERFIELD BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON 
UN-AMEBICAN ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: It has been my privilege to 
work for many years as a member of the legal profession attempting to alert 
the citizens of the United States to the Communist blueprint for world conquest 
and to Communist tactics and strategy. As president of the American Bar Asso- 
ciation during the year 1961-62, it was my privilege to aid in the merger of 
two committees of the American Bar Association and to assist in initiating a 
program which has accomplished much, particularly in the field of education. 

While working in the American Bar Association I conferred and cooperated 
with Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, Director J. Edgar Hoover of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other Federal officers and agencies. Also, 
it was my privilege to sit at the conference table with lawyers from 107 nations 
in the Conferences on World Peace Through Law which were held by the ABA 
in Rome, Tokyo, San Jose, Costa Rica and Lagos, Nigeria. Thus I had an oppor- 
tunity to discuss this basic worldwide problem not only with lawyers from every 
State in the United States, but also with lawyers from most of the nations 
of the free world. 

In recent years the Internal Security Act of 1950 has been construed by the 
Supreme Court of the United States and by the courts of appeal of the circuits in 
a number of cases. Of particular importance are decisions of the Supreme Court 
of the United States in Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 
367 U.S. 1 (1961) ; Albertson & Proctor v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 
382 U.S. 70 (1965) ; and Apthekcr v. Secretary of State, 387 U.S. 500 (19&i). 
Other significant decisions are those of the United States Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit in ^"ational Council of American-Soviet Friend- 
ship, Inc. v. Subversive Activities Control Boa/rd, 322 F. 2)d 375; Labor Youth 
League v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 322 F. 2d 364 (1963) ; and Com- 
munist Party of the United States v. United States of America, decided by that 
Court on March 3, 1967. 

I have examined H.R. 10390 — ^90th Congress, introduced on May 25, 1967, by 
Congressman Willis and others, which I understand to be identical with H.tl. 
10391 and H.R. 10681 of the 90th Congress. As the committee is thoroughly 
familiar with the detailed amendments therein set forth, I will confine my state- 
ment to the general principles involved in this legislation. 

It is my opinion that the amendments contained in H.R. 10390 are constitu- 
tional and, if adopted, will result in bringing the sections of the Internal Secur- 
ity Act of 1950 which are thus amended within the constitutional principles ad- 



^John C. Satterfield, former president of the American Bar Association (1961-62) and 
member of the association's board of governors (1956-59), is a fellow of the American Bar 
Foundation, a director of the American Judicature Society and member of the National 
Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws. He received his LL.B. dejn^ee from 
the University of Mississippi in 1929, an LL.D. from Montana State University in 1961, 
and an S.J.D. from Suffolk University in 1962. Mr. Satterfield was admitted to the Mis- 
sissippi bar in 1929 and has practiced in Jackson, Mississippi, since that date. He served 
in the Mississippi House of Representatives, 192S-1932, and was president of the Missis- 
sippi bar in 1955-56. 

- Peyton Ford was Assistant to the Attorney General and Actinj? Attorney General when 
he resigned from the Department of Justice in 1951 to engage in the private practice of 
law in Washington. He received his A.B. and LL.B. degrees from the University of Okla- 
homa in 1934 and served as assistant attorney general of Oklahoma in 1939^1. He also 
practiced law in Oklahoma City prior to joining the Department of Justice in 1946 as a 
Special Assistant to the Attorney General. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 483 

judicated by the above and related decisions of the Supreme Court of the United 
States aud of the United States courts of appeal. 

One matter of sjjecial importance is the effect of the proposed legislation setting 
up a procedure within the requirements of due process of law whereby the mem- 
bership of Communist-action organizations may be determined through actions 
initiated by tlie Attorney General of the United States. Such procetlure is sub- 
stituted for that provided in the original bill which the Court has held to violate 
the fifth amendment. This is of great importance to the people of the United States 
and, in my opinion, removes from the act the requirement of self-registration 
held by the Supreme Court of the United States to violate the privilege against 
self-incrimination. 

I have observed for many years fine citizens of the United States being victim- 
ized by organizations which pose as supporting worthy causes but which are, in 
fact, Communist-action, Communist-front, or Communist-infiltrated organiza- 
tion.s. Such organizations use misleading publications either transported through 
the mails or broadcast by radio and television. It is my opinion that section 4 of 
the proiwsed legislation is not only constitutional, but is very desirable to protect 
citizens of the United States from solicitations by organizations which appeal to 
the public by high-.sounding phrases but conceal the fact that they are Communist 
organizations. 

During the 38 years that I have practiced law, my personal position has been 
that the power of the Federal Government should not be extended beyond bounds 
which are required for the protection of the citizens of the United States. In fact, 
I have frequently been referred to as an advocate of the somewhat timewom 
phrase of "States rights." Also it has been and is my conviction that control of 
the activities of any citizen should be minimized and that an extension of either 
Federal, State, or local governmental authority should not be permitted except 
to the extent it is necessary to protect the common good. 

It is impossible for individual citizens to investigate and determine the nature 
of the many and varied Communist organizations. They can be apprised of the 
nature of these organizations, their purposes, activities, and policies through a de- 
termination made in a proceeding initiated by the Attorney General of the 
United States, after thorough investigation and upon an adjudication of the facts. 
This is a necessary governmental function in our present society. 

It is my opinion that H.R. 10390, if enacted, will fill a vital need in this tremen- 
dously important area of citizenship. 

Any legislation, whether State or Federal, which permits a public oflBcial to 
grant immunity to a witness can only be justified by an overwhelming public 
need. Nevertheless, this is a necessary function of government. The desirability 
of such legislation has been recognized by Congress in more than 50 statutes au- 
thorizing grant of immunity to witnesses before various Federal agencies. The 
protection of all of the citizens of the United States is more important than the 
prosecution of any one or more individuals. It is necessary to grant to the proper 
public oflicial the authority to determine when the national interest is at stake 
to the extent that it requires testimony obtainable only upon the grant of im- 
munity. 

This bill vests in the Attorney General of the United States the authority 
to grant immunity when he "represents that such testimony or evidence is nec- 
essary to accomplish the purposes of this title." Many vital investigations have 
been thwarted by the lack of such provision in the present Internal Security 
Act of 1950. This authority is wisely safeguarded by the proviso "That no natural 
person so testifying shall be exempt from prosecution and punishment for per- 
jury committed in so testifying." 

The numerous amendments set forth in this bill have been drawn for the 
purpose of meeting constitutional objections which were raised in Labor Youth 
League v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 322 F. 2d 3W, National Council 
of American-Soviet Friendship. Inc. v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 
322 F. 2d 375, as clarified in California Labor School, Inc. v. Subversive Activities 
Control Board, 322 F. 2d 393, and Patterson, As Liquidator of the Civil Rights 
Congress, etc. v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 322 F. 2d 395. It is also 
designed to conform with the rules set forth in Blau v. Subversive Activities Con- 
trol Board, 322 F. 2d 397, and Washington Pension Union v. Subversive Activities 
Control Board, 322 F. 2{1 398, all of which cases were decided by the United States 
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit. 



484 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

One of the objections raised to the original act was that it permitted a default 
judgment to be taken when respondents to a petition failed to appear. The 
amendment requires the Attorney General, as petitioner, to present evidence 
when the respondent defaults. Thus the due process provisions of the act are 
strengthened. The amendment protects the respondent organization and its mem- 
bers as well as tlie public, for whose protection the act has been adopted. 

A block which has thwarted proper proceedings to determine whether or not 
an entity is a Communist organization has been a maneuver such as that adopted 
by the Labor Youth League. This was involved in the case of the United States 
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit and appears as Labor Youth 
League v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 322 F. 2d 364. Communist -front 
organizations may be organized at will with different names and with somewhat 
different i)ersonnel. Hence, under the original act, when a petition is filed against 
such an organization for a proper determina'.ton of its status, it may then be 
dissolved and, as held in this case, the proceeding thereby rendered moot. 
Such maneuver prevents the citizens of the United States, after due process of 
law has been completed, from learning the true nature of the organization. This 
bill finds that the public interest requires a determination of the nature of an 
organization at the time the i)etition initiating the proceedings was filed against 
it, even though it may have been thereafter dissolved. This is essential in order 
that we may have an informed public. It is my opinion that the amendment meets 
the objections upheld by the Court in Labor Youth League and tliat the amend- 
ment is necessary to protect our good citizens from such organizations. 

On the other hand, should it be determined in the proceeding that such entity 
was not a Communist organization at the time of the initiation of the proceedings, 
those who have been innocently entrapped will be protected. 

As the Subversive Activities Control Board is a quasi-judicial body, it should 
have the right (within due process of law) to prosecute a person for contempt 
The amendment establishes a proper procedure to prosecute for any contempt. 
It is designed to protect the due administration of the act and to prevent further 
delays in its enforcement. It provides that no court of the United States shall 
have jurisdic-tion to question the authority, function, practice, or process of the 
Attorney General or the Board in conducting any such proceeding. However, it 
requires that all questions concerning contempt be raised before the Board and, 
at the completion of the proceedings, before the court which may review the 
proceedings. This preserves to every individual a right to have a proi^er judicial 
review of any such matter. Nevertheless, it will be of great value in expediting 
proper proceedings before the Board and would prevent dilatory interruptions 
of a proper proceeding by contemptuous actions. 

Again, through the years I have not favored vesting administrative bodies with 
the unlimited right to prosecute contempt proceedings. Nevertheless, the proposed 
amendment is a necessary protective measure. It accords due protection and full 
process of law to every individual through the judicial review provided in the act. 
It is felt that this will enable the Board to protect the people of the United States, 
but, at the same time, will safeguard those individuals who may be involved in 
such proceedings. 

As I feel sure the record contains full treatment of the additional provisions of 
the bill, I will not detail them in this statement. They are designed to and do 
properly effectuate changes in the act conforming it to the decisions herein 
mentioned. 

There has been no diminution in the threat to the national security by Com- 
munist organizations. On the other hand, the great activity of Communist China 
throughout the world has adde<l to the threat which theretofore had its origin in 
communism of the Soviet variety. Hence, it is necessary that the Internal Secxirity 
Act of 1950 not only be amended to conform to the decisions of the courts of the 
United States, but that it be strengthened for the protection of our citizens and 
of the national security. The Attorney General of the United States and the Sub- 
versive Activity Control Board must have a constitutional means to protect the 
people of the United States and to safeguard the national security at this critical 
time in history. 

Hence, I hope that this committee will favorably consider H.R. 10390 and that 
it will be adopted by the Congress of the United States. 

This, the 18th of August 1967 

/s/ John C. Satterfield 
John C. Satterfield. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 485 

STATEMENT OF PEYTON FORD, PARTNER IN THE WASHINGTON LAW 
FIRM FORD, AYER, HORAN AND LESTER (FORMERLY DEPUTY AT- 
TORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES), ON H.R. 10390 

As former Deputy Attorney General of the United States during the years 
1947-1951, I witnessed and participated in the passage of the original Internal 
Security Act of 1950. Since that time I have entered private practice and followed 
with interes:«t the various court opinions which this act has engendered. I have 
been asked to comment upon the proposed amendments. I wish to thank the 
committee for the opportunity to be of assistance. 

I should like to make a few brief remarks with regard to certain sections 
of the proiK>sed amendment. 

1. In Section 1(B) the amendment offers a more comprehensive definition of 
the term "Communist-front organization." The purpose of the amendment is 
obviously to overcome the burden imi)osed ,by the Court in National Council of 
AmcricaH'Sovict Friendship, Inc. v. SAVE, 322 F. 2d 375. The amendment recog- 
nizes the need to enlarge the definition in order to iM>lice the more subtle and 
shadowy forms which the Communist-action groups have taken on. Since the 
decision of the Supreme Court in 1961 determining that the Communisit Party 
was a Communist-action group controlled by a foreign power, the movement has 
more than ever splintered into fronts that did not heretofore exist. These 
fronts are at the present time the primary source of party funds and party 
action. The criterion proposed by Section 1(B), control by one or more members 
of a Communist-action organization, will permit the Attorney General to register 
these organizations, thus exposing the nature of their operation to the public. 

2. Section 4 of the amendment proposes to alter section 10 of the present act 
by requiring the envelope, wrapper, or container in which any publication of such 
an organizaition is transmitted to be labeled — disseminated ,by blank organization 
which has been determined by a final order of the Subversive Activities Control 
Board to be a Communist organization. The American public has the right 
to know who or what organization is sending material through the mail or 
soliciting its funds. 

The present amendment is in many resi)ects akin to the requirement that 
cigarette manufacturers place on their package the w^arning that "smoking may 
be dangerous to your health" or as has been recently suggested that "smoking 
has been determined by the Surgeon General to be dangerous to health." In 
either situation the label is not an admission that cigarette smoking is dangerous 
or that the manufacturer has determined smoking is dangerous. To the con- 
trary, the determination to smoke or not smoke is left with the consumer — ^the 
manufacturer is merely complying with the Law. Similarly, the Communist front is 
not admitting that it is a Communist front, but is merely putting the public 
on notice that it has been so determined by an independent body. The reader, 
f uUy apprised of he facts, can do as he pleases. 

However, in the area of free speech requirements, such as this, we must be 
more precise and specific. Otherwise, such a section may well constitute a prior 
restraint violative of the first amendment of the Constitution. At present, I 
am not aware of any actual situation, so I must use a hypothetical. The X Y Z 
Association has been determined to be a Communist-front organization — it dis- 
seminates political and nonpoLitical material. If the nonjwlitical material is re- 
quired to bear such a label, i)eople to whom it is mailed may not read i1 As 
I mentioned earlier, my fears may well be groundless. However, in light of the 
broadened criteria for Conununist front, more and more organizations previously 
unaffected may now be subject to scrutiny and required to affix the label. 

It is my thought that the problem can be alleviated by making the label more 
specific ; rather than Communist organizations let it be Communist-front, Com- 
munist-action, Communist-infiltrated, so that the public is aware precisely what 
the organization has been determined to be. 

3. Mr. Justice Musmanno in his presentation expressed some question with 
regard to section 5(4) which states: 

"(4) The authority, function, practice, or process of the Attorney General or 
Board in conducting any proceeding pursuant to the provisions of this title shall 
not be questioned in any court of the United States, nor shall any such court, 
or judge or justice thereof, have jurisdiction of any action, suit, petition, or 
proceeding, w^hether for declaratory judgment, injunction, or othenvise, to ques- 
tion such, except on review in the court or courts having jurisdiction of the 
actions and orders of the Board pursuant to the provisions of section 14, or when 
such are appropriately called into question by the accused or respondent, as the 
84-351 O— 67 15 



486 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

case may be, in the court or courts having jurisdiction of his prosecution or other 
proceeding (or the review thereof) for any contempt or any offense charged 
against him pursuant to the provisions of this title." 

Mr. Musmanno views the amendment as one withdrawing jurisdiction from the 
courts. I cannot agree, I believe that the measure is more in the nature of certain 
administrative rules relating to . interlocutory appeals. Such provisions accord 
with the normal administrative procedures for court review. This amendment does 
not limit the right to appeal, but merely states that appeal will be available at the 
end of the hearing. The motivation for the amendment is obvious, to prevent 
time-consuming delays caused by injudicious and specious appeals. 

However, this section upon reflection does contain a statement which I do not 
believe was intended, that is, "nor shall any such court, or judge or justice 
thereof, have jurisdiction of any action, suit, petition, or proceeding, whether for 
declaratory judgment, injunction, or otherwise, to question such * * *." The "or 
otherwise" appears to be a withdrawal of the court's inherent power to issue 
extraordinary writs, such as habeas corpus,^ mandamus, prohiMticni, etc. I can 
only recall one case wherein this problem was raised. Ex Parte Merryman, 17 Fed. 
Cases 144 (C.C.D. Md.) before Mr. Chief Justice Taney. In that 1862 case a 
secessionist ofl5cer, Merryman, was imprisoned and sought habeas corpus. Mr. 
Chief Justice Taney granted the writ on the ground that only Congress had the 
power to suspend that remedy. 

Accordingly, viewing the section merely as a procedural one prohibiting inter- 
locutory appeals and seeking an orderly administration of justice, I have no diffi- 
culty. However, if by this section the provision seeks and intends to withdraw 
from the court the power to issue extraordinary writs ("or otherwise") I have 
difficulty with such a proposal. While the Merryman case has stated that Con- 
gress can susi>end such remedies, there is no authority for a complete withdrawal 
of such inherent power. I am aware of the fact that certain statutes have limited 
the power of the Court to hear certain cases. However, these are specific limita- 
tions and no way impinge upon the inherent power of a court. I would suggest as 
a solution that the "or otherwise" be stricken, so that the section is solely an ad- 
ministrative procedural amendment. 

Another thought occurs to me which I would like to mention to the committee 
for its consideration, that is, the basic findings and hearings which support this 
legislation are those which took place some time ago and which disclosed the 
Moscow domination and control of the Communist-action organizations and 
fronts. However, with the ideological split between Russia and China there are 
two sources of communism; does this not affect the findings? For example, the 
W.E.B. DuBois Clubs have asserted that they are not Communist because they 
do not support the Moscow line. Shouldn't the amendments try to meet this prob- 
lem by a definition which would encompass the Chinese brand of communism? 

Certainly even with the broader definition of "Communist front" the effect 
of the legislation can be stymied by a challenge that the legislation is unsupported 
by the findings, which are directed to Russian communism. I would suggest sup- 
plemental hearings to develop the changing face of the movement and perhaps 
more .specifically drawn legislation to answer the problem. 

In conclusion let me thank the committee for the opportunity to submit this 
statement. 

The Chairman. And so the hearing stands adjourned until further 
order of the Chair. 

(Wliereupon, at 12:07 p.m., FrMav, .Aumist 18, 1967, the committee 
adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.) 



STATEMENTS OF U.S. REPRESENTATIVES ARMISTEAD SELDEN, 
DANTE B. FASCELL, AND ODIN LANGEN 

After the conclusion of tlie hearings, the following statements were 
submitted for the record : 



1 For example, habeas corpus could come into play as a consequence of contempt proceed- 
ings with regard to subpenas issued. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 487 

STATEMENT OF HOX. AR.MISTEAD SELDEN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM ALABAMA 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my enthusiastic sup- 
port for H.R. 10390, which I cosponsored with the distinguished chairman of 
this committee. This legislation is designed to amend tlie Internal Security Act, 
our major weapon in the never-ending war to control subversive activities within 
our Nation. 

Mr. Chairman. I am deeply disturbed over the lackadaisical attitude of some 
of our citizens concerning the threat the Conmiunist menace poses to our demo- 
cratic institutions. In this connection, I would be remiss if I did not offer my 
sincere appreciation to the House Committee on Un-American Activities for its 
work in this area. This committee has been in the forefront in the tight to reveal 
the concealed operations of communism and its followers, and the constant cam- 
paign of the Communist Party and its sympathizers to destroy the committee is 
evidence of your effectiveness. 

Mr. Chairman, the basic aim of the international Communist conspiracy is . 
the destruction of our democratic form of government. Consequently, I believe 
that a reliable public register of the organizations in the United States that are 
controlled by the Communist conspiracy, as well as a register of individuals who 
are Communists, is badly needed. 

As is well known by the members of this committee, the Communist Party 
works primarily through front organizations which appear on the surface to be 
social, fraternal, or benevolent groups. I feel certain that the committee has 
evidence that hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars are collected 
from an unsuspecting public by these organizations. We need to identify these 
fronts so that the ordinary American citizen will be absolutely aware of where 
his contributions will go and for what purpose they w-ill be used. 

Mr. Chairman, as the Supreme Court pointed out in Communist Party of the 
United States v. Subversive Aetii-ities Control Board. 367 U.S. 1, we have a multi- 
tude of registration and disclosure laws. We require agents of foreign govern- 
ments to register with the Attorney General and disclose their principals and 
sources of income. Lobbyists are required to register with the Clerk of the 
Hou.se of Representatives and report funds received from their principals and 
their fields of legislative interest. And we have a variety of laws dealing with 
registration and disclosure of information by corporate entities. Therefore, there 
is no blanket constitutional prohibition against registration and public disclosure 
of certain information that is of value for the protection of our citizen.s. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to echo the words of Mr. Justice Frank- 
furter, who wrote the opinion of the Court in the Communist Party case. He 
stated, at 95 : 

"Means for effective resistance against foreign incursion — whether in the 
- form of organizations which function, in some technical sense, as 'agents' 
of a foreign power, or in the form of organizations which, by complete 
dedication and obedience to foreign directives, make themselves the instru- 
ments of a foreign power — may not be denied to the national legislature. 
'To preserve its independence, and give security against foreign aggression 
and encroachment, is the highest duty of every nation, and to attain these 
ends nearly all other considerations are to be subordinated. It matters 
not in what form such aggression and encroachment come. . . .' The Chinese 
ExcluMon Case, 130 U.S. 581, 600." 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your giving me an opportunity to express my 
support for H.R. 10390, and I respectfully urge the members of this committee 
to give this legislation expeditious and favorable cons.ideration. 



STATEMENT OF HON. DANTE B. FASCELL, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 
FROM FLORIDA, IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 10390 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having this opportunity to lend my support to 
the measure presently under consideration by this committee, H.R. 10390. This 
bill, if enacted, will strengthen the Internal Security Act of 1950 by making 
congressional intent in this area absolutely clear, especially in relation to the 
activities of the Subversive Activities Control Board. 



488 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

Following World War II, evidence mounted that the Communist Party of 
the United States and its various related organizations at home and abroad were 
growing in strength and in activity and tliat they presented a serious threat 
to the security of the Nation. In 1950, therefore, the Congress enacted legisla- 
tion "recognizing the existence of such worldwide conspiracy and designed 
to prevent it from accomplishing its purpose in the Ignited State'j." The Internal 
Security Act created the Subversive Activities Control Board and empowered 
it to hold hearings, upon petition of the Attorney General, to determine whether 
suspected individuals or organizations were in fact members of the worldwide 
conspiracy dedicated to the overthrow of the United States Government. 

Since then, the Board has faithfully discharged its duties, investigating 
more than 70 persons and organizations suspected of being under the influence of 
international communism. The primary purpose of these investigations has 
been public revelation of the operations of these persons and organizations 
so that the American public might be in a better position to assess the insidious 
effect of the conspiracy and the dangers which it poses to the American way of 
life 

In 1965, however, the Supreme C5ourt held that the registration requirements 
in the Internal Security Act constituted a violation of the privilege against self- 
incrimination. In effect, this ruling vacated the registration orders issued by the 
Board against 27 individual members of the Communist Party of the United 
States. The precise effect of the Albertson and Proctor decisions on the powers 
of the Board is a moot point — but it is not our duty here today to delve into 
judicial intent. Our purpose, instead, is to clarify congressional intent, which 
has not. I daresay, wavered in its opiwsition to the very real danger of com- 
munism since the Internal Security Act was passed in 1950. 

There have been, in recent weeks, proposals that we abolish the Subversive 
Activities Control Board. To do so would, in my opinion, abrogate the very prin- 
ciples underlying the Internal Security Act of 1950. 

In February of this year, the distinguished Director of the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation offered the following testimony concerning racial disturbances 
in our cities to a House subcommittee : "Communists and other subversives and 
extremists strive and labor ceaselessly to precipitate racial trouble and to take 
advantage of racial discord in this country. * * * The net result of agitation 
and propaganda by Communist and other subversive and extremist elements has 
been to create a climate of conflict between the races in this country and to 
poison the atmosphere." 

We have this past summer witnessed racial riots, terrifying in their destruc- 
tion of life and property. If it is determined that the seeds of violence are planted 
by an organized conspiracy to destroy the very foundation of this Nation, that 
conspiracy must be dealt with. 

I therefore urge approval of H.R. 10S90, which will amend and strengthen our 
internal security program and equip the Subversive Activities Control Board to 
better inform the American public of the dangers of subversion from without 
and from within. 



STATEMENT OF HON. ODIN LANGEN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

MINNESOTA 

Mr. Chairman : I veish to thank you and the committee for this opportunity to 
express my views in support of pending legislation to amend certain provisions 
of the Internal Security Act of 1950 relating to the registration of Communist 
organizations. 

In order to maintain our vigilance over subversive organizations, we must 
strengthen our Nation's major antisubversives law now. Accordingly, I urge the 
committee to approve legislation, as introduced by many of us in the House, that 
contains the necessary amendments to restore the effectiveness of the Internal 
Security Act. 

This pending legislation would (1) strengthen provisions of the Internal Se- 
curity Act weakened by recent Supreme Court decisions, (2) require organiza- 
tions found to be Communist to identify themselves as such when soliciting funds, 
and (3) grant additional powers to the Subversive Activities Control Board. 
Moreover, the Attorney General would be required to maintain a "Register of 
Communist-Action Organizations." Groups thus cited would have full legal re- 
course through appeal. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 489 

The American people are sick and tired of the extent to which subversive ele- 
ments in this country are i)ermitted under law to continue their insidious activi- 
ties free from public knowledge and punishment. That is why I urge the House 
rn-American Activities Committee to approve the antisubversives bill which 
many of us are sponsoring in Congress. 

This Nation should stand united in protecting itself from those individuals and 
organizations who would subvert it. 

By hitting hardest at subversive elements aiming to destroy democracy in this 
country. Congress will help preserve fretnloni and representative government. 

Thank you again for your courtesy in permitting me to convey my views to the 
committee on this vital matter. 



APPENDIX 



Mak'iial siil>mi((i'(l 1)\ Slaiilrx" .1. TracN for insert ion in t lie record. 




ENEMY 

By HAROLD RANSTAD 

A graduate of the University of Minnesota and a 
member of the Minnesota bar since 1927, Mr. Ranstad 
retired from the FBI in 1955 after more than 21 years' 
service as a Special Agent. Ke supervised FBI security- 
type investigations at the Bureau's national headquarters 
from 1940 to 1947. Since retiring from the FBI, he has 
served as Assistant Counsel with the Senate Select 
Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Manage- 
ment Field and with the Senate Permanent Subcommittee 
on Investigations and as Attorney with the Commission 
on Government Security and the House Subcommittee on 
Legislative Oversight. He contributed "90 Miles to 
Moscow" in the April, 1961, Issue of Industrial Security. 

Since that fateful night in 1917 when they took ad- 
vantage of a war-weary, confused, and demoralized peo- 
ple to impose upon them a new kind of tyranny, worse 
cvcnthan those of the Khans and the Tsars, the Marxist 
conspirators in the Kremlin have come a long way on 
the road to their ultimate goal — the conquest of the en- 
tire earth and the subjugation and enslavement of every 
man, woman, and child upon it. 

There is no need to dwell upon their progress, nor 
to describe in detail the enormous power to which they 
have attained or the prospects they possess for further 
advances. The facts are obvious and well known. 

Although, as the sole proprietors and absolute mas- 
ters of a vast and powerful empire, they have managed 
to acquire an aura of legitimacy and respectability, they 
are, beyond doubt, the most potent force for evil the 
world has ever seen. 

Why has so small a group of evil and determined 
men been permitted to become so powerful and to ad- 
vance so far toward complete consummation of so mon- 
strous a crime against all humanity? Have we thus 



491 



492 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50 

far been striking blindly in the dark against an un- 
identified enemy? 

It is commonly said that the enemy is well known, 
that the enemy is communism, or international com- 
munism, or Marxist communism. But is this identifica- 
tion adequate? Is it sufficiently specific and precise? 

Communism, like socialism, is only a theory, or 
bundle of theories. Neither was invented by Karl 
Marx. Both have been defined endlessly, in hundreds, 
if not thousands, of ways, but, essentially, they are politi- 
cal and economic theories of social organization based 
on common or collective ownership of goods, or prop- 
erty. For all practical purposes, they arc as alike as 
tweedledum and tweediedee. Marx used the words 
interchangeably and, when he and Friedrich Engels 
formed their minuscule "party," they called it the "Com- 
munist Party" because there was already a "Socialist 
Party" in existence. 

The real enemy free men face today is not commu- 
nism or socialism, in the original sense of the terms, 
but a small gang of conspirators, with helpers all over 
the world, who have adopted, modified, and applied 
in their own interests a scheme and technique devised 
by Karl Heinrich Marx for the selfish purpose of trans- 
forming and elevating himself from the bottom to the 
top of the social heap by turning society upside down. 
The scheme failed to perform the desired miracle for 
its originator, partly, perhaps, because his contempo- 
raries were too well acquainted with his character, his 
physical and mental condition, the position he occupied 
in society, his unsavory record, and his real purposes, 
to take him seriously. 

They knew how egotistical, arrogant, and overbear- 
ing he was, and how contemptuous of his fellow men, 
all of whom he regarded as his inferiors. They knew 
him to be envious, spiteful, mean, and vindictive; a man 
full of hate and spleen. They knew him as a hypocrite 
and a cynic, a poisonous gas bag whose professed de- 
sire to ameliorate the "ever-increasing misery" of the 
workers, or "proletariat," under capitalism was as fraud- 
ulent and self-serving as his "scientific socialism" and 
his "dialectical materialism." They knew him as an 
impractical and deceitful schemer and an implacable 
and unscrupulous enemy to all who disagreed with him 
or attempted to compete with him or to expose him. 

His record, too, was well known to them. They were 
well aware of his atheism, his hatred of God and of 
anything pertaining to Him or to religious faith or wor- 
ship and of his tantrums of uncontrollable rage at their 
mere mention. 

They knew that, as Editor-in-Chief of the Rhenish 
Gazette, he had argued and written against socialism 
and that he had, at that time, regarded socialism as non- 
sense — a dangerous kind of nonsense because it cannot 
be killed with bullets. 

They were aware of the brevity of his tenure as editor 
of the Gazette and of his impractical, unrealistic, and 
erratic behavior in venting his hatred of God in its 
columns in an attack on the government for contem- 
plating a new divorce law which he interpreted as an 
attempt to bring Christianity back into the state. As a 
result of his outburst, the paper he was hired to preserve 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 493 

by keeping blasphemy from its pages was forced to 
cciisc publication and he lost his job. 

They knew, too. how he had subsequently betrayed 
his friend and benefactor. Dr. Arnold Ruge, after the 
latter had made him his co-editor of the German- 
French Yearbooks, a new publication which was to 
have its home in Paris, in his despair and bitterness 
over the loss of his job at the Gazette, Marx had cauti- 
ously let it be known to some of his associates (his 
friendships, except for that with Engels, never ran 
deep or lasted long) that he had become a socialist. 
Knowing that Ruge strongly disapproved of socialism, 
he neglected to inform him of his new-found interest 
in it. When Dr. Ruge was unable, because of illness, to 
participate in getting out the first issue of the Year- 
books, Marx took advantage of the situation to use the 
publication as a sounding board for a new brand of 
socialism he had conjured up to serve his own interests. 
Because of the inflammatory and revolutionary material 
inserted by Marx, the first issue of the Yearbooks was 
also the last. Marx was consequently stranded in Paris 
without employment and without funds. To add to his 
difficulties, his wife, a woman of the Prussian aristoc- 
racy whom he had married while he was penniless and 
unemployed and a guest under her mother's roof, was 
pregnant. 

His contemporaries knew, too, that his positions with 
the Gazette and the Yearbooks were the only ones he 
ever held, except for occasional part-time jobs with a 
few newspapers as correspondent. 

They knew his entire record was one of failure and 
that, from the time he was 26, he never had full-time, 
remunerative employment, but existed on collections, 
subscriptions, and charity. 

They were aware of. and many had been subjected to, 
his vicious attacks on all who dared to disagree with 
him or who might be or become his rivals or competitors 
in the struggle for control of the socialist movement. 
Invariably, his weapon in these clashes was character 
assassination. When there were no factual bases for 
villification and calumniation, Marx could be counted 
upon to invent fictions and palm them off as facts. 

They knew he was inordinately fond of wine and that 
he was frequently ill, suffering at various times from 
boils, carbuncles, abscesses, liver ailments, neuralgia, 
severe headaches, and insomnia. Had they known 
more about mental illnesses, they might have recog- 
nized symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia in his de- 
lusions of persecution and of his own superior ability; 
in his fierce rages; in his violent oscillations between 
excitement, buoyancy, or optimism at one end of the 
arc, and listlessness, indifference, or despair at the other; 
in his unpredictable, incoherent, and unrealistic behav- 
ior; in his headaches and insomnia; in his lack of contact 
with reality and with his environment; in his lack of 
interest in people and things; and in that progressive 
deterioration of personality which began so early in his 
life. 

Finally, Marx's contemporaries knew him as a mem- 
ber of the lowest stratum of society — a perennial pauper 
without visible means of support, so far removed from 



494 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

reality that he did not even recognize his obligation to 
support his family, permitting them to exist in poverty, 
squalor, hunger, illness, and misery. 

Had Karl Marx been a practical man. he would 
have sought and clung to remunerative employment 
as the means of improving his family's economic and 
social positions. But he was not practical. He sought 
a short cut to power, fame, and plenty. He thought 
he had found it in the socialist movement, which he 
mistakenly believed was gaining ground so rapidly that 
it was destined to replace capitalism in the immediate 
future. He decided to ride the rocket of socialism 
into the stratosphere of a new society, to permit social- 
ism to elevate and transform him from a penniless 
pauper to potentate with powers unlimited and glory un- 
matched. Here began that cult of the individual, or 
cult of the personality, of which Lenin, Stalin, and 
Khrushchev have been the beneficiaries. The cult of 
.Stalin endured so long and left so deep an imprint upon 
the entire Marxist Empire that Khrushchev found it 
necessary to destroy it to make way for his own. This 
he attempted to do at the XXth Party Congress. His 
method was the one developed to such a high state of 
perfection by the original Marxist himself — character 
assassination. In this instance, there was no need to 
fabricate bases for the attack. Stalin was a beast, in- 
sufferably suspicious, brutal, egotistical, cruel, crafty, 
despotic, and bloody, and Khrushchev proved himself 
an apt pupil of Marx's in the thorough manner in which 
he exposed to the inner circle of the Marxist conspiracy 
the true nature of the "superman possessing supernatural 
characteristics akin to those of a god" who had so long 
been hailed and worshipped as a great leader and teach- 
er and the greatest of living Marxists. Khrushchev did 
not see fit to expose Stalin's true character to the world, 
or even to the people of the Marxist Empire, at that 
time. 

But, if he thought he had destroyed the Cult of Stalin, 
he was mistaken. Stalin was still worshipped as the 
true god of Marxism by many who rejected Khru- 
shchev's claim to Marxist deity, especially Marxists in 
Red China and little Albania. By the time the XXI Ind 
Party Congress was about to convene, it had become ap- 
parent to Khrushchev that the Cult of Stalin had not 
only survived but had gained such vigor and strength 
again that it was seriously threatening his own. This 
time, the Stalin Cult must be finished forever and in 
such a manner that the whole world, including the peo- 
ple of the Marxist Empire, would be shocked and hor- 
rified. The evils of Stalin and his executioner, Lavrenti 
Beria. were again dragged out and put on display, this 
time for the whole world to see and abhor. Molotov, 
Malenkov, Kaganovich, and Voroshilov, who still wor- 
shipped at the shrine of Stalin, were denounced as "anti- 
party" and disgraced. But the lengths to which Khru- 
shchev was prepared to go to preserve the Cult of 
Khrushchev were fully revealed only when he ordered 
the body of Stalin removed from its place beside that of 
Lenin in the Marxist tomb of dead gods and ignomini- 
ously buried in obscurity beneath the Kremlin wall. 

It is scarcely possible that Khrushchev does not real- 



AMENDING TIIK INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 495 

i7c that Marxism is a cult of the individual, devised by 
Karl Marx to transform and elevate Karl Marx into 
a "superman possessing supernatural characteristics 
akin to those of a god." 

In order to exploit the socialist movement, Marx 
must gain complete and uncontestable control of it. 
But which socialist movement should he choose? There 
were almost as many brands of socialism antl as many 
socialist movements as there were socialists. Socialism 
was almost exclusively the creatii)n and preoccupation 
of the intellectuals. 

Undaunted by the actually unpropitious state of af- 
fairs, Marx, with the assistance and support of his alter 
ego. Friedrich Engels, launched his own brand of so- 
cialism, his own socialist movement, and his own 
socialist party. 

Marx's brand of socialism was not concerned with 
truth nor designed to benefit the masses. Masquerad- 
ing as history, science, and philosophy, it was a false and 
dcccpti\c recital of the "evils" of capitalism and the in- 
evitably "ever-increasing misery" imposed by it upon 
the working class, coupled with a hypocritical and emp- 
ty promise of a paradise on earth to be achieved by 
smashing the old order, abolishing private property 
and capitalism, and giving Karl Marx carte hiciiiclie as 
the architect and master of a new social order. Marx, 
not the workers, was to be the beneficiary of this grand 
social upheaval, though he was careful, of course, to 
create the opposite impression in public. 

Marx's contemporaries were not impressed with his 
"science" and "philosophy." They were aware that 
everything he wrote about socialism was for the pur- 
pose of exploiting the movement; that it was all written 
after he had cast his lot with socialism as the means of 
annihilating the society and the "oppressors" and "ex- 
ploiters" he blamed for all his failures and misery, and 
of elevating him to dominance and limitless power in 
a new order; and that his writings, though apparently 
learned and scholarly, were self-serving propaganda and 
not worthy of serious consideration. Some of them 
perceived that, if Marx's socialism prevailed, the result 
would inevitably be a police-state tyranny. 

The heritage Marx left to posterity was an evil and 
dangerous plan and technique for seizing and holding 
power by transplanting to the field of politics a combina- 
tion of the methods of the confidence man and those 
of the armed thug. 

His "scientific socialism" and "dialectical material- 
ism" correspond to the "spiel" of the non-political con- 
fidence man, to the buildup, blandishments, and false 
pretenses by which he prepares his "mark" for the 
"take." The force, violence, and sustained terrorism 
of his technique correspond to the methods of armed 
and desperate gangsters. 

The working class, or "proletariat," as he called it, 
was his "mark." To exploit the workers for his own 
selfish ends, he tried to convince them, among other 
things, that capitalism could never change; that their 
misery, already great, must inevitably and progressively 
increase under capitalism; that forceful and violent rev- 
olution, the smashing of capitalism, and the building 



496 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 

of a socialist society on its ruins were indispensable to 
their liberation from misery, oppression, and exploita- 
tion; that the end they sought justified the employment 
of any and all necessary means, illegal and criminal as 
well as legal and moral; that all history is the record 
of a class struggle between the proletariat and the cap- 
italist class, a struggle destined inevitably to end in 
victory for the proletariat and annihilation of the capi- 
talist class; that capitalism carries within itself the seeds 
of its own destruction, consisting of the proletariat, 
which had been brought into existence by the capitalist 
class, and the "forces of production." which must even- 
tually outgrow capitalism and "burst it asunder"; that it 
is the "historic mission" of the proletariat to rise up 
against and destroy capitalism; that, in the accomplish- 
ment of its mission, it must be guided and led by "sci- 
ence" and "philosophy"; and that the communist party 
must be the "vanguard of the proletariat." Naturally. 
Marx intended to be the vanguard of the vanguard, but 
the "revolutionary situation" always developing just 
around the next corner failed to materialize in his life- 
time. In fact, the kind of rc\olution he desired has 
never occurred anywhere. Though parts of his "scien- 
tific socialism" were in irreconcilable conflict with other 
parts, these inconsistencies and contradictions did not 
trouble him; he was promoting, not the advance of 
learning, but a re\olution. 

The workers, with but few exceptions, have always 
been, then and now. too discerning to be taken in by 
Marx's false pretenses, crocodile tears, and promises 
impossible of fulfillment. 

The Bolshevik coup of 1917 was accomplished not 
by a proletariat indoctrinated with Marx"s "scientific 
socialism." but by a small, closely knit, carefully trained, 
and strictly disciplined gang of professional revolution- 
aries organized and led by that master dissembler and 
opportunist, Vladimir llich L'lyanov. alias Nikolai l.en- 
in. There was practically no proletariat, as Marx de- 
fined the term, in Imperial Russia. The February 
Revolution which dethroned the Tsar and established 
the Provisional Government was a peasant revolt rather 
than a proletarian uprising. Unfortunately for itself, 
the Provisional Government was weak and vacillating 
and was only one of two governments exercising power 
in Petrograd. the other being the Petrograd Soviet. This 
presented to Lenin a perfect opportunity to divide and 
conquer which he did not neglect to exploit. His coup, 
the so-called October Revolution, overthrew the only 
go\ernment with any semblence of democracy ever 
seen in Russia. 

Lenin"s coup gave form and substance to a new force 
of darkness and evil and gave it a seat of power among 
nations. Its true nature was not perceived and the op- 
portunity presented by the ensuing civil war and the hos- 
tility of masses of the people to the new tyranny was not 
utilized by the great world powers to step in and destroy 
the infant monster which was later to unsettle, confuse, 
divide, and threaten them, and to banish peace and 
security from the earth. 

With the consolidation of the Bolshevik power and its 
forcible and bloody extension to all parts of Russia, the 
Marxist conspirators entered upon an entirely new phase 



AMENDING THK INTKHXAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 497 

and underwent a ccimplete change of character. They 
had been scattered, discredited, impotent, and without 
a secure base ot operations anywhere. They had be- 
come powerful and securely based. Their weapons for 
further conquests now included all the apparatus and 
machinery — military, political, diplomatic, and econom- 
ic — of a great world power. Imperialism, colonialism, 
diplomacy, trade, and conquest by force of arms had 
all been added to the means at their disposal. 

Marx was the prototype of a new kind of criminal, 
the political criminal, or politicriminai, if a word may 
be coined to distinguish them from the common garden 
variety of criminal whose activities are necessarily con- 
fined within narrower and more conventional forms. 

These politicriminals collectively are the enemy we 
face today. The organization through which they oper- 
ate is the Communist Party, with headquarters in Mos- 
cow and branches throughout the world. Their "front" 
is the Red Empire — the mis-named Union of Soviet 
Socialist Republics and its satellites and colonies. 

Unfortunately, the membership of their Party in- 
cludes many whom they have deceived, misled, and 
exploited, and who are as much their victims as the 
peoples in the Red Empire whom they have subjugated 
and enslaved. Some of these unfortunates sincerely 
and fervently believe that in communism, as they under- 
stand it, and in the communist movement and party, 
lies the only hope for the salvation of man and his de- 
liverance from war, want, and inequality. Their mis- 
taken zeal and fervor create and foster the false impres- 
sion that communism is a religion. It takes much more, 
however, than misplaced zeal and fervor to make a 
religion, and a false ideology born of hypocrisy and cyni- 
cism can never qualify. 

Communism must be destroyed, but this does not 
mean communism as a political and economic theory. 
A theory cannot be destroyed; it can only be shown to 
be false, invalid, or impractical. But communism as 
a conspiracy and a criminal undertaking and adventure 
to seize and hold limitless power by fraud, force, vio- 
lence, and terrorism can and must be destroyed in or- 
der that freedom, peace, law, justice, and decency may 
be restored to their rightful places on earth. 

Communism in this sense is neither true communism 
nor true socialism; it merely exploits them and holds 
them out as lures and baits to trap the unwary into 
joining or supporting it and as window dressing to di- 
vert attention and opposition from its true purpose. 
Since communism in this sense was conceived by Marx 
and developed by the Bolshevists — Lenin, Stalin, Khru- 
shchev, and others — it would be better and more ac- 
curate to call it Marxism-Bolshevism, or simply Marx- 
ism. To call it by the name of communism is to play 
into the hands of the Marxist conspirators. 

Neither socialism nor communism, in the original 
sense of the terms, prevails behind the Iron Curtain. 
The economic system, or order, is state capitalism; 
the social order is one of slavery for the workers; and the 
state is the private property and tool of a handful of des- 
pots, nowhere responsive or amenable to the will of the 
people, the workers, or the ■'proletariat." 



498 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 5 

The myth that Marxism and Marxism-Bolshevism are 
socialist and communist ideologies and movements is 
only one of many propagated by the Marxist conspira- 
tors to serve their own ends. Others include the myths 
that it is "liberal," "progressive," "left-wing," "peace- 
loving," "humanitarian," "scientific," "and "inevitable," 
and that it is the invincible champion of labor, the poor, 
the downtrodden, the dispossessed, the oppressed, the 
exploited, and all victims of imperialism, colonialism, 
discrimination, and injustice — in fact, all things to all 
men. except the wicked, war-mongering, imperialistic 
capitalists. 

Whether it is. as it claims to be, poiiticallv "leftist " 
depends on what is meant by the term. If "leftist" is 
equated with liberalism and progressivism, theoretical 
socialism and communism can, perhaps, be classified 
as "leftist," although it is difficult to sec how either can 
operate as an established social order without regimen- 
tation and a secret-police state. Marxism, in the guise 
of socialism and communism, certainly cannot qualify 
as "leftist" liberalism and progressivism. The only 
progress it has made has been backwards toward the 
violence, tyranny,and slavery of the Dark Ages. 

Marxism-Bolshevism as an active conspiracy pursued 
by purposeful, planned, systematic, and sustained ac- 
tivities can be destroyed by permanently restraining 
those who have breathed life into it and are exploiting 
it, just as Fascism and Nazism were destroyed by iden- 
tifying them with the arch-criminals, Mussolini and Hit- 
ler, and by removing them from the scene. 

We have no quarrel with the people behind the Iron 
Curtain. Our quarrel is with the governments imposed 
upon the people without their consent and against the 
will of nearly all of them, and can be settled by turning 
the tyrants out and by a transfer of their power to the 
people with the right to determine for themselves how 
they will be governed. Primarily, the task must be 
accomplished by the oppressed people themselves, but 
the Free World has an obligation and responsibility to 
assist them in every way within its power. 

War is not the answer. It would only afflict the inno- 
cent more than the guilty and inflict unbearable suffer- 
ing and loss of life on both sides. But, though we do 
not seek and do not want war, we must maintain such 
military strength and such a state of alertness, readi- 
ness, and preparedness that it would be suicidal to 
attack us. Secure in our own strength, we can work 
to mobilize all peoples everywhere against everyone's 
enemy — the Marxist politicriminals. 

Anti-communism, when applied to the fight against 
Marxism-Bolshevism, ought not be regarded as con- 
troversial, nor should it be thought of as belonging to 
the right or extreme right, it should be the concern of 
ail non-Marxists, right, left, and center. 

We do not tolerate or compromise with non-political 
criminals, nor speak of peaceful coexistence and com- • 
petition with them. Why should we accord preferential 
treatment to a political variety whose victims are num- 
bered by the million and whose crimes are infinitely 
more heinous? 

Reprinted in the public interest by 
CITIZENS ALERT 

P. O. Box 230, Corpus Christ!, Texas 



AjMKXDINC THK INTKHNAL SECURITY ACT OF lOoO 499 

A LESSON MANY PEOPLE NEVER LEARN 

IGNORANT OF THE TRUE MEANING OF COMMUNISM AND HOW 
IT WORKS. MANY AMERICANS UNWITTINGLY HELP THE REDS IN 
THEIR PLANS TO ENSLAVE THE WORLD. 

By Harold Ranstad 

Almost without exception. Americans are anti-communist. They ab- 
' hor communism because, wherever it prevails, it destroys liberty, freedom 
of expression and action, self-reliance, private enterprise, self-government, 
freedom of worship, morality, and human dignity. It governs by force, fraud, 
and fear and. in the name of enlightenment and progress, imposes, on those 
who have succumbed to its tyranny, slavery and dehumanization. 

Everything for which Americans stand and which the}' hold essential 
to a life worth living is condemned and derided by communism. 

Yet. although Americans generally have no use for communism or 
communists, many good Americans protest loudly and vigorously whenever 
an attemjit is made to expose and discredit communists. 

All such attempts are denounced as witch hunting, intolerance, bigotry, 
know-nothingism. and worse. No sooner is an anti-communist organization 
launched than it is attacked, calumniated, reviled, hissed at, and spat upon. 
The same is true with respect to individuals from the moment they assail 
the twin evils of communism and communists. 

There have, of course, been anti-communist individuals and organiza- 
tions that have merited censure because they have been self-serving and self- 
seeking, extreme in principles or methods, insincere, or otherwise unworthy. 
The attacks on anti-communists have not, however, been confined to the un- 
worthy among them. They have not been sniping operations to ])ickoff care- 
fully selected targets, but broadsides fired at all who have dared in any way 
to contest the progress of the Marxist juggernaut. 

Why do so many good Americans (perhaps most of ^vhom would 
prefer death to existence in a communist police state) join in the never- 
ending campaign to discredit and destroy those who. with greater or lesser 
skill, are fighting their battles against communism for them and. in the pro- 
cess, risking their reputations, their livelihood, their health, and even their 
lives? How is this phenomenon of perversity to be exjilained? 

Intolerance of communism is denounced, yet intolerance cf fascism 
and nazism is expected — even demanded. Rightist tyranny is feared and 
hated; leftist tyranny is somehow regarded as liberal and. therefore, tolerable. 
Communism is generally classified as leftist, yet, in truth, it is on the right — 
the extreme right — because repression, regimentation, terror, and tyranny 
are not progressive or liberal; they are reactionary. Mr. Herbert Morrison, 
then Deputy Prime Minister of England, said, on January 11. 19<8. that 



500 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 



he had never admitted, "and I admit it less and less, that the Communists 
are on the left. They are on the right." 

A great philanthropic foundation may spend millions of good, capitalist 
dollars promoting tolerance for communism, but it is safe to assert that it 
would not part with the thinnest dime to promote tolerance for anti-com- 
munism. 

In October, 1951. the Fund for the Republic was authorized by the 
Ford Foundation and given one million dollars. An additional sum of 14 
million dollars was donated to the Fund by the Foundation in February, 
1953. This huge sum of 15 million dollars was to be used to finance "activities 
directed toward the elimination of restrictions on freedom of thought, inquiry, • 
and expression in the United States, and the development of policies and 
procedures best adapted to protect these rights in the face of persistent inter- 
national tension." 

The Fund for the Republic headed by Robert M. Hutchins, a promi- 
nent educator and former chancellor of the University of Chicago, published 
a report on May 31, 1955, in which was stated that, since most of the pres- 
sure on our civil liberties has resulted from fear of communists in America, 
the Fund had financed a study of the official records bearing on communist 
activity under the chairmanship of Professor Samuel A. Stouffer of Harvard 
University. The report of the Fund stated that: 

In order to discover what the attitudes of the American people toward 
Communists and radicals were, the Fund made an appropriation for a national 
opinion survey by a committee under the leadership of Professor Samuel A. 
Stouffer of Harvard University, which has resulted in a book, "Communism, 
Conformity^ and Civil Liberties." Mr. Stouffer shows that the American 
people, at the date of the study, were remarkably intolerant of minority views. 

The American people have been called to task frequently by eminent 
and respectable authorities in government, education, religion, and other vo- 
cations for their intolerance toward new, unpopular, radical, or bizarre ideas 
and those who espouse them, including, of course, communism and com- 
munists. Dr. Hutchins went so far, in his report of May 31, 1955, as to 
proclaun that, "The most encouraging aspect of . . . (Mr. Stouffer's) findings 
was that young people, better educated people, and 'community leaders' were 
more tolerant that the cross-section of the population." 

Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, in an article in the 
Columbia Law Review stated, in 1959, that, "The American reputation for 
intolerance has grown alarmingly in recent years." He also proclaimed, "The 
witch hunt has done us incalculable damage abroad." 

Although he did not once mention communism or communists by 
name. Chief Justice Earl Warren, in a speech at Washington University in 
St. Louis, Missouri, February 19, 1955, pleaded for "the participation by all," 
which certainly includes communists, "in the life and government of the 
nation." despite the perfectly obvious fact that communists participate in 
non-communist activities, governments, and organizations merely to divide 
and conquer, rule or ruin. 

Those who advocate tolerance for it invariably speak of communism 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 501 

as "thought," "ideas." "views," a "philosophy," or an "ideology," totally ig- 
noring the fact that it is also a conspiracy, a technique, a force, and, in 
essence, the application of illegal and criminal means and methods in the 
domain of politics — a political confidence game supported by force, violence, 
and terrorism. More than 40 years of applied communism testifies beyond 
cavil that it is the grossest evil ever visited on man. 

None will deny the value or importance of tolerance, but, like every- 
thing else, it can be carried to extremes. The tolerance of even the most for- 
bearing gives way at the sight of a rattlesnake in the nursery or a rat in the 
pantry. 

Many who should know better refer to communists in the United States ' 
as "American communists" and to their organization as a "political party." 
They appeal to us to treat the communists in our midst as fellow Americans 
and their "party" as just another American political party. They ask us to 
accept them and to include them in every aspect of our national life. 

It is abundantly clear that there is no such thing as an "American 
communist." Communists have no nationality, and communists in the United 
States feel they owe no loyalty to the United States Government. Communists 
are internationalists, dedicated to the destruction of all non-Marxist states 
and the establishment of a universal Marxist state. The Communist Party, 
U.S.A., is not a political party. It is part and parcel of the international com- 
munist apparatus, wrapped in the flag of the United States and hiding be- 
hind its Constitution for the purpose of destroying it. 

Certainly, we should treat all our fellow Americans alike, but the 
communists in our midst are not our fellow Americans. Nothing we can do 
will make fellow Americans of them, for they will not have it that way. As 
Lenin said, "I spit on Russia," so the communists in the Unated States say, 
"I spit on America." 

It has been argued that we in America can afford to tolerate the com- 
munists and permit them to advocate overthrow of our government by force 
and violence because they have no chance whatsoever of succeeding in their 
advocacy of such subversion. Associate Justice William O. Douglas, in his 
dissenting opinion in Dennis, et al., v. the United States, 341 U. S. 494, ar- 
gued "Communism in the world scene is no bogeyman; but Communism as a 
political faction or party in this country plainly is. Communism has been so 
thoroughly exposed in this country that it has been crippled as a political 
force. Free speech has destroyed it as an effective political party. It is in- 
conceivable that those who went up and down this country preaching the 
doctrine of revolution which petitioners espouse would have any success." 

Such arguments ignore the indivisibility of the communist menace. 
There are not two communist threats, one domestic and harmless and the 
other foreign and formidable. There is but one threat, an international enemy 
with a dangerous foothold inside our gates. 

There are those who say we have a "better mouse trap" than the 
communists; all we need do is sell it. We only demean ourselves and show 
a lack of confidence in our way of life, they say, when we attack communism 
and expose communists. Let us save the breath we might expend fighting 
communism to sell our own superior way of life. 



84-351 O - 67 - 16 



502 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 



The argument might he sound if our problem were simply that of 
selling our product in fair and open competition with the product offered 
by the communists. Unfortunately, that is not our problem at all. Let us 
suppose, for a moment, that the communists were to offer to enter into a 
fair, open, and peaceful competition with us, they to attempt to sell their 
way of life and we ours. In any such competition, they would regard fairness 
as an anachronistic bourgeois concept which went out of style with Karl Marx. 

"Open competition" they would define as a competition in which the 
identity of the competitors was known, but the resort to secret, underhanded, 
and illegal tactics was not barred — to them. 

The Marxist conspirators do not propose to permit any people to 
choose freely between communism and any other way of life. Competition, 
in their view, is only something to be stamped out, the sooner the better. It 
is their unswerving and immutable purpose to spread communism through- 
out the earth and to establish and maintain a universal "Soviet" state. They 
have no intention of consulting their intended victims as to their wishes in 
the matter. They will gain their way by fraud, deceit, chicanery, terrorism, 
blackmail, and betrayal where they can, by force of arms where they must. 
They want only one kind of peace — the peace that will follow when all men 
everywhere have submitted to their will and become their slaves. 

All this does not mean that we should abandon our efforts to convince 
the world of the superiority of our way of life to anything the communists 
can deliver — deliver, not promise. Far from it. We must double and redouble 
ovir efforts to demonstrate the superiority of our "mouse trap." Let us not 
delude ourselves into thinking, however, that this will be sufficient in itself 
to assure our eventual triixmph over communism. 

We must never lose sight of the fact that the communists are not 
playing a game; they are fighting a war, and it is a war without rules and 
without quarter. No holds are barred; anything goes. 

In addition to selling our "mouse trap," we must continue, if we do 
not wish to be overwhelmed, to attack communism and communists and to 
expose and combat their evil, their perfidy, their hypocrisy and cynicism, 
their real aims, their strategy, tactics, and methods, their lies, their brutali- 
ties, and their crimes. Communism must be destroyed, or it will destroy us. 

Let us honor, not pillory, those who fight the battles for us. They are 
not hunting witches. They are fighting a war for survival — our survival. 

Reprinted by permission of the author and the editors of The American 
Legion Magazine by 

CITIZENS ALERT 
We are doing what we can do in our way to help win the Cold War. 
Will YOU do what YOU can? 

An excellent way cf preparing vcurself for doing your part in winning 
the Cold War is to join a neighborhood study group. 
Write for details. 

CITIZENS ALERT 

P. O. Box 230 

Corpus Christi 

Prices: 5c each. 25—81.00. 100— S3. 50. 1000— S30.00. 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 195 



503 




By HAROLD RANSTAD 

Chairman, Subversive Activities Committee 
American Society for Industrial Security 



"Tough Ciiiy Takes Charge." Thus did the Inter- 
nal Security Subcommittee of the United States Senate 
describe the "election" of Gus Hall as General Secre- 
tary ot the Gomniunist Party, USA, at the 17th 
National Gonvcution of the Party in New York in 
DcccnilHi, 1959. 

The Kremlin's selection ol Hall to head up its 
Party branch in the United States at this particular 
time is only one of many signs of the times point- 
ing to rough days ahead. 

Gus Hall was born Arvo Kusta Halberg to parents 
who were charter members of the Party in the Uniietl 
Slates. He became a member himself when he was 
only l(i or 17 years old. In 1931. he took part in riots 
in Minneapolis dtuing which he instructed a mob in 
the techniijuc of resisting and withstanding tear gas. 
a usetid skill picked up at the Lenin School of Po- 
litical Warfare in Moscow, of which he is a graduate. 
Untlcr the name of "Malone," he received instruction 
at the Lenin School in such subjects as military strate- 
gy and tactics, the erection of barricades, the use of 
"Molotov cocktails" and other explosives, sabotage, 
guerrilla warfare, and other arts and sciences es- 
sential to an understanding of Marx's theory of the 
"natural " decay and demise of capitalism. 

Hall has held almost innumerable positions of 
leadership in the Party and was one of the eleven 
Party leaders convicted in New York in 1919 for con- 
spiring to advocate the violent overthrow of the 
Government. Sentenced to five years in prison, he 
fled to Mexico and remained a fugitive from justice 
luitil October, 1951, when he was arrested and re- 
turned to the United States. Upon his release from 
Leavenworth Penitentiary on March 30, 1957, he re- 
sumed the position in Party leadership which cul- 
minaied in his election as its General Secretary. 

Communist Acquisitions 

The Krendin had already established an advance 
base in the Western Hemisphere at the time of Hall's 
elevation to the position of General Secretary. As a 
former Austrian Minister of the Interior has observed. 



the Red system of acquiring more and more territory 
is like slicing .salami. "They slice off a little bit of the 
salami, but never enough to fight over. Finally, you 
are left with just the string of the salami, and that's 
not enough to fight over, either." 

Lest we be left holding "just the string," it is time 
we seriously take stock of the new situation in the 
Western Hemisphere created by the Red beachhead 
in Cuba, which puts Moscow only ninety miles from 
our own coast. 

In his keynote speech at the 17th convention, Gus 
Hall boasted that, "The revolutionary development 
in Cid)a, and the courageous resistance of the Cuban 
peoi>le to American imperialist intervention, is an 
inspiration to the people's forces throughout this 
hemisphere." 

Translated into English, this means that the success 
of Castro's communist revolution is an inspiration 
and a goad to every Communist and commiuiist dupe 
in the Western Hemisphere to redouble his efforts to 
extend the Red Empire throughout this half of the 
world. 1 he hopes and activities of a quarter of a 
million Connnunists in Latin American have been 
tremendously stimulated by Castro's success and his 
calls lo battle against "American imperialism." 

Cuba alone coidd present no great threat to the 
security or survival of the United States, but Cuba 
backed and instructed by the Red Empire constitutes 
a very "clear and present" danger to the entire hemis- 
phere. 

Intervention in Cuba 

Soviet arms, technicians, and instructors have been 
pouring into Cuba in quantities far in excess of any 
])Ossible Cuban domestic needs. Red'(;hinese im- 
migrate openly into Latin America and Peipiug sup- 
ports Castro throughout the area. Demonsiration.s, 
riots, and even revolutions, so far abortive, kcej) 
South America and the Caribbean in a constant up- 
roar. Moscow proclaims the Monroe Doctrine dead 
and threatens to support Castro with nuclear weapons, 
if necessary. Castro orders such a drastic cut in the 



504 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 



personnel of the American Embassy in Havana that 
ilic United States finds it necessary to sever relations 
with his government. 

At the United Nations, Khrushchev bangs on the 
table, shouts, and waves his shoe to exemplify the 
dynamism, vigor, and fearlessness of his leadership, 
to demonstrate his contempt for the United States, 
and to convince the world, by (lie contrast between 
his behavior and theirs, that the leaders of the Free 
World are too "nice" and too polite to tielend their 
decadent way of life. 

Dissatisfied and unhappy people are the materia! 
.-v.> ... much Marxism fashions revolutions, and noth- 
ing creates more tlissatisfied and unhappy people than 
a national distribution o£ land which concentrates 
substantially all tillable acreage in a handful of enor- 
mous estates. 

According to Lester D. Mallory, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary lor Inter-American Affairs, two-tenths of 
one per cent of the farms in Guatemala comprise 40.8 
per cent of the total privately owned acreage. In 
Argentina, 500 owners hold 18 per cent of the farm 
land; in Cliile, one per cent controls 43 per cent of 
the land; and, in Paraguay, only 5.2 per cent of the 
farm luiits contain more than 125 acres, yet this 5.2 
per cent accoimts for 93.8 per cent of the total acreage. 
Latin America has nearly 200 million inhabitants, 
almost three-loin tlis of whom live off the soil and 
tierivc their livelihood from it. 

Latin America Ripe 

Such a situation is ideal for peddlers ol revolution 
and "expropriation." Commimisfs have little diffi- 
culty in convincing hungry and tmeducated people 
that the solution is simple — that they have only to 
dispossess the rich, take from them their huge estates, 
divide tho.se estates into many farms, and stock those 
laniis with cattle acquired in the same manner. 

There is in Latin America a large reservoir of re- 
spect and affection for the United States and its 
people, but there is also a dangerous undercurrent of 
ciny and hale which the Marxists can be relied on 
lo turn to account. Envy is the handmaiden of hate, 
and it is nalmal that the ))Oor and the himgry will 
first envy, then hate, the rich and well-led. Armed 
interventions by the United States in the past in 
some Latin American coiuuries, the Panama (^anal 
Zone, anti the Mexican War still rankle in many Latin 
hearts and make them easy prey for those who portray 
the United Stales as a i ich and grasping miser, ever 
increasing his golden hoard by merciless exploitation 
of his neighbors to the south. The support by the 
United States of est.dilished authorities in Latin 
America is easily tinned to advantage by the Com- 
munists by identifying the United Stales with those 
who support and maintain economies characterized 
by extiemcs of wealth and poverty, by the black-and- 
white contrasts between the haves and the have-nots 
in Latin America. 



The manner of the coming ol connniniisni lo Cuba 
should instruct us for ihc fuline. Communism sel- 
dom conies as such to any nation; it comes as a 
"people's revolution," or as "democracy," or "agrarian 
reform," or luider some other label more palatable 
than "communism." 

That Castio's revolution is for export cannot be 
doubled, nor shoulil the influence of his example 
on all Latin America be minimized. 

Deterioration Accelerating 

The situation in Latin America is detcrioraiing 
rapidly. Unless effective measiues are taken inmiedi- 
alely, the fuse that was lighted in Cuba may scl off a 
chain of explosions with disastrous residts for (he 
entire hemisphere. 

Whatevei' can be done to prevent a conflagration 
in Latin America must be done. Whether our eUorts 
in that direction meet with success or not, appropriate 
steps must also be taken to assure continued o|>eration 
of our industrial plant in the event of war or major 
disaster. In the entire hemisphere, only the United 
States possesses an industrial plant capable of sup- 
porting the defense necessary to survival in a nuclear 
age, and it must not be permitted to fail because of a 
lack of effective measiues of civilian defense and in- 
dustrial security. 

Communism offers Jio tolerable solution to the eco- 
nomic problems of the poor and the exploited, and 
we must do what we can to convince our neighbors 
lo the south of that simple fact. 

People-to-People Program 

A "people to peo])le" program offers one ineans of 
communication by which this objective can be pur- 
sued. There are nimierous channels through which 
the people of the LInited States can communicate 
with the people of Latin America. 

Most obvious of these are the Latin colonies in our 
cities. Miami and Tampa, for example, have sub- 
stantial populations of Latins, especially Cubans. The 
importance of their contributions to the political, 
economic .iiid ( ullin.il life of tlicir connuunities should 
be publidy acknowledged, and they should be en- 
comagcd lo participate fully in the spiritual and 
material |)rogress of their adopted municipalities. Im- 
bued with .American itieals and steeped in our way 
of life, they <an become our most effective advocates 
among their own peoples in their native lands. The 
new President ol the Uniled Stales has made a good 
slari in recogni/ing and moving to utilize the popu- 
larity and influence ihroughout Latin America of 
Ooveinor Luis Munoz Marin of Puerto Rico. 

Service clubs and < ivic organizations, such as Rotary 
International, Kiwanis, Lions, etc., can contribute 
imi)ortantly to such a project. Rotary Internalional, 
pal licularly, (ould rentier invaluable service, inasmuch 
as it has clubs in many, if not all, Latin American 



AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 



505 



coiMiiries. This would make possible the dissemina- 
lion from iis he;Kl<|iiailcrs in llic United Stales of pre- 
paied aildrCNses ^uruialely and trntlifiilly dcsrribinff 
the siluaiion (oiifiontiii)^ llic hemisphere and ronnier- 
acting vicious and deceitfid Marxist propaganda. 

A little ingenuity anil effort can uncover many 
chamiels of ronimunication nsefid in countering com- 
nuini.st propaganda with irntli and understanding. 

Responsibility of U. S. Government 

The responsil)iliiy ol our .Stale Deparlmcnl and of 
firms and individuals doing business or visiting in 
Latin America cannot be overstated. It is essential 
that oin- Government speedily adopt and implement 
an cffeclive j>iogram to thwart the designs of the 
Marxist imperialists on the Western Hemisphere. 

Domestically, we must have soinul measures lor 
the protection of our industiial plant, including the 
peisonnel, jjower, transportation, communications, 
and raw materials necessary to its continued finic- 
tioning. 

It is essential that Congress lose no time in taking 
a close, hard look at the problems of civilian defense 
and industrial security and in passing sound and ef- 
fective legislation to implement its findings. It shoidd 
consider whether the present organizational pattern, 
scope, and authority of the Office of Civil and De- 
fense Mobilization arc adequate to insure successful 
discharge of its responsibilities in the light of the 
new hemis|)heric situation. It should ask whether 
too much responsibility and authority have been frag- 
mentized and diffused among state and local authori- 
ties, and whether there has been a resultant inequal- 
ity of readiness and ])rogrcss among the fifty states 
and countless localities. The responsibility is that 
of the Federal Government, which must rely on the 
nation's industrial plant to support its armed forces. 

Traditionally, the Pentagon has been responsible 
for industrial security as such. A plant cannot oper- 
ate, liowever, without personnel, supplies, power, 
transportation, and commiuiications. A careful de- 
lineation of the respective responsibilities of the Pen- 
tagon and the OCDM vj'ould appear to be necessary 
to insure complete coverage without duplication of ef- 
loi t aud without jurisdictional <ollisiuiis and dis- 
putes. 

The Commission on Government Secuiity, in its 
report submitted June 21, 1957, recommended that 
Congress thoroughly review the subject of the great 
complex of delense-rclatcd facilities requiring physical 
security. 

■J"he Supreme C;ouri, in William L. Greene v. Neil 
H. \rcElroy. Secretary ol Dclense, on Jinie 2<), 1959, 
struck down the nation's industrial setiirity program 
for the piotection ol lonfidential delense informa- 
tion from the prying eyes of the Krendin on the 
ground that it had not been authorized by Congress 



or the President. Congress shoidd consider whether 
legislation is not desiiable to supplemeni, reinforce, 
or replace Executive Order l()a(>5. as amended |aini- 
ary 18, I9(il, and Department of Delense Directive 
5220. (i. The industrial |)lant on whidi the nation 
nuist stake its existence nuisi be protected at all costs 
against destruction by an enemy which regards it 
as its Number One target. 

Ill an article, "On the Chaiadei ol Modem War," 
in lied Stiir, November, 18, I9()(), l.ieutenaiU Colonel 
S. Kiasilnikov emphasized the importance which will 
attach to the deep rear of the enemy in any new war: 

In the last world war, the sti-atepic efforts of the op- 
posing sides were basically concentrated on crushing 
the enemy's armed forces, and the deep rear was af- 
fected only to a certain extent. This was so because 
the blows dealt to the deep rear did not have a decisive 
strategic effect on the -course and the outcome of the 
war. In a new war, the opposite will be true, and 
the desire to hamper normal work in the rear of 
the enemy will he of first-class importance. ... In a 
nuclear-rocket war, from the very first day, the deep 
rear will become a battlefield of fierce combat with 
all the terrible consequences resulting therefrom. (Em- 
phasis supplied) 

Congressional Activity 

Two committees — the House Committee on Un- 
American Activities and the Senate Internal Security 
Subcommittee — have led the way in keeping Congress 
and the public informed about the country's major 
internal security problems and in urging effective 
legislation to cope with them. Koth committees, for 
example, have held hearings which have emphasized 
the danger — and the actuality — of Communist in- 
filtration and potential sabotage in vital defense in- 
dustries, such as steel, weapons manufacturing, radio- 
telegraph communications, and shipping. Both com- 
mittees, too, have recommended legislation to plug 
the serious l(jcj])liole in our industrial security created 
by the Supreme Court's decision in the Greene v. 
McElioy case. 

A concerted Coiumunisi campaign is now under 
way, however, to destroy these two committees. With- 
in the last year, the (Jommunist Party has set up two 
new front organizations, one of them for youth, which 
have the sole purpose ol working for the abolition 
of ihe House and Senate Communist-investigating 
Committees. The Comniunists have boasted that, as 
a result of their campaign, 750,000 copies of a speech 
by a Member of Congress urging the abolition of the 
House Committee on Un-American Activities have 
been distributed thioughout the country, along with 
thousands of petitions to the same effect. The day 
before the 87th Congress convened, there appeared in 
the Washington Post, the capital's only morning news- 
paper, a two-page ad urging members of the House to 
vote for abolition ol the (Committee. Three hundred 
twenty-seven persons signed this ad, the largest groups 
being educators (over 100) and clergymen (about 70). 
On the same day, over 200 youthful picketers urged 



506 AMENDING THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 



abolilion of the Coiiiiiiitlcc in demonstrations near 
the While House. 

Tliere are some liopcliil signs, despite lliese demon- 
strations, of growing power in the Communist abo- 
lition drive. AntiCoinminiist demonstrators were al- 
,so on hand and. for the first time in years, actually 
outnumbered the |iro-Couniiunist j)ickels. The Mem- 
ber of Congress whose spccrh had been so widely dis- 
tributed announced, a few days before Congress con- 
vened, that, although he still wanted the House Com- 
mittee abolished, he was temporarily calling off his 
promised move to bring about its dissolution because 
it would be polilirally dangerous for many members 
of the House to vote lor such a step at the present 
lime. 

Despite tlie.se setbacks, the Communist abolition 
campaign will be continued and probably intensified. 
The threat to the Conuniliee is by no means ended. 
Unfortiuiately, it is sale to predict that the miending 
torrent of Communist propaganda and pressure to 
eliminate the committees will be met by a mere trickle 
of commiuiications fiom good Americans who have 
at heart the true welfare of their country. This 



places the Members of Congress in a very uncomfort- 
able situation. They are eager to hear from the other 
side; they would welcome an overwhelming flood of 
commiuiications urging them to take those actions 
which they know to be correct. They desperately 
need the su|)p()ii of their constituents against the 
blandishments and pressures of organized and vocal 
minorities. 

Congress has shown time and again that it can act 
with speed and dispatch under the spur of extreme 
emergencies. It would welcome an undeniable man- 
date from the ))eople to provide without delay ,ide- 
quate civilian defense and industrial security meas- 
ures. 

A great and good friend of the United States, Gen 
era I Carlos P. Romulo, has sounded a warning in 
Render's Dit^p.U. November, I960, which can be dis- 
regarded only at the cost of our national existence: 

"America, wake u|)! Shake oH the course of in- 
action that is giving the forces of evil the right-of-way 
in this worldl Face up to the blunt fact that you are 
now engaged in a real war and that it must be fought 
and won. This is the only alternative to defeat by 
default." 



INDEX 

INDIVIDUALS 

A 

Page 

Abbitt (Watkins M.) 279 

Abernethy (Thomas G.) 279 

Abt, John J 357 

Adair (E. Ross) 279 

Albertson (WUliam) 294-299, 301-303, 332, 338, 350, 361-363, 366, 

368, 372, 376, 377, 379, 402, 412-414, 417, 422, 429, 445, 482, 488 

Allen (Donna) 315,425,426 

Anderson, A. Leo 478-480 (statement) 

Aptheker (Herbert) 299, 360, 377, 430, 43 1, 47 1, 477, 482 

Ashbrook (John M.) 279, 468 

Ayres (William H.) 279 

B 

Baruch, Bernard 443 

Bazelon (David L.) 329 

Black (Hugo L.)--- 299-301, 360, 371, 403, 470, 477 

Blau (Patricia) 483 

Block 374 

Boggs (Hale) 279 

Brandeis (Louis D.) 469, 476 

Brennan (William J., Jr.) 299-301,474 

Bress, David G 357 

Brown 360 

Burroughs (Ada L.) 300 

C 

Cardozo (Benjamin N.) 469, 476 

Carmichael (Stokely) 392, 469 

Castro (Fidel) 466, 475, 503, 504 

Cherry, Francis A 348 

Clancy (Donald D.) 279 

Clark (Tom C.) ... 299, 363, 391, 402, 431, 482 

Clawson, Del 279 

Colmer (William M.) 279 

Costello (Frank) 366 

Counselman (Charles) 413, 414 

Countryman, Vern 425 

Cramer (William C.) 279 

Curcio (Joseph) 370 

D 

Danaher 302, 358 

Davidson, James J., Jr 480-481 (statement) 

Davis, Benjamin J 274 

Davis, John W 364 

Davis, Samuel Krass 332, 338 

Dennis 501 

DePugh 424 

Derwinski (Edward J.) 279 

Devine (Samuel L.) 279 

i 



11 INDEX 

Page 

Dirkson (Everett McKinley) 319, 439 

Dirlam, Charles 327 

Dobbs, Benjamin 332, 338 

Dole ( Robert) 279 

Dorn (W. J. Bryan) 279 

Douds (Charles) 411 

Douglas, William O 299, 300, 360, 470, 477, 500, 501 

Downing (Thomas N.) 279 

Dreier (William) 367 

Duncan (John J.) 279 

E 

Edelman, Mildred McAdory 332, 338 

Edwards (Edwin W.) 279 

Elfbrandt (Barbara) 361, 430 

Engels, Friedrich (Frederick) 492, 493, 495 

Estes, BiUy Sol 305 

F 

Fascell, Dante B 279, 487-488 (statement) 

Feinberg 391, 430, 432, 462 

Ford, Peyton 482, 485-486 (statement) 

Forer, Joseph 357 

Fortier, Louis J 397 

Frankfurter (Felix) 299, 300, 403, 404, 411, 420, 470, 477, 487 

Friedlander, Miriam 332, 338 

Fry, Leslie M 437-439 

G 

Gabor, Frances 332,338 

Gardiner, James B 311,312-313 (statement) 

Gardner (James C.) 279 

Gardner (John W.) 361 

Garrity (Edward J.) 377 

Ginsburg, Mark 400 

Girard 347 

Goldberg (Arthur J.) 471, 477 

Goodling (George A.) 279 

Grant (Walter B.) 367 

Greene, William L 505 

Griswold, Dean 413, 414 

Gross (H. R.) 279 

H 

Haaland, Norman 332, 338 

Halberg, Arvo Kusta. (See Hall, Gus.) 

Hale 367, 369 

Haley (James A.) 279 

Hall, Durward G 276, 279, 303, 304-311 (statement) 

Hall, Flora 332, 338 

Hall, Gus 330, 

342, 390, 392, 393, 423, 432, 441, 442, 450, 451, 503 

Hamerquist, Donald Andrew 332, 338 

Hand, Learned 458, 459 

Harlan (John Marshall) 299, 360, 391 

Harman, MUdred B 398 

Harriss 300 

Healey, Dorothy 332, 338 

Hubert (F. Edward) 279 

Heike 367 

Henkel 367,369 

Hickenlooper (Bourke B.) 316 

Hirsh 374 

Hitchcock 413 

Hitler (Adolf) 498 

Holmes (Oliver WendeU) 374 

Hood, Otis Archer 332, 338 



INDEX in 

Page 

Hoover, J. Edgar 329, 330, 340, 461, 476, 482, 488 

Hughes, Charles Evans, Jr 364, 469, 476 

Humphrey, Hubert H 364 

Hunter, Frank 353, 354 

Hutchins, Robert M 500 

I 
Ichord (Richard H.) 279 

J 

Jackson, Robert H 411 

Jacobson, Benjamin Gerald 332, 338 

Johnson, Arnold Samuel 332, 338 

Johnson, Lewis Martin 332, 338 

E 

Kaganovich (Lazar M.) 494 

Kahriger 365, 366 

Karpatkin, Marvin 399,400-420 (statement) 

Katzenbach (Nicholas deB.) 469,476 

Kennedy, Harold W 467,468,475 

Kennedy, Robert F 337,482 

Keyishian (Harry) 390, 430, 431, 462 

Khrushchev (Nikita Sergeevich) _.. 494,497,504 

King (Carleton J.) 279 

King, Luther (Martin) 469, 471, 477 

Kistler, Elmer Charles 332,338 

Klein (Solomon) 377 

Krasilnikov, S 505 

Kreuzer, James 432 

Kushner, Samuel 332, 338 

L 
Landrum (Phil M.) 279 

Langen, Odin 279,488-489 (statement) 

Lehman, Herbert H 364 

Lenin, Nikolai {See Lenin, V. I.). 

Lenin (V. I.) (alias for Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov; also known as Nikolai 

Lenin) 494, 496, 497, 501 

Lennon (Alton) 279 

Lewis 365, 366 

Libson, Aaron 332, 338 

Libson, Lionel Joseph 332, 338 

Lightfoot, Claude Mack 332, 338 

Lima, Albert Jason 332, 338 

Lodge 316 

Long, Speedy O 279, 399 (statement) 

Lowther, Joseph J 357 

Lumer, Hyman 332, 338 

M 

Mahan, John W 327-355 (statement), 422 (additional statement), 428, 429 

Malenkov (Georgi M.) - 494 

Mallory, Lester D 504 

Mansfield -- 366 

Marchetti (James "Totto") 366 

Marin, Luis Munoz 504 

Markis (Stanley) 366 

Markman, Marvin Joel 332, 338 

Maronev, Kevin T 357 

Marshall (John) 470 

Marshall, Thurgood 400 

Marx, Karl Heinrich 492-497, 502, 503 

Mason, George 432 



IV INDEX 

Page 

Maxwell, David 474 

Maver 360 

McClellan (John L.) 307 

McElroy, Noil H 505 

McGowan (Carl) 302, 358 

McHugh, Simon H., Jr 308, 437 

McPhaul (Arthur M.) 371 

Mears 439 

Meltzer 368 

Merryman (John) 486 

Meyers, George Aloysius 332, 338 

Miller (Clarence E.) 279 

Mitchell, Clarence 306 

Mize (Chester L.) 279 

Molotov (Vyacheslav M.) 494 

Montgomery, Edward S 452 

Morris, Robert 316-327 (statement) 

Morrison, Herbert 499 

Musmanno, Michael A 443, 444-465 (statement) , 485, 486 

Mussolini (Benito) 498 

N 

Nabried, Thomas 332,338 

Nebeker, Frank Q 357 

Nelson 395,430,464 

Nelson, Burt Gale 332,338 

Nelson, Ralph 332,338 

Nilva (Allen I.) 367 

O 

O'Connor, Daniel J 439,440-442 (statement) 

Olson (Arnold) 279 

P 
Patterson 483 

Patterson, William L 332, 338 

Pool (Joe R.) 279 

Potash, Irving 332, 338 

Prettyman (E. Barrett) 302, 329, 358, 378 

Proctor (Roscoe Quincy) 294-299, 301, 302, 332, 338, 402, 445, 482, 488 

Q 

Queen, Daniel Lieber 332, 338 

R 

Ranstad, Harold 427, 491, 499, 503 

Rarick (John R.) 279 

Reed (Alda T.) 361 

Rivers (L. Mendel) 279 

Robel (Eugene Frank) 352 

Rockwell ( George Lincoln) 424 

Rogers (Jane) 371 

Rogers (Paul G.) 279 

Romulo, Carlos P 506 

Roudebush (Richard L.) 279 

Rubin, Mortimer Daniel 332, 338 

Ruge, Arnold 493 

Rusk 360 

Russell 361,430 

S 

Sacco (Nicola) 448, 450 

Satterfield, John C 482-483 (statement) 

Saunders, Michael 332, 338 

Scales (Junius Irving) 365 

Schadeberg, Henry C 279, 397 (statement) 



INDEX V 

Page 

Scherle (William J.) 279 

Searls, George B 357 

Seeger, Pete 443 

Selden, Armistead 279, 487 (statement) 

Shapiro (William) 367 

Smith 478 

Smith, Betty Mae 332, 338 

Smith (Howard W.) 395 

Smith, Len Young '. 312 

Spevack (Samuel) 377 

Stalin (Josef) (losif \'issarionovich Dzhugashvili) 494, 497 

Stanford, John William, Jr 332,338 

Stein, Meyer Jacob 332,338 

Stephens (Robert G., Jr.) 279 

Stewart (Potter) 299,391 

Stouffer, Samuel A 500 

Stover, Francis W. (Smokey) 433-439 (statement) 

Sutherland, Milford Adolf.. ._• 332,338 

Sweeney (Edward C.) 355 

Sweezy (Paul M.) 411 

T 

Taney (Roger B.) 486 

Tavlor, Ralph William 332,338 

Taylor, William Cottle 332,338 

Teixeira, Edward S 332,338 

Thomas 412 

Timpson, Anne Burlak 332, 338 

Tormey, Betty Gannett 332,338 

Tormey, James Joseph 332, 338 

Tracy, Stanley J 382- 

396 (statement), 421 (statement), 423-433 (statement), 468, 476 

Trudeau, Arthur G 424, 425 

Truman (Harry S.) 275, 317, 318, 351, 365, 402, 404 

Tuck (WilUam M.) 279, 307 

Tydings (Joseph D.) 398 

U 

Ulyanov, Vladimir Ilich. (See Lenin, V. I.) 

Utt (James B.) 279 

V 

Vanzetti (Bartolomeo) 448, 450 

Voroshilov (or Voroshiloff) (Kliment E.) 494 

W 

Waggonner (Joe D., Jr.) 279 

Walker (Edwin A.) 305 

Walter Tad ._ ____ _ 443 

Warren, EaAII II""" 111111111" "lllll"" 11 '299," 469^ 470^ 4Y6",'477, 500 

Watkins (G. Robert) 279 

Watkins (John T.) 400, 401 

Watson, Albert (W.) 279, 307 

Weinstock, Louis 332, 338 

Weinstone, William Wolf 332, 338 

Weiss (Aline P.) 361 

Werckmeister 368 

Wheeler (Warren B.) 367 

White (Byron R.) 301,391 

White (Jasper) 363, 369-372, 380 

Whittaker (Charles E.) 299, 471, 477 

WiUiams (John Bell) 279 

Willis, Edwin E 279,397-399,422,481 

Wilson (C. C.) 367,371,372 

Wilson, Woodrow 317 

Winn, (Larry, Jr.) 279 



VI INDEX 

Page 

Wright, Loyd 465-478 (statement) 

Wylie (Chalmers P.) 279 

Y 
Yeagley (J. Walter) 344,357,428 

Z 
Zimmerman (Charles F.) 300 

ORGANIZATIONS 
A 

ACLU. {See American Civil Liberties Union.) 

AM VETS. (See American Veterans of World War II.) 

Advance and Burning Issues Youth Organizations 330, 331, 337 

American Association of University Professors 432 

American Bar Association 312, 316, 432, 473, 482 

House of Delegates 475 

Special Committee on Communist Tactics, Strategy and Objectives. 467, 475 

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 399, 

400-420 (statement), 421, 428, 447-449, 471, 477 

American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born 332, 

335, 360, 403-405, 410, 411 

American Communications Association 411 

American Legion, The 427, 439, 440-442 (statement) 

Auxiliary i 442 

National Americanism Commission 439 

American Lithographic Co 368 

American Peace Crusade 331, 336 

American Slav Congress 331, 336 

American Society for Industrial Security 427 

American Veterans of World War II (AM VETS) 478-480 

American Youth for Democracy 330 

B 

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad 367 

Bausch & Lomb Optical Co 367 

Black Muslims 424 

Black Panthers . 275, 307 

C 

California Emergency Defense Committee 331, 337 

California Labor School, Inc 331, 336, 483 

Chastleton Corp 374 

Citizens Alert 498, 502 

Civil Rights Congress 331, 335, 371, 483 

Colorado Committee to Protect Civil Liberties 331, 337 

Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy 331, 336 

Committee To End Sedition Laws 331, 337 

Communist Party of the United States of America 274-277, 

293-297, 299-303, 308, 309, 312, 319, 322, 329-331, 334, 335, 
340-342, 349, 350, 352, 354, 357-381, 390, 391, 393, 402-405, 
410, 411, 418, 422, 429-431, 434, 440, 441, 444-446, 450, 452, 
461, 477, 479, 481, 482, 485, 487, 488, 501 
National Structure: 

National Committee 441 

National Conventions and Conferences: 

Seventeenth Convention (December 1959) 503 

Eighteenth Convention (June 1966) 330, 390, 423 

Conferences on World Peace Through Law. (See World Peace Through 
Law Conferences.) 

Connecticut Volunteers for Civil Rights 331, 337 

Council on African Affairs, Inc 331, 335 



INDEX VU 

D 

Page 

DuBois Clubs of America. (See W. E. B. DuBois Clubs of America) 

E 

Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, United 332, 337 

Essgeo Co 367 

F 

Ford Foundation 500 

Freedom Studies Center 432 

Fund for the Republic, Inc 500 

I 

International Association of Chiefs of Police 390 

International Workers Order, Inc 332, 335 

J 

Jefferson School of Social Sciences 331, 335 

Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee 331, 335 

K 
Ku Klux Klan 275, 300, 306, 307, 309, 424 

L 

Labor Youth League 296, 297, 313, 330, 331, 335, 417, 418, 446, 483, 484 

M 

Military Order of the World Wars 397 (statement) 

Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, International Union of 329, 332, 336, 337 

Minutemen 424 

N 

NAACP. (See National Association for the Advancement of Colored 

People.) 
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) 306, 

307, 400 

National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, Inc 293, 

332, 335, 343, 422, 440, 445, 482, 483, 485 

National Negro Labor Council 331, 336 

National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution. _ 312-313 (statement) 
National Woman's Christian Temperance Union 397, 398 (statement) 

S 
Save Our Sons Committee 331, 337 

U 
United May Day Committee 331, 336 

U.S. Government: 

FBI. (See Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.) 
NLRB. (See National Labor Relations Board.) 
SACB. (See Subversive Activities Control Board.) 

Agriculture, Department of 305 

Bureau of the Budget 422 

Commission on Civil Rights 318 

Commission on Government Security (Wright Commission) 382- 

389, 472, 477, 505 

Defense, Department of 506 

Federal Communi cations Commission 275, 276 

Federal Security Agency: 

Food and Drug Administration 275 

Federal Trade Commission 275, 348 



Viii INDEX 

U.S. Government — Continued 

House of Representatives, United States: P*8e 

Committee on the Judiciary 304, 395, 430 

Special Subcommittee To Study the Decisions of the Supreme 

Court of the United States 464 

Justice, Department of 276, 294, 302, 305, 306, 310, 348, 363, 375, 428 

Federal Bureau of In vestigati on (FBI) 329 

352, 376, 461, 469, 476, 482, 48, 

Internal Security Division 428 

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) 398 

Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization 505 

Post Office Department 275 

President's Committee on Civil Rights 275 

Pure Food and Drug Administration. (See Federal Security Agency, 
Food and Drug Administration.) 

Securities and Exchange Commission 275 

Senate, United States: 

Committee on the Judiciary 307, 310, 363, 409, 439 

Internal Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee 
(Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration of the 
Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security 

Laws) 316, 322, 424, 425, 452 

Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration of the 
Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws 
of the Committee on the Judiciary. {See Internal Security 
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.) 

State Department 472 

Subversive Activities Control Board (SACB") 

27^-326, 327-381 (statement), 382-421, 422 (statement), 423-506 

Supreme Court 273, 

274, 276, 277, 293, 296, 299, 302, 304, 309, 318, 320, 321, 323, 
325, 328, 331, 339-342, 352, 355, 359, 360, 362, 366, 369, 372, 
378, 390, 393-396, 398, 400, 402, 410-414, 416-419, 422, 425, 
431, 432, 435, 445, 451, 461-464, 467-479, 482, 483, 485, 488 
U.S. Courts of Appeals 

District of Columbia Circuit 302, 342, 357-381, 438, 446, 484 

Wright Commission. (See Commission on Government Security.) 

University of New York, Board of Regents 462 

University of Oregon 392 



Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW) 433-439 (statement) 

Sixty-seventh National Convention, August 1966, New York 435,436 

Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade 329, 332, 335, 360, 412 

W 

WCTU. (See National Woman's Christian Temperance Union.) 

Washington Pension Union 331, 336, 483 

W. E. B. DuBois Clubs of America 321, 

329, 337, 339, 340, 438, 469. 476. 479, 480. 486 
Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). (See National Woman's 

Christian Temperance Union.) 
World Peace Through Law Conferences 482 

Y 

Young Communist International 330 

Young Communist I^eague 330 



INDEX IX 

PUBLICATIONS 

A Page 

American Legion Magazine, The 502 

C 

Columbia Law Review 500 

Communism, Conformity and Civil Liberties (book) (Samuel A. StoufiFer)__ 500 

Congressional Government (book) (Woodrow Wilson) 317 

F 

Face Of The Enemy, The (article) 491 

Fifth Amendment, The (book) (Dean Griswold) 413 

G 
German-French Yearbooks 493 

I 
Industrial Security (magazine) 491 

L 
Lesson Many People Never Learn, A (article; 499 

N 

Ninety Miles to Moscow (article) 503 

No Wonder We Are Losing (book) (Robert Morris; 316 

R 

Reader's Digest. 506 

Rhenish Gazette 492 

S 

Security World (magazine) 390 

Student "Right" Examined, A (article) 432 

U 
Union Signal (WCTU organ) 398 

o 



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 9999 05706 3024 



t 






Oni 



ijO-'U^ 






?4y 



P.rv