(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 "Passport security (testimony of Harry R. Bridges) Hearings"

O 5 Occ 79/ 



HARVARD COLLEGE 
LIBRARY 



VEflRI 




GIFT OF THE 

GOVERNMENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES 



J6 
PASSPORT SECURITY— PART 2 



HEARINGS 



BEFORE THE 



COMMITTEE ON UN-AMEEICAN ACTIVITIES 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 



EIGHTY-SIXTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 



APRIL 22, 23, 24, AND JUNE 5, 195d 
(INCLUDING INDEX) 



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



HARVARD COLLEGE LIBRARY 

DEPOSITED BY THE 
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 



AUG 7 1959 




UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
39742 WASHINGTON : 1959 



COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 

United States House of Representatives 

FRANCIS E. WALTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 
MORGAN M. MOULDER, Missouri DONALD L. JACKSON, California 

CLYDE DOYLE, California GORDON H. SCHERER, Ohio 

EDWIN E. WILLIS, Louisiana . WILLIAM E. MILLER, New York 

WILLIAM M. TUCK, Virginia AUGUST E. JOHANSEN, Michigan 

Richard Arens, Staff Director 
II 



CONTENTS 



Page 

Synopsis 741 

April 22, 1959: Testimony of: 

William L. Patterson __ 749 

April 23, 1959: Testimony of: 

Casimir Thaddeus Nowacki 773 

Dorothy Ray Friedman 785 

Fred Paul Muller 788 

Bocho Mircheff 793 

Leonore Haimowitz 798 

April 24, 1959: Testimony of: 

Stanley Nowak_" 893 

Arthur David Kahn 809 

Victor Perlo 814 

June 5, 1959: Testimony of: 

Martin Popper 825 

Victor Michael Berman _ 845 

Afternoon Session: 

Sidney T. Efross 849 

Elizabeth Boynton Millard 861 

John W. Hanes, Jr 874 

John W. Sipes 874 

Index [ i 

in 



Public Law 601, 79th Congress 

Tlie legislation under which the House Committee on Un-American 
Activities operates is Public Law 601, 79th Congress [1946], chapter 
753, 2d session, which provides: 

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

PART 2— RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Rule X 

SEC. 121. STANDING COMMITTEES 
******* 

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

Rule XI 

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES 

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

(A) tin-American activities. 

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

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

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

Rule XII 

LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT BY STANDING COMMITTEES 

Sec. 136. To assist the Congress in appraising the administration of the laws 
and in developing such amendments or related legislation as it may deem neces- 
sary, each standing committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
shall exercise continuous watchfulness of the execution by the administrative 
a'lencies concerned of arty laws, the subject matter of which is within the jurisdic- 
tion of such committee; and, for that purpose, shall study all pertinent reports 
and data submitted to the Congress by the agencies in the executive branch of 
the Government. 

IV 



RULES ADOPTED BY THE 86TH CONGRESS 

House Resolution 7, January 7, 1959 
******* 

Rule X , 

STANDING COMMITTEES 

1. There shall be elected by the House, at the commencement of each Con- 
gress, 

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

******* 

Rule XI 

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES 

******* 

18. Committee on Un-American Activities. 

(a) Un-American activities. 

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

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

For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American 
Activities, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act at such times 
and places within the United States, whether or not the House is sitting, has 
recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance 
of such Avitnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, and 
to take such testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may V^e 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. 

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

V 



SYNOPSIS 



Continuing the 1959 hearings on Passport Security,^ the committee 
interrogated William L, Patterson, general manager of The Worker, 
who appeared in response to a siibpena. 

Mr. Patterson recounted his education and his principal employ- 
ments prior to becoming general manager of The Worker in 1958. 
Although Mr. Patterson in a letter addressed to the chairman of the 
committee respecting the hearings identified himself as a Communist, 
he refused to respond to committee questions respecting whether or 
not he was currently a Communist. 

Mr. Patterson testified that in 1927 he procured a United States 
passport with which he traveled to a number of foreign countries 
including Soviet Russia where he spent considerable time. He de- 
clined, however, to answer questions respecting Communist activities 
on the trip. Thereafter, in 1934 and again in 1948, Mr. Pattei^on 
procured a United States passport with which he traveled abroad. 
The passport applications did not at the time request information as 
to whether or not the applicant was a member of the Communist 
Party. 

Although Mr. Patterson did not reveal in his passport application 
in 1948 that he proposed to visit Hungary, he, nevertheless, traveled 
to Hungary where he issued statements attacking the Government of 
the United States. 

Thereafter, Mr. Patterson's passport was taken up by the State De- 
partment because he had violated the restriction against travel to 
Hungary. 

In July 1958, Mr. Patterson filed another passport application. At 
the time, the passport application contained a question inquiring if 
the applicant had ever been a member of the Communist Party. Mr. 
Patterson did not answer the question. 

Mr. Patterson testified as follows : 

Mr. Patterson. I didn't answer that question because the 
State Department correctly, under the decision of the Su- 
preme Court, held that it was not — that that question could 
be evaded and, therefore, under the State Department's posi- 
tion and the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Kent 
and Briehl, the cases of Rockwell Kent and Briehl, I am of 
the political opinion of others that whether you are a Repub- 
lican, Democrat, Socialist, or what have you, it was not neces- 
sary nor within the province of the State Department to in- 
quire. 



1 See hearings on Passport Security — Part 1 (Testimony of Harry R. Bridges, Apr. 21, 
1959). 

741 



742 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Arens. Was a passport issued to you j)ursuant to this 
application which you filed several months ago? 

Mr. Patterson. It was. 

Mr. Arens. And you now have in your possession a United 
States passport issued to you pursuant to this application 
made in July of 1958; is that correct ? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. Arens. Now, may I ask you, as of the instant that 
you affixed your signature to this passport application in 
July of 1958, were you then a member of the Communist 
Party ? 

(Witness confers with his counsel.) 
******* 

Mr. Patterson. * * *. Mr. Staff Director, it is not within 
your province to ask that question any more than it was the 
province of the State Department, as held by the Supreme 
Court. Therefore, Avith authority of the Supreme Court, I 
decline, and, of course, under the Constitution, I decline to 
answer that question. 

Mr. Scherer. I ask that he be directed to answer the ques- 
tion. 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question, 
Mr. Patterson. 

Mr. Patterson. I decline. 

Mr. Arens. Where do you intend to go on your passport 
and when? 

Mr. Patterson. It would be impossible for me to answer 
such a question, because I don't know. 

Casimir T. Nowacki of New York City appeared in response to a 
subpena. He refused to give his occupation, basing his refusal on the 
ground, among others, that his answer might tend to incriminate 
him. 

The testimony reveals that in 1949 Mr. Nowacki -procured a United 
States passport with which lie traveled to Poland; that in 1949 the 
passport application which he filed did not interrogate the applicant 
as to whether or not he was a member of the Communist Party. In 
the instant hearings Mr. Nowacki refused to respond to questions as 
to whetlier his expenses to Poland in 1949 were paid by the Com- 
munist Party and whether he attended a special training course for 
Communists in Warsaw in 1949. Mr. Nowacki testified that in 1956 
he filed another application for a ITnited States passport which was 
issued to him. Shortly, thereafter, he received a letter from the De- 
partment of State requesting him to submit under oath or affirmation, 
a statement with respect to present or past membership in the Com- 
munist Party, and notifying him that pending receipt of the statement 
his passport was Avithdrawn. 

The testimony reveals that, notwithstanding his receipt of this 
letter, Mr, Nowacki attempted to depart from the United States with 
the passport in his possession but that the passport was seized on tlie 
ship's gangplank by Department of State officials. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 743 

Mr. Nowacki refused to testify as to whether he avus a member of 
the Communist Party at the time he procured his passport in 1956. 
He likewise refused to reveal the source of his expenses on his proposed 
trip and the objective and purpose of the proposed trip. 

In November 1958, Mr. Nowacki filed another passport application 
which contained a question as to whether the applicant was a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party but Mr. Nowacki did not answer the 
question. The passport was issued to him shortly thereafter. Mr. 
Nowacki was confronted in the course of the hearinos with committee 
information and exhibits respectino- his membership in the Com- 
munist Party and his Communist activities but he refused to respond 
to committee queries on the subject matter. He likewise declined to 
answer whethei- he was at the moment of the hearings a member of 
the Communist Party. 

Dorothy Ray Friedman of Providence, R.I., appeared in response 
to a subpena. In hearings of the committee held in Boston, Mass., in 
March 1958, Armando Penha, who for a number of years had been 
an FBI undercover agent in the Communist Party, identified Mrs. 
Friedman as a person known by him to be a Communist. In the 
Boston hearings Mrs. Friedman appeared in response to a subpena, 
but refused to answer any questions respecting her Communist Party 
membership or activities. 

Thereafter, in July 1958, the instant hearings reveal, Mrs. Fried- 
man filed an application with the Department of State for a United 
States passport. She refused to answer the question on the applica- 
tion as to whether she was a member of the Connnunist Party, but the 
passport was issued to her. In the instant hearings Mrs. Friedman 
refused to answer any questions, except to give her name, residence, 
and occupation, basing her refusal on the ground, among others, that 
her answers might incriminate her. 

Fred Paul Muller of Hoboken, N.J., appeared in response to a sub- 
pena but refused to answer any questions except to give his name and 
place of residence, basing his refusal on the ground, among others, 
that his answers might incriminate him. There were displayed to Mr. 
Muller photostatic reproductions of passport applications filed by 
him with the Department of State in August 1950, September 1954, 
and July 1958, respectively, and Mr. Muller was confronted with in- 
formation of the committee that in 1956 he had been cited by the inter- 
national Communist apparatus for doing "fine international work for 
the party." Mr. Muller persisted in his refusal to answer questions 
on the subject matter. 

Bocho Mircheff of Detroit, Mich., appeared in response to a subpena. 
He refused to state his occupation on the ground^ among others, that 
to do so would be to supply information that might be used against 
him in a criminal proceeding. Mr. Mircheff testified that he w^as born 
in Bulgaria and became a naturalized citizen in Detroit in 1938. There 
w^as displayed to Mr. Mircheff a photostatic reproduction of a passport 
application filed by him with the Department of State in 1946'and Mr. 
Mircheff was interrogated respecting the trip which he took to Bulgaria 
at that time, but he refused to answer any questions respecting the 
trip on the ground, among others, that to do so w^ould give information 
which could be used against him in a criminal proceeding. There was 
also displayed to Mr. Mircheff' a photostatic reproduction of a passport 



744 PASSPORT SECURITY 

application filed b}' him with the Department of State in June 1958, 
in which application he omitted fillinfj out questions respecting mem- 
bershi]) in the Communist Party. 

Mr. JNIircheff refused to answer whether he was a member of the 
Communist Party at the time he filed the application for a passport in 
June 1958, and whether he was a member of the Communist Party at 
the instant of his testimony. 

Mr. Mircheff w^as scheduled to go abroad shortly after the hearings. 
He refused to answer whether his expenses will be paid by persons 
known by him to be members of the Communist Party, whether his 
mission abroad is under the direction of the Communist Party, and 
whether he expects to engage in Communist Party activities after he 
arrives in Bulgaria. 

Leonore Haimowitz of Plainfield, N.J., appeared in response to a 
subpena. There was displayed to Mrs. Haimowitz a photostatic re- 
production of a passport application filed by her with the Depart- 
ment of State in 1949 for a passport to go to Europe, but she refused 
to answer any questions respecting the passport application on the 
ground that to do so might tend to incriminate her. Mrs. Haimo- 
witz was confronted with committee information to the effect that 
in 1954 as a then member of the Communist Party she engaged in 
Communist Party activities in Mexico. She refused to answ^er ques- 
tions respecting the subject matter on the ground that to do so might 
tend to incriminate her. 

There was displayed to Mrs. Haimowitz a copy of the passport 
application to go to Europe filed by her with the Department of 
State in July 1958. She refused to answer any questions respecting 
the passport application and wliether or not a passport was issued 
pursuant to the application, although tlie passport application showed 
that the passport was issued on September 10, 1958. She based her 
refusal on the ground that if she answered tlie question she would be 
giving information which could be used against her in a criminal 
proceeding. Mrs. Haimowitz, likewise, refused upon the same ground 
to answer whether she was a member of the Communist Party at the 
very moment of her testimony. 

Stanley Nowak of Detroit, Mich., appeared in response to a sub- 
pena. He stated that his occupation was "Journalism" but in response 
to a question as to where he was employed he declined to answer 
giving as a reason, among others, "I also want to claim at this time 
the privilege of the fifth amendment." 

In an opinion of the Supreme Court on May 26, 1958, in the case of 
the United States v. Stanley Nowak (the witness) the Court stated 
that the Government had proved that Nowak was a member of the 
Communist Party. Mr. Nowak, in the instant hearings, testified 
that thereafter in July 1958, he filed a passport application with the 
Department of State but that he did not fill out the questions on the 
application form respecting Communist Party membership "because 
it was not necessary according to the decision of the Supreme Court." 

Mr. Nowak declined to answer whether at the instant that he had 
affixed his signature to the application form he was a member of the 
Communist Party. He likewise declined to state wdio paid his ex- 
penses on the trip to Poland which he made on a United States pass- 
port in September 1958, basing his declination on the ground, among 
others, that his answer micrht incriminate him. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 745 

Arthur David Kahn of Brooklyn, N.Y., appeared in response to a 
subpena but refused to answer any questions of the committee "on 
the basis of the fifth amendment," except to give his name and 
address. 

There were disjDlaj^ed to Mr. Kahn a series of passport applications 
and applications for renewal filed by him with the Department of 
State, beginning in 1944 pursuant to which he had obtained passports 
or renewals to travel abroad, including a passport application filed 
under date of July 23, 1958, pursuant to which a passport was issued 
on August 25, 1958. 

Mr. Kahn was confronted with committee information to the effect 
that over the course of many years' time as a member of the Commu- 
nist Party he had participated in a number of Communist activities 
and that while serving with the OSS of the United States Govern- 
ment in Germany, he was in contact w^ith German Communists for the 
purpose of conducting Communist Party operations. The record 
reveals that Mr. Kahn had been refused United States passports on 
numerous occasions on security grounds but that after the decision of 
the Supreme Court in the Kent-Briehl case a passport was issued to 
him. 

Victor Perlo of New York City appeared in response to a subpena 
and stated that his occupation was an economist. There was dis- 
played to ]\Ir. Perlo a passport application filed by him with the 
Department of State in 1947 in which he stated that he sought a 
passport to go to London. The passport application w\as denied. 
Thereafter, in 1950, Mr. Perlo filed another passport application with 
the Department of State seeking a passport to go to France, Belgium, 
Italy, and England for "research and traAel." This passport appli- 
cation, likewise, was denied. 

Subsequently, Mr. Perlo filed another passport application in July 
of 1958. He then received from the Department of State a letter stat- 
ing that the Department "has received information indicating that you 
have been a member and a leader of an espionage gi'oup and that 
you have actively engaged in espionage activities on behalf of a for- 
eign government.'" The letter requested him to answer a series of 
questions respecting his activities. Subsequent to receipt of the letter 
from the Department of State, Mr. Perlo sent a letter to tlie Depart- 
ment respecting his proposed trip, but did not answer the questions 
of the Department as to whether he had engaged in espionage. 

In the instant hearings Mr. Perlo refused to answer "on the grounds 
of the fifth amendment" whether he had ever engaged in espionage 
activities against the Government and the peop)le of the United States. 
He, likewise, refused to state whether he was a member of the Com- 
munist Party the instant he had affixed his signature to the passport 
application in 1958, and whether he was a member of the Commmiist 
Party during his appearance before the committee in the present 
hearings. The record further reveals that in December 1958, Mr. 
Perlo addressed a letter to the Chief of the Passport Office, as fol- 
lows: 

Dear Mrs. Knight: I have your letter of November 24. 
Since you are apparently determined to violate the law by 
denying me a passport., and since it is obvious from Mr. 
O'Connor's reference to me in his speech of November 8 that 



746 PASSPORT SECURITY 

my application has been prejudged, please return my ap- 
plication and fee. 

Martin Pop])er of New York City appeared in response to a sub- 
pena. There was displayed to Mr. Popper and identified by him a 
photostatic copy of an application for a passport which was pro- 
cured by him in August 20, 1958, in Avhich Mr. Popper omitted an- 
swers to questions respecting membership in the (\)nnnunist Party. 

In response to a question as to whether at the time he executed the 
application for a passport he was a member of the Communist Party, 
Mr. Popper declined to answer. lie gave a number of reasons for his 
refusal but specifically did not claim the privilege against self-in- 
crimination. 

There was likewise displayed to Mr. Popper and identilied by him 
a photostatic copy of a passport application executed by him on 
March 11, 1946, pursuant to which Air. Popper received a passport 
to travel to Germany to observe the Nurembei'g trials. Mr. Popper 
declined to answer whether he was a member of the ('ommunist Party 
at the time he made the application for the passport, and whetlier he 
conferred with Communist Party leaders in any foreign country dur- 
ing his trip abroad. 

There was also displayed to Mr. l\)pper and identified by him an 
application for a passport on September 26, 19-16, pursuant to which 
he procured a passport to attend a meeting of the International Con- 
gress of Lawyers in Paris while Mr. Poppei- was secretary of the 
National Lawyers Guild. 

Mr. Popper refused to answer whether he was a member of the 
Communist Party at the time of his attendance at the International 
(Congress of Lawyers in Paris. There was displayed to Mr. Popper and 
identified by him a photostatic copy of an application for a passport 
filed by him in 1954, and in connection therewith, a copy of a letter 
addressed to him from the Director of the Passport Office in which 
it was stated that "In your case it has been alleged that you were a 
Communist" and that "* * * the evidence indicates on your part 
a consistent and prolonged adherence to the Communist Party 
line * * *." The letter stated that Mr. Popper would be "required 
to submit a sworn statement whether you ai-e now or ever have been 
a Communist." 

Mr. Popper refused to state whether he was at the time of the hear- 
ing a member of the Communist Party and whether the testimony of 
Mr. Mortimer Eiemer w^as correct in wdiich Mr. Eiemer stated that 
Mr. Popper was a member of a Communist group composed exclu- 
sively of lawyers. 

Victor Michael Berman of New York City appeared in response to 
a subpena but refused to answer any questions of the committee, ex- 
cept to give his name and address, and that he was presently un- 
employed, basing his refusal on tlie ground, among others, "of my 
constitutional privilege under the fifth amendment." 

There was displayed to Mr. Berman a copy of a passport applica- 
tion filed by him under date of September 8, 1958, in which he failed 
to answer questions respecting membership in the Communist Party, 
pursuant to which application a passport was issued. Mr. Berman 
was interrogated respecting a trip made by him to the World Youth 
Festival in Budapest, in August 1949, his chairmanship of the Student 



PASSPORT SECURITY 747 

Branch of the Communist Party at the University of Colorado in 
1949, and his membership in the New York section of the Commu- 
nist Party in 1954. 

Pie persisted in his refusal to answer all questions including a ques- 
tion whether he was at the time of the hearing a member of tlie Com- 
munist Party, basing his refusal on the ground, among others, "of 
my constitutional privilege under the fifth amendment." 

Sidney T. Efross appeared in response to a subpena. Upon a re- 
quest to state his occupational background, Mr. Efross declined to 
answer on the ground, among othei's, that his answer would incrimi- 
nate him. There was displayed to Mr. IGfross a copy of an application 
filed by him for a passport on January 13, 1953, to travel to Europe, 
and a letter of Marcli 25, 1953, from the Director of the Passport 
Office disapproving the application on security grounds. 

Mr. Efross was confronted with the testimony of ]\Ir. Frank Peo- 
ples of Lorain, Ohio, who testified that while he was serving in the 
Communist Party as an undercover agent of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, he knew Sidney Efross as a member of the Communist 
Party in 1950. Mr. Efross declined to answer any questions respect- 
ing this testimony, basing his declination "on the same grounds." 

Elizabeth Boynton Millard of New York City appeared in response 
to a subpena. She declined to answer respecting her educational 
background or occupational record, basing her declination on various 
grounds including the "protection of the first and fifth amendments." 

There was displayed to Miss Millard a copy of the Daily Worker 
of April 17, 1950, containing an article by Betty Millard respecting 
her trip to Red China but she declined "on the same grounds" to 
answer any questions respecting the article or the trip. 

There was likewise displayed to Miss Millard a photograph clipped 
from an East German publication of February 4, 1951, bearing a 
caption identifying Betty Millard as a participant in a rally in East 
Germany. She declined to answer any questions respecting the subject 
matter "on the same grounds." 

There was also displayed to Miss Millard a photostatic copy of 
an application for a passport made by her in July 1958, bearing 
a stamp "passport issued November 4, 1958" in which application 
Miss Millard failed to answer questions respecting membership in 
the Communist Party. Miss Millard declined to answer whether she 
was at the time of the hearing a member of the Communist Party. 

John W. Hanes, Jr., Administrator, Bureau of Security and Con- 
sular Affairs of the Department of State, accompanied by John W. 
Sipes, Security Counsel, Department of State, testified respecting 
passport security legislation. Characterizing existing passport con- 
trol as a "particularly dangerous hole in our defenses against the 
operations of the international Communist conspiracy," Mr. Hanes 
stated that at the present time the Department of State has no 
alternative but to issue passports upon demand to hard-coi'e active 
Communist supporters. 

Continuing, Mr. Hanes testified : 

I don't know exactly how many members the Communist 
Party of the United States now has — perhaps fifteen or 
twenty thousand. But, however many there are, each and 
every party member as of today can get a passport from the 



748 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Department of Sta,te, except in tlie rare instance that he hap- 
pens to be ineligible for some other reason, such as being a 
fugitive from justice. This is a breach in our defenses wliich 
our enemies have been quick to take advantage of. Many 
persons with Imown Communist affiliations have applied for 
passports since the decision of the Supi-eme Court, some of 
them even though they have no present intention of going 
abroad. 

Mr, Hanes discussed the histoiy and background of passport se- 
curity and recommended certain legislation to block existing loop- 
holes. Ainong the significant comments by Mr. Hanes on proposed 
legislation was the following : 

I can say bluntly that any legislation concerning denial of 
passports to Communist supporters would be meaningless 
and would not achieve any purpose if it prohibited the gov- 
ernment from utilizing confidential information. Almost 
without exception, dangerous cases in the Commmiist area 
involve confidential information and investigative sources. 
Indeed, the more recent and meaningful our information 
is, the more likely it is that it has come from current con- 
fidential investigative sources within the Commmiist move- 
ment. 



PASSPORT SECURITY— PART 2 



WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1959 

United States House op^ Reppjesentatives, 

Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Un-American Acti\tties, 

Washington^ D.C. 

PUBLIC hearings 

The subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities 
met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in the Caucus Room, Old House 
Office Building, the Honorable Francis E. Walter (committee chair- 
man) , presiding. 

Subcommittee members : Representatives Francis E. Walter, Penn- 
sylvania; Morgan M. Moulder, Missouri; Clyde Doyle, California; 
Donald L. Jackson, California ; and Gordon H. Scherer, Ohio. 

Committee members also present: Representatives William M. 
Tuck, Virginia, and August E. Joliansen, Michigan. 

Staff members present: Richard Arens, staff director, Donald T. 
Appell and Frank J. Bonora, investigators. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

Members present : Representatives Walter, Doyle, and Scherer. 

The Chairman, Mr. Arens, call your witness, please. 

Mr. Arens. William L. Patterson, please come forward and re- 
main standing while the chairman administers an oath. 

The Chairman, Will you raise your right hand? 

Mr. Patterson. I will affirm, Mr. Walter. 

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

Mr. Patterson. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM L. PATTERSOIT, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, ABRAHAM UNGER 

Mr. Arens, Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and 
occupation. 

Mr. Patterson. My name is William L. Patterson. My address is 
1268 President Street, Brooldyn, N,Y. I am at present manager 
of The Worker, a New York paper. 

(Representative Jackson entered the room.) 

Mr. Arens. You are appearing today in response to a subpena 
served upon you by the Committee on I^n -American Activities? 

Mr, Unger, Before you proceed, Mr. Arens 

Mr. Arens. I am going to get counsel identified in just a moment, 
please. 

749 



750 PASSPORT SECURITY 

You are appeariiifr today in response to a siibpena that was served 
upon you? 

Mr, Patterson, I am, 

Mr. Arens. You are represented by counsel ? 

Mr. Patterson. I am. 

Mr. Arens. Counsel, kindly identify yourself. 

Mr. Unger, My name is Abraham Unger of Freedman and Unger, 
U-n-g-e-r, 320 Broadway, New York City, attorneys. 

Mr. Arens. Where and w^hen were you born ? 

Mr, Unger, If you please, Mr, Arens, may I as a preliminary mat- 
ter, may I, in belialf of my client here, raise objection to tlie com- 
petence of the committee to proceed with this inquiry upon the ground 
that the resolution under which it is functioning is unconstitutional, 
vague, uncertain, and does not empower it to proceed with an in- 
vestigation of tliis kind. 

The Chairman. Mr. Unger, you know this is not the riglit forum 
to raise that question. 

Mr. Unger. Sir, may I suggest to you, I assure you I would not have 
raised it but for the fact that a member of your own committee, Mr. 
Scherer, has brought this to your own attention in a motion which he 
made to include in the appendix of the Congressional Record, the 
report of the American Bar Association, certainly an organization 
which supports, which even worships, 3^our committee and in which 
there is very sharp criticism of the resolution. 

The Chairman. I understand all of that. Now, Mr. Unger, I am 
not surprised because I know all about you and your background. So 
now let us not interfere with these proceedings. You advise your 
client when a legal question arises. 

Go ahead, Mr. Arens. 

Mr. Unger. Have you ruled, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Walter, have 
you ruled ? 

Mr. Arens. Where and when were you born ? 

The Chairman. I have not ruled on anything at all. I am merely 
advising you to read the rules of the committee and conduct yourself 
according to the rules. 

Mr. Patterson. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Arens. Where and when were you born ? 

Mr, Patterson. Just one moment, Mr. Clii^irman, I would like to 
inquire as to the reasons why I have been called here. 

(Representative Johansen entered the room.) 

The Chairman. Yes. You have been called because this committee 
is now studying various phases of the security laws and the position 
of this great Republic ; and, among other things, we are inquiring into 
the advisability of attempting to do something about the situation 
created when the Supreme Court leaned over backwards in order to 
prevent the Secretary of State from exercising tlie discretionary 
authority that he always was presumed to have with respect to the 
issuance of passports to undesirable people, that is, to people whose 
traveling abroad might injure the security of the United States. That 
is the reason why you have been called. The record shows, in detail, 
the purpose of this hearing and the purpose was stated by myself 
yesterday. 

Please proceed, Mr. Arens. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 751 

Mr. Patterson. May I just 

Mr. Arens. Please answer the question, where and when were you 
born ? 

Mr. PATn:RSON. Just one moment. Mr. Chairman, may I state that 
it is my opinion, of course, that tlie Supreme Court was protecting the 
constitutional rights of people. 

The Chairman. We are not interested in your opinion. We are 
interested in your testimony ; and if you will answer the questions that 
are propounded by counsel, we wnll get somewhere. 

Mr. Patterson. I am interested in your authority, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Arens. Where and when were you born ? 

Mr. Patterson. I was born in tlie city of San Francisco, August 
27,1891. 

Mr. Arens. Please give us a word about your formal education. 

Mr. Unger. Mr. Chairman, would you permit the record to show 
an objection when the witness makes it? If you don't permit counsel 
to make it, you certainly permit witness to make it for the reason that 
the record that you make here must be complete. If 

The Chair^ian. Please do not interrupt the proceedings. You are 
a member of the bar. You know that 

Mr. Unger. I certainly am. 

The Chairman. You know this is frivolous. 

Mr. Unger. It is not frivolous. 

The Chairman. Of course it is. 

Mr. Unger. It is not, Mr. Walter. I don't think it is considerate 
of you to say that to a member of the bar. You are a law37er, and j^ou 
know very w^ell the objection made for the record is not frivolous. I 
think the matter can be 

The Chairman. Whether an objection is made and appears on the 
record is absolutely immaterial if you find yourself in a court of law. 
Now I do not think that you are trying to get yourself into that posi- 
tion. 

Mr. Unger. Of course 

The Chairman. Whether you object or do not object will in no wise 
affect the deliberation of this committee when we go over your client's 
testimony when we are considering the writing of legislation. 

So go ahead. 

Mr. Arens. Now would you please answer the question with re- 
spect to your formal education? 

Mr. Patterson. I was educated at the University of California and 
the Hastings College of Law of the University of California. 

Mr. Arens. Did you receive a degree in the law ? 

Mr. Pati^erson. I did. 

Mr. Arens. And have you been admitted to practice ? 

Mr. Patterson. I have. 

Mr. Arens. In what States have you been admitted to practice ? 

Mr. Patterson. New York, Pennsylvania, and I think a few other 
States. 

Mr. Arens. Give us, if you please, sir, just the principal employ- 
ments you have had since you completed your formal education. 

Mr. Patterson. I have been an attorney, practicing attorney, in the 
early 1920's. I have been a student of political economy and eco- 

39742— 59— pt. 2 2 



752 PASSPORT SECURITY 

nomics since then. And I have been a teacher, a newspaperman, and a 
hibor oi'i2;anizer. 

INIr. AiJKNs. Would you tell us if you have been employed by any or- 
ganizations on a full-time basis? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes, I have been employed by a number of organ- 
izations. 

Mr. Arens. Tell us the names of them, please, sir. 

Mr. Patterson. The International — I was national secretary of the 
International Labor Defense. 

Mr. Arens. Over what period of time were you national secretary 
of the International Labor Defense ? 

Mr. Patterson. From 1928, I think until, or 19— in the late '20's 
until the '30's. 

Mr. Arens. Where were you located when you were national secre- 
tary of the International Labor Defense ? 

Mr. Patterson. The national office was located in the city of New 
York. 

Mr. Arens. Is that w^here your otfice was? 

Mr. Patterson. That is where my office was. 

Mr. Arens. All right, sir. Did you have any other employment 
of a similar character? 

Mr. Patterson. I was national executive secretary of the Civil 
Eights Congress. 

Mr. Arens. And over what period of time were you national exec- 
utive secretary of the Civil Rights Congress? 

Mr. Patterson. From '48 to 1956. 

Mr. xYrens. All right, sir. And any other similar employments 
which you had? 

Mr. Patterson. I was the 

Mr. Unger. You mean employment or similar employment? 
Wliichisit? 

Mr. Arens. Similar employment. 

Mr. Patterson. I have had no similar employment. 

Mr. Arens. How long have you been the general manager of The 
Worker ? 

Mr. Patterson. I became the general manager of The Worker, 
beginning of 1958. 

Mr. Arens. What was your employment from 1956 until 1958 ? 

Mr. Patterson. Cleaning up the affairs of the Civil Rights Con- 
gress. It was liquidated. 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever been issued a United States passport? 

Mr. Patterson. I have. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Arens. Can you tell us when you were isisued United States 
passports ? What years ? 

Mr. Patterson. I would like to secure from the chainnan infor- 
mation as to the authority with which this committee investigates 
matters of passports. The resolution under which this committee was 
brought into being does not authorize an investigation of passports 
by this committee. The right to travel is a constitutional right, and 
I see it, it is my opinion, that neither this committee or any commit- 
tee so constituted has authority by Congress to investigate that 
matter. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 753 

Mr. ScHERER. INIr. Chairman, even the President of the United 
States in his State of the Union Message asked this Congress to pass 
legislation which would enable the State Department to deal effec- 
tively with Communists who seek passports. 

Mr. Unger. Mr. Scherer, you are missing the point of the witness' 
objection. He referred to this committee's authority. 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Chairman, regular order. I am sure comisel for 
the witness knows the rules of the committee. One of the rules is 
that he will not engage in 

Mr. Patterson. I want to say, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Scherer, that 
while there may be a committee of Congress authorized to investigate 
into the right of American citizens to travel, certainly it would not 
be the Un-American Committee. It might be some committee dealing 
with foreign aifairs or it might be a committee of Judiciary Com- 
mittee. 

The Chairman. That is a question for the parliamentarian of the 
House to decide, and there are three committees tliat iiave jurisdic- 
tion in this general field. Tlie Committee on Un-American Activi- 
ties — not as you Communists call it, the Un-American Committee — 
the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Foreign Affairs Committee. 

Mr. Patterson. Mr. Chairman, may I interject? 

The Chairman. Go ahead, Mr. Arens, ask the question. 

Mr. Patterson. Just one second. 

The Chairman. Go ahead, Mr. Arens. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you now, if you please 

Mr. Patiterson. Just a second, please. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you now, if you please, a photostatic 

Mr. Patterson. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased if you did not 
designate my politics where you don't know them, and when you char- 
acterize me as a Communist you don't 

The Chair^ian. Just a minute. Are you a Communist ? 

Mr. Patterson. I will not answer that question. I don't know by 
what authority you ask it, Mr, Walter. 

The Chairman. Let us suppose that I have the authority. Are you 
a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Patterson. I am not supposing anything here. 

The Chairman. Are you a member of the 

Mr. Patterson. What authority do you have ? 

The Chairman. I am asking you. You raised this question. I am 
asking you, are you a Communist ? 

Mr. Patterson. I am not answering that question, Mr. Walter, for 
you have no authority to ask me that question. 

The Chairman. All right. 

;Mr, Scherer. I think the witness should be directed to answer. 

The Chairman. I direct you now to answer this question. You 
have raised this point. Now I am asking you, or directing you, to 
answer the question. Are you now, or have you ever been, a member 
of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Patterson. Mr. Chairman, 

The Chairman. Does that paper that your counsel just handed you 
contain the ansAver you are going to give me ? 

Mr. Patterson. No. It does not. 



754 PASSPORT SECURITY 

The CiiAiRiMAN. You are directed to answer the question of whether 
or not you are a Communist. 

Mr. Patterson. My politics are, I think, known. 
Mr. Jackson. Known on what basis? 

Mr. Patterson. I think they are known to this committee. And 
this committee has no right to pry into my politics any more than it 
would have the right to pry into my religious beliefs or affiliations. 
Mr. Jackson. Is it not the truth that you volunteered to this com- 
mittee your politics ? 

Mr. Patterson. No, I did not, Mr. Jackson. 

The Chairman. You wrote me a letter in which you said, "Why am 
I, other Communists and progi'essives summoned before you?" 

Mr. Patterson. If that is correct, then you have knowledge of my 
politics. 

The Chairman. I am merely asking the question. You raised this 
wliole point yourself. 

Mr. PATTiiRSON. No. You raised it, Mr. Chairman, by making a 
characterization. 

The Chairman. Show him this, Mr. Arens. Yes, I made a charac- 
terization because of what you wrote to me. Show him that letter. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Patterson, we display to you a letter bearing the 
signature "William L. Patterson," addressed to the "Un-American 
Activities Committee, Att'n Representative Francis E. Walter, 226 
Old House Office Bldg., Washington, D.C." I ask you if you will 
kindly examine that letter and tell this committee, while you are under 
oath, whether or not that is your signature affixed to the letter. 
( Document was handed to tlie witness. ) 
Mr. Patterson. I am of the o])inion it is my signature. 
The Chairman. Look at it carefully and tell us whether or not that 
is your signature. 

Mr. Patterson. I am of the opinion it is my signature. 
(Document marked "Patterson Exhibit No. 1" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

The Chairman. All right, then. 

Well, let us not waste any more time, Mr. Arens. Go ahead with 
your next question. 

Mr. Scherer. Pardon. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt? He has 
not answered your direction. 

The Chairman. Yes. I directed you to answer the question of 
whether or not you are a Communist. 

Mr. Patterson. And, Mr. Chairman, under the first amendment of 
the Constitution I refuse to answer that question. 
The Chairman. All right. Go ahead. 
(Representative Tuck entered the room.) 

Mr. Arens. Now I display to you, if you ])lease, a photostatic re- 
production of a passport application in 1927 submitted by William L. 
Patterson to the Department of State in which William L. Patterson 
solicits a United States passport to visit France, Germany, and Poland. 
Kindly examine that document, if you please, and tell this com- 
mittee whether or not that is a true and correct reproduction of a 
passport application filed by yourself with the Department of State 
in 1927. 

(Document w^as handed to the witness.) 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



PASSPORT SECURITY 755 

Mr. Patterson. It appears to be my sifrnatuie. I would take it, 
therefore, that it is. The writing seems to be mine, and I would take 
it that it is an application made by me at that time. 

(Document marked "Patterson Exhibit No. 2" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Akens. "Was a passport issued to you pursuant to this api)lica- 
tion? 

Mr. Patteuson. I think that such a passport was issued. 

(Eepresentative Johansen left the room.) 

Mr. Arens. Did you make a trip on the passport in 1927? 

Mr. Patterson. I made a tri]). 

Mr. Arens. Where did you ^o ? 

Mr. Patterson. I went to a number of European countries. 

Mr. Arens. What Euro])ean countries ? 

(The witness conferred with liis counsel.) 

Mr. Paiterson. I went to France. P^noland, Poland, Finland, the 
Soviet Union, Germany, Switzerland, and I think that includes it. 

Mr. Arens. Under what auspices did you make the trip ? 

Mr. Patterson. Under what auspices? 

Mr. Arens. Yes. 

Mr. Patterson. My own. 

Mr. Arens. Who paid your expenses ? 

Mr. Patterson. I did. 

Mr. Arens. Were you a member of the Communist Party when 
you received your United States passport in 1927 to make this trip? 

Mr. Patterson. I decline to answer that question. 

Mr. Arens. Why? 

Mr. Patterson. The question isn't pertinent and the committee, 
in my opinion, has no rio-ht to ask that question. 

Mr. Arens. The pertinency of the question, I explain to you now, 
is that this committee is charg-ed with a numdate by the rules of the 
House of Representatives to maintain a continuing surveillance over 
the administration and operation of certain security laws, including 
the Internal Security Act of 1950, which has provisions in it deny- 
ing passports to Communists. 

In addition to that this connnittee has pending before it certain 
legislation bearing upon the question of denying passports to Com- 
munists. 

With that ex]ilanation I now ask you, were you a member of the 
Communist Party when you received your passport in 1927? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Patterson. Number 1, the application was made in 1927 and 
the questions then asked in no wise conformed to your description of 
them. That question Avas not part of any passport affidavit, and I 
do not see that it has any application whatsoever to the subject under 
discussion or of the purpose to which you gentlemen have met here 
in inquiry. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest now the witness 
be oixlered and directed to answer the question. 

The Citatrman. I direct you to answer the question. 

Mr. Patterson. I decline. 

Mr. Arens. While you were on this trip in 1927, did you attend a 
training school in Moscow ? 

Mr, Patterson. I did not attend any training school in Mosicow, 



756 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Arf.ns. Did yoii attend iiiiy sessions conducted in Moscow for 
Communists? 

(The witness conferred with hiscounseh) 

Mr, Patterson. Would 3'ou repeat that question, Mr. Arens. 
(Representative Jackson left the room.) 

Mr. Arens. Did you attend any sessions, any courses conducted for 
Communists in Moscow? 

Mr. Patterson. No. 

Mr. Arens. Did you engage in Communist Party activities on your 
trip in 1927? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Patterson. Well, I would have to have a much clearer descrip- 
tion of what you regard as Communist activities. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mv. Patterson. I can tell you what I did. 

INIr. Arens. We want to know about the Communist activities. 
That is the principal interest of this committee. How long Avere you 
on this trip when you went to Moscow in 1927 ? 

Mr. Unger. Excuse me. Do you want him to answer your ques- 
tion? 

Mr. Arens. Counsel will be advised that the chairman advised you 
your sole and exclusive prerogative is to consult with your client. 

Mr. Patterson. I think my attorney recognizes that and that is 
what he is attempting to do. 

Mr. Arens. Please tell the committee, how long were you on this 
trip. 

Mr. Patterson. I returned to this country, I think, in '30 or '31 — 
'31. 

Mr. Arens. Were you 3 yeai'S on the trip ? 

Mr. Patterson. I was 3 years on the trip. 

Mr. Arens. How long were you in ISIoscow ? 

Mr. Patterson. I was in the Soviet ITnion a good part of the time. 
I don't know exactly. 

Mr. Arens. After you arrived in the Soviet ITnion did you go to 
Poland? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes, I went to Poland. 

Mr. Arens. While you were in Poland, did you file an application 
with the United States Consul in Poland for a renewal of your orig- 
inal passport application ? 

Mr. Patterson. I think those are the facts. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you now a photostatic reproduction of 
a passport renewal application filed with the United States Consul 
General in Poland and ask you if this is a true and correct reproduc- 
tion of the renewal application filed by yourself. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

(Representative Tuck left the room.) 

Mr. Patterson. The signature seems to be mine, and I take it that 
it was such application and that I made it. 

(Document marked "Patterson Exhibit No. 3" and retained in 
committer files.) 

Mr. Arens. Was a renewal granted to you on your passport appli- 
cation in Poland pursuant to this application ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



PASSPORT SECURITY 757 

Mr. Patterson. Yes, I think this happened. I think — this took 
place 30 years ago, as you know. 

Mr. Arens. Where did you go pursuant to the renewal ? 

Mr. Patterson. I returned to the Soviet Union. I went a number 
of places. I went to Germany and a number of other places. 

JNIr. Arens. In whose employ were you at that time? 

Mr. Patterson. I was in no one's employ. 

Mr. Arens. When did you then return to the United States? 

Mr. Patterson. That is some 30 years ago and my recollection is 
somewhat hazy. I think that I returned to the United States in 1931 
or '30. I don't recall. 

Mr. Arens. Were you national secretary of the International Labor 
Defense during this period while you were in Moscow on this trip? 

Mr. Patterson. I don't recall that, either. 

Mr. Arens. Did you, at any time on this particular trip, go to 
South Africa? 

Mr. Pati'erson. I did not. 

Mr. Arens. Did you during this ]:)eriod in your career write any 
articles about South Africa ? 

Mr. Patterson. Perhaps I did. I don't recall. I have written 
many articles about South Africa. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you now a thermofax reproduction of 
a magazine called "The Communist, a Magazine of the Theory and 
Practice of Marxism-Leninism," published monthly by the Com- 
munist Party of the United States of America, in which appears an 
article, "British Kule in South Africa," by William L. Patterson. 

I ask you to kindly examine this document as I display it to you 
and tell this committee whether or not 3^ou authored the article to 
which I have just directed your attention. 

( Document was handed to the witness. ) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Patterson. I want to state, Mr. Chairman, that I do not see 
the pertinency of such questions, of matters occurring some 30 years, 
30-odd years ago, with this article written by me and matters of this 
character, to this inquiry. 

(Document marked "Patterson Exhibit No. 4" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr, Arens. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest the witness now 
be ordered and directed to answer the question. 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question, Mr. Pat- 
terson. 

(The witness conferred witli his counsel.) 

Mr. Patterson. I want to inquire if you are going into the matter 
of censoring articles that were written by American citizens some 30 
years ago and what the nature of it is in relation to the inquiry here, 
Mr. Chairman. I want to see this matter clearly. 

The Chairman. You know we are not doing that. When you speak 
of articles, I want to call your attention to the one that appeared in 
The Worker a few days ago (juoting sections of the letter that you 
wrote to me. I want to say that to the everlasting credit of the vast 
majority of the colored people of the United States, their leaders, the 
leaders of colored organizations, are not deceived by the kind of 
stuff you wrote. 



758 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Yon and others of yonr ilk are not. makino; any progress in the 
field that yon are attempting to foist. 

]\rr. Patterson, I think yonr grat nitons insnlts luive no place 
here, Mv. Chairman. 

The Chairman. That is a matter of opinion. 

Mr. Patterson. Yes, I know, and I am expressing my opinion with 
relation to your insnlts. 

The Chairman. That is all right. 

Mr. Patterson. I think it is not to your discredit — it is not to your 
credit wdiatever that the Asbnry FToward assault is not being investi- 
gated by this connnittee, that the indiscriminate nmrder of Negroes 
who tried to vote in this country, Harry Moore of Minis, Fla., being 
one. Reverend Lee being another. 

The Chairman. Just a minute. The activities you are talking about 
are not directed from a foreign nation. 

Mr. Patterson. No, they are directed by men like yourself. 

The Chairman. We are talking about something entirely different. 

Mr. Arens. Now I display to you still another passport application. 

Mr. Patterson. May I just answer this ? 

Mr. Arens. A passport application filed in 1934 and ask you if 
yon will kindly look at this passport application and tell this com- 
mittee whether or not that is a true and correct reproduction of a pass- 
port application filed by yourself in 10;54. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Patterson. I will answer this question in just a moment. 

No act of all of my life has ever been directed by any foreign gov- 
ernment. My fight for the rights of my people here in America are 
determined entirely by their denial of constitutional liberties, rights, 
and human dignity; and it is upon those motives that I have been 
activated in everything that I have done in my life. 

The Chairman. All right. Go ahead, Mr. Arens. 

Mr. Arens. Now, would you kindly tell this committee whether or 
not the document which I just displayed to you is a true and correct 
reproduction of still another passport application filed by yourself? 

(The vcitness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Patterson. It probably was. This is 29 

Mr. Arens. Is this your signature ? 

Mr. Patterson. This is 29 years ago. I think the signature is mine. 

(Document marked "Patterson Exhibit No. 5'' and retained in com- 
mittee files. ) 

Mr. Arens. And was a renewal granted pursuant to an application 
filed by you July 22, 1936 ? 

Mr. Patterson. I do not know. 

Mr. Arens. Over how many consecutive years were you in Moscow 
or in the Soviet Union ? 

Mr. Patterson. Four, I think. I am not certain. 

Mr. Arens. Did you at any time after the 4 years 

Mr. Patterson. Just a moment. 

Mr. Arens. — return to the United States and subsequently go back 
to Russia? 

(The witness conferred wntli his counsel.) 

Mr. Paiterson. I was not consecutively in the Soviet Union over 
that period of time. I was in Western Europe on a number of 
occasions. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 759 

Mr. Arens. Over how many consecutive years were you in Europe 
on this trip which began in 1927 ? 

Mr. Patterson. To my recollection it was 4. 

Mr. Arens. And then after you returned to the United States how 
long were you here before you returned to Europe? 

Mr. Patterson. I think that also was about, as I recall, about 4 
years or perhaps a little more. 

Mr. Arens. Now I display to you still another passport application 
filed in 1948. Would you kindly look at this document and tell this 
committee whether or not that is a true and correct reproduction of a 
passport application tiled by yourself with the Department of State. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Arens. While you are examining that passport application, I 
would like to ask you a question because it pertains to the application. 

Mr. Patterson, in all of these various passport applications which 
you had filed with the Department of State or with the United States 
Consulate abroad for renewals, you were not — up to and including the 
application which you filed in 1948 — interrogated as to whether or not 
you were a member of the Communist Party; isn't that correct? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Patterson. I have answered that ; yes, I was not, 

(Document marked "Patterson Exhibit No. 6," and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. Arens. In this particular 

Mr. Patterson. It is for that reason entirely that I do not see the 
pertinence of this question regarding passports of this period to the 
matter under your supervision here today. 

Mr. Arens. The pertinency is to determine what factual situations 
have arisen at a time when the passport application did not require 
answers to questions as to whether or not the applicant was a Com- 
munist. 

Mr. Unger. You haven't 

Mr. Arens. We are going to get into, in a few minutes, passport 
applications which did require 

Mr. Unger. You haven't asked one question directed to that sub- 
ject matter. 

Mr. Arens. Your sole and exclusive prerogative is to advise your 
client. 

Mr. Unger. Not one single question you asked in a half hour has to 
bear on the subject which you have here. 

Mr. Arens. You know your sole and exclusive prerogative is to 
advise your client. 

In this particular passport application you have identified, Mr. 
Patterson 

Mr. Patterson. Just one moment. I am here not only to protect 
my own rights but protect the constitutional rights of America. My 
counsel is asking pertinent questions. 

The Chairman. No. Your counsel is making statements improp- 
erly and in violation of the rules of procedure of this committee of 
the Congress. 

Mr. Patterson. That may be your determination, Mr. Chairman. 
If it is I want to know it because it is not my opinion and they don't 
coincide at all in this instance 



760 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Arens. Was a passport issued pursuant to the application 
which you filed in 1948 ? 

Mr. Patterson. I do not know. I think you will have a record 
as to whether it was or not. If you will read from that record as to 
whether I had a passport or not, I think the State Department knows 
whether it issued one or not. I will reply, Mr. Director 

Mr. Arens. Did you take a trip in 1948 ? 

Mr. Patterson. If I got a passport I took a trip. I think that is 
generally the reason Avhy passports are sought. 

Mr. Arens. Do you presently have a recollection whether or not 
you made a trip abroad in 1948 ? 

Mr. Patterson. I think that I used that passport to attend the 
United Nations sessions at Palais Chaillot in which I introduced 
a petition entitled "Genocide, the Crime of the American Govern- 
ment Against the Negro People." 

Mr. Arens. Would you kindly answer the question ? 

Mr. Patterson. I am answering your questions, Mr. Director. 

Mr. Arens. On the passport application, if you please, I invite 
your attention to the part of the passport application with respect to 
countries to be visited. Did you indicate to the Department of State 
the countries which you proposed to visit when you made your appli- 
cation in 1948 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

IVIr. Patterson. Yes. I did. 

Mr. Arens. What countries did you tell the Department of State 
you proposed to visit in 1948 ? 

Mr. Patterson. The passport indicates that I said England and 
France. The application, rather. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Arens. Did you say anything in your passport application 
about visiting Hunsrary ? 

Mr. Patterson. That is obvious in the passport, that I didn't. 

Mr. Arens. That you did not? 

Mr. Patterson. I did not say anything. 

Mr. Arens. How long were you on your trip to England or to 
France ? 

Mr. Patterson. If you are, Mr. Director, attempting to determine 
whether or not I did visit Hungary I want to say here now 

Mr. Arens. I haven't gotten to that yet. The question outstand- 
ing if you please 

Mr. Patterson. I^et me anticipate it, then. 

T]\e Cttairman. No. Answer the questions that are asked. 

Mr. Arens. I want an answer to the question, please, sir. 

Mr. Patterson. I don't know the 

Mr. Arens. Did you so to England and France on the passport that 
was issued to you in 1948 ? 

Mr. Patterson. I did. 

Mr. Arens. Did you go any place else ? 

Mr. PAn'ERSON. I did. 

Mr. Arens. Did you, while you were in England, file an application 
for a renewal of a passport? 

Mr. Patterson. I don't recall. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you now a photostatic reproduction of an 
application for renewal of passport filed in England by William 



PASSPORT SECURITY 761 

Lorenzo Patterson, and ask yon if this is a true and correct reproduc- 
tion of an application filed by you in either 1948 or 1949, I don't see 
the date at the instant. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Patterson. The date happens to be '50. 

Mr. Arens. 1950. 

Mr. Patterson. It happens to be October 1950. 

Mr. Arens. Did you file that passport application in England? 

Mr. Patterson. And I am of the opinion that I did. My recol- 
lection is that I did. 

(Document marked "Patterson Exhibit No. 7'' and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. Arens. Did you in 1948, in November, accompany your pass- 
port application with a letter to the Department of State, telling the 
Department of State the purpose of your trip to England? 

Mr. Patterson. I do not recall. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you now a photostatic reproduction of a 
letter directed to the Department of State under date of November 
1, 1948, sigiied "William L. Patterson," reading as follows — and I 
will display it to you in just an instant : 

The accompanying application for a passport made by me on this date was 
made for the purpose attending a Civil Rights conference in London which is 
scheduled to take place on the 13th and 14th of November, 1948. It is therefore 
necessary that I leave by air on the 9th of this month. I am at the present time 
National Executive Secretary of the Civil Rights Congress with offices at 20.5 
E. 42d, New York City, N.Y. 

Kindly look at that document which I now display to you and tell 
this committee whether or not that is a true and correct reproduction 
of a letter sent by you in 1948 to tlie Department of State. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Patterson. Yes, and it was to that Civil Rights conference 
that I went on the pass])ort under description. 

(Document marked "Patterson Exhibit No. 8" and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. Arens. Were you at that time 

Mr. Patterson. Just a moment. 

Mr. Arens. Excuse me. 

Mr. Patterson. There are two different occasions. The application 
for a renewal made in 1950 has no relations at all to this occasion of 
1948. As I recall, I not only attended that conference where I made 
a report, dealing not only with the terror against Negroes in the 
United States, but its relationship to the denial of constitutional 
rights of others. But it was a report regarding human rights and 
constitutional liberties of human beings in other sections of the world. 

Mr. Arens. Did you in 1948, when you made your passport appli- 
cation, have plans to visit Hungary ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Patterson. My opinion is that I did not visit Hungary at that 
time. 

Mr. Arens. Did you have plans to visit Hungary after you had ar- 
rived in England ? 

Mr. Patterson. My opinion is that T — I did not. 



762 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Ahkxs. When did you first formulate your plans to visit 
Hungary? 

Mv. Patterson. I don't recall. 

(The witness conferred Avith his counsel.) 

Mr. Arexs. Did you, after you had received your passport for which 
3^ou applied in lOlS, go to Hungary? 

Mr. Patteksox. I don't recall. My best recollection is that I went 
first to Hungary in 1950. That is my best recollection. 

Mr. Arens. Did you travel on a United States passport? 

Mr. Patterson. When I went in 1950, of course I was traveling on 
a United States passport when I left the country. 

Mr. Arexs. "Was that passport issued pursuant to the application 
you filed in 1948? 

Mr. Pattersox. I am not certain whether that was or whether I 
got a new passport after that. 

Mr. Arexs. Did you. at any time from 1948 until the time you ar- 
rived in Hungary, notify the Department of State or any American 
Consulate of your intention and desire to go to Hungary ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

]Mr. Pati-ersox. I had gone on the trip in which I went to Hungary 
to present a petition before the United Nations. I presented that 
petition at Palais Chaillot and had not finished my business when the 
United States Government sought to seize my passport. I had no 
intention of coming home until I finished my business I was in. 

JMr. Arex'^s. Where were j'ou when you first learned that the United 
States Government was attemj^ting to seize your passport? 

Mr. PattepvSox. I was in the city of Paris. 

JMr. Arex-^s. Did the Government of the United States take custody 
of your passport? 

Mr. Pattersox^ I did not surrender my passport. 

Mr. Arexs. Then on what travel documents did you go from Paris 
to Hungary? 

Mr. Pattersox-^. I liad my passport with me, for one thing. 

Mr. Arex's. Did you at any time, and I think I have asked this 
question before, but I do not think tlie record reflects an adequate 
answer, did you at any time notify the Government of the United 
States of your intention and desire to travel to Hungary? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Pattersox^. There was no provision in the law to my recollec- 
tion that requii'ed me to make such a statement or to give such- infor- 
mation. 

Mr. Arexs. Did you go to Hungary ? 

Mr. Pattersox. I went to Hungary. 

Mr. Arexs. For wliat purpose? 

Mr. Pattersox^ I went to Hungary on a pleasure trip. 

Mr. Arexs. And while you were in Hungary, did you issue any 
statements, public statements? 

Mr. Pattersox'. I not only issued public statements but I spoke 
over the air on a number of occasions, broadcastin.g to the Far East 
and Near East and setting forth tlie terror against my people, the 
denial of their constitutional riglits, the murder, indiscriminate 
murder of Negroes in the South, wliich tliis committee has not yet 
found it fit to investigate, altliough it is an un-American committee, 
unless this committee regards tliose things as American. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 763 

Mr. Arens. Before what group or groups did you make these ad- 
dresses ? 

Mr. Patterson. Before what groups? 

Mr, Arens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Patterson. No special groups. I spoke before the Supreme 
Court of Hungary. 

The Chairman. Under whose auspices were you making these 
speeches ? 

Mr. Patterson. Under my own as a citizen of the United States 
determined to defend the rights of my people and my own. 

Mr. Arens. Did you likewise go to Prague ? 

Mr. Patterson. I likewise went to Prague. 

Mr. Arens. At this same period ? 

Mr. Patterson. At this same period. 

Mr. Arens. Did you make a s])eech there ? 

Mr. Patterson. I made several there. 

]\Ir. Arens. I should like to read you a press account of your speech 
and ask if, in your recollection, that account is substantially correct. 
This is in 1950, October 9, Prague : 

William Patterson, national executive secretary of the American Civil Rights 
Congress, today called the United States Government a "criminal Government." 
He said armed resistance on the part of American Negroes against Ku Klux 
Klanism might increase. 

Patterson, who is touring Eastern Europe, gave his views at a news confer- 
ence. The gray-haired Negro said : 

"American imperialism is on a war drive which cannot stop because of its fear 
of economic collapse." He added that America was threatening the world with 
the atom and hydrogen bombs, and then went on : 

"It is a very great pleasure for me to see the eastern (Communist) republics, 
preparing for any eventuality." 

[Reliable Prague sources said at least 6 members of Czechoslovakia's world 
champion ice hockey team have been sentenced to prison terms of from 6 to 1.5 
years on charges of "slandering the republic," planning to flee the country and 
assaulting SNB (state police) men, the United Press reported.] 

Kindly tell this committee whether or not the Associated Press, 
the United Press, excuse me, the United Press report of your address 
in Prague is substantially correct. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Is the press report correct ? 

Mr. Patterson. Mr. Chairman, I would answer by saying that I 
do not think so. The United Press has distorted, and continues to dis- 
tort, statements made by Negroes who are seeking to mold their opinion 
with reference to their rights. 

The Chairman. I wish you would stop presuming to speak for the 
fine people of this country. You don't speak for anybody but yourself. 

Mr. Patterson. No. It is you. It is you who don't speak for 
them. 

The Chairman. Mr. Arens, would you please show him this article? 

Mr. Patterson. I do speak for them. 

The Chairman. Ask him to look at it. You look at that article 
and see whether or not that reports what you said. 

Mr. Unger. Mr. Chairman, how is that relevant to your inquiry — 
whether the United Press said something or not? Would you tell 
me that, please ? 

The Chairman. Go ahead and look at that article. 



764 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Patterson. Just a moment, Mr. Chairman. Is freedom of 
speech to be denied benefiting for human dignity and the rights of 
their constitutional rights in this country today? Is that the pur- 
pose of this incjuiry ? 

The Chairman. Did you make that statement ? 
Mr. Patterson. There are statements there that I didn't make. 
The Chairman. What didn't you make ? Look at it. 
Mr. Patterson. I don't — let me see. 

Mr. Arens. Did you call the Government of the United States a 
"criminal Government" ? 

(Document was handed the witness.) 

Mr. Patterson. I don't recall having made any statement of that 
kind and I will say, how^ever, that the attitude of the State of Mis- 
sissippi, of Georgia, of Alabama, and a number of other States is 
criminal in disregard of constitutional rights of Negroes and this is 
obvious. And it is up to this committee to investigate those matters 
if it is an un-American committee. 

(Document marked "Patterson Exhibit No. 9" and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. Scherer. How did you think you could help the Negroes in 
Alabama and Mississippi by attacking the United States in Prague, 
if that is what your purpose was as you so stated a number of times 
here ? 

Mr. Patterson. I didn't get that question, the first part of that 
question. 

The Chairman. Head the question, please. 
(The record was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Patterson. First, I wasn't attacking the United States. I was 
.attacking Jim Crow practices, I was attacking the denial of constitu- 
tional rights and, second, what has been done to alleviate this situa- 
tion, has been done by virtue of the pressure of world opinion against 
these conditions. These are the things that are making you gentle- 
men act, rather than the murder of Moore in Mims, Florida, which 
should be the basis of your inquiry, or the attack upon Asbury 
Howard in Bessemer, Alabama. 

Mr. Arens. Did you, in your speech or speeches in Prague, accuse 
the American Government of threatening the world with atomic and 
hydrogen bombs ? 
Mr. Patterson. No. 
The Chairman. Did you say that ? 

Mr. Patterson. I answ^ered the question already, Mr. Chairman. 
Mr. Scherer. I didn't hear what he said. 
Mr. Patterson. I am sorry. I said no. 

The charges I made were charges dealing with Jim Crowism and 
segregation which deny the constitutional rights. 

The Chairman. Mr. Patterson, I have heard this Communist line 
so often. You are not making any impression on the committee. 

Mr. Patttjrson. It is not Communist line. It is the line of human 
dignities and human rights. 

The Chairman. You have shed enough crocodile tears this 
momins. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 765 

Mr. Patterson. Don't tliink you are making me shed any tears at 
all, Mr. Walter. It is you who should be shedding tears. 

Mr. Arens. Did you appear in Budapest as the executive secretary 
of the Civil Rights Congi-ess of America ? 

Mr. Patterson. I didn't hear the question, please. 

Mr. Arens. Did you appear there, and were you introduced to your 
audiences who w^ere hearing your addresses, as the executive secretary 
of the Civil Rights Congress of America ? 

Mr. Patterson. Perhaps for purposes of identification, I was intro- 
duced in that manner. I don't know. 

Mr, Arens. Did you in one of your broadcasts accuse the United 
States Congress of legalizing a police state in America ? 

Mr. Patterson. I don't recall having 

Mr. Arens. I have here a reproduction of excerpts from an address 
given by yourself, Budapest, October 5, 1950, in which you do just 
that. 

Mr. Unger. Is that a statement or a question, Mr. Arens? 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever been deported from any country? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Patterson. Not to my knowledge. I would have to have more. 

Mr. Arens. May I call your attention to an article appearing in a 
Toronto paper ? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Does that refresh your recollection ? 

Mr. Patterson. That refreshes my recollection. 

Mr. Arens. I^t me read it and see how vividly your recollection 
may respond : 

Canada Deports an American 

Toronto, December 18 [1948] (AP) — William L. Patterson, executive secre- 
tary of the Civil Rights Congress of America, today was ordered deported from 
Canada to the United States. The deportation order was issued by a three-man 
board of inquiry of the Canadian Immigration Department, which said : "He 
beUeves in and advocates the overthrow by force or violence of the Government 
of Canada and of constituted law and authority." Mr. Patterson "categorically" 
denied he was a member of the Communist party of Illinois. 

May I ask you, having read this article to refresh your recollec- 
tion, whether or not you were deported from Canada in 1948 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Patterson. I was deported from Canada in 1948, I think, but 
for no reasons such as are enumerated there. 

(Document marked "Patterson Exhibit No. 10" and retained in 
committee files.) 

The Chairman. What was the reason ? 

Mr. Patterson. Mr. Walter, whenever a man fights for his rights 
he is always called desirous of overthrowing the government with 
force and violence. I have no desire of that kind. 

The Chairman. What was the reason given by the Canadian Gov- 
ernment ? 

Mr. Patterson. That was the Canadian Government position as 
set forth there. Under the pressure of the State Department of the 
United States which wishes to attach to me the label that I seek 
to overthrow the Government by force and violence. 



766 PASSPORT SECURITY 

The Chairman. You are not trying to create the impression that 
the State Department of the United States was fighting to bring 
you back here, are you ? 

Mr. Patterson. That seems to be very funny. 

The Chairman. It would be very funny if it were true. 

Mr. Patterson. I think that this whole inquiry is to keep me here. 
It seems to me that the whole inquiry on your part is to prevent a man 
who is asking for his rights for traveling. Therefore, it would seem 
logical that you want to bring me back if you want to keep me here. 

Mr. Arens. Please tell the connnittee what you were doing in 
Canada. 

Mr. Patterson. I had been invited into Canada to speak — what is 
the date of that? 

Mr. Arens. 1948, in October. 

Mr. Patterson. What is the month ? 

Mr. Arens. In October. 

Mr. Patterson. In October. I had been invited to speak to 

Mr. Arens. Excuse me. December. 

Mr. Patterson. December. I had been invited to speak at a mass 
meeting that was to have been held, or was held, rather, in Toronto. 

Mr. Arens. Under what auspices was the mass meeting held? 

Mr. Patterson. I do not recall. 

Mr. Arens. Were you invited as the national executive secretary of 
the Civil Eights Congress ? 

Mr. Patterson. To the best of my recollection. 

Mr. ScHERER. You say you were there only to speak? 

Mr. Patterson. That is correct. Mr. Jackson — are you Mr. Jack- 
son or Mr. Scherer? 

Mr. Scherer. Scherer. If you only went to Canada to make a 
speech, how is it they had to deport you? 

Mr. Patterson. That is just what I am saying. The State Depart- 
ment put pressure on them because I was speaking for constitutional 
rights and liberties and they wanted to distort it into some attempt to 
overthrow the Government by force and violence. 

Mr. Scherer. You were there for longer than 1, or 2 or 3 days, 
were you not? 

Mr. Patterson. I was not. As a matter of fact on that occasion I 
was — if I recall I was not even permitted to speak. 

Mr. Arens. Were you a member of the Communist conspiracy when 
you were in Canada in December of 1948? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Patterson. I didn't hear. 

Mr. Arens. Were you a member of the conspiratorial apparatus 
known as the Communist Party when you were in Canada in 1948 ? 

Mr. Patterson. I have never been a member of any conspiratorial 
apparatus, known by any name, and I object to that strenuously as 
an att/empt to impeach my integrity and my fight has been for con- 
stitutional liberties in our country. 

Mr. Arens. Were you a member of the Communist Party while you 
were in Canada in 1948? 

Mr. Patterson. I decline to answer that, Mr. Director 

Mr. Scherer. I ask you to direct 

Mr. Patterson. — for the reasons ffiven. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 767 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question, were you 
a member of the Communist Party on the occasion that you were 
deported from Canada by the Canadian Government ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Patteeson. Mr. Walter, under the first amendment to the Con- 
stitution I have a right to decline to answer that question, and you 
have no right to make such an inquiry. 

The Chairman. Do you decline to answer the question? 

Mr. Patterson. I do. 

Mr. Arens. Has your passport ever been taken up by the United 
States Govermnent 'i 

Mr. Patterson. My passport was taken up by the United States 
Government. 

Mr. Arens. When was your passport taken up by the United States 
Government ? 

Mr. Patterson. I think ni}^ passport was taken up when I returned 
from that trip to the United Nations. 

Mr. Arens. Why was your passport taken up ? 

Mr. Patterson. Because I had gone to the United Nations with a 
petition, detailing the terror against Negroes over a period of quite 
a number of years, that petition which I should have brought with 
me, charging genocide under the United Nations charter and the uni- 
versal declaration of foreign rights. 

Mr. Arens. Is that the reason the State Department gave 3'ou when 
they took up A'our ])assport 't 

Mr. Patterson. The United States gave me no reasons. The\' 
snatched my passport when I Y)i\t it in. 

Mr. Arens. I direct your attention, please, to a letter, a photostatic 
reproduction of Avhicli I have in my hand and shall now display to 
you, dated July 30, 1952, addressed to you, "William L. Patterson, 
Executive Secretary, Civil Rights Congress, 23 West 26th Street, New 
York 10. New York," signed by "E. B. Shipley, Chief, Passport Di- 
vision" of the Department of State. 

"My dear Mr. Patterson"'' 

Mr. Unger. Why don't you show him the letter and save a lot of 
time ? 

Mr. Arens. You have been advised repeatedly your sole and exclu- 
sive prerogative is to advise your client. 

Mr. Unger. Please. I am saving time. Let the man read the letter, 
save time. 

Mr. ScHERER. I want to hear the letter. 

Mr. Unger. What is the point of reading this letter ? 

Mr. Scherer. I want to hear it. 

The Chairman. We want to hear it. Go ahead, Mr. Arens. 

Mr. Arens (reading) : 

The Department has received your letter of July 22, 1952, iu which you ask 
whether your action at Paris in presenting various material to the General As- 
sembly of the United Nations was the reason for taking up your passport. I 
take pleasure in informing you that such is not the case. 

Your passport w-as taken up when you violated the restriction placed on the 
passport by the Secretary of State and used it for travel to Hungary. In this 
connection your attention is invited to the following provision of law — 

which is then quoted. 

39742— 59— pt. 2 3 



768 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Now, I la}^ this document before you and ask you if this is a true 
and correct reproduction of a letter which you received and was sent 
to you by Mrs. Shipley, then Chief of the Passport Division of the 
Department of State under date of July 30, 1952? 

(Document was handed the witness.) 

(Document marked "Patterson Exhibit No. 11" and retained in 
committee files.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Patterson. May I ask when my passport A^as taken up? 

Mr. Arens. I have here a photostatic reproduction of a letter signed 
by yourself to Mrs. Shipley in which, amono; other thinjjs, you say : 
"On the 3rd of January, 1952, upon my return from Europe " 

Mr. Patterson. Thank you. That is all I wanted. Now, when my 
passport was taken up the question 

(Document marked "Patterson Exhibit No. 12" and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. Arens. First of all, would you please answer the outstanding 
question, Is the document which you now hold in your hand a true and 
cori'ect reproduction of a letter which was directed to you and received 
by yourself from Mrs. Shipley? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes, but the reasons given differ from the reasons 
given when my passport was taken up. The State Department had 
time to think over the matter and to find a position which they thought 
would be acceptable to the general public. But the basic reason is that 
I appeared before the United Nations and not because I went some- 
where else. 

Mr. Arens. Now, in a moment I expect to display to you a current 
passport application filed by yourself in July of 1958, a passport ap- 
plication pursuant to which, we understand, a new passport has just 
been recently issued to you. Before displaying this passport applica- 
tion to you, I want the record to be clear on one point. Have you, at 
any time, filed a passport application under such circumstances in 
which you were required by the State Department to answer questions 
as to whether or not you were a member of the Conununist Party ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Patterson. Mr. Director, you have an application before you, 
made by me and I think signed by me, in which I have answered every 
question — it is on the record, anyway. 

Mr. Unger. Let the committee listen. 

Mr. Patterson. I was saying when you had your other meeting. 

The Chairman. I was listening, 

Mr. ScHERER. We were talking about your testimony. 

Mr. Patterson. I was saying that the Staff Director has an appli- 
cation before him and signed by me. Every question that is there I 
answered 

Mr. Arens. Apparently you misconstrued my question 

Mr. Patterson. — sincerely and correctly. 

Mr. Arens. May I rephrase my question, Mr. Chairman, if you 
please? 

Mr. Patterson. All other applications that I have, I have answered 
the questions correctly. 

Mr. Arens. I want the record to be clear — and I am sure the chair- 
man does, too — on this one point, which is very important to the in- 
quiry here, namely 



PASSPORT SECURITY 769 

Mr. Patterson. And one other point 

Mr. Arens. Forgetting for the moment, Mr. Patterson, the current 
application that I am going to be displaying to you in a few minutes, 
and talking about all the applications which you filed for these several 
passports and renewals, they occurred prior to 1950, did they not ? 

Mr. Patterson. I think that all you have shown me did, I think. 

Mr. Arens. It is a fact, is it not, that in none of the passport appli- 
cations filed by yourself, pursuant to which passports were issued to 
you prior to 1950, were you required under the then existing practice 
of the State Department to answer questions as to whether or not you 
were a Communist. That is a fact, is it not ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Patterson. But the political affiliations of a person, whether 
Republican, Democrat, Socialist, or Communist, were not inquired 
into as the 

The Chairman. That is right. The record shows it. 

Mr. Arens. Now I have in my hand, Mr. Chairman, for the pur- 
pose of making the record clear on this, the passport application form 
which has been in use since about March, 195Y. In these passport ap- 
plications, beginning about March, 1957, appear questions respecting 
membership of the applicant if any, in the Communist Party. 

Now, I display to you a passport application filed by you, accord- 
ing to the document itself, in July of 1958, which according to the 
calendar would be just about one month after the decision of the 
Supreme Court in the Kent-Briehl case. 

I ask you now if you will kindly examine that document which 
I am displaying to you and tell this committee whether or not that 
is a true and correct reproduction of a passport application filed by 
yourself in 1958. 

(Document was handed the witness.) 

Mr. Patterson. I think it is. 

(Document marked "Patterson Exhibit No. 13'' and retained in 
committee files. ) 

Mr. Arens. Now may I invite your attention, if you please — may 
I have it for a moment ? 

( Document handed to Mr. Arens. ) 

Mr. Arens. I invite your attention to the second page of this pass- 
port application in which three questions appear: "Are you now a 
member of the Communist Party ? Answer 'Yes" or 'No.' Have you 
ever }>een a member of the Communist Party? Answer 'Yes' or 'No.' 
If ever a member, state period of membership from to " 

And I invite your attention to the document to solicit from you, if 
you please, an answer to this question : Did you on the passport ap- 
plication answer any of those three questions ? 

^Document was handed the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. What does the application show, Mr. Arens ? 

Mr. Unger. It obviously shows a blank, and Mr. Arens knows 
that. 

The Chairman. You talk to your client. I am asking Mr. Arens 
a question. 

Mr. Arens. It shows one big "X," Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to have on the record his answer to this because I 
have a succeeding question that bears on it. 



770 PASSPORT SECURITY 

The Chairman. Answer the question, Mr. Patterson. 

Mr. Patterson. Just one second. I am conferring with my counsel, 
if you will, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Arens. Would you please answer the question? 

Mr. Patterson. I would like to get the 

Mr. Arens. The Chairman hears you. Go ahead. Please answer 
the question. 

Mr. Patterson. I didn't answer that question because the State 
Department correctly, under the decision of the Supreme Court, held 
that it was not — that that question could be evaded and, therefore, 
under the State Department's position and the Supreme Court's deci- 
sion in the case of Kent and Briehl, the cases of Rockwell Kent and 
Briehl, I am of the political opinion of others that whether you are 
a Republican, Democrat, Socialist, or what have you, it was not neces- 
sary nor within the province of the State Department to inquire. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. You have been of great 
help to this committee. 

Mr. Arens. Was a passport issued to you pursuant to this applica- 
tion which you filed several months ago ? 

Mr. Patterson. It was. 

Mr. Arens. And you now have in your possession a United States 
passport issued to you pursuant to this application made in July 
of 1958 ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Patterson. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. Arens. Now, may I ask you, as of the instant that you affixed 
your signature to this passport application in July of 1958, were you 
then a member of the Communist Party ? 

(Witness confers with his counsel.) 

Mr. Patterson. Mv. Staff Director — I am glad I afforded you the 
pleasure that you seem to have at the moment, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. That is quite all right. 

Mr. Patterson. I am quite happy to detect it. Mr. Staff Director, 
it is not within your province to ask that question any more than it 
was the province of the State Department, as held by the Supreme 
Court. Therefore, with authority of the Supreme Court, I decline, 
and, of course, under the Constitution, I decline to answer that 
question. 

Mr. ScHERER. I ask that he be directed to answer the question. 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question, Mr. 
Patterson. 

Mr. Patterson. I decline. 

Mr. Arens. Where do you intend to go on your passport and when? 

]Mr. Patterson. It would be impossible for me to answer such a 
question, because I don't know. 

Mr. Arens. Did you tell the State Department that you wanted to 
visit and proposed to visit England, France, Russia, Italy, Germany, 
Austria ? 

Mr. Patterson. If I did, then it is obvious that that is where I 
wanted to go. You are asking me now where I would go. I don't 
know. 

Mr. Arens. Have you changed your plans as to whether or not you 
are going to make the trip ? 

]\Ir. Patterson. Of course I have not changed any plans. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 771 

Mr. Arens. Do you still intend to make the trip ? 

Mr. Patterson. I don't know. 

The Chairman. The fact of the matter is you never intended to 
take the trip. You only went through the motions because of the 
Supreme Court decision; isn't that correct? 

Mr. Patterson. Your opinion, I don't think, determines it. 

The Chairman. No, it does not determine it, but I am inclined to 
it. That is my opinion. 

Mr. Patterson. Yes. And the answer is no, it is not true. 

Mr. Arens. I should like to invite your attention now to two arti- 
cles, one in "New Times," 1953, in which the following appears with 
reference to the untimely demise of Joseph Stalin : 

The coDimon i>eople of America share the grief of all the working people at the 
loss of the great champion of peace. Thousands attended a meeting in Rockland 
Palace, New York, at which William Patterson, Chairman of the Civil Rights 
Congress, expressed the sorrow of the American people. He said : 

"We bow our heads, together with the hundreds of millions of others who 
across the world mourn the death of Joseph Stalin, the greatest peoples' 
champion that our world has known."' 

Did you make the statements which I have just read ? 

(Witness confers with his counsel.) 

Mr. Patterson. I do not know whether I made that statement. 
Probably I did. We had just come out of a war in which the courage 
and heroism of the people of the Soviet Union under the leadership 
of Mr. Stalin was a determining factor in victory. I might have very 
well made that. 

Mr. Arens. Did you change your mind about Joseph Stalin after 
Mr. Khrushchev made his speech at the Twentieth Party Congress of 
the Communists assembly in Moscow ? 

Mr. Patterson. I decline to answer that question. 

Mr. Arens. Now, I display to you still another document, "A 
Friendship Book," in which William L. Patterson is quoted, among 
other statements, as follows : 

* * * So, living now, I must take my stand with the Soviet Union in its sup- 
port of the freedom struggle of the Asian peoples, of Africa and all progressive 
mankind. 

Did you make that statement which I have just read and which is 
attributed to you in this booklet, "A Friendship Book" ? 

Mr. Patterson. I probably did. I will take my stand with any 
people fighting for human dignity. 

(Documents marked "Patterson Exhibit No. 14" and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. Arens. Those are all the questions I have. 

Mr. ScHERER. Before we adjourn, Mr. Chainnan, I would like to 
offer for the record a column by Victor Riesel to follow in the record 
the testimony of Harry Bridges on yesterday.^ 

The Chairman. The committee is now adjourned to meet tomorrow 
morning at 10 o'clock. 

(Committee members present in the hearing room : Representatives 
Walter, Doyle, and Scherer.) 

(Whereupon, at 11 :25 a.m., Wednesday, April 22, 1959, the com- 
mittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, April 23, 1959.) 

1 See hearings on Passport Security — Part 1 (Testimony of Harry R. Bridges, Apr. 21, 
1959), pp. 738, 7,S9. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 



THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1959 

United States House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee of the 
Committee of Un-American Activities, 

Washington, D.G. 

PUBLIC hearings 

The subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met, 
pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m., in the Caucus Room, Old House 
Office Building, the Honorable Francis E. Walter (connnittee chair- 
man) presiding. 

Subconunittee members : Representatives Francis E. Walter, Penn- 
sylvania; Morgan M. Moulder, Missouri; Clyde Doyle, California; 
Donald L. Jackson, California; and Gordon H. Scherer, Ohio. 

Committee members also present : Representatives William M. Tuck, 
Virginia, and August E. Johansen of Michigan (appearance as 
noted) . 

Staff members present : Richard Arens, staff director, and Donald 
T. Appell, investigator. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Mr. Arens will 
you call your first witness ? 

(Members present: Representatives Walter, Doyle, Tuck, and 
Jackson.) 

Mr. Arexs. Casimir Xowacki, Irindly come forward. 

The Chairman. Pleise raise your right hand. 

Will you swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, 
the wliole truth, and nothing but tlie truth, so help you God? 

]SIr. Nowacki. Yes. 

TESTIMONY OF CASIMIR THADDEUS NOWACKI, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, JOSEPH FOREE 

Mr. Arens. Please identify yourself by name, residence, and 
occupation. 

Mr. Nowacki. My name is Casimir T. Nowacki. 

Mr. Arens. Would you kindly spell it for us? We are not cer- 
tain of our spelling. 

Mr. Nowacki. C-a-s-i-m-i-r, initial T., last name N-o-w-a-c-k-i. 
And I live at 952 Algus Street, New York City. 

Mr. Arens. Your occupation, please, sir? 

Mr. Nowacki. In reference to my occupation I refuse to answer 
that question for three reasons. First, I think that this committee 
is unconstitutional; and, secondly, the question is irrelevant; and, 

773 



774 PASSPORT SECURITY 

third, I do claim my privilege under the fifth amendment not to be 
a witness against myself. 

Mr. Arens. You are appearing today in response to a subpena 
"which was served upon you by this committee ? 

Mr. NowACKi. Correct. 

Mr. Arens. And you are represented by counsel? 

Mr. NowACKi. Correct. 

Mr. Arens. Counsel, kindly identify yourself. 

Mr. FoRER. Joseph Forer, 711 14th Street NW., Washington, 
D.C. 

The Chairman. What was the question he refused to answer 
Mr. Arens? 

Mr. Arens. His occupation, and invoked the fifth. 

The Chairman. Mr. Nowacki, you are directed to answer the ques- 
tion as to what your occupation is. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nowacki. I shall abide by my refusal. 

Mr. Arens. Where and when were you born ? 

Mr. Nowacki. I was born May 10, 1904, in Kenosha, Wisconsin. 

Mr. Arens. Give us just a word, please, sir, respecting your formal 
education. 

Mr. Nowacki. I finished Kenosha High School and then I went up 
to Marquette. 

Mr. Arens. Would it be convenient for you to keep your voice up 
a little bit? 

Mr. Now^acki. I went to Kenosha High School and then I went to 
Marquette University in Milwaukee, and I took a couple years of 
engineering and a couple years of business administration. 

Mr. Arens. When did you complete your formal education ? 

Mr. Nowacki. About 1928. 

Mr. Arens. Give us, if you please, sir, the principal occupations or 
employments you have had since you completed your formal education. 

Mr. Nowacki. I again refuse to answer for the reasons already 
given. 

]Mr. Arens. Is there any employment you have engaged in since 
you completed your formal education concerning which you can tell 
this committee without supplying information which might be used 
against you in a criminal proceeding ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nowacki. I again refuse to answer for the same reasons already 
given. 

Mr. Arens. How long have you been engaged in your present oc- 
cupation ? 

Mr. Nowacki. I refuse to answer for the same reasons given. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Nowacki, have you ever used any name other than 
the name Nowacki pursuant to which you are appearing today? 

Mr. Nowacki. I refuse to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Nowacki, have you ever applied for a United States 
passport? 

Mr. Nowacki. Yes, I have applied for a TTnited States passport. 

Mr. Arens. What was the year in which you first applied for a 
United States passport ? 

Mr. Now\\CKi. I believe it was 1949. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 775 

Mr. Arens. I display to you, if you please, sir, a photostatic repro 
duction of a passport application bearing the sigpature of Casimir 
Nowacki and ask you if you would kindly examine this document and 
tell the committee whether or not that is a truc and correct reproduc- 
tion of the iDassport application which you filed in 1949 with the De- 
partment of State. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Now^ACKi. Yes, it is apparently the passport I applied for. 

(Document marked "Nowacki Exhibit No. 1," and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Nowacki, one or two of the gentlemen present here 
have informed me casually they are having difficulty hearing you. 
Would it be convenient for you to get closer to the microphone or 
raise your voice or perhaps a combination of the two ? 

Mr. NoAVACKi. Yes, that is my passport application. 

Mr. Arexs. Was a passport issued pursuant to this application ? 

Mr. Now^^cKi. No, I think that is my first attempt to make an 
application. 

Mr. Arexs. Did you receive a passport ? 

Mr. NoAVACKi. This particular application was followed through 
with there being received a passport. 

Mr. Arexs. Where did you go on the passport ? 

Mr, Nowacki. I went to Poland with a stopover at Copenhagen, 
a stop we made. 

Mr. Arexs. Who paid your expenses on the trip to Poland ? 

Mr. Now^\CKi. That question I refuse to answer for reasons already 
given. 

]Mr. Arens. Were your expenses to Poland paid by the Commu- 
nist Party ? 

Mr. Nowacki. I refuse to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arexs. How long were you in Poland ? 

Mr. Noavacki. About three months. 

Mr. Arexs. Would you accommodate the committee by telling us 
whether or not in the passport application or in your negotiations 
with the Department of State in 1949 to procure a passport, if you 
were interrogated as to whether or not you were a member of the 
Commmiist Party. 

Mr. Nowacki. I refuse to answer that question for the reasons 
given before. 

Mr. Arens. Where did you go in Poland? 

Mr. Nowacki. All around the country, the major cities, also the 
crematoriums of IModlin, Augustow, Warsaw. Those are the major 
cities. 

Mr. Arexs. Did you tell the Department of State in 1949 that your 
purpose was to visit relatives in Poland ? 

Mr. Nowacki. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Was that your purpose ? 

Mr. Nowacki. I wanted to see relatives. 

Mr. Arexs. Was that the exclusive purpose that you had ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nowacki. I also wanted to see the country. 

Mr. Arens. Was that the exclusive purpose ? 

Mr. Nowacki. Yes. 



776 PASSPORT SECURIIT 

Mr. Arens. Did you while you were in Poland attend a special 
training course of the United Polish Workers Party conducted at 
Warsaw ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. NowACKi. I refuse to answer that question for reasons already 
given. 

Mr. Arens. Did you contemplate attending this training course of 
the United Polish Workers Party at Warsaw, Poland, at the time 
you filed your passport application ? 

Mr. NowACKi. I refuse to answer for the reasons already given. 

INIr. Arens. Did you by any means communicate to the Department 
of State prior to your receipt of a passport your intention to attend 
a training course in Warsaw, Poland, under the auspices of the United 
Polish Workers Party ? 

Mr. NowACKi. I refuse to answer the question for reasons already 
given. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Nowacki, I put it to you as a fact, based upon in- 
telligence information that has been made available to this committee, 
that in 1949 in Warsaw, Poland, you did attend a special training 
course for Communists conducted under the auspices of the United 
Polish Workers Party, and I ask you now, while you are under oath, 
to affirm or deny that assertion of fact. 

Mr. NowACKi. I refuse to answer the question for the reasons al- 
ready given. 

Mr. Arens. How long did you stay in Poland? 

Nr. NowACKi. I guess about tliree months. 

Mr. Arens. Were you accompanied by any other person on your 
trip? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. NowACKi. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. Arens. Then did you return to the United States or did you 
go to some other country ? 

Mr. NowACKi. I returned to the United States. _ 

Mr. Arens. Since you received your passport in 1949 have you so- 
licited and received another passport ? 

Mr. NowACKi. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Did you make application for United States passport in 
1956? 

Mr. NowAOKT. I believe I did. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you, if you please, sir, a photostatic repro- 
duction of a passport application filed by Casimir Thaddeus Nowacki 
with the Department of State in early 1956 and ask you if that is a 
true and correct reproduction of the passport application which you 
filed. 

(Docimient was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 
(Representative Johansen entered the room.) 

Mr. Nowacki. Yes. This apparently is my passport that I filed, 
the application. 

(Document marked "Nowacki Exhibit No. 2," and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Arens. Now was a passport issued to you pursuant to this ap- 
plication ? 

Mr. Nowacki. Yes, a passport was issued to me. 



PASSPORT SECURITY /// 

Mr. Arens. Where did you tell the Department of State you wanted 
to go in 1956 ? 

Mr. NowACKi. I think Poland. 

Mr. Arens. Subsequent to the issuance of this passport to you in 
February of 1956 did you in April of 1956 receive a letter from the 
Department of State soliciting from you additional information? 

Mr. NowACKi. That was after I made the application ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. NowACKi. That I don't know. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you, if you please, sir, a photostatic repro- 
duction of a letter addressed to you from the director of the passport 
office, from which I would like to read at least a few excerpts. 

The Chairman. I think out of fairness to the witness you ought 
to show it to him. 

Mr. Arens. I will first ask you if you can identify it. Is that a 
true and correct reproduction of a letter which you received from the 
Department of State on the date indicated at the top of the letter 
(4_4_56). 

( Document was handed to the witness. ) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

jMr. NowACKi. Yes. I am sure I received this, sir. 

The Chairman. You may interrogate him as to any part of it. 

Mr. Arens. May I read, if you please, for the record, Mr. Chairman, 
at least excerpts of it and then request that the letter itself be in- 
corporated by reference in the record ? 

Dear Mr. Nowacki : Your entitlement to passport facilities is being considere<l 
under the provisions of section 51.135 of the Passport Regulations, the text of 
which is set forth under the enclosed circular. 

You are requested to submit under oath or affirmation a statement with respect 
to present or past membership in the Communist Party. In the event your 
membership has terminated, you should indicate when or under what conditions 
such termination occurred. 

Pending receipt of the above affidavit, Passport No. 838690 is hereby with- 
drawn and you are requested to surrender it to the bearer of this letter, an 
authorized representative of the Department of State. Any attempt to use this 
passport may subject you to prosecution under the provisions of section 1544, 
title 18 of the United States Code, which reads in part, as follows ; * * * 

Mr. Nowacki, did you upon receipt of this letter, a photostatic re- 
production of which you have identified, return information to the 
Department of State as to whether or not you were then or had been 
a member of the Communist Party ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

]Mr. XoAVA(nvi. No. 

(Document marked "Nowacki Exhibit No. 3," and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. Arens. Was your passport surrendered by youi'self to the 
Department of State? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. NowACKT. It was seized. 

Mr. Arens. "Wliere and when was it seized ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Nowacki. At the gangplank on the way going over, on the 
gangplank. 

Mr. Arens. On the gangplank when you were about to depart from 
the United States with a passport in your possession, is that right ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



778 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. NowACKi. Ri^ht. Naturally when I <^ot that letter it was at 
the same time. When I got the letter it was at the same time. 

Mr. Arens. As of the time you applied for this passport and as of 
the time the passport was issued and as of the time your passport was 
seized, were you on each of those occasions then a member of the Com- 
munist Party ? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. NowACKi. I refuse to answer for reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. Who paid your expenses on this trip to Poland ? 

Mr. NowACKi. What was that again ? 

Mr. Arens. Who was to pay your expenses on the trip to Poland ? 

Mr. NowACKi. I refuse to answer for reasons alrady given. 

Mr. Arens. Was your sole, exclusive objective and purpose of your 
contemplated trip to Poland to vacation and visit relatives or was 
there another purpose ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. NowACKi. I refuse to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. Now, sir, did you thereafter file another passport ap- 
plication ? 

Mr. NowACKi. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Arens. When did you file your next passport application ? 

Mr. NowACKi. I believe it is November 1958. 

Mr. Arens. So the record will reflect and be made clear it was a few 
months after the decision in the Kent-Briehl case. 

I display to you, if you please, sir, now, a photostatic reproduction 
of a passport application and ask you if this is a true and correct 
reproduction of a passport application filed by you in August of 1958. 

(Document was handed to the wdtness.) 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. NowACKi. I think this is my passport application, but I think 
there is some writing in there that is not my writing. 

Mr. Arens. Is it material, the writing that is not your writing? 

Mr. NowACKi. I cannot figure, decipher it. 

Mr. Arens. That is writing at the very bottom of the first page in 
the margin, is that correct ? 

Mr. NowACKi. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. That you feel is not your writing ? 

Mr. NowACKi. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. Arens. Beside the w^riting to which you have just alluded, is 
this a true and correct reproduction of the passport application as you 
signed it and filed it ? 

Mr. NowACKi. I think it is. 

Mr. Arens. Was a passport issued pursuant to this application? 

Mr. NowACKi. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. I dii-ect your attention to page 2 of this passport ap- 
plication in which three questions appear : "Are you now a member 
of the Communist Party ? Write Yes or No. Have you every been a 
member of the Communist Party? Write Yes or No. If ever a 
member, state period of membership, from to ". 

Did you on this passport application fill out those questions, an- 
swer those questions which I have just read? 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



PASSPORT SECURITY 779 

Mr. NowACKi. No, I didn't answer those because I heard the Su- 
preme Court had given the reasons, that they had no right to answer 
that question. 

( Document marked "Nowacki Exhibit No. 4," and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. FoRER. Not to answer it, to ask it. 

The Chairman. You mean they had no right. You mean the State 
Department had no authority to ask the questions ? 

Mr. Nowacki. Correct. 

The Chairman. That is the reason why you did not answer? 

Mr. Nowacki. That is the reason I did not answer the question on 
the application. 

Mr. Arens. As of the time you filed this passport application in 
August of 1958, were you then a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Nowacki. I refuse to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. Have you traveled on the United States passport issued 
to you in November 1958, pursuant to the application which was filed? 

Mr. Nowacki. No, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Do you contemplate traveling on it? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nowacki. Possibly. 

Mr. Arens. Have you made any definite plans? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nowacki. No, sir. 

The Chairman. The fact of the matter is you never intended to 
travel. You merely obtained a passport because of the decision of 
the Supreme Court', and you wanted to demonstrate that you could, 
is that not the fact ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nowacki. That is not true. 

The Chairman. What is true then about your application ? You say 
you have not contemplated taking any trip. "\"\niy did you apply for a 
passport if you did not intend to go somewhere? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nowacki. I made an application with the intentions that there 
will — I may change my mind. I may want to go, and therefore I will 
have a passport on hand to be ready to go. 

The Chairman. I see. In other words, you made the application, 
obtained the passport because while you did not intend to use it, you 
thought that maybe at sometime or other you might have occasion 
to? 

Mr. Nowacki. I didn't say that I did not intend to use it. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Arens. Now, sir, please tell us how long have you lived in 
New York City. 

Mr. NowACKJ. Since 1949. 

Mr. Arens. Wliere did you live prior to that time? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nowacki. I refuse to ajiswer that question for reasons already 
given. 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer this question. You 
undei-stand the question, do you not ? 



780 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. NowACKi. As to whether I liad lived any other place besides 
New York City in 1949. 

The Chairman. Where did you live other than in New York City? 

Mr. NowACKi. Since 1949 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. NowACKi. I shall abide by my refusal to answer. 

The Chairman. You feel that if you would answer that question 
you might be subjected to a criminal prosecution ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. NowACKi. It is possible. 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nowacki, on the passport appli- 
cation, the original passport application, there is an address given, 
"Casimir T. Nowacki, 244 South Olive Street, Los Angeles 12, Cali- 
fornia." Was that your address on that date? 

Mr. Nowacki. Correct. It was. 

Mr. Jackson. Then you did reside in Los Angeles prior to the time 
you went to New York ? 

Mr. Nowacki. Yes. 

Mr. Jackson. I think that was the substance of the question coun- 
sel was asking. 

Mr. Arens. Precisely. 

Where did you reside prior to the time you lived in New York City ? 

Mr. Nowacki. Los Angeles. 

Mr. FoRER. You mean immediately prior? 

Mr. Nowacki. Los Angeles. 

Mr. FoRER. Wait a minute. 

(The wdtness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Now he has already answered the question. He 
answered the question, Los Angeles. 

Mr. FoRER. No, he didn't. 

The Chairman. He did. I heard him, before you put other words 
in his mouth. We will leave that answer just where it is. 

Mr. FoRER. All right. Leave it. Let the record show the way it 
stands. 

The Chairman. Go ahead, Mr. Arens. 

Mr. Arens. Are you the head of the Polonia Club ? 

Mr. Nowacki. I refuse to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. Were you m 1957 the head of the Polonia Club? 

Mr. Nowacki. I refuse to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you now, if you please, sir, a thermofax 
reproduction of the Communist Daily Worker of Tuesday, February 
19, 1957, in which an article appears respecting Polish-United States 
trade talks. In this article appears reference to a letter sent to the 
chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs by Casimir 
Nowacki designated in this article as head of the Polonia Club. 
Kindly look at this article and tell this committee whether or not that 
refreshes your recollection with reference to your office as head of the 
Polonia Club. 

Mr. Forer. He didn't say he didn't remember. What has the re- 
freshing his recollection got to do with it? Do you want to change 
your question ? 

Mr. Arens. Kindly tell this committee whether or not the facts 
recited there with reference to your connection with the Polonia Club 
are true and correct ? 



PASSPORT SECURITY 781 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. NowACKi. I refuse to answer that question for the reasons al- 
ready given. 

(Document marked "Nowacki Exhibit No. 5," and retained in com- 
mittee files. 

Mr. Arens. Are you now or have you been in the course of the last 
2 years a contributor to tlie English Section of the People's Voice? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. NowACKi. I refuse to answer that question for the reasons 
already given. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you now, if you please, sir, a thermofax 
reproduction of tlie masthead of the People's Voice of Saturday, 
February 28, 1948, carrying in the masthead, the name of Casimir T. 
Nowacki, as a contributor. 

Kindly look at that document which I display to you and tell this 
committee whether or not the designation there is a fact, to your 
certain knowledge. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr, XowACKi. I refuse to answer for the reasons already given. 
(Document marked "Xowacki Exhibit No. 6" and retained in com- 
mittee files. ) 

Mr. Arens. Have you been the executive secretary of the Slavic 
Council of Southern California ? 

Mr. XowACKi. I refuse to answer for the reasons already given. 
Mr. Arens. I display to you now, please, sir. copy of an article ap- 
pearing in the Daily People's "World of August 27, 1948, referring to a 
letter to the then Attorney General Tom Clark, and to President Har- 
ry Truman, from Casimir T. Nowacki designated in this* article as 
executive secretary of the Slavic Council of Southern California. 
Kindly look at this document and tell this committee whether or not 
the designation of yourself as executive secretary of that organiza- 
tion is true and correct. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nowacki. I refuse to answer this question for reasons already 
given. 

(Document marked "Nowacki Exhibit No. 7," and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Arens. I put it to you as a fact, sir, and ask you to affirm or 
deny the fact tliat in 1944, 1946, 1947, and 1948 you were a member 
of the Nationalities Commission of the Los Angeles Communist 
Party. 

(The witness conferred Avith his counsel.) 

Mr. Nowacki. I refuse to answer that for the same reasons given 
before. 

Mr. Arens. Were you or have you been in the course of the recent 
past the editor of the Slavic- American News, organ of the Slavic 
Council of Southern California ? 

Mr. Nowacki. I refuse to answer that for the same reasons given 
before. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you, if you please, sir, a photostatic re- 
production of the Daily People's World, September 13, 1950, in 



782 PASSPORT SECURITY 

which Casimir T. Nowacki is alhided to as the editor of the Slavic- 
American News. Kindly look at that document and tell this committee 
whether or not the desi<;nation there is true and correct. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nowacki. I refuse to answer this question for the reasons al- 
ready given. 

(Document marked "Nowacki Exhibit No. 8," and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. FoRER. Do you want to rend this article into the record, Mr. 
Arens? 

Mr. Arens. No, thank you. Counsel, and you know your sole and 
exclusive prerogative is to advise your client. 

I display to you, if you please, sir, a photostatic reproduc- 
tion of an article in the Daily People's World of Wednesday, 
September 21, 1949, entitled, "Poland Today : Social Sein^ices Make 
Living Easier for the People," written from Warsaw, Poland, special 
to The Daily People's World by Casimir T. Nowacki. Kindly look 
at this document I am displaying to you and tell this committee 
whether or not tliat is a true and correct reproduction of an article sent 
by you to the Daily People's World from Warsaw, Poland. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nowacki. I refuse to answer for the same reasons given before. 

(Document marked "Nowacki Exhibit No. 9," and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Arens. Have you had any contractual relationships with the 
Communist government of Poland ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nowacki. Kepeat that question again. 

Mr. Arens. Have you had any contractual relationships in the 
course of the last few years with the Communist government of 
Poland, or any subdivision or unit thereof? 

Mr. FoRER. Contract. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nowacki. No, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Have you been engaged in any business enterprise tak- 
ing people or escorting people to Poland ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nowacki. I had no contract with the Polish Government inso- 
far as a business transaction, if that is what you are referring to. 

Mr. Arens. Did you have contractual relationships or business 
activities of any kind, nature, or description with the end in view 
of causing persons to be transported from the United States to 
Poland? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Nowacki. I was going to lead a tour to Poland, but then my 
passport was seized at the time. 

Mr. Arens. Under what auspices were you to lead the tour? 

Mr. Nowacki. I refuse to answer that question for reasons already 
given. 

Mr. Arens. Have you in the course of the last three or four yeare 
been in conference with members of the Polish delegation to the 
United Nations ? 



PASSPORT SECURITY 783 

Mr. NowACKi. Last three or four years? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. NowACKi. In conference ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. NowACKi. What do you mean, conferences, talk to or 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. Let's start with that, 

Mr. NowACKi. I refuse to answer that for the reasons already 
given. 

Mr. Arens. Have joii supplied any information respecting the 
names and addresses of persons in the United States to members of 
the official delegation of the Polish Government in the United States ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. NowACKi. Not that I recall, no. 

Mr. Arens. Was your solicitation of a United States passport last 
year at the direction or instigation of any person known to be a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. NowACKi. No, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Are you now, this moment, a member of the Communist 
Party? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. NowACKi. I refuse to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I resj^ectfully suggest that will con- 
clude the staff interrogation of this witness. 

The Chairman. Any questions, Mr. Doyle? 

Mr. Doyle. Just one or two. 

Mr. Nowacki, you gave your address in April 1949 when you applied 
for that passport 

Mr. NowACKi. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. as 244 South Olive, Los Angeles? 

Mr. NowACKi. Correct. 

Mr. Doyle. About how long did you reside at that address prior 
to the time you filed your passport application on April 25, 1949 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. NowACKi. Oh, before I filed it? 

Mr. Doyle. About how long? 

Mr. NowACKi. That was what date that I filed it ? 

Mr. Doyle. April, 1949. 

Mr. NowACKi. April, 1949. I would guess about a year and a half, 
two years. 

Mr. Doyle. Did you live at any place other than 244 South Olive, 
while in California? 

Mr. Nowacki. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. "Wliere? 

Mr. Nowacki. On 3020 Sunset Boulevard. 

Mr. Doyle. About how long did 3'ou live there? 

Mr. Nowacki. About five years. 

Mr. Doyle. And prior to the time j^ou lived at this address, at Sun- 
set Boulevard, at what other address in California did you live? 

Mr. NoAVACKi. Let's see. I owned a home at 9th and 5Tth Street — 
wait a minute. I am not sure, 932 — 57th. 

39742— 59— pt. 2 4 



784 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Doyle. In Los Angeles? 

Mr. NowACKi. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. Approximately how long? 

Mr. NowACKi. About four years. 

Mr. Doyle. While you were residing at any of these three places 
you named in Los Angeles, California, did you use any name other 
than your present one before this committee? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, I am asking this for the purpose of 
identification. I ask that the witness be instructed to answer. 

The Chairman. You are instructed to answer the question. Have 
you used any name other than the name that you are using today in 
this hearing ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. NowACKi. I refuse to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Doyle. Is the adress 244 South Olive a residence? I mean a 
single dwelling or apartment house or flat or a business building? 

Mr. NowACKi. No. It is on Bunker Hill, next to Eagles Flight. 

Mr. Doyle. Beg pardon ? 

Mr. NowACKi. Next to Eagles Flight on Bunker Hill. It is about 
an eight-story building. 

IVIr. Doyle. At that address were you engaged in any business or 
did you just reside there ? 

Mr. NowACKi. I just resided there. 

Mr. Doyle. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Any questions, Governor ? 

Mr. Tuck. I have no questions. 

The Chairman. Any questions, Mr. Jackson ? 

Mr. Jackson. No questions. 

The Chairman. Any questions, Mr. Johansen ? 

Mr. Johansen. No questions. 

The Chairman. The witness is excused. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if in advance of the next 
witness, because Mr. Boudin represents two other witnesses who have 
been subpenaed, we could make a record on the continuation of their 
subpena. if you please. Counsel is present. 

Mr. Boudin. We already agreed in writing, so you don't have to 
make a record. 

Mv. Aren?;. I would like to have the chairman order on this. 

Mr. Boudin. No objection. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I do not know anything about it. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, the first witness who was under sub- 
pena is Mr. Walter Cronan. Mr. Boudin sent to the office just a few 
days ago a doctor's certificate to the effect that IVIr. Cronan had been 
injured in an automobile accident and his appearance today would 
be continued. 

The Chairman. Let that subpena be continued. 

Mr. Arens. He sent also a message to the effect that another wit- 
ness, Mr. Victor Michael Berman, also under subpena, is, because of 
very strong personal reasons, unable to be here today, personal rea- 
sons being he can't travel. 

The Chairman. Are you satisfied ? 



PASSPORT SECURITY 785 

Mr. Arens, Yes, sir, and I respectfully suggest that he be con- 
tinued under his subpena. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. BouDiN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Call your next witness. 

Mr. Arens. The next witness, if you please, Mr. Chairman, will be 
Mrs. Dorothy Ray Friedman. 

The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand, please ? 

Do you swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. 

Mrs. Friedman. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF DOROTHY RAY FRIEDMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, LEONARD B. BOUDIN 

Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and oc- 
cupation. 

Mrs. Friedman. My name is Dorothy Friedman. I live at Provi- 
dence, Rhode Island. I am a housewife. 

Mr. Arens. You are appearing today in response to a subpena 
which was served upon you by the House Committee on Un-xA.merican 
Activities ? 

Mrs. Friedman. Yes, that is true. 

Mr. Arens. And you are represented by counsel ? 

Mrs. Friedman. That is true. 

Mr. Arens. Counsel, will you kindly identify yourself ? 

Mr. BouDiN. Leonard B. Boudin, B-o-u-d-i-n, 2.5 Broad Street, New 
York City. 

Mr. Arens. Mrs. Friedman, where were you born ? 

Mrs. Friedman. I decline to answer on the following grounds : 

First, this being the second time that the committee has subpenaed 
me to ask me substantially the same questions, the hearing is without 
legislative purpose, and is for the purpose harassment. Second, the 
committee is without jurisdiction over the subject of passport, that 
being a matter under the jurisdiction of either the House Judiciary or 
the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Third, the resolution creating 
this committee is so vague as not to indicate the intention of Congress, 
and therefore my right to due process is impaired. Fourth, the ques- 
tion is not pertinent to any subject which might be legitimately under 
investigation. Fifth, the question violates my rights under the first 
amendment and my rights and constitutional privilege under the 
fifth amendment to the (\)nstitution. 

Mr. Arens. Do you believe that the answer to the question where 
you were born might in some wav cause vou to be prosecuted crimi- 
nally? 

Mrs. Friedman. I decline to answer, sir. 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question. 

Mrs. Friedman. I decline, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would permit me to 
make an explanation of pertinency ? 

The Chairman. Never mind about that. You are directed to an- 
swer the question, Mi-s. Friedman. 

Mrs. Friedman. I decline to answer for the reasons already given, 
sir. 



786 PASSPORT SECURITY 

The Chairman. Why did you ask tlie question, Mr. Arens? 

Mr. Arens. The pertinency of this question to the subject matter 
that the committee has before it today is in essence this : 

That in March of 1958 this committee held hearings in Boston, 
Mass., at which time the first witness was a man by the name of 
Annando Penha, who for a number of years had been an undercover 
agent in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Armando Penha broke 
from the Communist apparatus as an undercover agent the instant 
he took his oath before this committee and testified. In the course of 
his testimony Mr. Penha identified the witness who is presently before 
us, Dorothy Ray Friedman, and related her activities as a member of 
the conspiratorial apparatus ; pursuant to the custom of this committee 
Mi"s. Friedman was subpenaed in Boston. That was in March of 
1958. 

She was inteiTogated with respect to the testimony of the under- 
cover agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. She was given 
an opportunity to deny. She was confronted with each of the various 
elements which this undercover agent produced before the committee. 

In each instance she refused to answer questions as she has done 
today even on elements of where she was born and the like. 

The Chairman. I notice that you have before you an application 
for a passport. Was this question as to the place of birth asked for 
the purpose of identifying this witness with the person who applied 
for a passport ? 

Mr. Arens. That is precisely what I am coming to, Mr. Chairman. 

This testimony was in March 1958. Thereafter, just four months 
later, notwithstanding this testimony in Boston, this lady presented 
an application for a passport to the Department of State to travel 
abroad and, as I think the proceedings will show in just a few mo- 
ments, refused to answer any questions respecting Communist Party 
affiliations or activities even as of that time and a passport was issued. 

The Chairman. It is interesting to all of us to note that each of 
these people know almost verbatim the contents of the decision of 
the Supreme Court. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. Jackson. May I ask one question, Mr. Chairman, of counsel? 

The original appearance before the committee of the present 
witness that was related, as I understand counsel's explanation, re- 
ferred to membership in the Communist Party and not to the subject 
of passports, is that correct ? 

Mr. Arens. That is correct, yes, sir. She was identified by a live 
undercover agent in the Federal Bureau of Investigation who had 
been serving in the Communist Party, a matter of hours before her 
appearance, as a then member of the conspiratorial apparatus. She 
was then confronted with that testimony and did not avail herself 
of an opportunity to deny it. Indeed she invoked constitutional 
privilege on every element. 

Then within the course of four months' time she applied for a 
United States passport, refused to answer any questions as to Com- 
munist Party membership of activity and was issued a passport as 
a matter of course. 

It is for that reason we felt it was certainly germane to this inquiry. 

Mr. Jackson. I think this is very important in the light of rele- 
vance. The questions today are directed to the passport matter pres- 



PASSPORT SECURITY 787 

ently under consideration by the committee and not to the point of 
her membership in the Coimnunist Party previous to the application, 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Arens. That is correct, yes, sir. 

Tlie Chairman. Very AvelL 

Mr. BouDiN. Could I ask a question, Mr. Arens ? 

Mr. Arens. Now, Counsel, you know your sole and exclusive pre- 
rogative is to advise your client. 

Mr. BouDiN. This will help me to advise my client. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you, if you please, a photostatic reproduc- 
tion of a passport application and ask you if this is a true and correct 
reproduction of a passport application filed by yourself with the De- 
partment of State in July of 1958. 

(Document handed.) 

Mr. BouDiN. Have you asked the question, please? Could it be 
repeated ? 

Mr. Arens. Just identify it. 

Mr. BouDiN. Read the particular question, please. 
■ (The record was read by the reporter as requested.) 

Mrs. Friedman. I decline to answer for the reasons already given. 

(Document marked "Friedman Exhibit No. 1," and retained in 
committee files. ) 

Mr. BouDiN. I assume it is not necessary to repeat the reasons, Mr. 
Arens. 

The Chairman. Do not repeat the reasons. Just say for the reasons 
lieretofore given. We know exactly what you mean. 

Mr. Arens. Had you ever traveled abroad prior to the time of the 
application for this passport ? 

Sirs. Friedman. I decline to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. I put it to 3"ou as a fact, and ask you to affirm or deny 
the fact, that prior to the issuance of this particular passport you 
were in Guatemala in 1954 for the purpose of carrying on Communist 
Party activities in that country. If that is not true, please deny it 
while you are under oath. 

Mi-s. Friedman. I decline to answer for reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. Was a passport issued to you last year, in 1958, pur- 
suant to the application which I have displayed to you ? 

Mrs. Friedman. I decline to answer for reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever traveled abroad ? 

Mrs. Friedman. I decline to answer, sir, for reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever received a United States passport at any 
time? 

Mrs. Friedman. I decline to answer that question. 

Mr. Arens. Are vou now, this instant, a member of the Communist 
Party ? 

Mrs. Friedman. I decline to answer that question, sir. 

Mr. Arens. ]Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that will conclude 
the staff interrogation of this witness. 

The Chairman. Did you ever complain to the State Department 
because of the delay in issuing the passport? 

Mrs. Friedman. I decline to answer the questions, sir. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you now, if you please, a photostatic 
reproduction of a letter dated August 18, 1958, bearing a signature 
Dorothy Friedman, addressed to the director of the Passport Office, 



788 PASiSPORT SECURITY 

Department of State, and ask you if that is a true and correct repro- 
duction of a letter signed by yourself and sent to the director of the 
Passport Office. 

(Document handed.) 

(The Witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Friedman. I decline to answer. 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the letter be incorporated 
in the record. 

The Chairman. Yes. Let it be made a part of our records. 

(Document marked "Friedman Exhibit No. 2,'' and retained in the 
committee files.) 

Any question, Mr. Doyle ? 

Mr. DoYi.E. I have no questions. But I am under the impression 
that may be a case where an American citizen is going to South Amer- 
ica, to-wit, Guatemala, as a Communist to stir up Communist Party 
line in Guatemala or other foreign countries 

The Chairman. That would not be an exception. That is the 
case. 

Mr. DoTLE. It is a dirty shame if it is true. 

The Chairman. Any questions. Governor? 

Mr. Tuck. I have none. 

The Chairman. Mr. Jackson. 

ISfr. Jackson. Mr. Counsel, does the evidence in the possession of 
the committee indicate that travel was accomplished to Guatemala? 

Mr. Arens. Yes. Prior to the present application it is the informa- 
tion of this committee staff from confidential sources, and I already 
confronted the witness with this allegation, that in 1954 she was in 
Guatemala in conferences there with known international agents of 
the Communist conspiracy. The 1958 application, however, called 
for travel in England, France, Switzerland or countries of Europe. 

Mr. Jackson. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Any questions, Mr. Johansen ? 

Mr. Johansen. Mr. Counsel, did the visit to Guatemala involve an 
application for a passport? 

Mr. Arens. No, sir. TTnder the international travel regulations a 
passport for an American citizen is not necessary in that instance. 

The Chairman. The witness is excused. 

Mr. Arens. The next witness, if you please, Mr. Chairman, will be 
Mr. Fred P. Muller. 

The Chairman. Mr. Muller, Avill you raise your right hand ? 

Do vou swear the testimony you are about to giA^e will be the truth, 
the M^hole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God. 

Mr. Muller. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF FRED PAUL MULLER. ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
LEONARD B. BOUDIN 

Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and 
occupation. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Muller. Fred Paul Muller, 22 Hudson Place, Hoboken, New 
Jersey. 

Mr. Arens. Would it be convenient for you to raise your voice ? I 
doubt if a single member heard your response. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 789 

May we start over again ? 

Would you kindly give us your name, residence, and occupation? 

Mr. MULI.ER. Fred P. Muller, 22 Hudson Place, Hoboken, New 
Jersey. 

Mr. Arens. Could you get the microphone closer to you ? 

Mr. Muller. All right. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Muller, you are appearing today in response to a 
subpena which was served upon you bv this committee ? 

Mr. Muller. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. And you are represented by counsel ? 

Mr. Muller. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Counsel, kindly identify yourself. 

Mr. BouDiN. Leonard B. Boudin, 25 Broad Street, New York 4, 
New York. 

Mr. Arens. "Where and when were you born, INIr. Muller? 

Mr. Muller. I decline to answer this and similar, related questions. 

Mr. Arens. You are reading from a prepared statement now? 

Mr. Muller. Yes, sir. First, the committee's lack of jurisdiction 
over the passports of the right to travel. Second, constitutional pro- 
tection given by the Constitution and the courts of this right. 

Third, the lack of pertinency of the question. Fourth, my con- 
stitutional rights under the first, fifth, ninth and tenth amendments 
to the Constitution, and my constitutional privilege imder the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Arens. Are you a citizen of the United States ? 

Mr. MuixER. I decline to answer that question for the reasons 
given, sir. 

The Chairman. Wait a minute. A^Tiat was that question? 

Mr. Arens. I asked him if he was a citizen of the United States 
and he declined to answer and invoked all the reasons he is reading 
from this prepared statement. 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer that question. 

Mr. Muller. I decline to answer for the reasons previously given 
and also because of the vagueness of the resolution establishing the 
committee and the vagueness of the subpena served upon me. Thus 
my rights 

The Chairman. May I interrupt you at that point? You say the 
subpena was vague. You are here. You came pursuant to the sub- 
pena. It could not have been vague. 

Mr. BoiTDiN. Could I explain that, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. No. The record speaks for itself. He says the 
subi^ena was vague, but here he is. So all right. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Muller, I display to you a photostatic reproduc- 
tion of a passport application f^led with the Department of State. 
August 11, 1950, signed "Fred P. Muller." According to this docu- 
ment the applicant desires to travel to France, Switzerland, Scan- 
dinavia, (possibly Western Germany) ; and purpose, as a tourist, 
possibly to study. Kindly look at this passport application which I 
have just displayed to you and tell this committee whether or not 
that is a true and correct reproduction of an application filed bj^ 
yourself. 

(Document handed.) 



790 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. MiTLLER. I decline to answer this question for the reasons al- 
ready jriven. 

Mr. Arens. According to this passport application, the applicant 
states that he was bom in Hamburg, Free City, of Gennany, on 
September 9, 1912. Were you born in Hamburg, Germany, on Sep- 
tember 9, 1912? 

Mr. Mui.LER. I decline to answer this question for the reason al- 
ready given. 

Mr. Arens. It further says his mother's name is Emmy Muller. 
Was your mother's name Emmy Muller ? 

Mr. Muli.er. I decline to answer this question for the reasons given. 

Mr. Arens. It says height is five feet, nine. Is your height ap- 
proximately five feet, nine ? 

Mr. Muller. I decline to answer this question for the reasons given. 

Mr. Arens. It says eyes are blue. Are your eyes blue ? 

Mr. Muller. I decline to answer the question for the reasons al- 
ready given. 

Mr. Arens. And it says hair is light brown. Is your hair light 
brown ? 

Mr. Muller. I decline to answer this question for the reasons al- 
ready given. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you, sir, a photostatic reproduction of an 
application for a renewal of a passport which was filed in Vienna, 
Austria, with the American Vice Consul under date of May 11, 1951. 
Kindly look at this document and tell this committee whether or not 
this signature, "Fred P. Muller," appearing on line, designated "signa- 
ture of applicant" is the signature of yourself, filed by yourself with 
the American consul in Vienna, Austria. 

(Document handed.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Muller, excuse me. Will you answer the 
question ? 

Mr. Muller. I decline to answer this question for the reasons al- 
ready given. 

(Document marked "Muller Exhibit No. 1," and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

The Chairman. The application for a passport that Mr. Arens was 
referring to a moment ago contained a picture. Is this a picture of 
you? 

Mr. Arens. At the chairman's direction, I am displaying to you 
now the photostatic reproduction of the photograph appearing on 
the above application which I previously showed you which was 
filed with the Department of State August, 1950, and signed by Fred 
P. Muller. Kindly tell this committee while you are under oath 
whether that photograph you are now examining is a true and cor- 
rect reproduction of a photograph of yourself. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Muller. I decline to answer this question for the reasons al- 
ready given. 

(Document marked "Muller Exhibit No. 2," and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 



PASSPORT SECURITY 791 

Mr. Arens. I display to you, sir, if you please, a photostatic re- 
production of an application for a renewal of a passpost secured in 
August 1950 in which the applicant states he wants to go to Latin 
America as a tourist. And it is signed Fred P. Muller. On the docu- 
ment it appears that the renewal fee was received and a renewal 
granted. 

Kindly look at this document and tell this committee whether or 
not that is a true and correct reproduction of a passport renew^al ap- 
plication filed by yourself with the Department of State. 

(Document handed.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

( Mr. Johansen left the room. ) 

Mr. Muller. I decline to answer for the reasons already given. 

(Document marked "Muller Exhibit No. 3,'- and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Arens. Was a passport renewal granted to you pursuant to 
this application? 

Mr. Muller. I decline to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. Did you travel to Latin America on a passport, a 
LTnited States passport? 

Mr. Muller. I decline to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you, if you please, sir, a photostatic repro- 
duction of another passport application filed on September 17, 1954, 
with the Department of State by Fred P. Muller who asserts that he 
wants to travel to Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, and Chile on a 
pleasure trip. It also bears a photograph and is signed Fred P. 
Muller. Kindly look at this document and tell this committee whether 
or not this is a true and correct reproduction of the passport appli- 
cation filed by you with the Department of State on that date. 

(Document handed.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Muller. I decline to answer this question for the reasons al- 
ready given. 

(Document marked "Muller Exhibit No. 4," and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Arens. Did the State Department issue a new passport pursu- 
ant to this application ? 

Mr. Muller. I decline to answer for tlie reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. Did you travel to Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Vene- 
zuela, pureuant to a passport issued to you by the Department of State 
in response to this solicitation of the passport application ? 

Mr. Muller. I decline to answer for tlie reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you still another photostatic reproduction 
of an application for renewal of passport, in which the applicant 
states he wants to go to Italy, Austria, Belgium and France, and Ger- 
many, and the objectives or purposes are pleasure trips, and visiting 
relatives. This document is filed in September 1956. Kindly look 
at this document, if you please, while I display it to you and tell this 
committee whether or not it is a true and correct reproduction of a 
document filed by you with the Department of State. 

(Document handed.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



792 PASSPORT SECURITY 

• Mr. MuLLER. I decline to answer this question for the reason al- 
ready given. 

(Document marked "Muller Exhibit No. 5," and retained in com- 
mittee files. ) 

Mr. Arens. Did you travel pursuant to a passport issued to you in 
response to this application which I have just displayed to you? 

Mr. Muller. I decline to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. What is your occupation ? 

Mr. Muller. I decline to answer for the reasons given. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you, if you please, a passport application 
filed by you in July 1958, bearing a stamp that a passport was issued 
August 29, 1958 in which the applicant states he wants to go as a 
tourist to Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, and 
Chile ; the applicant affixed his signature, according to notation, paid 
the fee and was issued a passport. 

Kindly look at this document while I display it to you and tell this 
committee whether or not this is a true and correct reproduction of a 
passport application filed bv yourself with the Department of State 
in 1958. 

( Document handed. ) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Muller. I decline to answer the question for the reasons 
already given. 

(Document marked "Muller Exhibit No. 6," and retained in com« 
mittee files. ) 

Mr. Arens, Do you know a person by the name of Sharon Godsy, 
S-h-a-r-o-n G-o-d-s-y ? 

Mr. Muller. I decline to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. I put it to you as a fact, sir, and ask you to affirm or 
deny the fact, and this is based on confidential information available 
to the security agents of this Government, that in 1956 you were cited 
and commended by the international Commmiist apparatus together 
with Sharon Godsy for doing "fine international work for the Party." 
If that is not true, deny it while you are under oath. 

Mr. Muller. I decline to answer that question for the reasons 
already given. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that will con- 
clude the staff interrogation of this witness. 

The Chairman. Any questions, Mr. Doyle? 

Mr. Dotle. No. 

The Chairman. Governor Tuck ? 

Mr. Tuck. I have no questions. 

The Chairman. Mr. Jackson ? 

Mr. Jackson. No questions. 

The Chairman. The witness is excused. 

Mr. BouDiN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Call your next witness. 

Mr. Arens. Bocho Mircheff. 

The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand, please ? 

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



PASSPORT SECURITY 793 

TESTIMONY OF BOCHO MIRCHEFF, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

JOSEPH FORER 

Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence and oc- 
cupation. 

Mr. MiRCiiEFF. My name is Bocho Mircheff. I live at 17375 Or- 
leans, Detroit, Michigan. 

Mr. Arens. And your occupation ^ 

Mr. Mircheff. I decline to answer the question, the following rea- 
sons : First, I think that this committee is calling me only to harass 
me. You have no right to do that. You already called me once in 
Chicago. 

Second, I think that this committet is unconstitutional. 

And third, I claim my privilege under the fifth amendment of the 
Constitution not be witness against myself. 

Mr. Arens. Do you honestly apprehend, sir, if you told this com- 
mittee while you are under oath what your occupation is you would be 
supplying information that might be used against you in a criminal 
proceeding ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Mircheff. It is possible. 

Mr. Arens. You are appearing today in response to a subpena 
served upon you by this committee ? 

Mr. Mircheff. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. And you are represented by counsel? 

Mr. Mircheff. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Counsel, kindly identify yourself. 

Mr. FoRER. Joseph Forer, 711 14th Street WW., Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I think I might announce for the record 
that we are taking this witness at this time in order to accommodate 
him because we have been advised by his counsel he plans on leaving 
the country tomorrow on a passport. 

The Chairman. With a passport ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Mircheff, when and where were you born ? 

Mr. Mircheff. I was born in Bulgaria. 

Mr. Arens. When? 

Mr. Mircheff. 1898. 

Mr. Arens. And when did you come to the United States for per- 
manent residence ? 

Mr. Mircheff. 1918. 

Mr. Arens. Are you a citizen of the United States ? 

Mr. Mircheff. lam. 

Mr. Arens Are you a naturalized citizen ? 

Mr. Mircheff. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Where and when were you naturalized ? 

Mr. Mircheff. Detroit, 1938. 

Mr. Arens. Please give us the principal occupations you have had 
since you arrived in the United States. 

Mr. Mircheff. I decline to answer this question for the reasons al- 
ready given. 



794 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Arens. Is there any occupation in whicli you have been enfja^ed 
since you arrived in the United States concernin*x wliich you can tell 
this committee witliout disclosinp^ information which might be used 
against you in a criminal proceeding? 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. I decline to answer for the same reasons already 
given. 

Mr. Arens. Have you traveled abroad since your arrival in the 
United States? 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. I have. 

Mr. Arens. And when did you travel abroad, just the years, please? 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. 1946. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you, if you please, sir, a photostatic repro- 
duction of a passport application filed in 1946 by a person who identi- 
fies himself as Bocho MirchefF, of whom a photograph appears, with 
the Department of State for the purpose of going to Yugoslavia. I 
ask you to kindlv examine this document and tell this committee 
whether or not this is a true and correct reproduction of the passport 
application filed by you. 

(Document handed.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiRCHEFF, I refuse to answer for the same reasons given. 

(Document marked "Mircheff Exhibit No. 1," and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Arens. Xow, according to this passport application you were 
going to go, so you told the State Department, to attend the All-Slav 
Congress in Belgrade as a delegate. Did you attend the All-Slav 
Consfress in Belgrade as a delegate? 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. I refuse to answer, the same reasons given before. 

Mr. Arens. Was a passj^ort issued to you in 1946 pursuant to this 
application ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. Eefuse to answer, same reasons given before. 

Mr. Arens. Did you in 1946 travel abroad ? 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. Yes, I have. 

Mr. Arens. "Where did you go? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. I visited Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. 

Mr. Arens. And who paid your expenses? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. I refuse to answer for the reasons given before. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you a photostatic reproduction of a cer- 
tification by the president and secretary of the Bulgarian-American 
People's League, Detroit, Mich., certifying that Mr. Bocho Mircheff 
is an elected delegate to tlie All-Slav Congress in Belgrade, Yugo- 
slavia, to represent the Bulgarian-American People's League. 

Kindly look at this document and tell this committee whether or 
not that is a true and correct reproduction of the official certification 
that you were a delegate to the All-Slav Congress in Belgrade, repre- 
senting the Bulgarian-American People's League. 

(Document handed.) 

(The witness conferred witli his counsel.) 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. I refuse to answer for the reasons already given. 

(Document marked "Mircheff Exhibit No. 2," and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 



PASSPORT SECURITY 795 

Mr. Arens. While you were in Bulgaria were you decorated in 1946 
by the Bulgarian People's Government ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. I refuse to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. I put it to you as a fact, sir, and ask you to affirm or 
deny the fact that while you were in Bulgaria in 1946 you were dec- 
orated officially by the People's Republic of Bulgaria for work as a 
publicist in the United States for the cause of the "New" Bulgaria. 
If that is not true, please deny it while you are under oath. 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. I refuse to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. Do you presently have any trade or commercial con- 
nections with the Bulgarian government? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. No. 

Mr, Jackson. Have you had any trade or commercial relation- 
ships with the Bulgarian government at any time ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

]\Ir. ISIiRCHEFF. I refuse to answer for the reasons given before. 

Mr, Arens. Excuse me. Are you through ? 

What is Narodna Volya? 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. I refuse to answer for the same reasons. 

Mr. Arens. Narodna Volya is a foreign language Communist con- 
trolled publication, is it not ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. Not as far as I know. 

Mr. Arens. Are you the business manager of the Narodna Volya ? 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. I refuse to answer for the reasons given before. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you now, please, sir, the masthead state- 
ment of the ownership, management and the like of Narodna Volya 
in 1948, required by our postal laws, listing the business manager 
Bocho Mircheff, 5233 Russell Street, Detroit, Michigan. 

Kindly look at this document as I display it to you and tell this 
committee whether or not that is a true and correct reproduction of 
your title at that time. 

(Document handed.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. I refuse to answer for the same reasons given 
before. 

(Document marked "Mircheff Exhibit No. 3,"', and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Arens. I display to you, if you please, a copy of a leaflet is- 
sued in June 1954, by the Bulgarian- American Committee for Pro- 
tection of Foreign Born entitled "Mircheff Tells Them Off." The 
leaflet issued by this organization describes Bocho Mircheff, as busi- 
ness manager of Narodna Volya and what he did to tell off the Immi- 
gration and Naturalization Service some few years ago. 

Kindly look at this document, first of all and tell this committee 
whether or not you are the Bocho Mircheff described in the document 
who told off the Immigration and Naturalization Service. 

Mr. Mircheff. Refuse to answer for the same reasons. 

(Document marked "Mircheff Exhibit No. 4,". and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever been the subject of a denaturalization 
proceeding or a deportation proceeding? 



796 PASSPORT SECURITY 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. No, sir. 

Mr, Arens. Have you been on the executive board of The Slavic 
American, a quarterly ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. Refuse to answer for the same reasons given. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you now a photostatic reproduction of the 
advertisement of best wishes and success to The Slavic American 
from the National Committee, Bulgarian-American People's League, 
which designates Bocho Mirchetf as one of five members of its execu- 
tive board. Kindly look at this document and tell this committee 
whether or not that is a true and correct designation of yourself. 

(Document handed.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. Refuse to answer, the same grounds, same reasons. 

(Document marked "MirchefF Exhibit No. 5,", and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Arens. Sir, did you in Jmie 1958, file an application with the 
Department of State for a United States passport to travel abroad? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. Yes, sir, I did. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you a photostatic reproduction of a pass- 
port application filed with the Department of State signed by Bocho 
Mircheff in which the applicant is requesting a passport for the pur- 
pose of visiting Brussels, Belgium, Switzerland, and Denmark. I ask 
you if this is a true and correct reproduction of the passport applica- 
tion filed by you with the Department of State. 

(Document handed.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

(Representative Johansen returned to the room.) 

Mr. Arens. This is the application, reproduction of the applica- 
tion? 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. Yes, this is the application. 

(Document marked "Mircheff Exhibit No. 6," and retained in com- 
mittee files. ) 

Mr. Arens. In this application three questions appear which are 
unanswered. (1) Are you now a member of the Communist Party? 
(2) Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? (3) 
If ever a member state the period of membership. You did not an- 
swer the questions. 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. According to the decision of the Supreme Court I 
was not supposed to answer this question. 

Mr. Arens. As of the instant you affixed your signature to this 
application for a United States passport to travel abroad were you 
a member of the Commimist Party ? 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. Refuse to answer this question on the same ground, 
same reason. 

Mr. Arens. Are vou now, this instant, a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. I refuse to answer this question for the same reason 
given. 

Mr. Arens. Wlien does your boat depart from the United States ? 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. I beg pardon ? 



PASSPORT SECURITY 797 

Mr. Arens. When does your boat, vour vessel, depart from the 
United States ? 

Mr. MiRcnEFF. Now ? This year ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, when are you planning on getting on the boat to 
leave ? 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. April 9. 

Mr. Arens. That has already passed. 

Mr. MiRciiEFF. Well, thanks to the intervening of the committee 
here. 

Mr. Arens. When is your new arrangement to leave ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. Tomorrow, yes. 

Mr. Arens. You leave tomorrow ? 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. On what vessel do you depart ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. I am going by plane, by air. 

Mr. Arens. Where are you going, please ? 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. I am going to Bulgaria this time. 

(Representative Jackson left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Arens. Who is going to pay your expenses? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. I refuse to answer this question for the same 
reasons. 

Mr. Arens. Will your expenses be paid by persons known by you 
to be members of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. Refuse to answer, the same reasons. 

Mr. Arens. Is your mission abroad a mission under the direction of 
the Communist Party ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. No. 

Mr. Arens. Do you expect to engage in Communist Party activities 
in Bulgaria? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. INIiRCHEFF. No, sir. 

Mr. Arens. I have already asked you, have I not, are you now, this 
instant, a member of the Communist Party ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. I already answered this question. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that will con- 
clude the staff interrogation of this witness. 

Mr. Doyle. I have no questions. 

Mr. Tuck. No questions. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. No questions. 

The Chairman. I suppose you were here when Mr. Boudin re- 
quested, and his request was granted, that two witnesses be excused 
for various reasons. You have tried to create the impression that 
you missed your ship because you were subpenaed to appear before 
this committee. Did you request a continuance ? 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. Did I request what? 

The Chairman. A postponement. 

Mr. MiRCHEFF. Yes, I did. 

The Chairman. What happened ? 



798 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Arens. He requested that his appearance here be postponed 
until he got back. 

Mr. FoRER. Or moved up. 

Mr. Arens. Or moved up. Of course the committee could not move 
it up because the date of the hearings had been set. 

(Witness excused.) 

The Chairman. Call your next witness, Mr. Arens. 

Mr. Arens. The next witness, if you please, Mr. Chairman, will be 
Leonore Haimowitz. 

The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand, please? 

Do you swear the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ^ 

Mr. Haimowitz. I have a question to ask. 

Mr. Arens. Beg pardon? 

Mr. Haimowitz. I have a question to ask the committee first. 

Mr! Arens. Would you raise your voice a little. I cannot hear 

you. . . 

]Mr. Haimowitz. I say we have a question to ask tlie committee 

first. 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Haimow^itz. We don't have counsel. I am Mr. Haimowitz, 
husband of Mrs. Haimowitz, and I would like to represent her. 

The Chairman. Sit down, Mr. Haimowitz. Sit down, if your 
wife needs help. 

TESTIMONY OF LEONORE HAIMOWITZ, ACCOMPANIED BY HER 
HUSBAND, ELY HAIMOWITZ 

Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and 
occupation. 

(The witness conferred with her husband.) 

Mrs. Haimowitz. Leonore Haimowitz, 535 West Eighth Street, 
Plainfield, New Jersey, secretary. 

Mr. Arens. You are appearing today in response to a subpena 
which Avas served upon you by the House Committee on Un-American 
Activities ? 

Mrs. Haimowitz. Correct. 

Mr. Arens And I understand from what the gentleman appearing 
with you said that he is your husband ? 

You are a lawyer, sir? • • ,. 

Mr. Haimowitz. No, sir, I am not. I am a concert pianist. 

Mr. Arens. Ma'am, you understand you have the privilege, and 
have had the privilege right along, if you desire, to be represented by 
counsel in this proceeding ? 

Mrs. Haimowitz. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Would your husband care to identify himself on the 
record so as to reflect liis presence ? 

Mr. Haimowitz. I am Ely Haimowitz, her husband. 

Mr. Arens. Would you spell that for the reporter? 

Mr. Haimowitz. E-l-y H-a-i-m-o-w-i-t-z. 

:Mr. Arens. Mrs. Haimowitz, have you ever used any name other 
than the name Leonore Haimowitz ? 

Mrs. Haimowitz. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. What other name have you used ? 



PASSPORT SECURITY 799 

Mrs Haimowitz. Leonore Kantor, my maiden name, K-a-n-i-o-r 
Mr Arens. Have you ever been issued a United States passport « 
( 1 he witness conferred witli lier husband. ) 

Mrs. HAmmviTz I decline to answer that question because of the 
privilege of the Bill of Rights, fifth amendment. 
Mr. Arens. Where were you born ? 
Mrs. Haimowitz. Plainfield, New Jersey. 

Mr. Arejls. Give us a word, please, about your formal education. 
Mrs Haimowitz. Plainfield High School, '38, New York Univer- 

Mr Arens. What was the nature of the degree you received from 
New 1 ork Lniversity ? What type of training did you receive there? 

Mrs. Haimowitz. BA. 

Mr. Arens. Then give us, if you please, just the principal occupa- 
tions you had after you completed your formal education at New 
1 ork University. 

(The witness conferred with her husband.) 

Mrs Haimowitz. Are you referring to how I used my formal edu- 
cation ? *^ 

]\Ir. Arens. I am just asking you what your jobs were, the principal 
employment you had. ^ 

Mrs. Haimowitz. Yes. I worked as a lab technician in local labora- 
tory. 

Mr. Arens. How long did that emplovment last, please? 
Mrs. Haimowitz. Well, there were different labs over a period of 3 
years. 

Mr. Arens. Then your next general employment, please. 

Mrs. Haimowitz. Then I worlred for my father, starting in 19 . 

Mr. Arens. Just the approximate time.' 

Mrs. Haimowitz. From '46 on. 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever traveled abroad ? 

(The witness conferred with her husband.) 

The Chairman. Under the rules of the committee, witnesses are 
entitled to counsel for the purpose of advising them when their con- 
stitutional rights may or may not be affected. That rule, of course, 
IS not broad enough to extend to a husband prompting his wife and 
quite obviously telling her what to say. We are going to have to 
enforce the rule with respect to advice by counsel. 

Go ahead, Mr. Arens. 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. There is a question outstanding, Mr. chair- 
man. Have you ever traveled abroad? 

Mrs. Haimowitz. I decline to answer. 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever been to Mexico ? 

Mrs. Haimowitz. I decline to answer on reasons previously given. 

The Chairman. When you decline to answer I assume that you are 
declining on the basis of the fifth amendment to the Constitution. 

Mrs. Haimowttz. That is correct. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Arens. I would like to display to you now, please, a photostatic 
reproduction of a passport application filed with the Department of 
State, according to the application, by Leonore Kantor, who requests 
a United States passport in 1949 to go to France, Switzerland, Italy, 
Israel for sightseeing and pleasure. 
39742— 59— pt. 2 5 



800 PA&SPORT SECURITY 

Kindly look at that document and tell this committee whether or 
not that is a true and correct reproduction of the passport applica- 
tion filed by yourself with the Department of State. 

( Document handed. ) 

(The witness conferred w^ith her husband.) 

Mrs. Haimowitz. I decline to answ^er for the reasons already ^iven. 

(Document marked "Haimowitz Exhibit No. 1" and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. Arens. Was a passport issued to you in 1949 ? 

Mrs. Haimowitz. I decline to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. Excuse me just a moment. I put it to you as a fact, 
and ask you to affirm or deny the fact, that in 1954 you, as a then mem- 
ber of the Communist Party, were in consultation in Mexico with a 
lady by the name of Evelyn Clifton, who is likewise a member of the 
Communist Party residing in Mexico. If that is not a fact, please 
deny it while you are under oath. 

Mrs. Haimowitz. I refuse to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know a man by the name of Mario Padilla, 
M-a-r-i-o P-a-d-i-1-l-a? 

Mrs. Haimowitz. I refuse to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. He is head of the Mexican-Russian Cultural Institute, 
is he not ? 

Mrs. Haimowitz. I refuse to answer for reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. Were you in conference in Mexico with Mario Padilla ? 

Mrs. Haimowitz. I refuse to answer for reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. I put it to you as a fact that you were in 1954 in con- 
ference in Mexico with Mario Padilla. Would you kindly affirm or 
deny it while you are under oath ? 

Mrs. Haimowitz. I refuse to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. Who is Walter I-1-l-s-l-e-y ? 

Mrs, Haimowitz. I refuse to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. Walter Illsley is the representative of the Eed Chinese 
Government in certain activities in Mexico, is he not ? 

Mrs. Haimowitz. I refuse to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know Walter Illsley ? 

Mrs. Haimowitz. I refuse to answer to the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. I put it to you as a fact that you were in session with 
Walter Illsley in Mexico in 1954. Kindly affirm or deny that allega- 
tion. 

Mrs. Haimowitz. I refuse to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. Were you in 1948 one of the leaders of the Labor Youth 
League in New Jersey ? 

Mrs. Haimowitz. I refuse to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mr. Arens. Are you now, this instant, a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Mrs. Haimowitz. I decline to answer for the reasons stated. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you now a passport application filed with 
the Department of State in July 1958, in which the applicant states 
that she wishes to go to Spain, England, France, Italy, Holland, 
Belgium, West Germany, Switzerland, and Austria and to which the 
applicant affixes her signature, "Leonore Haimowitz," and identifies 
herself as a resident of Plainfield, New Jersey. 

Kindly look at this reproduction of the application and tell this 
committee whether or not this is a true and correct reproduction of an 



I 



PASSPORT SECURITY 801 

application filed by yourself with the Department of State for a 
U.S. passport in 1958. 

( Document handed. ) 

(The witness conferred with her husband.) 

Mrs. Haimowitz. I decline to answer the question for reasons al- 
ready given. 

(Document marked "Haimowitz Exhibit No. 2" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Arens. Now, I put it to you as a fact that a few years prior to 
the time that you solicited your passport from the U.S. Government to 
travel abroad in 1958, you were in Puerto Rico working with the 
Puerto Rico Communist Party in its reorganizational activities. 
If that is not true, please deny it while you are under oath. 

Mrs. Haimowitz. I decline answering for reasons already expressed. 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever been to Puerto Rico ? 

Mrs. Haimowitz. I decline answering for the reasons already ex- 
pressed. 

Mr. Arens. Was a passport issued pursuant to the application 
which I have just displayed to you ? 

Mrs. Haimowitz. I decline to answer for the reasons already ex- 
plained. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have presently in your custody a U.S. passport? 

Mrs. Haimowitz. I decline to answer. 

The Chairman. Has she a passport in her custody ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. According to the application a passport was 
issued September 10, 1958. 

Have you since the date which I have just mentioned, September 
10, 1958, traveled abroad ? 

Mrs. Haimowitz. I decline to answer. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have present plans or present intentions to 
travel abroad ? 

Mrs. Haimowitz. I decline to answer for the reasons already given. 

Mrs. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that will con- 
clude the staff interrogation of this witness. 

The Chairman. Any questions ? 

Mr. Doyle. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman, but I could not help 
but note the readiness and promptness with which the witness has 
declined to answer every question since the chairman called her hus- 
band's attention to the fact that it is contrary to our rules to allow 
anyone to put words in the witness' mouth. 

The Chairman. This witness did not need any help. 

Mr. Doyle. I think that was very evident, that she did not need it. 

The Chairman. The committee stands in recess until 10 o'clock 
tomorrow morning. 

(Wliereupon at 11:45 a.m., Thursday, April 23, the committee 
recessed to reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, April 24, 1959.) 



PASSPORT SECURITY 



FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 1959 

United States House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington^ D.C. 

PUBLIC hearings 

The subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities 
met, pursuant to recess, at 10 :05 a.m., in the Caucus Room, Old House 
Office Building, the Honorable Francis E. Walter (committee chair- 
man) presiding. 

Subcommittee members : Representatives Francis E. Walter, Penn- 
sylvania; Morgan M. Moulder, Missouri; Clyde Doyle, California; 
Donald L. Jackson, California ; and Gordon H. Scherer, Ohio. 

Committee member also present : Representative August E. Johan- 
sen, Michigan. 

Staff members present : Richard Arens, staff director, and Donald 
T. Appell, investigator. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members present: Representatives Walter, Doyle, Jackson, and 
Johansen. ) 

The Chairman. Mr. Arens, will you call your first witness ? 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, may I have your indulgence for just a 
moment to request an order by yourself continuing the subpena and 
the appearance pursuant to the subpena of Mr. Martin Popper, Mr. 
Victor Berman, and Miss Elizabeth Millard until Friday May 1, at 
10 a.m. ? 

_ The Chairman. All right. The subpenas are ordered to be con- 
tmued and the witnesses will be notified of the date. 

Mr. Arens. The first witness, if you please, will be Mr. Stanley 
Nowak. 

Kindly come forward. 

The Chairman. Mr. Nowak, will you raise your right hand please ? 
Do you swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. NowAK. I do. 

The Chairman. Sit down. 

TESTIMONY OF STANLEY (STANISLAW) NOWAK, ACCOMPANIED 
BY COUNSEL, JOSEPH FORER 

Mr. Arens. Please identify yourself by name, residence, and occu- 
pation. 

Mr. NowAK. My name is Stanley Nowak. I live at 2634 Glendale 
Street, Detroit, Michigan. Journalism is my occupation. 

803 



804 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Arens. You are appearing today in response to a subpena that 
was served upon you by the House Committee on Un-American Ac- 
tivities ? 

Mr. NowAK. I do. 

Mr. Arens. You are represented by counsel ? 

Mr. NowAK. I am. 

Mr. Arens. Counsel, would you please identify yourself? 

Mr. FoRER. Gladly. Joseph Forer, 7ll-14th Street NW., Wash- 
ington, D.C. 

(Representative Jackson left the room.) 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Nowak, where are you employed ? 

Mr. NowAK. I have to decline to answer that question and may I 
state at this moment the reason why I respectfully decline to answer 
the question ? 

Mr. Doyle. Will the witness speak up just a little bit, please? 

Mr. NowAK. Yes. I certainly will. 

I said that I have to respectfully decline to answer this question, 
and I would like to state the reasons why. 

First, I consider this to be sort of a persecution on the part of this 
committee, persecution of myself. This committee has called me twice 
before. This is my third time in appearing here. 

The Chairman. ISIay I interrupt you there ? 

We never called you about this passport phase of our inquiry at 
all. We have never talked to you about that. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. What did you say, Mr. Forer? 

Mr. FoRER. What? 

The Chairman. I thought you said something. 

Mr. FoRER. I was just wondering whether that meant the com- 
mittee would refrain from asking the questions that they asked on 
the two prior occasions. 

The Chairman. Go ahead, Mr. Nowak. 

Mr. NowAK. Yes. Second reason that I decline to answer the ques- 
tion is because I consider that this committee is violating the first 
amendment by questioning people on their political opinions, and like 
myself, a newspaper man, I have a right to speak and write and I 
don't think it is the prerogative of this committee to constantly ques- 
tion me about it. 

The Chairman. By political opinions, you mean membership in 
the Communist Party ? 

Mr. NowAK. No. I mean political opinions in a general, broad 
sense. This is understood. 

Further, I also want to claim at this time the privilege of the fifth 
amendment. 

These are the basic reasons why I respectfully decline to answer this 
question. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, it is not, of course, the objective of the 
staff to interrogate Mr. Nowak with respect to matters on which he 
has been heretofore interrogated. 

I just want to ask you, Mr. Nowak, are you a citizen of the United 
States ? 

Mr. NowAK. I am. 

Mr. Arens. Are you a citizen by naturalization ? 



PASSPORT SECURITY 805 

Mr. NowAK. By naturalization. 

Mr. Arens. Tell us first of all where you were born ? 

Mr. NowAK. I was born in Poland in 1903. 

Mr. Arens. When did you come to the United States for permanent 
residence ? 

Mr.NowAK. In 1915. 

Mr. Arens. And where and when were you naturalized ? 

Mr. NowAK. In the City of Detroit in 1938. 

Mr. Arens. And were you the subject of a denaturalization proceed- 
ing brought by the Immigration and Naturalization Service ? 

Mr. NowAK. I was. 

Mr. Arens. And was your case the subject of a pronouncement by 
the Supreme Court of the United States under date of May 26, 1958 ? 

Mr. NowAK. That is a matter of public record. 

Mr. Arens. Mr, Chairman, for our record now I should like, if you 
please, to read a pertinent excerpt from the record, the opinion of 
the Supreme Court of the United States on May 26, 1958 insofar as 
it bears upon the issue that is presently before this committee. 

This is from the majority opinion in the United States v. Stanislaw 
Nowak. 

Mr. FoRER. The other way around. 

Mr. Arens. Nowak v. the United States. "We believe that the 
Government has adequately proved that Nowak was a member of the 
Party" — I say in parenthesis the Communist Party because the pre- 
ceding sentences talk about the Communist Party — "during the per- 
tinent five-year period." 

The Chairman. You do not mean to tell me the Supreme Court 
made that finding ? 

Mr. Arens. The Supreme Court made that finding, but the Supreme 
Court then made the finding that as a prerequisite to his denaturaliza- 
tion it must not only be established that Mr. Nowak was a member of 
the Communist Party, but that the Communist Party advocated the 
overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and vio- 
lence and that somehow or other the Government would prove that Mr. 
Nowak within his own mind knew that the Communist Party advo- 
cated the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force 
and violence. 

The Chairman. Of course, what the basic law provided as ground 
for denaturalization and exclusion and deportation was membership 
in the Communist Party. 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Nowak. Mr. Chairman 

Mr. FoRER. This is denaturalization, not a deportation case. No 
statute says denaturalization of somebody for membership in the 
Communist Party. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Nowak, after the decision of the Supreme 
Court on May 26, 1958 in which the Court made the announcement 
that the Government had, to its satisfaction, proved that you had been 
a member of the Communist Party, did you make application for a 
United States passport ? 

Mr. Nowak. Yes, I did. 



806 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Arens. I display to you now, if you please, sir, a photostatic 
reproduction of a passport application signed by Stanislaw Nowak 
and ask you if this is a true and correct reproduction of the passport 
application filed by yourself. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. NowAK. Yes, I think this seems to be an accurate reproduction 
of the application. 

Mr. Arens. And the date of this application was in July of 1958, 
was it not ? 

Mr. NowAK. I believe so. 

(Document marked "Nowak Exhibit No. 1" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Arens. Was the application which you submitted accompanied 
by a letter from the publisher of Glos Ludowy, People's Voice, the 
Polish weekly of Detroit? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 
^ Mr. NowAK. I decline to — respectfully decline to answer the ques- 
tion on the same o;rounds that I stated here before. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you now a photostatic reproduction of a 
letter dated July 22, 1958 addressed to the dii-ector of the passport 
office from the publisher of Glos Ludowy in which the publisher states 
that Glos Ludowy is sponsoring your trip to Poland for the purpose 
of reporting on events there. Kindly look at that letter and tell us 
whether or not to your certain knowledge the facts recited in that 
letter are true and correct. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. ISTow^vK. Mr. Chairman, I decline to answer the question. I 
will state the reasons why I decline to answer the questions because I 
don't think it is the prerogative of this committee to investigate me as 
a journalist or whatever. 

(Document marked "Nowak Exhibit No. 2" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

The Chairman. We are not investigating you as a journalist or any- 
thing else. We are investigating the question of whether or not our 
passport laws ought to be changed or there ought to be legislation. 

Mr. NowAK. Are you asking me whether my trip to Poland was 
sponsored by Glos Ludowy — the relationship between the passport 
and legislation ? 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question, who spon- 
sored your trip ? 

Mr. NowAK. Pardon me. 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question. 

Mr. NowAK. Well, I stated before that I respectfully decline to an- 
swer the question on the grounds I stated at the opening here. 

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe that if you answered the 
question as to who sponsored your trip you might be subjected to a 
criminal prosecution ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. NowAK. That is possible. 

Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Nowak^ 



PASSPORT SECURITY 807 

Mr. FoREK. Just a minute. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. NowAK. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Nowak, in the application form which you have 
identified are three questions : "Are you now a member of the Com- 
munist Party? Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
Party? If ever a member, state period of membership." You 
will observe that in the application form which you submitted to 
the Department of State those three questions are not answered. 

Mr. NowAK. That is right. 

Mr. Arens. Were you at the instant that you affixed your signa- 
ture to the application form a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. NowAK. I decline to answer the question on the grounds that 
T stated before. 

Mr. Arens. ^Vliy did you not fill out the three questions, answer the 
three questions which were posed in the application form ? 
_ Mr. NowAK. Because it was not necessary according to the deci- 
sion of the Supreme Court. 

The Chairman. That is interesting to note, how everybody jumped 
on that decision as a reason for not answering questions. Very in- 
teresting to me. 

Mr. Arens. Now, sir, was a passport issued pursuant to this ap- 
plication ? 

Mr. NowAK. It was. 

Mr. Arens. Did you take a trip ? 

Mr. NowAK. I did. 

Mr. Arens. On the passport ? 

Mr. NowAK. I did. 

Mr. Arens. Wliere did you go and when ? 

Mr. NowAK. I went to Poland. 

Mr. Arens. When, please, sir ? 

Mr. NowAK. I think it was in September that I left. I don't re- 
collect the exact date. It was in September, and I was in Poland 
until the end of December. 

Mr. Arens. Who paid your expenses ? 

Mr. NowAK. I decline to answer that question on the grounds that I 
stated before. 

Mr. Arens. How long were you in Poland ? 

Mr. NowAK, About two months, 

Mr. Arens. With whom did you confer when you were in Poland ? 

Mr. Now^\K. With many people. I traveled through the country. I 
went into the shops, talked with the workers ; I traveled to the farm 
communities, talked with the farmers. I talked with hundreds of 
people. 

Mr. Arens. You told us earlier that you were a journalist. 

Mr. NowAK. That is riglit. 

Mr. Arens. Did you write articles wlien you were in Poland 
respecting the people, events, circumstances which you beheld there? 

Mr. NowAK. I did. 

Mr. Arens. And in what publication were those articles printed? 

Mr. NowAK. I decline to answer that question. I don't think it 
is any business of this committee in what paper my articles are pub- 
lished. 



808 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Arens. Were those articles published, in Poland or were they 
published in the United States ? 

Mr. NowAK. They were published in the United States. 

Mr. Arens. Were they published in the English language or pub- 
lished in the Polish language ? 

Mr. NowAK. Published in the Polish language. 

Mr. Arens. Did you consult and confer with members of the Polish 
Government while you were in Poland ? 

Mr. NowAK. First of all, what do you mean by "Polish Govern- 
ment" ? Certainly when I spoke to a mayor in the city — I presume 
you mean that is a member of the government. Or if I talked to a 
member of a council of some small town or village, I presume you 
would classify that as a member of the government. In that sense 
I did. 

Mr. Arens. Who was your host in Poland ? 

Mr. NowAK. Nobody. 

Mr. Arens. Or who were your hosts ? 

Mr. NowAK. Nobody was my host. I lived in the hotel. I traveled 
extensively. I talked to many people. I talked to whoever I wanted 
to talk to in order to acquire information about conditions in the 
country. 

Mr. Arens. In what section of the United States is the publication 
issued in which your articles about Poland appeared? 

Mr. NowAK. I see no reason for that question. You probably know 
it. 

The Chairman. We would like to look at your articles. 

Mr. NowAK. Mr. Chairman, I am quite confident that you have 
them by now. 

The Chairman. Yes, I suppose we have. If we have not, the FBI 
has. 

Mr. NowAK. I am sure they do. That is why I see no reason for 
the question. I am sure you have these articles, probably translated, 
and you know everything I have written, and I have no apology to 
make for it either. 

Mr. Arens. Were your articles dispatched by you from Poland to 
the United States or did you prepare them after you returned? 

Mr. NowAK. Some of them were from Poland dispatched by mail 
and others were written after my return. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I feel we have covered the two or three 
points that we expected to develop with this witness. 

The Chairman. Any questions ? 

Mr. Doyle. No questions. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. No questions. 

The Chairman. The witness is excused from further attendance 
on this subpena. 

Mr. NowAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Arthur David Kahn, please come forward. 

The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand, please, Mr. Kahn ? 
Do you swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Kahn. I do, sir. 

The Chairman. Sit down. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 809 

TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR DAVID KAHN 

Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and oc- 
cupation. 

Mr. Kahn. I am Arthur David Kahn of 138 Remsen Street, Brook- 
lyn, New York. I respectfully decline to answer the third question 
on the basis of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Kalin, you are appearing today in response to a 
subpena which was served upon you by the House Committee on 
Un-American Activities ? 

]\Ir. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the 
fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. Do you seriously contend that 
if you did not refuse to answer the question whether or not you are 
here pursuant to the subpena, you might be prosecuted criminally? 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the fifth 
amendment, sir. 

Mr. Arens. You are not represented by counsel ? 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer. 

Mr. Arens. You know, of course, you have the privilege of counsel, 
if you desire counsel. 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Kalm, where and when were you born ? 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Arens. Do you honestly apprehend, sir, if you told this com- 
mittee while you are under oath where and when you were born you 
would be supplying information which might be used against you in 
a criminal proceeding? 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the 
fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question, Mr. Kahn. 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the basis 
of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Kahn, how long have you been employed at your 
present place of employment ? 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever been employed by the U.S. Government? 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Arens. I put it to you as a fact, sir, and ask you to affirm or 
deny the fact that during the last great war you were in an intelligence 
agency of the Government of the United States, you were in OSS. 
Would you kindly affirm or deny that allegation ? 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Kahn, have you ever traveled abroad ? 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Arens. I should like to display to you, if you please, sir, photo- 
static copies of certain documents. First is an application for a pass- 



810 PASSPORT SECURITY 

port dated May 1, 1944, signed by Arthur D. Kahn who f?ives his 
occupation as an employee of the U.S. Government and who 
accompanies this application with his photograph, and who states that 
he wants to go to the British Isles. Kindly examine that document 
which I have just displayed to you and tell this committee whether 
or not that is a true and correct reproduction of a document filed by 
yourself w4th the Department of State. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the fifth 
amendment. 

(Document marked "Kahn Exhibit No. 1" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I think the record should show that 
the witness did not inspect the document as requested. 

The CiiAiEMAN. I do not know tliat that is material. The record 
is very clear on what he is doing, his attitude. 

Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Kahn, according to the document which I 
displayed to you a moment ago, a passport was issued to you by the 
United States Government on June 13, 1044, is that correct? 

Mr, Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you now a photostatic reproduction of an 
application by Arthur David Kalm, application for a renewal of 
this passport filed in Berlin, Germany, on which the document states 
that the applicant is employed with the Office of Director of Informa- 
tion Control, OMGUS in Berlin. Kindly examine this document as I 
now display it to you and tell this committee whether or not you filed 
that application. 

( Document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Arens. This document is dated 1946. 

(Document marked "Kahn Exhibit No. 2" and retained in commit- 
tee files.) 

Now, Mr. Kahn, I display to you a photostatic reproduction of a 
letter sent to you from the Department of State dated January 5, 1951, 
at which time you were notified by the Department that the then 
current passport application by yourself was being denied because 
the United States Department of State felt it would be contrary to 
the best interests of the United States to grant you the proposed pass- 
port. 

Kindly look at this document and the application form which I now 
display to you in which you were seeking a passport to go to England, 
France, and Belgium for pleasure and tell this committee whether or 
not these are true and correct reproductions of original documents. 

(Documents were handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the fifth 
amendment. 

(Documents marked "Kahn Exhibit No. 3" and retained in com- 
mittee files. ) 

Mr. Arens. According to tliis application, you were born in South 
Norwalk, Connecticut on September 21, 1920. Is that the place and 
date of 3^our birth ? 



PASSPORT SECURITY 811 

Mr. K1a.hn. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Arens. I direct your attention to still another passport applica- 
tion by yourself, dated in 1952, in which the applicant states that he 
wants to go to Venezuela, Brazil, Uruguaj^, Argentina, and Chile for 
pleasure, and which application is accompanied by a declaration by 
the Department of State, dated February 8, 1952, that the Department 
does not feel warranted in providing you with a passport for the pro- 
posed travel. 

Kindly look at these documents that I am nov,- displaying to you 
and tell this committee whether or not they are true and correct repro- 
ductions of the application filed by yourself and the declaration 
received by you on the matter of passport application. 

(Documents were handed to the witness.) 

Mr. IQ.IIN. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the fifth 
amendment. 

(Documents marked "Kahn Exhibit No. 4" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Kahn, I invite your attention to still another pass- 
port application by yourself dated April 1956, in which the applicant 
seeks a passport to go to France, Italy, and Greece for research work, 
and which application is accompanied by a declaration from the De- 
partment of State, dated May 11, 1956, which asserts that you were a 
member of the Communist Party. Would you kindly examine these 
two documents and tell this committee while you are under oath 
whether or not these are true and correct reproductions of original 
documents submitted or recived by you on that date ? 

(Documents were handed to the witness.) 

Mr. IvAHisr. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the fifth 
amendment. 

(Documents marked "Kahn Exhibit No. 5" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Kahn, I submit to you still a final passport 
application submitted by yourself under date of July 23, 1958 in which 
you solicit a United States passport for the purpose of establishing 
business contacts abroad in France, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Ru- 
mania, Greece and Italy, and in which passport application where the 
question appears, "Are you now a member of the Communist Party?" 
you answer "Kent and Briehl vs. U. S." 

Kindly examine this application form which I am now displaying 
to you and tell this committee whether or not it is a true and correct 
reproduction of an application form filed by yourself under that date 
with the Department of State. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the same basis. 

(Document marked "Kahn Exhibit No. 6" and retained in committee 
files.) 

Mr. Arens. And on this passport application is noted "Passport 
issued Aug. 25, 1958." 

Now, I display to you a thermofax reproduction of a document is- 
sued by the American Peace Crusade on June 29, 1951. According 
to this document the American Peace Crusade is sponsoring a summer 
speaking tour for Arthur D. Kahn between July and October covering 



S12 PASSPORT SECURITY 

approximately a dozen and a half states. This document also states 
that Mr. Kahn is the author of "Betrayal : Our Occupation of Ger- 
many," and "Bonus for Murder." 

Kindly look at this document which I am now displaying to you 
and tell this committee whether or not the recitation of your 
speaking tour as announced in that leaflet is factual. 
(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the 
fifth amendment. 

(Document marked "Kahn Exhibit No. 7" and retained in committee 
files.) 

Mr, Arens. Did you in 1951 engage in a speaking tour over the 
United States? 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the same basis. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kahn, are you the author of the book 
"Betrayal" 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer, sir. 

The Chairman. "Our Occupation of Germany"? 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer, sir. 

Mr. Arens. It is the information of this committee and it was the 
information of the Department of State at the time you applied for 
a passport in 1952 that in 1951 during these speeches you were de- 
nouncing the United States Army and charging our Army in Korea 
with committing atrocities against civilians in both Japan and Korea 
and that you were asserting, in effect, that the United States was the 
perpetrator of certain outrages in Korea. 

Would you kindly while you are under oath affirm or deny state- 
ments which are thereby attributed to you ? 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer, sir, on the same basis. 

Mr. Arens. Were you at the instant that you affixed your signature 
to the passport application in 1958 a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Are you now, this instant, a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the 
fifth amendment. 

Mr, Arens. It is the information of this committee and it was 
the information of the Department of State at the time the passport 
was issued to you in 1958 that during the last war, while you were 
serving with OSS of the United States Government in (3^ermany, 
you were then in contact with officials of the German Communist 
Party for the purpose of conducting Communist Party operations. 
If that is not true, please deny it while you are under oath. 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know Otto Grotewohl ? 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Arens. I put it to you as a fact and ask you to affirm or deny 
the fact that while you were in Germany in the employ of the Govern- 
ment of the United States in the OSS you were in liaison on Com- 
munist Party missions with Otto Grotewolil. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 813 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Arens. I put it to you as a fact, sir, and ask you to affirm or 
deny the fact that in 1948 you were a member of the La Pasionaria 
Club of the Communist Party in New York City. 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer. 

Mr. Arens. I put it to you as a fact that in 1949 you were the 
executive director of the New York State American Labor Party. 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer that. 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever run for public office ? 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Arens. You were a candidate for Congress, were you not, "in 
1952? 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer. 

Mr. Arens. From New York City ? 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer. 

Mr. Arens. I put it to you as a fact, sir, that in 1951 you were 
an organizer for the Veterans for Peace and a leading organizer and 
activist in the American Peace Crusade. Please affirm or deny that 
allegation. 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer. 

Mr. Arens. I put it to you as a fact, sir, that in 1951 in addresses 
made by yourself across this country you were urging the mothers 
of Korean casualties to bring pressure on Congress to end the Korean 
conflict ; if that is not a fact, please deny it while you are under oath. 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know a person by the name of Natalie Gross? 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Arens. I put it to you as a fact, sir, that in 1950 and 1951 you 
were in concert with Natalie Gross in Communist Party activities in 
El Paso, Texas. 

If that is not a fact, please deny it while you are under oath. 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer. 

Mr. Arens. I put it to you as a fact, sir, that in the early fifties you 
were in concert m certain activities in New Mexico with Craig and 
Jeanette Wells Vincent, the former operators of the San Cristobal 
Valley Ranch in New Mexico, a Communist nest. Would you kindly 
affirm or deny that while you are under oath ? 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I think it is only proper that it be 
announced for the record that all of this information was available 
for the Department of State at the time he made his application for 
a United States passport and that, notwithstanding the fact that he 
had been refused passports on numerous occasions on security grounds, 
in view of the present state of the law, the State Department was re- 
quired to issue a passport to him and he was issued a passport in 
1958.- 

The Chah^man. The facts in this case are not the same as the facts 
in the case on which the Supreme Court ruled. The thing I cannot 
understand is why the State Department issued a passport in this case. 



814 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Just because tliey held that in a particular case it was necessary to 
issue a passport does not necessarily prove that in cases which are not 
exactly in point they have to issue passports. This case is different, 
as I see it. 

Mr. Arens. Have you traveled abroad in the course of the last 
several months on a United States passport? 

Mr. Kahn. I respectfully decline to answer, 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, that concludes the staff interrogation 
of this witness. 

The Chairman. Any questions? 

Mr. Doyle. No questions. 

Mr. Johansen. No questions. 

The Chairman. The witness is excused. 

Mr. Arens. The next witness, if you please, will be Mr. Victor 
Perlo. 

The Chairman. Do you mind standing up ? 

Will you raise your right hand, please ? 

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

Mr. Perlo. Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF VICTOR PERLO, ACCOMPANIED EY COUNSEL, 

DAVID REIN 

Mr. Arens. Please identify yourself by name, residence, and oc- 
cupation. 

Mr. Perlo. I am Victor Perlo. I live in New York and am an 
economist. 

Mr. Arens. You are appearing today in response to a subpena 
which was served upon you by the House Committee on Un-Ameri- 
can Activities ? 

Mr. Perlo. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. And you are represented by counsel ? 

Mr. Perlo. That is right. 

Mr. Arens. Counsel, will you kindly identify yourself for this 
record ? 

Mr. Eein. David Kein, E-e-i-n, 711 Fourteenth Street, Northwest, 
Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Perlo, in order to economize your own time, I will 
say it is a fact, is it not, that you have appeared before this committee 
in the past on other matters ? 

Mr. Perlo. That is con-ect. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Perlo, I do not expect to go into the other matters 
which were the subject of the committee's pursuit in its previous inter- 
rogations of you, except for the purpose of identification. 

Tell us when and where were you born ? 

Mr. Perlo. I was born in New York in 1912. 

Mr. Arens. Are you a citizen of the United States ? 

Mr. Perlo. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Perlo, I should like to display to you now, if you 
please, a photostatic reproduction of a passport application filed with 
the Department of State on March 24, 1947. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 815 

Kindly look at this document and tell this committee whether or 
not it is a true and correct reproduction of a document filed by your- 
self seeking a United States passport on that date. 

(Docmnent handed to witness.) 

Mr. Perlo. Probably so. 

Mr, Arens. Do you have a recollection more vivid than the prob- 
abilities of the matter ? 

Mr. Perlo. No, I couldn't be expected to recognize a document 
twelve years ago. 

Mr, Arens. Is this your signature, sir ? 

Mr. Perlo. Looks like it. 

Mr. Arens. This your photograph ? 

Mr. Perlo. Well, the one you show me doesn't look like anybody 
tome. 

(Document marked "Perlo Exhibit No. 1" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Arens. Was a passport issued pursuant to this application 
which you filed with the Department of State ? 

Mr. Perlo. No, it was not. May I say — what is your name again, 
sir? 

Mr. Arens. Arens. 

Mr. Perlo. — Mr. Arens, that this is a question that was gone into 
by this committee, I believe, at a previous hearing. So this is a 
repetition. 

Mr. Arens. This is just background to a more current matter 
which we are going to get into very shortly, if you please, sir. 

Where were you going to go, Mr, Perlo, when you filed your pass- 
port application in 1947 ? 

Mr. Perlo. As I say, all these questions were asked, all the answers 
are in the record. 

Mr. Arens. Would you kindly tell us where you were going to go 
in 1947? 

Mr. Perlo. Yes. I was going to go to England. 

Mr. Arens. In what capacity were you going to England? 

Mr. Perlo. For a job. 

Mr. Arens. Wliat was the job that you had ? 

Mr. Perlo. I don't remember the exact title. It had to do with 
some international refugee organization. 

Mr. Arens. You were going to be the treasurer of the Intergovern- 
mental Committee on Refugees in London, were you not, in 1947? 

Mr. Perlo, That sounds about like the job description. 

Mr. Arens. Who got that job for you or how did you get that job? 

Mr. Perlo. I don't remember. 

Mr. Arens. Were you in 1947, the time you filed this passport ap- 
plication to go to London to assume the position as treasurer of the 
Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees, then a member of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr, Perlo. Well, look, you know you subpenaed me to come down 
here to talk about, I gather you are investigating a proposed passport 
legislation and I will be glad to give you my opinions on this proposed 
passport legislation which is that I think that — 

3974a— 59— pt. 2 6 



816 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Tlie Chairman. We are not interested in your opinions, Mr. Perlo. 

Mr. Perlo. Isn't that an unusual thing to call a witness before a 
committee studying legislation and not — 

Mr. Arens. The pending question is were you a member of the 
Communist Party when you filed your application with the Depart- 
ment of State in 1947 and when you told the Department of State 
in 1947 that you were then going to London to accept the position of 
treasurer of the Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees? 

Mr, Perlo. Mr. Chairman, do you really mean you asked me to 
come down here as a witness and you refuse to hear my opinion about 
the legislation you are considering ? 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question, Mr. Perlo. 

Mr. Perlo. What pertinence does the question have to the subject 
under investigation by the committee? 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Perlo. I believe it is your responsibility to explain to me 
what 

The Chairman. I know what my responsibility is. I directed you 
to answer this question. 

Mr. Perlo. Well, under protest I will say in relation to that ques- 
tion that I refuse to answer it because it violates my rights under the 
first amendment, because it is no proper subject of inquiry by this com- 
mittee and because it violates my rights under the first amendment 
to the Constitution. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Arens. Is the record clear? No passport was issued pursuant 
to this application which you filed in 1947, is that correct ? 

Mr. Perlo. Excuse me a minute. I want to consult with my at- 
torney. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Perlo. What is that ? 

Mr. Arens. It is correct, is it not, that no passport was issued pur- 
suant to your application ? 

Mr. Perlo. That is right. 

Mr. Arens. Did you subsequently and in the year 1950 file a pass- 
port application with the Department of State in which you told the 
Department of State you wanted to go to France, Belgium, Italy and 
England for research and travel ? 

Mr. Perlo. I imagine so. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you now, if you please, sir, a photostatic 
reproduction of the passport application, I am uncertain of the exact 
month, it is in 1950, in which you solicit 

Mr. Perlo. Looks right to me. 

Mr. Arens. Was a passport issued pursuant to that application? 

Mr. Perlo. It was not. 

(Document marked "Perlo Exhibit No. 2" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Arens. I display to you now a photostatic reproduction of a 
letter, dated March 14,' 1951, addressed to you from the thfen chief of 
the Passport Division in which the then chief of the Passport^Divi- 
sion tells you that the passport application has been declined. Kindly 
look at that letter and tell this committee whether or not that is a 



PASSPORT SECURITY 817 

true and correct reproduction of the letter received by yourself on that 
date from the chief of the Passport Office. 

( Document handed to witness. ) 

Mr. Perlo. Except it has a typical State Department formulation. 
It doesn't say it is declined. It simply says it is not being issued 
to me. 

Mr. Arens. Does it say why ? 

Mr. Perlo. No, it doesn't say. Oh, yes. "It would be contrary 
to the best interests of the United States." 

(Document marked "Perlo Exhibit No. 3" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Perlo, in 1958 did you file a passport ap- 
plication with the Department of State ? 

Mr. Perlo. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you now a photostatic reproduction of a 
passport application bearing your signature, dated July of 1958 and 
ask you if that is a true and correct reproduction of a passport ap- 
plication filed by yourself with the Department of State. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Mr. Perlo. Yes, I think so. 

(Document marked "Perlo Exhibit No. 4" and retained in com- 
mittee files. ) 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Perlo, shortly after your filing of this passport 
application did you receive a letter from the Department of State 
dated September 16, 1958, from Frances Knight, Director of the 
Passport Office? I am now displaying to you a photostatic repro- 
duction of a letter and asking you if that is a true and correct repro- 
duction of a letter you received. 

Mr. Perlo. I won't say it was shortly after. They took their sweet 
time about it. 

Mr. Arens. That was in September, was it not, and your applica- 
tion was filed in July ? 

Mr. Perlo. About ten weeks later. 

(Document marked "Perlo Exhibit No. 5" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Arens. I should like for the purpose of the information of 
the committee and for the record to read this letter, if you please, 
Mr. Chairman: 

Dear Mr. Perlo : Reference is made to your application for a passport exe- 
cuted at New York, New York on July 7, 1958. 

In connection with your application, the Department has received information 
indicating that you have been a member and a leader of an espionage group and 
that you have actively engaged in espionage activities on behalf of a foreign 
government. 

Based upon this information your entitlement to passport facilities is being 
considered in the light of the provisions of Section 51.136 of the Passport Regu- 
lations, a copy of which is set forth in the enclosed circular. 

In order to assist the Department in its consideration of your entitlement to 
a passport, it is requested that you submit under oath answers to the following 
questions. 

1. Did you furnish, communicate, deliver or transmit, directly or indirectly, 
secret or confidential information of the United States to any person or per- 
sons for transmission to a foreign government or a representative of a foreign 
government? Are you now furnishing, communicating, delivering, or transmit- 
ting or attempting to furnish, communicate, deliver or transmit, directly of in- 
directly, secret or confidential information of the United States to any person or 



818 PASSPORT SECURITY 

persons for transmission to a foreign government or a representative of a foreign 
government? If so, give complete particulars, including dates, nature of the in- 
formation and tlie idenfity of the person or persons involved. 

2. Did you participate in discussions with others relative to the obtaining 
and assembling of secret or confidential information of the United States for 
transmission to a foreign government or a representative of a foreign govern- 
ment? Are you now participating in discussions with others relative to the 
obtaining and assemt)ling of secret or confidential information of the United 
States for transmission to a foreign government or a representative of a foreign 
government? If so. give complete particulars, including dates, nature of the 
information, and the identity of the person or persons involved. 

3. Did you, acting by yourself or in concert with others, furnish, commu- 
nicate, deliver, or transmit, or attempt to furnish, communicate, deliver or 
transmit, directly or indirectly, secret or confidential information of the United 
States to any person or persons for transmission to a foreign government or a 
representative of a foreign government? Are you now, acting by yourself or 
in concert with others, furnishing, communicating, delivering, or transmitting, 
or attempting to furnish, communicate, deliver, or transmit, directly or indirectly, 
secret or confidential information of the United States to any person or persons 
for transmission to a foreign government or a representative of a foreign gov- 
ernment? If so, give complete particulars, including dates, nature of the in- 
formation and the identity of the person or persons involved. 

4. Did you direct the activities of a group of persons in obtaining and assem- 
bling or in attempting to obtain and assemble secret or confidential information 
of the United States Government for the purpose of transmitting it to a foreign 
government or a representative of a foreign government? Are you now directing 
the activities of a group of persons in obtaining and assembling or in attempting 
to obtain and assemble secret or confidential information of the United States 
Government for the purpose of transmitting it to a foreign government or a 
representative of a foreign government? If so, give complete particulars, in- 
cluding dates, nature of the information and the identity of the person or per- 
sons so involved. 

5. Are you now or have you in the past engaged in espionage activities on 
behalf of a foreign government or foreign princip.il? If so. give complete par- 
ticulars, including dates, nature of your activities, and identity of the person or 
persons involved. 

6. In the event a passport is issued to you, will you by yourself or acting in 
concert with others, engage in espionage activities while abroad on behalf of a 
foreign government or foreign principal? 

7. In the event a i)assport is issued to you, will you aid, assist, abet or advise 
others while abroad to engage in espionage activities on behalf of a foreign 
government or foreign principal? 

8. In the event that a passport is issued to you, will you, acting by yourself 
or in concert with others, engage while abroad in transmitting non-public in- 
formation to a representative of a foreign government or foreign principal? 

9. Have you used or been known by any name other than Victor Perlo? 
If so, give such name or names and relate the circumstances under and periods 
during which each name was used. 

10. Havp yon ever acted or agreed to act as an agent for a foreign principal? 
More specifically, have you ever collected information for or reported informa- 
tion to a foreign principal ? 

11. Did you ever receive an assignment in the espionage, counter-espionage, 
or sabotage service of any foreign government or foreign political party? 

12. Are you acquainted with the following one-time members of the Soviet 
espionage apparatus in the United States: J. Petei's, Jacob Golos, Jay David, 
Whittaker Chambers, and Elizabeth Terrill Bentley? If so, give the details 
and circumstances of your contacts with each. 

In the event no reply is received from you within sixty days of the date of 
this letter it will be assumed you are no longer Interested in obtaining a pass- 
port and steps will be taken to return your fee. 

Subsequent to the receipt of this letter which you have iust iden- 
tified a few moments ago on this record, did you then dispatch a 
letter to the Department of State, to the chief of the Passport Office? 

Mr. Perlo. Yes. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 819 

Mr. Arens. I display to you now, if you please, sir, a photostatic 
reproduction of a letter dated October 27, 1958, addressed to the 
chief of the Passport Office and ask you if that is a true and correct 
reproduction of a letter sent by yourself to the chief of the Passport 
Office. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Perlo. That looks like the same letter. 

(Document marked "Perlo Exhibit No. 6," and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request to read the letter 
in the record for the enlightenment of the committee : 

Dear Mrs. Knight : You state in your letter of September 16 that you have 
received information that I have engaged in espionage activities and you submit 
to me a long questionnaire, in the light of Section 51.136 of the passport regu- 
lations, in considering my application for a passport. 

You are exceeding your legal authority in asking these questions, and they 
are impertinent. Obviously, these questions relate to the ancient charges of 
Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers. These were publicly aired over a 
decade ago ; they were followed up by innumerable FBI agents and several Con- 
gressional Committees ; and they were heard and investigated by several grand 
juries, before two of which I testified. 

The flimsy nature of those charges was exposed by the failure of any gi-and 
jury to hand down an indictment against me. I have never been convicted or 
legally accused of any crime. Moreover, the charges of Bentley and Chambers 
did not claim that I carried on espionage activities on behalf of a foreign power, 
the subject of your inquiries. 

"While I do not accept your right to ask me any special questions, I will 
give you certain assurances in connection with Section .51.136 of your regula- 
tions, dealing with violation of the laws of the United States on the part of 
persons traveling abroad : 

1. I am not engaged in espionage on behalf of a foreign power. 

2. In traveling abroad I will not be engaged in espionage on behalf of a foreign 
power, nor will I engage in any other criminal activity. 

3. I v/ill not, of course, engage in espionage at any time. 

4. My activities abroad would not: (a) violate the laws of the United States; 
(b) be prejudicial to the orderly conduct of foreign relations; or (c) otherwise 
be prejudicial to the interests of the United States. 

In my application of July 7th, I stated that the purpose of my travel would 
be for pleasure. Your refusal to issue a passport promptly has made that 
pleasure trip impossible. 

I wish now to travel for business reasons, specifically : to arrange for collec- 
tion of royalties on books of mine that have been translated ; to arrange for 
additional translations ; to arrange for payment on articles of mine that have 
been republished abroad ; and to arrange for placing additional articles with 
foreign customers. I expect to conduct such business in England, France, Italy, 
the USSR, Czechoslovakia and Rumania. 

(Representative Moulder entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Perlo, have you ever engaged in espionage 
activities ? 

Mr. Perlo. Well, it seems to me that you are now certainly simply 
rehashing the same questions that were gone into in that letter and 
that you went into before. I can any more say this is to establish 
background. You just read the whole business. You Imow what 
my answers were. It seems to me you are just asking me this question 
again to harass me and not help solve any questions of passport 
legislation. 

Mr. Arens. Before you answer this outstanding question, it is clear, 
is it not, your letter was not under oath when you submitted the in- 
formation to the Department of State ? 



820 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Perlo. The fact it is not under oath was simply incidental, the 
letter to them was informal. If they were willing to accept that letter 
I would be glad to put it under oath. Their answer to it was not 
only it was not under oath, they didn't regard it as responsive to their 
questions anyhow, no point to it. 

Mr. Akens. Please answer the question. Have you ever engaged 
in espionage activities against the Government and the people of the 
United States ? 

Mr. Perlo. I will give you the same answer to that I gave in previous 
hearings because it is my opinion that this, as I said in the letter, that 
these charges are old hat and they are asked for purposes of harassing 
me and entrapping me and I am not going to fall into such a business 
and I refuse to answer them on the grounds of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Perlo, have you ever been known by any other 
name ? 

Mr. Perlo. Since you insist on pursuing this whole line of repeti- 
tion questions I will give the same answer to that as the previous one 
and for the same reason. 

Mr. Arens. Were you the instant that you affixed your signature 
to the application for a United States passport in 1958, which I dis- 
played to you a few moments ago, were you that instant a member of 
the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Perlo. Well, on the question of membership in the Communist 
Party that is clearly an impertinent question to passport applica- 
tion and it was so ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States. 
It seems to me that you are not behaving correctly to ask me a 
question that was so ruled by the Supreme Court of the United 
States. 

Mr. Arens. Did the Department of State subsequent to the corre- 
spondence which we have just inserted in the record request you 
to answer the questions which it had posed to you in its letter of 
September 16 under oath ? 

Mr. Perlo. I don't remember. 

Mr. Arens. I display to you now, if you please, sir, a photostatic 
reproduction of a letter dated November 24, 1958, which the Depart- 
ment of State, among other things, states as follows : 

The Department lias reviewed your letter of October 27, 1958, and does not 
consider your reply responsive to the questions propounded to you in its letter 
of September 16, 1958. It also does not appear that you executed your answers 
under oath as requested. For these reasons, you are again requested to answer 
under oath the specific questions set forth in the Department's letter of Septem- 
ber 16. 1958. Your cooperation in this matter will be of material assistance 
to the Department in determining your entitlement to a passport. 

Kindly look at this photostatic reproduction of the document I am 
now displaying to you and tell this committee whether it is a true and 
correct reproduction of a letter you received ? 

Mr. Perlo. That is correct. 

Mr. Arens. Thank you, sir. 

(Document marked "Perlo Exhibit No. 7" and retained in committee 
files.) 

Mr. Perlo. I want to make it clear as T tried to do before that I 
stand ready to give the State Department the assurances I gave 
them in that letter under oath and at any time and what I will not do 
under oath or otherwise is give an answer to a detailed special dis- 



PASSPORT SECURITY 821 

criminatory questionnaire directed against me which is contentious in 
character. 

Mr. Arens. Will you give the Department under oath a statement 
that you are not a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Perlo. No. That is not any business of the State Department. 

Mr. Arens. I direct your attention to a photostatic reproduction of 
a letter dated December 2, 1958 addressed to Mrs. Knight, the chief of 
the Passport Office : 

Dear Mrs. Knight : I have your letter of November 24. Since you are appar- 
ently determined to violate the law by denying me a passport, and since it is 
obvious from Mr. O'Connor's reference to me in his speech of November 8 that 
my application has been prejudged, please return my application and fee. 

Kindly look at that document and tell this committee whether or 
not that is a true and correct reproduction of the letter dispatched by 
you to the Department of State. 

Mr. Perlo. Yes ; correct. 

(Document marked "Perlo Exhibit No. 8" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Perlo, I direct your attention, if you please, to an 
advertisement appearing in The Worker of March 1, 1959. The ad- 
vertisement reads as follows : 

"In Chicago, The Worker Forum Presents Victor Perlo, Authority on Eco- 
nomics, author, who has recently concluded an exhaustive study on China, 
who will speak on China Today, Fine Arts Building, Music Room, 410 S. Michi- 
gan Avenue. Admission $1.00. Students 50 cents. Auspices Freedom of the 
Press Committee." 

Kindly look at that advertisement and tell this committee whether 
or not the recitation of facts there respecting your address or talk is 
true and correct. 

Mr. Perlo. It is probably correct. Except that it exaggerates the 
details of my knowledge on China. Yes. 

(Document marked "Perlo Exhibit No. 9" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Arens. Did you on March 1, 1959, the date indicated in the 
advertisement give the address under the auspices of the Freedom of 
the Press Committee in Chicago ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Perlo. Would you tell me, Mr. Arens, what reference this ques- 
tion has to do with legislation ? 

Mr. Arens. That committee has frequently been found to be con- 
trolled by the Communist Party. This is a current activity by your- 
self. 

Mr. Perlo. What does that have to do with passport legislation? 

Mr. Arens. I don't think it is at all 

The Chairman. Answer the question, Mr. Perlo. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Perlo. Well, as I said, I don't see that it has anything to do 
with the passport legislation, but since you made a point, I will an- 
swer the question. 

And I give talks at many places under many different auspices and 
I am glad to give talks under the auspices of the Freedom of the 
Press association just as I am under the auspices of the American 
Economic Association and many other kinds of public bodies, and 



822 PASSPORT SECURITY 

none of my talks have anything to do with any Communist con- 
spiracy or any other kind of conspiracy. 

Mr. Arens. Were you a member of the Communist Party when you 
made your address in Chicago on Cliina Today ? 

Mr. Peelo. I will give you the same answer to that that I gave 
around half an hour ago when we began this discussion. The situa- 
tion is the same. I answer the same. 

Mr. Aeens. Are you now, this instant, as you are appearing before 
this committee, a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Perlo. Same answer. 

Mr. Arens. That would conclude, if you please, Mr. Chairman, the 
staif interrogation of this witness. 

The Chairman. Any questions, Mr. Doyle? 

Mr. Doyle. No questions. 

The Chairman. I would like to ask you a question, Mr. Perlo. In 
your letter of October 27, 1958, to the State Department you stated 
that you wish "to travel for business reasons, specifically : to arrange 
for collection of royalties on books of mine that have been translated." 
What books were you talking about ? 

Mr. Perlo. All of my books have been translated into various for- 
eign languages. 

The Chairman. This did not refer to any particular one? 

Mr. Perlo. None. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read the witness some 
reasonably current testimony and ask him about it. It will just take 
a minute, please, sir. 

The Chairman. x\11 right. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Herbert Fuchs testified before this committee in 
1955, December of 1955 

Mr. Perlo. Pardon me. You had me here at that time on that 
hearing and you asked me those same questions. You really did, sir. 

The Chairman. You do not know what questions. 

Mr. Perlo. Whatever questions, about Fuchs' testimony. 

Mr. Arens. If we did, Mr. Chairman, I don't think we should pur- 
sue it at this time. 

The Chairman. Make sure about it. 

Mr. Rein. You did, yes. You had him here as a witness then. 

Mr. Arens. It will only take a minute to repeat it, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. There is no use repeating it if he was asked the 
questions. We have it in our records. 

Mr. Perlo. It seems to me it was 1956, actually. 

Mr. Arens. We will not pursue it, then, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. The witness is excused. 

Call your next witness. 

Mr. Arens. We have no more witnesses this morning. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess. 

These hearings will be resumed next Friday morning. 
(Present at tTie time of the recess: Representatives Walter, Doyle, 
Moulder, and Johansen.) 

(Whereupon, at 11 : 10 a.m., Friday, April 24, 1959, the committee 
recessed to reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, May 1, 1959.) 



PASSPORT SECURITY 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 1959 

United States House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington^ D.C. 
public hearings 

The subcommittee of the Committee on Un-Ajnerican Activities met, 
pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in the Caucus Room, Old House Office 
Building, Honorable Morgan M. Moulder (chairman of the subcom- 
mittee) presiding. 

Subcommittee members present: Representatives Morgan M. 
Moulder, of Missouri; Clyde Doyle, of California; and August E. 
Johansen, of Michigan. 

Committee member also present: Edwin E. Willis, of Louisiana. 

Staff members present : Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., comisel, and Donald 
T. Appell, investigator. 

Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order. 

Today we resume the hearings which were begun on April 21, 1959, 
on the general subject of passport security. 

In opening the hearings on that date an extensive statement was 
made on the scope of inquiry and the subject matter with which we 
expected to deal. At that time it w^as pointed out that because of the 
vast scope of the subject matter and the great number of witnesses 
who could be subpenaed we expected only to sample types and pat- 
terns of cases. 

Immediately after the Kent-Briehl decision by the Supreme Court 
on June 16, 1958, the Passport Office of the Department of State was 
flooded with applications for passports by persons who were known to 
be Communists. Within the first four months following the Supreme 
Court decision, the State Department granted passports to approxi- 
mately 600 persons who have records of activity in support of the inter- 
national Communist movement. The persons granted passports in- 
clude individuals trained in Moscow, individuals who have been in- 
volved in Communist espionage activity, individuals who have per- 
formed Communist functions in countries other than the United 
States, and Communist Party members, both concealed and open, 
who owe an undying allegiance to the international Communist 
conspiracy. 

Communists, like termites, nest underground and concentrate their 
attack on the vital segments of the edifice which they are undermining. 
It is essential that Communists, like termites, travel from their nest- 
ing place to vital areas. In the case of the international Communist 

823 



824 PASSPORT SECURITY 

conspiracy, international travel of couriers, spies, and propagandists 
is essential. 

In the Kent-Briehl case the Secretary of State denied two applica- 
tions for passports on the ground that the applicants were Com- 
munists. This action of the Secretary of State was sustained by both 
the appropriate Federal District Court and the United States Court 
of Appeals. 

The Supreme Court of the United States, however, in a 5 to 4 
decision, reversed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals 
on the ground that the Secretary of State did not have the authority to 
deny passports to citizens because of "their beliefs and associations" ; 
in other words, the majority of the Suprem,e Court took the position 
that a Communist is only a person entertaining certain beliefs and 
associations. How long will it be before certain circles in this Gov- 
ernment recognize the plain simple fact that communism is commu- 
nism, and that Communists are Communists ? 

The reports and hearings of the Committee on Un-American Ac- 
tivities dem,onstrate to the point of monotony the fact that communism 
is a world conspiracy of force, violence, intrigue, and subversion and 
that by every definition a Communist is a participant in this conspir- 
acy. Unless we recognize this elemental truth, we have little hope of 
ultimate survival in the face of this awful force which is extinguishing 
freedom everywhere. 

The committee resolution adopted January 23, 1959, authorizing 
this hearing, is as follows : 

Be it resolved, That hearings by the Committee on Un-American Activities or 
a subcommittee thereof, to be held in Washington, D.C., and at such other place 
or places as the chairman may indicate, on such date or dates as the chairman 
may determine, be authorized and approved, including the conduct of investiga- 
tions deemed reasonably necessary by the staff in preparation therefor, relating 
to the following : 

1. The advisability of reporting favorably to the House for enactment, 
amendments to section 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as contained 
in Title IV — Immigration and Passport Security, of H.R. 2232, introduced on 
January 12, 1959, and referred by the House of Representatives to the Committee 
on Un-American Activities for its consideration. 

2. The advisability of recommending legislation expressing the will and intent 
of Congress spelled out in direct and positive form, granting authority to the Sec- 
retary of State to issue, withhold, or limit passports for international travel of 
adherents to the Communist Party, and the granting of specific statutory au- 
thority to the Secretary of State to issue substantive regulations in the passport 
field, as set forth in the Annual Report of the Committee on Un-American 
Activities for the year 1956. 

3. The development of factual information which may be of assistance to the 
committee and to Congress for use in their consideration of the legislative pro- 
posals enumerated, or amendments thereto. 

4. The execution by the administrative agencies concerned of all laws and 
regulations, within the jurisdiction of this committee, relating to the granting 
of passports. 

Be it further resolved, That the hearings may include any other matter within 
the jurisdiction of the committee which it, or any subcommittee thereof ap- 
pointed to conduct this hearing may designate. 

The order of appointment of this subcommittee is as follows : 

June 4, 1959. 
To Mr. Richard Arens, Staff Director, House Committee on Un-American 
Activities: 
Pursuant to the provisions of the law and the rules of this Committee, I 
hereby appoint a subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities, 



PASSPORT SECURITY 825 

consisting of Representative Morgan M. Moulder, as Chairman, and Representa- 
tives Clyde Doyle and August E. Johansen, as associate members, to conduct 
hearings in Washington, D.C., Friday, June 5, 1959, at 10 a.m., on subjects 
under investigation by the Committee and take such testimony on said day 
or succeeding days, as it may deem necessary. 

Please make this action a matter of Committee record. 

If any Member indicates his inability to serve, please notify me. 

Given under my hand this 4th day of June 1959. 

(Signed) Francis E. Walter, 
Chairman, Committee on Un-American Activities. 

You may proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Martin Popper, please. 

Mr. Moulder. You do solemnly swear that the testimony which 
you are about to give before this subcommittee of the Committee on 
Un-American Activities will be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- 
ing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Popper. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MARTIN POPPER, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
LEONARD B. BOUDIN 

• Mr. Tavenner. State your name, please, sir. 

Mr. Popper. Martin Popper. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. And your present address ? 

Mr. Popper. 322 Ceiitral Park West, New York. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will counsel accompanying the witness identify 
himself for the record ? 

Mr. BouDiN. Leonard B. Boudin, 25 Broad Street, New York City 
4, N.Y. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wlien and where were you born, Mr. Popper ? 

Mr. Popper. I was born in New York City, February 7, 1909. 

May I be permitted, Mr. Chairman, to make a very brief statement 
on jurisdiction? It will take no more than two m.inutes. 

Mr. IMouLDER. Has a copy of it been filed ? 

Mr. Popper. It is not a statement of the kind that you have in 
mind. It is merely a statement directed to the legal and constitu- 
tional jurisdiction of the committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, it would seem that a matter relating 
to jurisdiction would be a matter for the courts, and not for this 
committee, 

Mr. Moulder. I think that is true. 

Does the committee so rule ? 

Of course, you have that point reserved, as stated by the counsel. 

Mr. Popper. I have in mind, and I will not argue the point, that it 
will take about one minute, and I think would help the committee in 
understanding the basis of my testimony. I think it will aid the 
committee rather than hinder it. As I say, it takes about one minute. 

Mr. Moulder. Would you hand the statement to counsel ? 

Mr. Popper. It is in my own handwriting. I have no idea whether 
he can read it. Actually, Mr. Tavenner, as you know, I have no 
desire to 

Mr. Willis. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest this: It has been our 
policy that if any statement is desired to be made, that it be furnished 
to the committee counsel for our files. I would suggest that it be 



826 PASSPORT SECURITY 

done in tliat fashion. Or, in answer to questions that will come, he 
might make that part of his answer. I don't think we should depart 
from our policy. 

Mr. Moulder. The committee so rules. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Popper, will you briefly outline your educa- 
tional training ? 

Mr. Popper. Yes. I attended the public schools in the city of New 
York, and high school. I attended the College of the City of New 
York. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you attend the College of the City of 
New York? 

Mr. Popper. Around the year of 1926, for a short time thereafter, 
then entered law school, the Brooklyn Law School. I was admitted 
to the bar in 1931. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you outline your occupational background ? 

Mr. Popper. Well, I have been a lawyer ever since my admission t-o 
the bar. I practiced law for a while and then became secretary of 
the National Lawyers Guild. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. During what period of time ? 

Mr. Popper. I think approximately from 1940 to 1947. There- 
after, I practiced law again, and I am doing it now. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you precede Mr. Robert J. Silberstein ? 

Mr. Popper. As secretary of the Guild ? 

Mr. TA^^NNER. Yes. 

Mr. Popper. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you serve in the Armed Forces of the United 
States? 

Mr. Popper. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you hold any position in the Government dur- 
ing the period of the war, World War II ? 

Mr. Popper. No. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Mr. Popper, I hand you a photostatic copy of an 
application for U.S. Passport., purportedly executed by you on 
August 26, 1958, and ask if this is a copy of the application which you 
executed. 

(Document handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Popper. Yes, that would seem to be a photostatic copy of my 
application. 

Mr. Tavenner. Thank you. 

I desire to offer a copy of the application in evidence and ask that 
it be marked "Popper Exhibit No. 1." 

Mr. Moulder. The exhibit will be admitted in evidence and marked 
"Popper Exhibit No. 1." 

(Document marked "Popper Exhibit No. 1" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Ta\t)nner. ISIr. Popper, there appears on the page where your 
photograph is, and under your photograph, three questions, which are 
as follows : 

Are you now a member of the Communist Party? (Write "yes" or "no.") 
Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? (Write "yes" 
or "no.") 

If ever a member, state period of membership from to 



PASSPORT SECURITY 827 

Will you examine that, please ? 

(Document handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Ta\^nnek. That is right under your photograph. 

Do you observe any answer was given to any one of those three 
questions ? 

Mr. Popper. No ; there was no answer given to any of the questions. 

Mr. Tavenner. Why did you not answer those questions ? 

Mr. Popper. Because it had been decided by the Supreme Court the 
State Department had no authority or power to ask the questions. 

Mr. Tavenner. The purpose of this hearing, Mr. Popper, is to 
determine, among other things, whether or not the Secretary of State 
should be given authority, by legislation, to require passport appli- 
cants to furnish information of the nature called for in these three 
questions. 

I Avould, therefore, like to ask you if at the time you executed your 
application for a passport you were a member of the Communist 
Party ? 

Mr. Popper. I respectfully decline to answer that question, Mr. 
Tavenner, on the following grounds: I understand the Supreme 
Court's decision in the Watkins case to mean that this committee's 
authorizing resolution is so vague that to compel testimony under it 
would violate the due process clause of the Federal Constitution and 
that the jurisdiction which the committee has assumed is so limitless 
that its inquiries into the area of speech, press, or political belief and 
association abridges the freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment. 

Furthermore, the subject matter of this investigation is equally 
limitless and, therefore, violates these same constitutional guarantees. 

I add that to the extent it is ascertainable, to the extent that the 
subject matter of this inquiry is ascertainable, this committee is not 
authorized by Congress to conduct it. 

Therefore, I respectfully contend that the committee has no author- 
ity to conduct this investigation. 

I also decline to answer the question because I do not believe it is 
pertinent. 

Mr. Tavenner. You object, then, on the ground of pertinency, as 
well as the ground of jurisdiction? 

Mr. Popper. Yes, on all of the grounds which I have just stated. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you claim the protection provided for in the 
Constitution by the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Popper. I am not) — I assume you are talking about the privi- 
lege against self-incrimination ? 

Mr. Moulder. Yes. 

Mr. Popper. I am not claiming the privilege against self-incrimina- 
tion. 

Mr. Moulder. You decline to answer it for the reasons of your chal- 
lenge to the jurisdiction and pertinency of the question ? 

Mr. Popper. Well, I stated that I declined to answer it on the 
grounds that I challenge the jurisdiction of the committee, based 
upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court ; that I believe 
the question is violative of my first amendment rights ; and that I be- 
lieve that the subject matter of the inquiry is unlawful ; that I believe 
that the subject matter of the inquiry is outside of the power of this 
committee to conduct; and that the question is not pertinent. 



828 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Moulder. The committee does not accept that as a valid rea- 
son for refusing to answer the question. The witness is directed to 
answer the question. 

Mr. Popper. I respectfully decline. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think, Mr. Chairman, in light of the fact that 
the witness has objected also on the ground of pertinency, that under 
the provisions of the Watkins case it would be necessary that per- 
tinency be explained to the witness. 

Mr. Moulder. Yes. Proceed. 

Mr. Tavenner. May I say 

Mr. Doyle. May I at that point state, however, that I think the 
Watkins case makes it clear that there is more than one way in which 
a witness can know tlie pertinency of a question. I submit that the 
opening statement read by our chairman shows very clearly to this 
witness the pertinency of the question. That is one way. That is 
one way under the Watkins case in which the witness can be informed. 

He is already informed as to the pertinency under the Watkins de- 
cision. I do not object to counsel of the committee going further than 
that, if he wants to, but I submit that this witness has already been 
informed as to the pertinency and that the raising of the question of 
pertinency here, is after he has already been informed. He was in- 
formed of the pertinency of this line of questions before he took the 
oath. 

Mr. Moulder. I will add to that this point : You did hear the state- 
ment read by me, did you not, which I read into the record? 

Mr. Popper. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. He was right here. 

Mr. Popper. I don't want to engage in too lengthy legal disserta- 
tion, Mr. Chairman or Congressman Doyle. 

I think you know that for — I say I think you know, if I may ad- 
dress you, respectfully, Congressman Doyle — that for more than 15 
years before the courts of the United States, and I think Mr. Tavenner 
does, too, and as a practicing lawyer before this committee and other- 
wise, I have earnestly pleaded that this committee did not have the 
authority to compel testimony regarding a person's political affilia- 
tion. That, it seems to me, after all of these years in which many 
people have suffered anguish, economic hardship, and so forth, has 
finally been dealt with by the highest court. 

Mr. Moulder. Now let us proceed. 

INIr. Popper. I merely say that, therefore, my position is one predi- 
cated upon my understanding of the meaning of the Court's decision. 

Mr. Moulder. Counsel will proceed. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have specifically relied upon an objection as 
to pertinency. I think it obvious that the opening statement made 
by the chairman should be a sufficient explanation of pertinency. 

But in order that there be no doubt as to our purpose of complying 
with the decision of the Supreme Court in the Watkins case, I would 
like to make some furtlier explanation, which I think should make it 
unquestionably clear. 

The subject of the hearing is passport security. H.R. 2232, re- 
ferred to tliis committee, contains certain amendments to the Immi- 
gration and Nationality Act entitled "Immigration and Passport Se- 
curity Act." Chapter 2 deals with passport security, and chapter 3 
with passport review procedure. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 829 

This bill was offered in an effort to stop the gap in Federal law re- 
sulting from the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kent-Briehl v. 
Dulles^ and Dayton v. Dulles. 

Another subject of the hearing is to maintain a surveillance over 
the administration and operations of all laws and regulations within 
the jurisdiction of this committee relating to the security phase of 
the granting of passports. 

The question propounded to you is pertinent to the subject in that 
it relates directly to information which the State Department, under 
its regulations, was required to obtain in considering passport appli- 
cations prior to the rendering of the decision in the cases mentioned, 
and which regulations the committee is now considering should be 
given statutory effect. 

The reasoning of the committee in propounding the question is to 
demonstrate the gap in Federal security laws, should you in fact have 
been a member of the Communist Party at the time of the granting 
of your application for passport, and to give this committee and 
Congress information as to the problem now confronting the State 
Department in the passport field, for the purpose of determining the 
need and urgency of remedial legislation. 

(At this point Representative Willis left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, may I ask that the witness be directed to 
answer ? 

Mr. BouDiN. May I ask if the committee will hear counsel's ex- 
planation as to why Mr. Tavenner's response does not adequately show 
the witness and his counsel the pertinency of the question? 

Mr. Moulder. Counsel understands the question. You have the 
authority to advise your client and confer with him. Do you wish 
to have a conference with him before I direct him to answer? 

Mr. Popper. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BouDiN. May I note an exception to the chairman's ruling, Mr. 
Chairman ? 

Mr. Moulder. The record will show whatever you said. 

Mr. BouDiN. Thank you. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Popper. I respectfully decline, and state that Mr. Tavenner's 
analysis and explanation does not, in my opinion, meet the test of per- 
tinency laid down by the Supreme Court. That test is one which re- 
quires, in the first place, jurisdictional pertinency. Since it has deter- 
mined, in my opinion, that the authorizing resolution of this commit- 
tee is so vague and limitless, it is not possible that this question should 
meet the test of jurisdictional pertinency, since it is not i^ossible under 
those circumstances to frame a question which would be pertinent even 
in a statutory sense. 

Therefore — and I would also say that the subject matter of the in- 
quiry as outlined by the chairman today and previously is, itself, so 
broad, so limitless, that it is not possible to frame a question, and this 
question specifically is not framed to meet the test of pertinency, par- 
ticularly since it is in the area of association, which means, specifi- 
cally, that it cannot be pertinent when the area of investigation is so 
completely limitless. 



830 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Tavenner. So you are taking the position, that this committee 
cannot ask any pertinent question because it does not have jurisdiction. 
That, in essence, is the position you are taking, is it not ? 

Mr. Popper. No, I am not conceding that. I have given you my 
reasons in relation to this specific question. 

I would add that the question, in my opinion, has no possible valid 
legislative purpose. 

Mr. Moulder. We want the record to clearly show that the commit- 
tee does not accept your response to the question. 

Mr. Doyle. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, and I ask the chairman 
to again instruct the witness to answer the questions in view of his 
legal dissertation, as well as in the capacity of a very able witness, 
since he was previously instructed. 

Then there would be no question but that he understands that he is 
instructed in spite of all his objections. 

Mr. Moulder, I agree. I think the record clearly shows that. 

We want to impress upon you that the committee does not accept 
your answer or response to the question. You are directed to answer. 
Do you still refuse to answer ? 

Mr. Popper. I do, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Johansen, have you a question? 

Mr. Johansen. No. 

Mr. Moulder, Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner, Mr, Popper, I hand you a photostatic copy of a pass- 
port application purportedly executed by you on March 11, 1946. 

Will you examine it, please, and state whether or not you signed 
that application? 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Moulder. The record should show that the witness and coun- 
sel are making close inspection of the document referred to by 
counsel, 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Popper. Yes, this would seem to be an accurate photostatic 
copy of my application. 

Mr. Tavenner. I offer the document in evidence and ask that it be 
marked "Popper Exhibit No, 2," 

Mr. Moulder. It will be so marked. 

(Document marked "Popper Exhibit No. 2" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Was a passport issued to you, Mr. Popper, pursuant 
to this application? 

Mr. Popper. It was, 

Mr. Tavenner, It is noted that the application states the purpose 
of travel as being to Germany ; official. War Department. 

Will you explain that, please? 

Mr. Popper. Yes, of course. 

Mr, Justice Jackson, who was then the chief prosecutor for the 
United States at the Nuremberg trials, invited two representatives of 
the National Lawyers Guild and two representatives of the American 
Bar Association to come to Nuremberg to observe the Nuremberg trial 
as members of the bar and to report their observations to the bar. I 
was one of the four, pursuant to that, who accepted the invitation and 
went. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 831 

Mr. Moulder. What was the date of that, Mr. Tavenner? 

Mr. Tavenner. The date was March 11, 1946. 

How long did you remain in Germany ? Let me put the question 
this way: How long were you abroad in traveling under this pass- 
port? 

Mr. Popper. Of course, I can't remember exactly, but I think it 
must have been approximately six to eiglit weeks. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was your position with the National Law- 
yers Guild at the time that you engaged in this travel ? 

Mr. Popper. I was secretary of the National Lawyers Guild. 

Mr. Tavenner, At the time you made this application for pass- 
port, were you a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Popper. I decline to answer that question for the reasons al- 
ready stated. 

Mr. Moulder. You are again directed to answer. 

Mr. Popper. I respectfully decline. 

Mr. Moulder. Then may I ask this question : Wliile you were over 
there under this passport, did you confer with Communist Party 
leaders in any foreign country ? 

Mr. Popper. Well, I am taking the position that questions regarding 
political belief, opinion, association, assembly, are outside the pur- 
view of this committee, and consistent with that I will decline to an- 
swer this question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Congress has determined, and has found in its 
findings of fact in connection with the pjissage of numerous bills, in- 
cluding the Internal Security Act of 1950, the Communist Control 
Act of 1954, that the Communist Party is a conspiracy. 

You are speaking of membership in the Communist Party as in- 
volving only beliefs and opinions. The committee, of course, adopts 
the view of Congi-ess that membership in the Communist Party is 
not membership in a political organization in the sense that we under- 
stand political organizations in this country, and the courts also 
have so held. 

Will you t^ll us when you ari'ived in Germany ? 

Mr. Popper. I arrived in Germany shortly after I obtained the 
passport. I can't tell you exactly when. But I suspect it must have 
been in March of that year. Isn't that when the application was 
made ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, March 1946. 

Mr. Popper, I think it must have been during the month of March. 

Mr, Tavenner. After your arrival in Germany, did you receive an 
invitation from the Soviet delegation at Nuremberg to visit the Soviet 
Union as a representative of the National Lawyers Guild? 

Mr, Popper, I received an invitation from one of the distinguished 
lawyers who was a member of the Soviet legal delegation to go to the 
Soviet Union and to talk to the lawyers there about my observations 
of the Nuremberg trial, 

I then went to Mr, Justice Jackson, told him I had received this 
invitation, and asked him his opinion as to whether I should go. It 
was his opinion tliat I ought to go, talk to the Soviet lawyers, those 
who I would see, about my observations at Nuremberg, and requested 
that I come back to Nuremberg to tell him about my experiences in 
the Soviet Union. 

39742 — 59 — pt. 2 7 



832 PASSPORT SECURITY 

And I did accept the invitation and did ^o. 

Mr. Tavennek. How long had you observed tlie conduct of the 
trials prior to your departure for the Soviet Union ? 

Mr. Popper. I think I was there for about two weeks. 

Mr. Ta%tenner. Was it known by the members of the Soviet delega- 
tion who extended the invitation to you that you had been a member 
of the Communist Party of the United States, or affiliated with it? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Popper. I am afraid that that is merely another form of the 
same question in which you are attempting- to establish my political 
affiliations, and I decline to answer on the same grounds as before. 
The form of the question does not in any way affect the substance 
of the question. 

Mr. Moulder. You are again directed to answer. 

Mr. Popper. I respectfully decline. 

Mr. Moulder. May I add to the question propounded by counsel? 
Did you advise with Communist Party leaders, or advise and inform 
them of the Communist Party movement in this countiy ? 

Mr. Popper. Well, as I say, any questions relating to discussions I 
may have had with anyone regarding political issues is merely another 
form of the same question. 

I respectfully decline to answer that question or questions of a 
similar kind. 

Mr. Ta-\^nner. While in the Soviet Union, did you discuss the 
formation of the International Association of Democratic Lawyei*s 
and the I'ole which the National Lawyers Guild was expected to play 
in that organization ? 

Mr. Popper. I think that question is too broad in the sense that I 
could not have discussed an organization not yet in being, I did dis- 
cuss with lawyers in the Soviet Union the question of the value of, 
or the possible value of, the formation of an organization of lawyers 
dedicated to the support of the principles of the United Nations and, 
generally, in support of the principles of the Nuremberg charter. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. In September of 1956. did you apply for an addi- 
tional U.S. passport for the purpose of representing the National 
Lawyers Guild at the International Congress of Lawyer's held in 
Paris, France ? 

Mr. Popper. No, but that is merely, I think, an error on your part 
that you didn't mean. It could not have been 1956. J think you mean 
1946. 

Mr. Ta\t5nner. It is 1946. 

Mr. Popper. That is right. I did apply — for an additional pass- 
port ? 

Mr. TA\'E]srNER. Yes. 

Mr. Popper. I can't remember that, whetlier I applied again for 
another passport or whether I still had my passport. I just don't 
remember that. 

Mr. Moulder. May I inquire? 

The second document that you referred to in the testimony which 
was submitted to the witness for his examination, it should be ad- 
mitted in evidence in the record at the proper place after it was 
presented to the Avitness. 

Mr. Taa-enner. It was admitted. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 833 

Mr. BouDiN. It was Exhibit 2, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. It was admitted as Exhibit 2. 

Mr. Moulder. Well, it should have been marked as Exhibit No. 2 
and received after it was submitted to the witness. 

Mr. Tavenner. I hand you a photostatic copy of an application for 
passport purportedly signed by you on September 26, 1946, and ask 
you whether or not that is the passport to which you refer. 

( Document was handed to the witness. ) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Popper. Yes, that would seem to be an accurate photostatic 
copy. 

Mr. TA^^NNER. I desire to offer the application in evidence and 
ask that it be marked "Popper Exhibit No. 3." 

Mr. Moulder. The document referred to by counsel will be marked 
"Popper Exhibit No. 3" and admitted in evidence, made a part of the 
record. 

(Document marked "Popper Exhibit No. 3" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Ta\'enner. Did you attend the meeting of the International 
Congress of Lawyers, in Paris? 

Mr. Popper. I did attend a meeting of lawyers. I cannot remember 
what the title of the conference was. But at any rate I did attend 
a meeting. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Did you attend it as a representative of the Na- 
tional Lawyers Guild ? 

Mr. Popper. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. What position did you hold in the Guild at that 
time ? 

Mr. Popper. I was secretary of the Guild. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give us the names of other delegates from 
the National Lawyers Guild who attended the conference with you ? 

Mr. Popper. No. I think that question is not pertinent. As a 
matter of fact, it would seem to me to indicate the validity of what 
the court, said, that this sort of question has for its purpose nothing 
but exposure. It has no legislative purpose whatsoever. It is not 
pertinent. And, of course, all the other objections which I pre- 
viously stated I also use in my defense in connection with this 
question. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party at 
the time of your attendance at that convention in Paris ? 

Mr. Popper. I decline to answer that question upon the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Moulder, The committee reiterates our position in that we 
don't accept the answer. We make it clear that the witness should 
answer the question. 

Mr. BouDiN. The committee does understand the reference to the 
term of "the same gromids," does it not, Mr. Chairman ? 

]Mr. Moulder. I understand that. But we want also to have the 
record show that we are not accepting his responses to the questions. 

]Mr. Tavenner. In July 1948, did you apply for a renewal of your 
j)assport. application for the purpose of attending a conference of the 
International Association of Democratic Lawyers? 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 



834 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Tavenner. I have handed you a photostatic copy of such a 
renewal application. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Popper. That seems to be an accurate photostatic copy. 

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer the document in evidence and ask 
that it be marked "Popper Exhibit No. 4." 

Mr. Moulder. The document referred to by counsel and examined 
by the witness will be marked "Popper Exhibit No. 4" and admitted 
in evidence. 

(Document marked "Popper Exhibit No. 4" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you attend a conference of the International 
Association of Democratic Lawyers, in Prague, Czechoslovakia, on 
September 6, 1948, traveling under the renewal of your passport? 

Mr. Popper. Yes. I can't remember the precise date, but I as- 
sume that you are correct in it because you have some information. 
At any rate, I did attend the conference. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party at 
the time that you were in attendance at this convention or con- 
ference? 

Mr. Popper. I decline to answer the question upon the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. During a session of the conference, did you address 
the convention on the subject of indictments of the first-string Com- 
munist leaders in the United States, at which time you warned that 
"indictment of Communist leaders presages the beginning of the 
end of the constitutional form of government in America" ? 

Mr. Popper. Well I don't recall that phrase, Mr. Tavenner. Ac- 
tually, it doesn't sound like a formulation which I would make. I^et 
me try to answer it fully, though the essence of my concern for the 
ill effects of that prosecution are stated correctly. 

I will say this : I made a speech at that congress dealing with the 
general subject of the state of civil liberties in the United States. At 
that particular time — as a matter of fact, it was a sort of a historical 
and constitutional analysis of the first amendment rights as guaran- 
teed by our Constitution ; and since I did feel then, as I do feel now, 
that the Smith Act and the prosecutions under the Smith Act were 
very basic violations of first amendment rights and that, unless suc- 
cessfully challenged, they would endanger our constitutional scheme, 
I certainly included that belief in this analysis in the speech that I 
made. 

Mr. Tavenner. May I refresh your recollection by handing for 
your examination an article taken from the Daily Worker of Septem- 
ber 9, 1948, page 2, entitled, "Europeans May Visit Trial of CP 
[Communist Party] Leaders," in which a proposal is alleged to have 
been made by you. 

I have bracketed the language which I quoted in my question to 
you. 

^Document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you examine that, please, and state whether or 
not you were correctly quoted in the matter appearing in quotations 
in that article ? 



PASSPORT SECURITY 835 

Mr, Popper. I think I have already answered that. I cannot possi- 
bly be responsible for a quotation in any newspaper. I say that my 
recollection of that speech that I made is what I told you a few 
moments ago. 

Mr. Tavenner. That does not suffice to refresh your recollection as 
to the language that you used ? 

Mr. Popper. How could it possibly, Mr. Tavenner? 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, it may refresh your recollection, and I am 
asking you if it does. 

Mr. Popper. I am trying to answer your question as directly as I 
can. I cannot possibly remember the words or the phrases that I used 
in any speech as long ago as that. I did make a critical evaluation of 
the Smith Act and of the prosecutions under the Smith Act. I said 
to you I felt then, and I feel now, that the Smith Act is violative of 
our Bill of Rights and that I think it has served to endanger the free- 
doms of tb.e American people. I said that in some form then and I 
would say it now. 

]^Ir. Tavenner. I desire to offer 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask the witness a question which I think is perti- 
nent in view of the discussion ? 

Does the quotation allegedly assigned to you in this newspaper arti- 
cle whicli you have just seen substantially represent any part of what 
you said ? 

Mr. Popper. I would say that what it does represent is the fact that 
I was opposed to the enactment of the Smith Act, and I believed that 
it violates the first amendment guarantees. 

Mr. Moulder. This document referred to by counsel is a reprint 
from the Daily Worker of September 9, 1948. It will be marked 
"Popper Exhibit No. 5." 

(Document marked "Popper Exhibit No. 5" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Moulder. The witness has read this article and examined it 
carefully. 

As I understand you, Mr. Popper, you say that in essence this is a 
correct quotation or, in effect, it is a correct quotation ? 

Mr. Popper. No, I haven't said that at all. I don't want to be re- 
sponsible for a quotation which is a newspaper quotation. I can't 
possibly do that. 

I am not quibbling with the committee. I told you what I feel about 
the Smith Act. I told you that I made a speech, part of which was 
devoted to my evaluation, as a lawyer, of the violations which, in my 
opinion, are caused by the Smith Act; why I believe it is a very bad 
law. That is as much as I can say. 

Mr. Moulder. In other words, it was a speech in criticism of the 
Smith Act and the prosecution of the Communists, American Com- 
munist leaders referred to in this article? It was a criticism of the 
Smith Act and a criticism of the prosecution of the Communist Party 
leaders referred to in this article under the Smith Act? 

Mr. Popper. That is correct. But I would say that the speech 
dealt with that subject in a larger context, in terms of my understand- 
ing of the meaning of the first amendment to the Constitution and 
how it was the cornerstone of our constitutional scheme. 

Mr. BouDiN. Would you excuse me a moment? I wish to consult. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



836 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Moulder. Since there have been so many questions asked about 
it, Exhibit 5 will be admitted into evidence and made a part of the 
record. 

Mr, Tavenner. Mr. Popper, at the time you made this speech at 
the conference of the International Association of Democratic Law- 
yers, you were a delegate to that conference from the Lawyers Guild 
and you were secretary of the Lawyers Guild, of the National Lawyers 
Guild. Did that represent the views or the action of the National 
Lawyers Guild at that time? 

Mr. Popper. In the first place, I am not certain that I was any 
longer secretary of the Guild at that time. I may have been, but I 
am not sure. 1 was there, however, as a representative of the Guild. 
The speech which I made was my own speech. 

As I recall it, the National Lawyers Guild had been critical of the 
prosecutions under the Smith Act and had appeared as amicus curiae 
in some of the Smith Act cases before the courts. However, the 
speech was my own. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party at 
the time you made that speech ? 

]Mr. Popper. I decline to answer for the reasons already stated. 
I should like to add the fact that there are questions which I am 
answering in no way is intended to constitute a waiver of my funda- 
mental obiections to the authority of the committee. 

Mr. Tavenner, And is it a fact that the committee does not waive 
its position in refusing to accept as a valid excuse for refusal to 
answer the statements made by the witness? 

Mr, Moulder. That is correct. Tliat is the position taken by the 
committee on all the questions which he has refused to answer, and 
the same direction is given. 

Mr, Johansen, Mr, Chainnan, I think it is a matter of interest 
which should be underscored in the record that there is no invocation 
of this protest against the matter of the association in a great many 
areas, the National Lawyers Guild and a great many others, but 
it is only in connection with tlie Communist Party, apparently, that 
the invocation occurs. 

Mr. Moulder. That is an observation made by Mr. Johansen. 

Mr. Popper. May I have the opportunity to respond to the obsei*va- 
tion ? 

Mr, Moulder, Yes. 

Mr. Popper. In the first place, I deem it important to emphasize, 
as indeed the Supreme Court has emphasized, that probably the most 
fundamental right of association is the right of political association, 
political affiliation. As a matter of fact, that is really the heart of 
the fundamental meaning of the rights guaranteed to the people in 
influencing the course of the policies of our Government, 

Mr. Moulder, In that connection, may I ask you, do you consider 
the Comnnmist Party or the international Connnunist Party a move- 
ment in the light of political affiliation as we so consider it here in 
America, as we consider political association? 

Mr, Popper. I would only say this, that I believe that any inquiry 
or investigation into a person's membership in the Communist Party 
falls within the same constitutional guarantees as his membership in 
any other political party. That is generally the constitutional posi- 
tion which I take. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 837 

I believe that that is the direction which the court has taken, and 
I believe, as a matter of fact, that the determination of that question 
is probably at the center of the great concern which 1 and many 
others have had over these many years regarding the unlawful char- 
acter of these inquiries. 

Mr. Doyle. May I inquire? You say the direction which the court 
has taken. Do you know of any decision by our liigh courts w^hich 
holds that the Communist Party is a political party? 

Mr. Popper. Well, yes, there are such decisions. 

Mr. Doyle. My recollection is tliat our courts have vei-y uniformly 
held that the Commmiist Party in this countiy is not a political party 
in the sense of the experience of the American people. It is anything 
but. They have generally held that it is a conspiracy. 

Have you any decision to the contrary ? 

Mr. Popper. Yes. I don't think that you state the law correctly. 

Mr. Doyle. I am not undertaking to state it verbatim. 

Mr. Popper. As a matter of fact, in the very area of passports, the 
Supreme Court in the Kent-Briehl case has said the following, and 
it is a short quote directly in response to what you are asking : 

We deal with beliefs, with associations, with ideological matters. We must 
remember that we are dealing here with citizens who have neither been 
accused of crimes nor found guilty. They are being denied their freedom 
of movement solely because of their refusal to be subjected to inquiry into 
their beliefs and associations. They do not seek to escape the law nor to 
violate it. They may or may not be Communists. But assuming they are, 
the only law which Congress has passed expressly curtailing the movement 
of Communists across our borders has not yet become effective. 

Let me add to that that the Congress itself, in the Internal Security 
Act, has quite specifically stated that membership in the Conrniu- 
nist Party, per se, even officership in the Communist Party, per se, 
is not violative of criminal law. 

So you see this issue— which I think has been veiy largely mis- 
understood and which I believe lies at the vei-y heart of the problems 
we are confronted with here today, and have been for many years, and 
which I set forth with what I hope you believe, and I think you do, 
with earnestness and sincerity — is one that, in my opinion, requires 
the kind of solution which I have indicated it does by the nature of 
my objection. 

Mr. Doyle. I think you referred to a decision by a 5 to 4 vote ? 

Mr. Popper. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. Am I in error ? 

Mr, Popper. No, you are quite correct. 

Mr. Ta\tenner. The portion that you read of the decision does not 
squarely go to the question that you have raised. But I notice that 
you failed to refer to Justice Jackson's decision in the Douds case, 
in which he specifically held that the Communist Party is not a 
political organization wdthin the meaning and sense as we know it 
in this country. And neither have you referred to Justice Pretty- 
man's decision in which he said that he was willing to go along with 
Congress in its findings as to the nature of the conspiracy in which 
the Conmiunists are involved. 

Mr. Popper. Of course, the opinion you speak of was not the opin- 
ion of the court, in the first place. But since then there have been 
so many decisions, including most recently the Yates decision, by the 



838 PASSPORT SECURITY 

court, the decision on passport cases, the Watkins decision relating to 
congressional investigations, that I think that your statement is not 
accurate as a matter of law. 

Mr. Moulder. Lest we get into too many arguments concerning the 
decisions of the Supreme Court and differences of opinion about the 
law, you have refused to give us any answers to questions concern- 
ing your activity while over in Europe in connection with your pass- 
port. It is possible that you may have some information about your 
conferences and discussions with Soviet party leaders, as well as Soviet 
officials, while abroad concerning the Communist Party activities in 
this country, its objectives in connection with the international Com- 
munist movement. 

You have refused to answer questions which counsel was attempting 
to lead up to concerning that subject and that matter, I should say. 

Mr. Popper. I would only comment that it is not correct to say 
that I have refused to answer questions regarding my trips abroad. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Let the record show that the chairman did not say 
that. 

Mr. Popper. I beg your pardon. I understood the chairman did 
say that, but I am perfectly willing 

Mr. Moulder. I will ask you this question : While you were over- 
seas, did you have conferences with any Soviet officials while in 
Russia? 

Mr. Popper. The question is far too vague for me to be able to 
answer in the first place. 

Mr. Moulder. That is a very simple question as to whether or not 
you had a conference with a Soviet party leader or Soviet party 
official. 

Mr. Popper. No, the question is not specific as to time, what trip 
you are talking about. 

Mr. Moulder. We will say any time while you were over in Russia, 
in the Soviet Union. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Popper. I see. Thus far I have been asked only about discus- 
sions relating to the possibility of discussions of an association na- 
ture, of a political nature. Those are the only questions which I have 
refused to answer. Therefore, what you have just said must neces- 
sarily be confined to the questions which have thus far been asked. 
Should I be asked questions that are not within that area but are 
possibly questions that I would answer, having to do with trips abroad, 
we would have a difficult situation. 

But thus far I have only been asked questions 

Mr. Moulder. I just asked you that question. 

Mr. Popper. Wliat was that ? 

Mr. Moui.der. Wliether or not any time while you were overseas 
and in the Soviet Union you conferred with any Soviet officials. 

Mr. Popper. I said, for instance, first while I was at Nuremberg, 
that I was invited to the Soviet Union by not a government official, 
but a member of the Soviet delegation there. I have gone abroad on 
legal business. And while abroad on legal business, for instance, I 
did discuss affairs of law, legal representation. As far as I can 
remember, however, while in the Soviet Union, that is to say while 
I was in the Soviet Union, I did discuss with one or more officials 
the problems connected with my legal representation. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 839 

As I say, I will certainly be glad to tell you that, 

Mr. Moulder. You say you discussed with one or more of the Soviet 
Union officials your problems in connection with your representation ? 

Mr. Popper. Not my problems. Legal problems in connection with 
professional 

Mr. Doyle. Of course, we are not interested in questioning you as 
to your professional representation of any client, as I see it. I am 
sure there was no indication by any of us that we are interested in 
that field, certainly. 

Mr. Moulder. Let me ask this one more question : 

Did you discuss with those officials, or any other officials, the prog- 
ress being made by the Communist Party in the United States? 

Mr. BouDiN. Did you say the progress, Mr. Chairman ? 

Mr. Moulder. The progress of the Communist Party. 

Or did you make a report or give them any information concern- 
ing the Communist Party in this country ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Popper. If you are impljdng or if you are asking whether I, in 
some official capacity, either carried instructions or anything of that 
kind, I did not. 

If you are asking me whether I had discussions on my own with 
regard to politics, and so forth, I will tell you I will decline to answer 
such questions, because it is just another variation of the same sort 
of question which I have said you have no right to inquire into. 

Mr. Moulder. You referred to your problems in a legal capacity. 
Did you discuss with the Soviet officials the problems of the Com- 
munist Party in this country ? 

Mr. Popper. I just answered that question. 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask a question that may be a little bit different? 

While over there in the Soviet Union, during the period we are 
discussing, did you discuss with Soviet Communist Party leaders 
or officials the activities of the Communist Party in the United 
States ? I am not referring now to their ideology, their beliefs, but 
I am referring to their activities in the United States. 

Mr. Popper. Surely, Mr. Doyle, you must miderstand that again 
what you are doing is attempting to establish whether I am, or have 
been, a member of the Communist Party. I have respectfully de- 
clined to answer that. 

Mr. Doyle. I didn't assume that, Mr. Popper, in my question. 
You are an American citizen. I would assume that you would have 
a right to go to Europe, even to Soviet Russia, and discuss even with 
Soviet Conununist officials, if you did it without violating your citi- 
zenship in the United States and your pledges of citizenship. I 
would assume that you would have a legal right to discuss, wouldn't 
you, the activities of the Communist Party of the United States? 

Mr. Popper. I should think I would have the right to discuss any 
subject of the kind you are talking about with anyone, anywhere in 
the world. 

Mr. Doyle. Why, then, do you object to answering my question? 

Mr. Popper. I told you why. Because your question seeks to es- 
tablish whether I am or was a member of tlie Communist Party. 

Mr. Doyle. I am not seeking to establish that. 

Mr. Popper. That is what I understand to be the meaning of your 
question. 



840 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Doyle. I will say in asking the question I am not assuming 
you are a Communist, no matter wliat I know or believe. 

Mr. BouDiN. That statement is clearly improper, Mr. Doyle. I 
tliink you know that. I suggest you withdraw it. 

Mr. Moulder. Counsel understands the rules of the committee. 

I liave one more question to ask the witness at this point. 

While you were there in conference, as you state that you were, 
with Soviet officials or Soviet party leaders, did you advise them or 
inform them of industrial problems, economic problems, and the 
general philosophy of our Government as it exists in this country or 
any other matters concerning industrial production, unemployment, 
and your opinion as to the sentiment of the people of this country on 
those problems, aside from political affiliations, independent of what 
you call political affiliations? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Popper. I frankly don't understand your question. It has so 
many things about it that I don't know how to even approach an 
answer to that question. 

Mr. BouDiN. Mr. Chairman, excuse me a second. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

]\Ir. Moulder. I think the question is quite clear. 

Proceed. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Did you, at any time while you were in the Soviet 
Union, discuss with officials of either the Soviet Union or the Commu- 
nist Party the matter of whether the Smith Act is violative of the 
constitutional guarantees and the Bill of Rights ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Popper. I really have no recollection of any such specific dis- 
cussion on that subject, except as I have told you in relation to talk- 
ing with lawyers about the subject. That is about the only thing I 
can recall in that line. 

Mr. Moulder. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. I hand you a photostatic copy of an application 
purportedly signed by you on March 30, 1954. Will you examine it, 
please, and state whether or not you filed that application? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Tavenner. State also whether or not that is your signature. 

Mr. Moulder. That will be Exliibit No. 6 ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. I desire to offer the document in evidence 
and ask that it be marked "Popper Exhibit No. 6." 

Mr. Moulder. The record will show that the witness and counsel 
are examining the document referred to, that is, the witness' counsel 
and the witness. It is marked Popper Exhibit No. 6. 

(Document marked "Popper Exhibit No. 6" and retained in com- 
mittee files. ) 

Mr. Popper. It looks like an accurate photostatic copy. The date 
of the application is March 30, 1954. I call your attention to the fact 
that on the front of it there is a date of July 3, 1957. I don't know the 
reason for that. 

But at any rate I will say that is probably correct. 

Mr. Moulder. Exhibit No. 6 is admitted in evidence and will be 
made a part of the record. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you receive the passport pursuant to that ap- 
plication ? 



PASSPORT SECURITY 841 

Mr. Popper. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you receive a letter from the State Department 
with regard to it 'i 

Mr. Popper. I think I did, 

Mr. Tavenner. I hand you a photostatic copy of what is alleged to 
be a letter sent to you in response to your application. 

Will you examine it, please ? 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Moulder. The document referred to by counsel will be marked 
"Popper Exhibit No. 7.'' The record will show the witness is ex- 
amining the document. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

(Document marked "Popper Exhibit No. 7" and retained in com- 
mittee files. ) 

Mr. Popper. Yes, I believe that is the letter I received. 

Mr. Moulder. That is a true and correct copy of the letter referred 
to by counsel, a photostatic copy ? 

Mr. Popper. It seems to me. I think it is correct. 

Mr. Moulder. Exhibit No. 7 is admitted in evidence and made a 
part of the record. 

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to read the letter into evidence. This is a 
letter from R. B. Shipley, Director, Passport Office. It is under date 
of June 4, 1954, and it is addressed to Mr. Martin Popper, 860 River- 
side Drive, New York, N. Y. : 

Dear Mr. Popper : I regret to inform you that after careful consideration of 
your application for passport facilities which you executed on March 30, 1954, 
the Depai'tment of State is obliged to disapprove your application tentatively on 
the ground that the granting of such passport facilities is precluded under the 
provisions of Section 51.135 of Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations. A 
copy of the pertinent Regulations is enclosed for your information. 

In cases coming vi^ithin the purview of the Regulations above referred to, it 
is the practice of the Department to inform the applicant of the reasons for the 
disapproval of his request for passport facilities insofar as the security regula- 
tions will permit. In your case it has been alleged that you were a Communist. 

The Department has concluded that your ease also falls within the scope of 
subsection (b) of Section 51.135 as that subsection is amplified by subsection (b) 
of Section 51.141 of the aforementioned regulations. The opinion of the De- 
partment is that the evidence indicates on your part a consistent and prolonged 
adherence to the Communist Party line on a variety of issues and through shifts 
and changes of that line during a period of many years. It has been alleged 
that you were a member of the National Lawyers Guild and represented that 
organization at a meeting of the National Delegation of Democratic Lawyers 
held in Prague commencing on Sei>tember 6, 1948. It was also alleged that you 
were a sponsor of the Pro-Soviet Cultural and Scientific Conference for World 
Peace held at New York City on March 25, 1949, and that you were a modera- 
tor on the topic "Peace and Civil Rights" on June 7, 1949, at the Citizens Con- 
ference for Peace which was held on June 7, 8, 1949, at New Yorli City. It was 
further alleged that you were selected by the Communist Party to endeavor to 
influence Judge Medina to grant a motion for mistrial in the trial of the 11 
Communists, and that you helped prepare the brief in support of the motion to 
stay execution of judgment for contempt of the lawyers who participated in the 
trial of the 11 Communist leaders. You were reported to have attended the 
celebration of the 30th anniversary of the founding of the Republic of Czecho- 
slovakia on October 28, 1948, and you also accepted an invitation to the 31st anni- 
versary of the October Revolution held at the Soviet Embassy on November 7, 
1948. You were alleged to have been active in endeavoring to prevent the en- 
actment of the Mundt-Nixon Bill and you were reported to have signed an open 
letter to Senators and Congressmen urging the defeat of President Truman's 
arms program. Your connection with the National Council of the Arts, Sciences 
and Professions is also said to have followed the Communist Party line. 



842 PASSPORT SECURITY 

You are also alleged to have been a member of the Board of Directors of the 
American Committee for the Protection of Foreign Born, a member of the Execu- 
tive Committee of the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties, and a 
member of the Civil Rights Congress. The above-named organizations have been 
cited by the Attorney General as subversive and Communistic. 

It is" also alleged that you have spoken in favor of the Communist movement 
and have been closely associated with known Communists. 

Under Section 51.137 of the Regulations you may present your case and all 
relevant information informally to the Passport Office. If you desire to take 
advantage of this provision you may appear before a hearing officer of the 
Passport Office and you may be represented by counsel. In any event you will be 
required to submit a sworn statement whether you are now or ever have been 
a Communist. 

If you do not desire a hearing, the Department will give consideration to any 
written statement under oath which you may desire to submit concerning the 
matter, provided that you include therein a statement as to whether you are now 
or ever have been a Conuuuuist. 

You are assured that any information or evidence which you may supply will 
receive most careful consideration — 

and so forth. 
Mr. BouDiN. Have you read the entire letter ? 
Mr. Tavenner. No.' 
Mr. BouDiN. Is there a reason ? 
Mr. Tavenner. No. I will read it. I was just looking at it. 

and that every effort will be made to act upon your application promptly and 
justly. The Department desires to emphasize that the passport records are confi- 
dential Government records and any information which you may submit or which 
may be received from other sources in connection with your application will not 
be made known to the public or to any unauthorized person unless you release 
it. The Department reserves the right to disclose factual information to supple- 
ment or correct any statement which a passport applicant may release for publi- 
cation concerning the reasons why he was denied a passport or the Department's 
action in his case. 

If a reply to this letter is not received within thirty days it will be assumed 
that you do not wish to have your case reconsidered at this time. 
Sincerely yours, 

For the Secretary of State : 
R. B. Shipley, 
Director, Passport Office. 

You did not reply to that letter, did you ? 

Mr. Popper. No, that is not accurate. 

It would seem to me tlie fact that you do not know that I made a 
response to that would indicate that the policies which the Department 
says it carries out in that letter have been violated in a number of ways. 
It is, I might say, a very shocking thing for a citizen to come before 
this committee and find that what the Department itself indicated 
would be confidential communications between it and citizens are dis- 
closed for purposes such as this hearing. The fact is that I made 
the following response : 

I met with a representative of the Department and told him why 
I believe that the denial of the passport on the grounds set forth were 
unlawful, and why they violated my rights in several different re- 
spects. 

I filed a brief in support of my legal position. I also responded 
quite specifically, and I wish to today, to two allegations relating to my 
professional activities, one which makes the statement, unfounded in 
fact as far as I can tell, that I had anything whatsoever to do with 
any effort to influence Judge Medina in connection with the trial 
which he was then conducting. The undisputed fact is that I never 
did any such thing or had anything to do with any such thing. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 843 

I respond to that because it deals with my professional activity, my 
professional conduct. But it is a sign of irresponsibility of a Govern- 
ment agency that it should make a statement of that kind regarding 
a lawyer. 

I also responded directly to the other allegation regarding profes- 
sional activity on my part, which was based, among other things, in 
the refusal to' give me a passport, namely that I filed a brief, or some- 
thing to that effect, in support of a lawyer or lawyere who were appeal- 
ing from a conviction of contempt of court. I pointed out to the 
Department that indeed I was the lawyer in one stage of the proceed- 
ing and argued the case before a member of the United States Su- 
preme Court, and that to assert that as a ground for denial of a 
passport shows how far they were going in those days. 

In any event, I am very glad, of course, as are so many other 
American citizens, that the power asserted by the Department in those 
days has been held finally to be unlawful. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you employed by the Communist Party to 
perform any function in the Smith Act trial or of any of the attorneys 
charged with contempt in that case ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Popper. The question is a most improper one as to who em- 
ploys a lawyer or retains a lawyer. That is certainly not pertinent 
to any investigation this committee has a right to make. But the 
fact of the matter is I was retained by the defendants in that contempt 
of court proceeding. 

Mr. Doyle. May I inquire ? Was the Communist Party a defend- 
ant in that proceeding ? 

Mr. Popper. No. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Popper. The Communist Party was not a defendant. 

Mr. Doyle. I felt that my question was proper in view of your 
observation. 

Mr. Popper. As I say, I don't think that any of these questions are 
proper, but they deal with an area of my professional relationship 
and also what the State Department said about it. 

The defendants in that case were the lawyers and Eugene Dennis, 
who was acting on his own behalf during the trial. He was pro se. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Civil Rights Congress 
prior to that time or at that time ? 

Mr. Popper. Well, you know, I don't recall that. I know there was 
such an assertion made, but I don't recall whether or not I was ever 
a member of the Civil Rights Congress. I cannot either affirm or 
deny that, because I really don't know. I don't remember. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the executive committee of 
the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties ? 

Mr. Popper. Well, I don't know that either. I don't recall that I 
was ever in that position. 

But I really don't know. I can't recall whether I was a member 
of the board of directors or not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you affiliated with the National Council of 
the Arts, Sciences and Professions ? 

Mr. Popper. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party in 
1954 when you made this application for a passport ? 



844 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Popper. I decline to answer that question upon the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you make application for an additional pass- 
port prior to April 1956 for the purpose of visiting the Soviet Union, 
Czechoslovakia, Rumania, and Hungary ? 

Mr. Popper. Prior to 1956 ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Popper. I will have to have my recollection refreshed. 

Mr. BouDiN. Have you an application there which will guide us 
as to date, et cetera, Mr. Tavenner? 

Mr. Tavenner. The date does not appear, but there is a statement 
that you plan to travel prior to April 29, 1956. It is not signed. 

^Document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Popper. That seems to be an unsigned application. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes; I said it was an unsigned application. I ask 
you if you did apply. 

Mr. Popper. I think this does refresh my recollection. 

I think I applied for a passport in 1956 for the purpose of making 
a business trip, and I think it was a request for a passport for a lim- 
ited period of time. I don't know whether that appears on here or 
not. 

Yes ; it does — 3 to 4 months. I said that was the length of stay. 

I think I did, as a matter of fact, ask for that if they would not give 
me one for two years. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. Was that application denied ? 

Mr. Popper. "Well, if it can be said to be an application it was 
denied. The only point I am making is that it was not signed. So 
I don't know what the formal status of the application was. But I 
think it was denied, however. 

Mr. Tavenner. Didn't you receive a letter from Frances G. Knight, 
Director of Passport Office, dated April 23, 1956, denying specifically 
the application ? 

I hand you the letter for your examination, 

( Document was handed to the witness. ) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Popper. Yes, I think that is accurate. 

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer the letter in evidence and ask that 
it be marked "Popper Exhibit No. 8." 

Mr. Moulder. The document referred to will be marked "Exhibit 
No. 8" and admitted into evidence. 

(Document marked "Popper Exhibit No. 8" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Tavenner. I will quote this from the letter : 

This action is predicated upon information reflecting membership in the Com- 
munist Party and participation over a span of years in tlie activities of Com- 
munist front organizations. The Department has reason to believe that your 
proposed travel would further the cause of the world Communist movement. 
The Department feels, therefore, that the extension of passport facilities to 
you would be contrary to the national interest. 

Were you a member of the Communist Party at that time, April 23, 
1956? 
Mr. Popper. I respectfully decline to answer upon the same grounds. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 845 

Mr. Tavenner. Had you been a member of the Communist Party 
at any time prior to that ? 

Mr. Popper. I respectfully decline to answer that question upon the 
same grounds. 

Mr. Moulder. At this point, ask him if he is a member of the 
Communist Party now. 

Are you now a member of the Communist Party, Mr. Popper ? 

Mr. Popper. I respectfully decline to answer upon the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Popper, there was a witness before this com- 
mittee in December 1955 by the name of Mr. Mortimer Riemer. Mr. 
Riemer had been a member of the Communist Party of New York. 
He was a lawyer. He advised this committee of the circumstances 
relating to his becoming a member of the Communist Party and the 
reasons for his getting out of the Communist Party. He was the first 
secretary of the National Lawyers Guild. 

He gave this committee considerable information regarding the 
organization, the initial organization, of the National Lawyers Guild. 

I asked him to describe the Communist Party group to which he was 
first assigned. He said it was a group composed exclusively of law- 
yers in New York City. He identified some of those. 

In one statement he identified Martin Popper, Alex Racobin,^ and 
Harry Sacher as members of that group with him. 

Was he correct in identifying you as a member of that group of 
the Communist Party ? 

Mr. BouDiN. Could I see the testimony referred to ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Popper. I decline to answer that question upon the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Ta^tenner. May I have a direction that he answer? 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Moulder. Any questions, Mr. Doyle ? 

Mr. Doyle. No questions. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Johansen ? 

Mr. Johansen. No questions. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is excused. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Victor Michael Berman, will you come forward 
please ? 

Mr. Moulder. Be sworn, please. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you are about to 
give before this committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Berman. Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF VICTOR MICHAEL BERMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, LEONARD B. BOUDIN 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your full name, please, sir? 

Mr. Berman. Victor Michael Berman. 

Mr. Tavenner. It is noted that you are accompanied by counsel. 



^ This is a reference to Alex Racolin. 



846 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Will counsel please identify himself for the record ? 

Mr. BouDiN. Leonard B. Boudin, 25 Broad Street, 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mr. Berman ? 

Mr. Berman. In New York City, February 8, 1931. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside ? 

Mr. Berman. 90 LaSalle Street, New York City. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your present occupation ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Berman. I am unemployed at present. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Berman, will you state briefly your educational 
background ? 

Mr. Berman. No, sir. I decline to answer on the grounds of my 
constitutional privilege under the fifth amendment ; my rights under 
the first amendment; also on the grounds that the committee has no 
jurisdiction to ask me these questions ; and, lastly, on the grounds this 
question does not have any pertinence to your present investigation. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you at present a student at Howard University ? 

Mr. Berman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. With regard to pertinency, you were present when 
the chairman read the purpose of this meeting from his opening 
statement and the committee resolution? 

Mr. Berman. Yes, sir, I was. 

Mr. Doyle. And you were present also and within hearing distance 
and did hear our committee counsel explain to the previous witness 
the pertinency of this same line of questions, did you not ? 

Mr. Berman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. I hand you a photostatic copy of a passport appli- 
cation purportedly signed by Victor M. Berman under date of Sep- 
tember 8, 1958. I will ask you if that is a copy of your application 
and if that appears to be your signature. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

(Document handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Berman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer the document in evidence and ask 
that it be marked "Berman Exhibit No. 1." 

Mr. Moulder. The document referred to by counsel will be marked 
"Berman Exhibit No. 1" and is admitted in evidence. 

(Document marked "Berman Exhibit No. 1" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Moulder. Tlie witness is advised that the response made to the 
question propounded by counsel is not acceptable to the committee, 
and you are directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Berman. I decline for the same reasons. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did I understand that you refuse to state whether 
or not the signature to this application is your signature ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Berman. Yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. Tavenner. Underneath the photograph on the passport appli- 
cation there are three questions : 

Are you now a member of the Communist Party? 
Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? 
If ever a member, state period of membership. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 847 

All three of those questions fail to have been answered. 

Will you tell the committee, please, whether you were a member of 
the Communist Party on September 8, 1958 ? 

Mr. Berman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Moulder. Counsel's inquiiy regarding the questions which you 
failed to answer refer to the questions on Exhibit 1, the application 
for passport. That is the application you signed, isn't it ? 

Mr. Berman. I have already declined to answer that question. 

Mr. Moulder. You also decline to answer the question as to whether 
or not you answered the questions concerning your Communist Party 
activities or ajfiiliations referred to in Exhibit No. 1 ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Berman. I have so declined. 

Mr. Tavenner. The committee's investigation indicates that you 
were issued on June 28, 1949, a passport. Did you receive it ? 

Mr. Berman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you traveled abroad on any passport? 

Mr. Berman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party on 
June 28, 1949 ? 

Mr. Berman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Moulder. As I understand, you are claiming the first and fifth 
amendments ? 

Mr. Berman. I am claiming the first and fifth amendments. I am 
claiming lack of jurisdiction of the committee, and I am claiming lack 
of pertinency of these questions to the investigation, 

Mr. Tavenner. I offer in evidence passport application bearing date 
of June 24, 1949, and ask that it be marked "Berman Exhibit No. 2." 

Mr. Moulder. The document referred to by counsel will be marked 
"Berman Exhibit No. 2" and admitted in evidence and made a part 
of the record. 

(Document marked "Berman Exhibit No. 2" and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. Doyle. May I see the application to ask a question ? 

There is a picture here. I am looking at the picture and then I am 
looking at the witness. In my judgment, there is no question that the 
picture is a picture of this witness. 

Mr. Moulder. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you travel under the 1949 passport to Hun- 
gary ? 

Mr. Berman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

]Mr. Tam=:nner. Weren't you, as a matter of fact, a delegate to the 
World Youth Festival which was held in Budapest, in August of 
1949? 

Mr. Berman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

^Ir. Moulder. You are again directed to answer the questions which 
counsel is asking. 

Mr. Tavenner. I hand you an account of that festival, written by 
Vic Reinemer, entitled "How Our Commies Defame America Abroad." 

The author, a graduate of Montana University, relates the appalling things he 
saw and heard as a delegate to the widely advertised students' "Peace" rally in 
Budapest. A factual report that will astonish— and anger — you. 

39742— 59— pt. 2 8 



848 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Have you read that ? 

(Document handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Moulder. The record should show that counsel handed the 
witness the pages cut from a newspaper or magazine containing the 
article referred to in his question. 

Mr. Berman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, the paper is too long to attempt to 
read it in light of the circumstances which have just developed, but I 
would like for the committee to read it when it has an opportunity. 

Mr. Moulder. Are you asking that it be placed in the record ? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. I would like to have it marked for identi- 
fication. 

Mr. Moulder. The document referred to by counsel is marked "Her- 
man Exhibit No. 3" for identification only, and will be filed as a part 
of this proceeding. 

(Document marked 'Berman Exhibit No. 3" and retained in com- 
mittee files. ) 

Mr. Ta\tenner. Were you acquainted with Roosevelt Ward, a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party from the United States who was chair- 
man of the Resolutions Committee [of the American delegation] at 
that Festival ? 

Mr. Berman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you support and endorse the resolutions intro- 
duced by the American delegation ? 

Mr. Berman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you take part in the preparation of an exhibit 
entitled, "A Manifesto to Truman," which was a protest against the 
warlike policy of the Government, the American Government ? 

Mr. Berman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Berman, did you serve as chairman of the Stu- 
dent Branch of the Communist Party at the University of Colorado 
in 1949? 

Mr. Berman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you affiliated with the Bill Haywood Branch 
of the Communist Party in Boulder, Colo., at any time between 1949 
and 1953 ? 

Mr. Berman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was your membership transferred from the Com- 
munist Party in Colorado to the New York section of the Communist 
Party in 1954? 

Mr. Berman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. As a means of effecting your transfer, was a United 
States dollar bill used as the medium in which the identification num- 
ber on the bill was the method of identification ? 

Mr. Berman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. Are you now a member of the Communist Party ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Berman. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 849 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Doyle ? 

Mr. Doyle. No questions. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Joliansen ? 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Have you ever been a member of the Armed Forces? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Berman. No, I was not, sir. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. That is all. 

Mr. Doyle. Was it on the gi^ounds of physical disqualification? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Berman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Moulder. The committee will recess until 2 p.m. this afternoon. 

(Members of the subcommittee present at the taking of the recess 
^ere Representatives Moulder, Doyle, and Johansen.) 

(Wliereupon, at 11 :55 a.m., Friday, June 5, 1959, the subcommittee 
recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., the same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION, FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 1959 

(The subcommittee reconvened at 2 p.m. in the Caucus Room of 
the Old House Office Building, Hon. Morgan M. Moulder, chairman 
of the subcommittee, presiding. ) 

Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the subcommittee present at the convening of the aft- 
ernoon session were Representatives Moulder, Doyle, and Johansen.) 

Mr. Moulder. Call your next witness, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Sidney Ef ross, please come forward. 

Mr. Moulder. Be sworn, please. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give be- 
fore this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Efross. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY T. EFROSS, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

JOSEPH FORER 

Mr. Tavenner. Would you state your full name, please, sir ? 
Mr. Efross. Sidney Efross. 
Mr. Tavenner. What is your middle name ? 
Mr. Efross. Tzvie. 
Mr. Tavenner. T-z-v-i-e? 
Mr. Efross. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. And your last name ? 
Mr. Efross. Efross. 

Mr. Tavenner. And how do you spell it ? 
Mr. Efross. E-f-r-o-s-s. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will counsel accompanying the witness please iden- 
tify himself for the record ? 

Mr. FoRER. Joseph Forer, 711 14th Street NW., Washington, D.C. 
Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mr. Efross? 
Mr. Efross. Washington, September 25, 1923. 
Mr. Tavenner. Washington, D.C? 



850 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Efross. D.C, yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Would you briefly outline your educational back- 
ground, please? 

Mr. Efross. I went to public school in Washington, high school in 
Washington, graduated from the University of Maryland while I was 
in the Army. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the date of your graduation ? 

Mr. Efross. Well, it would have been in 1943 after I was drafted. 
I was drafted in February 1943. 

And took graduate Avork at Columbia University after I got out of 
the Army. I got an M.A. degree there. 

Mr. Tavenner. In your undergraduate work at Maryland, what 
was your major? 

Mr. Efross. Economics. 

Mr. Tavenner. And did you take your master's degree in eco- 
nomics ? 

Mr. Efross. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you get your master's degree? 

Mr. Efross. I think that was 1947, if I am not mistaken. It was 
about two years after I got out of the Army. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you outline for the committee your occupa- 
tional background? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer that question on the following 
grounds: Firstly, I don't think that the question is relevant to the 
committee's jurisdiction; secondly, I think the committee is an un- 
constitutional body and is violating my rights under the first amend- 
ment; and thirdly, I claim my privilege under the fifth amendment 
not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Tavenner. How are you now employed ? 

Mr. Efross. I am a painter. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you been a painter ? 

Mr. Efross. About five years. 

Mr. Tavenner. Prior to that what was your employment? 

Mr. Moulder. What kind of painting? Wlien we say a painter, 
we mean a house painter. 

Mr. Efross, That is what I mean, too. 

Mr. FoRER. The other kind is an artist. 

Mr. Moulder. Thank you. 

Mr. Efross. I would like to claim that. 

Mr. Tavenner. So that is for five years. That is back to about 
1954? 

Mr. Efross. That is right. 

Mr, Ta\-enner. Where did you live prior to 1954? 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was your occupation prior to 1954? 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds, 

Mr. Tavenner. In January 1953, did you file an application for a 
United States passport? 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same ^rounds. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 851 

Mr. Tavenner. I hand you a photostatic copy of an application for 
passport, bearing the date of January 13, 1953, over the purported 
signature of Sidney T. Efross. 

Will you examine it, please, and state whether or not that is your 
signature? 

(Document handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Moulder. The record should show that Witness Efross is ex- 
amining the document referred to by Mr. Tavenner. 

It will be marked "Efross Exhibit No. 1." 

(Document marked "Efross Exhibit No. 1" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Moulder. Show at the beginning of this session, that all mem- 
bers of the subcommittee are present, Mr. Reporter. 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on tlie same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Efross, this photostatic copy of an application 
for passport shows that the person making it proposed to stay abroad 
a period of 1 month, and to visit England, France, Italy, and Bel- 
gium, while traveling as a tourist. 

Did you seek permission to travel abroad in those countries? 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. It is noted on the passport that the occupation of 
warehouseman is given by the person wliose name is signed to this 
application. Were you a warehouseman in 1953? 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Moulder. Does the application show the signature of the ap- 
plicant, Mr. Tavenner ? If so, would you spell it for the record ? 

Mr. Tavenner. The signature appearing is S-i-d-n-e-y T. 
E-f-r-o-s-s. 

Mr. Moulder. That is the signature tliat appears upon the photo- 
static copy designated as Efross Exhibit No. 1 ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DoTLE. That application appears to me to have a pretty good 
picture of the witness. 

Mr. Moulder. What is your full name ? 

Mr. Efross. Sidney Tzvie Efross. 

Mr. Moulder. I didn't hear the middle name. 

Mr. Efross. It is the Hebrew for the word "Hersh," which means 
"Dear." 

Mr. Tavenner. The first letter is T ? 

Mr. Efross. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. The middle initial of your name is T, which is 
the same as appears on the application. 

I hand you the document again and ask you to look at the photo- 
graph and state whether or not it is your photograph. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. FoRER. Did you say this was a good likeness ? 

Mr. Doyle. I think he could be identified from that very nicely. 

Mr. Efross. I refuse to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Doyle. I didn't ask you any question. 

Mr. Efross. Mr. Tavemier did. 



852 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Tavennek. Were you issued a passport? 

Mr. Efross. I refuse — no, I was not. 

Mr. Tavenner. You were not. 

Did you receive a letter dated March 25, 1953, signed by R. B.. 
Shipley, Director, Passport Office, directed to you at 980 Belmont 
Avenue, Brooklyn 8, New York, denying you a passport? 

Mr. FoRER. May we get a look at that ? 

(Document handed to witness and counsel.) 

Mr. Tavenner. I have handed a photostatic copy of the letter to 
the witness to refresh liis recollection. 

Mr. Moulder. The document referred to by counsel will be marked 
"Efross Exhibit No. 2." 

(Document marked "Efross Exhibit No. 2," and retained in com- 
mitt.ee files.) 

Mr. Moulder. The record should show that the witness and the 
counsel are examining the document. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same gi^ounds. 

Mr. Moulder. May I inquire at this point ? 

You say you were not issued a passport ? 

Mr. Efross. Yes. 

Mr. Moulder. Did you make an application for a passport ? 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Moulder. How could you be denied unless you made an ap- 
plication for a passport ? 

Mr. Efross. I said I was not issued one. 

Mr. Moulder. You said you were refused one. 

Mr. Efross. No, I said I was not issued one. 

Mr. Johansen. Were you refused one ? 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds, 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you not advised by R. B. Shipley as fol- 
lows: 

In cases coming within the purview of the Regulations above referred to, it 
is the practice of the Department to inform the applicant of the reasons for 
the disapproval of his request for passport facilities insofar as the security 
regulations will permit. In your case it has been alleged that you were a 
Communist. 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party on 
the 13th day of January 1953 ? 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr, Tavenner. Did you, either by letter or any verbal statement, 
deny to any agent of the Passport Office of the State Department 
that you had been a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same gromids. 

Mr. Tavenner. While living in Washington, did you become 
acquainted with Mrs. Maiy Markward ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



PASSPORT SECURITY 853 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same ground. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you in the Armed Forces of the United 
States? 

Mr. Efross. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. During what period of time ? 

Mr. Efross. 1943 through December 1955. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you return to Washington after the comple- 
tion of your service ? 

Mr. Efross. Yes. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. And what was that date ? 

Mr. Efross. Well, that would have been when I was discharged, 
which I believe was December 1945. 

Mr. Tavenner. 1945 ? 

Mr. Efross. Yes. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. I believe the witness misspoke, or I misunderstood 
him. I thought he stated that the date of his military service was 
1943 to 1955. 

Mr. Efross. No. 1945. 

Mr. Tavenner. I understood 1955. 

Mr. Efross. I am sorry. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Did you, as a member of the armed services, or 
when entering the armed services, sign a non-Communist affidavit? 

(The witness conferred with his comisel.) 

Mr. Efross. I frankly don't know. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. As a matter of fact, I am certain that you did, or 
at least that was required. 

Mr. Efross. I don't believe it was at that time, as a matter of fact. 
But I am actually not certain. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. It could be that that was not the case at that time. 

Wei-e you a member of the Communist Party at the time you 
joined or during your service in the Armed Forces ? 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Efross, I hand you a photostatic copy of an 
application for employment with the National Tube Company of 
Lorain, Ohio. It is over the purported signature of Sidney T. Efross. 

Will you examine it, please ? 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. FoRER. Has this something to do with passports ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Efross. Just out of curiosity, I would like to know what this 
has to do with the passport hearing. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, if it is mere curiosity, I am not going to 
answer it. 

Mr, Efross. Well, should I answer for any other reason ? 

Mr. Moulder. Let the record show that this document is marked 
"Efross Exhibit No. 3." 

(Document marked "Efross Exhibit No. 3" follows :) 



854 



PASSPORT SECURITY 






3- S'" r: 



Efross Exhibit No. 3 






r>. 



ra ^ 









?j<; 8y:,<..S!8sf!S «s«s s-4«if'-8 !i<S«l»<s !?n5.#J 



of Use, U33,i%li<t tX3r,ti«-i' i'S^m^^'M^ 



. .v"'"'^'*' 2-' : i ■ f 



i^..£.^?\"l 






PASSPORT SECURITY 



855 






fin ''I .-fWr^^ 



/ 



■J-rA t? 



," 


-i><^' 


















■v 


* 


■^4*!^ 


"^ i* 


i- 


i^^C*^'* „ 


!- & 








t 


f V- ' 


iS? 


% 


_, 


r*^'T 4^X 


?£- 






V 


l-^l 


■5-0^ 


>■ 




- -» r# 


***.*r . 


)*( 



















^^5- 




■y» 






x' <<-^ * -^^^^^f f 



856 PASSPORT SECURITY 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. May I have a direction that the witness be required 
to answer the question ? 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to answer. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Eeross. I am sorry ? 

Mr. Moulder. The committee refuses to accept your reasons for 
refusing to answer, and you are directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Efross. I abide by my refusal. I can't see that it has any rele- 
vancy to anything that the committee might question me about. 

Mr. Tavenner. The pertinency of the question is explained to you 
this way : First of all, let me ask you if you were present this morning 
when the chairman read the opening statement and the resolution of 
the committee. 

Mr. Efross. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think I saw you present. 

Mr. Efross. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. It is hardly necessary to explain anything further 
except this, that the committee, in reviewing the action of the State 
Department in regard to the application which has been introduced in 
evidence as Efross Exhibit No. 1, was entitled to certain information 
relating to you. The question is pertinent because it relates to infor- 
mation regarding you, which it had a right and a duty to consider in 
connection with its passing on your application for a passport. 

Now will you answer the question, please ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Ta\'enner. I may add in addition, however, that the informa- 
tion itself is important because it helps to frame, within the proper 
picture, the problem that the State Department is faced with in this 
field, a field in which this committee is considering the recommenda- 
tion of legislation in order to give statutory effect to regulations that 
were in existence and which now have been declared invalid by the 
Supreme Court. 

Mr. Efross. I refuse to answer on all the grounds I stated before, 
but just as a matter of fact, it seems to me that application is after 
my purported passport application, so I do not see how it could have 
any relevance to that at all. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let us see if it does. We will pursue that further. 

Mr, Johansen. Of course, if it did have relevance, you would still 
give the same answer. I am sure of that. 

Mr. Tavenner. It is noted that on this application you state the 
amount of education that you had, grade school nine years; high 
school three years. 

Wliy didn't you give on your application the fact that you had 
majored in economics at Maryland University and had received your 
master's degree at Columbia ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Efross. The question assumes something to which I haven't 
testified, that is, that that is my application. 

Mr. Moulder. Is this an application, this document referred to as 
Efross Exliibit No. 3 ? 

Mr. Tavenner. An application for employment. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 857 

Mr. Moulder. Would you hand it to him, Mr. Tavenner ? 

Mr. Tavenner. I did hand it t£> him. 

Mr. Efross. I have seen it. 

Mr. Moulder. I vrant you to examine it and tell me and tell the 
committee what it is. 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the grounds that I have already 
stated. 

Mr. Moulder. You have examined the document ? 

Mr. Efross. Yes. 

Mr. Moulder. And isn't it a fact that it is an application for 
employment ? 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Moulder. The question of Mr. Tavemier is whether or not at 
the time you made that application, in the application you stated that 
your education only extended through three yeai^ of high school, 
when, at that time, you were a graduate of Maryland University. 

Is that correct, Mr. Tavenner 'i 

Mr, Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Efross. It seems to me that the question is still assuming that 
that is my application. I haven't testified that it is. I don't see 
how I can answer that question. 

Mr. Moulder. Did you see the signature on the application ? 

Mr. Efross. Yes. 

Mr. Moulder. Is that a correct photostatic copy of your signature ? 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Johansen. Do you honestly apprehend that if you told this 
committee if it is a fact that this is an application which you filed 
for employment, that that would tend to incriminate you and make 
you subject to criminal charges ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Efross. It is possible. 

Mr. TxWenner. The real reason for your refusal to answer my 
question as to whether or not you concealed the true state of your 
educational qualifications is because you were a colonizer in the Com- 
munist Party, isn't that true ? 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Weren't you selected and comiseled or directed as 
a well-educated, highly advanced type of individual to go into the 
shops for the purpose of colonizing for the Communist Party, as we 
have heard in so many other cases before this committee? 

Mr. Forer. How does he know what you have heard in other cases 
before the committee ? You can't make that part of your question. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am sure he has heard of colonizing. If he hasn't, 
let him deny it. You know what colonization means, don't you ? 

Mr. Efross. Well, I read the papers, but I decline to answer the 
question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Haven't you refused to tell this committee in what 
business you were engaged prior to 1954 because of the fact that you 
■were a colonizer in industry for the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you reside in Lorain, Ohio? 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 



858 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Tavenner. You have told us the period you lived in Washing- 
ton. Wliy will you not tell us the period in which you lived in 
Lorain, Ohio, if you did ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner, Weren't you a member of the Communist Party 
while you were employed at the National Tube Company in Lorain^ 
Ohio? 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same ground. 

Mr. Taatsnner. Weren't you, in fact, tlie chairman of the steel club 
of the Communist Party in Lorain, Ohio ? 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you adopted at any tune a name other than 
that which you have given to this committee today ? 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, I move he answer that question be- 
cause that is a matter of identity. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to answer. 

Mr. Doyle. Whether or not your client has used some phony 
name other than his own name is a matter of identity. 

Mr. FoRER. And you think that identity can never be incriminating 
in the light of the fifth amendment ; is that the idea ? 

Mr. Doyle. Your witness apparently thinks if we had his identity 
it might be incriminating. 

Mr. FoRER. Is the witness directed to answer ? 

Mr. Moulder. He claimed the fifth amendment, as I understand it. 

Mr. Forer. Yes. 

Mr. Moulder. At the request of Mr. Doyle, the witness is directed 
to answer, but I assume he will refuse on the same ground. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer for the same reasons. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you engaged in teaching of any kind, of any 
type? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer for the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know a pei-son by the name of Frank 
Peoples ? 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same ground. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, Frank Peoples was subpenaed to be 
here at this hearing. He was here yesterday. There was a death in 
his family. He is attending the funeral of his brother today. So it 
was necessary that we take a short statement from him of matters 
that we had proposed to produce him for here before the committee. 

Before proceeding with that, I want to hand the witness a photo- 
graph and ask him to state whether or not he admits it is a photograph 
of him. 

(Photograph was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer it in evidence and ask that it be 
marked "Efross Exhibit No. 4." 

Mr. Moulder. The photograph referred to by counsel will be 
marked "Efross Exhibit No. 4" and admitted in evidence, made a part 
of the record. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 859 

(Photograph marked "Efross Exhibit No. 4" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Moulder. In fact, all of the exhibits heretofore submitted to 
the witness will be admitted in evidence and made a part of the record 
at the proper place in the record. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, at this point I ask you to engage in ob- 
serving this photograph just identified and look at the witness a few 
feet from us. Look at this picture. 

I submit it is as clear as crystal a picture of this witness. There is 
a number on it, 81966. I don't know what that refers to. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, the witness Frank Peoples testified 
that he lived at Lorain, Ohio, where he was employed as a steel- 
worker ; that he had been a member of the Communist Party there, 
and during the period of his membership had been regularly fur- 
nishing information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Now I would like to read you part of his testimony : 

Mr. Appell. I should like to hand you an employment photograph taken by 
the National Tube Co., of Lorain, Ohio, of an employee, Sidney Efross, and ask 
you if you knew this individual at any time. 

Mr. Peoples. Yes, I recognize him. 

Mr. Appell. Would you tell the committee what knowledge you possess of 
Sidney Efross? 

Mr. Peoples. Well, I knew him only as "Sidney." I did not know him by 
his last name ; and how I came to know Sidney was through my affiliation with 
the Communist Party. 

Mr. Appell. Was Sidney, like yourself, a member of the Communist Party 
of Lorain, Ohio? 

Mr. Peoples. Yes, sir, he was. 

Mr. Appell. To what group of the Communist Party was Sidney Efross as- 
signed, to the best of your knowledge? 

Mr. Peoples. The steel group. 

******* 

Mr. Appell. To your knowledge, did this individual whom you knew as "Sid- 
ney" ever hold an office within the Communist Party of Lorain, Ohio? 
Mr. Peoples. Yes, he did. 

• **•**• 

Mr. Appell. As a result of the security regulations of the Communist Party, 
the larger steel group, as I understood it, was broken up into smaller groups, 
with each of the groups having a captain. 
Mr. Peoples. That is correct. 

*****•• 

Mr. Appell. After the breakdovsni, did the captains of the smaller groups 
within the steel club of the Communist Party then meet to discuss Communist 
Party strategy as it affected the steel club ? 

Mr. Peoples. That is correct. 

Mr. Appell. Did you as captain of one group meet with Sidney as captain of 
another group in the captains' meetings? 

Mr. Peoples. Yes, I did, a number of times. 

Mr. Appell. Mr. Peoples, the Communist Party of the United States ceased 
reregistration of membership at different periods foUovring the indictment of 
the first-string Communist leaders. Did the Lorain section reregister its mem- 
bership in 1949 for the year 1950? 

Mr. Peoples. Yes, they did. 

Mr. AppEa^L. Do you possess any knowledge as to whether Sidney Efross, 
whom you knew only by the name of Sidney, was reregistered by the Lorain 
Communist Party for the year 1950? 

Mr. Peoples. Yes, he was. 

Was Mr. Peoples' identification of you as a member of the steel 
club of the Communist Party correct ? 
Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 



860 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr, Tavenner. Are you a member of the Communist Party now? 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
Party ? 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Moulder. Any questions, Mr. Doyle ? 

Mr. Doyle. I have a couple. 

Have you any application for a passport now pending before the 
State Department ? 

Mr. Efross. No. 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask committee counsel this question : Mr. Taven- 
ner, is the picture which you have referred to as having been identi- 
fied by Mr. Peoples in that statement, the same picture which has been 
introduced here as Efross Exhibit No. 4? Is that the employment 
picture? 

Mr. Tavenner. That is the employment photograph of the indi- 
vidual. 

Mr. Doyle. Will you remind me of the dates, please, on which this 
witness was an employee of this Lorain company, according to the 
sworn statement of Mr. Peoples? Was that in 1945? Or was it 
1950? Which was that. Witness? 

Mr. Efross. Mr. Tavenner is looking it up. 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask you what year did you stop employment 
with the company at Lorain ? 

Mr. Efross. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. The application for employment that was intro- 
duced in evidence is dated May 19, 1948. 

Mr. Doyle. When did Mr. Peoples fix the dates that he knew this 
witness as a member of the steel fraction of the Communist Party; 
what year ? I think it was 1950. 

Mr. Tavenner. He doesn't specify the period, other than to state 
what his own connection was there from 1944, that is, in the Com- 
munist Party, through 1950, and his reference to the reregistration 
of Mr. Efross in 1949 for his 1950 membership. 

Mr. Doyle. I just wish, then, to make this brief observation to the 
witness 

Mr. Tavenner. Excuse me. At a place that I did not read m Mr. 
Peoples' testimony : 

My first time of meeting: Sidney was the month of September 1949, and I was 
still in contact with him through December of 1949. 

Mr. DoYLE. That sworn statement by Mr. Peoples shows that this 
witness was a member of the Commmiist Party in our comitry. 

This is after Earl Browder was kicked out of the leadership of the 
American Communist Party as a result of the Duclos letter and the 
putting in control of the American Connnunist Party of Mr. Foster. 
For the life of me, Witness, I can't understand how any loyal, 
patriotic, American laboring man, such as you— stating you have been 
a painter for the last five years, but covering up on what you did 
before as you have today — I can't understand how in the world you 
would stay in an outfit that acted as the American Communist, Party 
did in 1945 when they kicked Earl Browder out. That should have 
given you, and did give you, absolute notice of it being an inter- 



PASSPORT SECURITY 861 

national conspiracy with Soviet Russia in control of the American 
Communist Party. 

That is all I have to say. 

I can make every allowance within reason of any adult man or 
woman in my country being in the Communist Party as a matter of 
philosophy and study and research and other things prior to 1945. 
But how in heaven you can stay in that garbage can after 1945 or 
1946, 1 do not understand for the reasons stated. 

Mr. Moulder. Have you any questions, Mr. Johansen ? 

Mr. Johansen. I have no questions, but since my colleague re- 
ferred to Mr. Peoples' testimony as sworn testimony, I want to make 
sure that the record clearly shows that Mr. Peoples' testimony was 
under oath. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir; I did not so state, but it was under oath. 

Mr. Johansen. Thank you. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is excused. 

Mr. Tavenner. Elizabeth Boynton Millard, come forward, please. 

Mr. Moulder. Would you be sworn as a witness, please ? 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you are about to 
give before this subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Miss Millard. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ELIZABETH BOYNTON MILLARD, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, ISIDORE G. NEEDLEMAN 

Mr. Ta\^nner. State your full name, please. 

Miss Millard. Elizabeth Millard. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you have a middle name ? 

Miss Millard. Boynton. 

Mr. Tavenner. Spell it, please. 

Miss Millard. Boynton. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell it, please ? 

Miss Millard. B-o-y-n-t-o-n. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you Miss or Mrs ? 

Miss Millard. Miss. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will counsel accompanying the witness please 
identify himself for the record ? 

Mr. Needleman. I would prefer that no pictures be taken while 
she is testifying. 

Mr. jSIoulder. At the request of the counsel, the photographers will 
not take pictures of the witness. 

Mr. Needleman. Isidore G. Needleman, 165 Broadway, New York 
6,N.Y. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born. Miss Millard ? 

Miss Millard. I was born near Chicago. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you object to stating the date ? 

Miss Millard, More than 21 years ago. 

Mr. Moulder. I didn't understand you. 

Mr. Tavenner. More tlian 21 years ago. 

Please state your educational background, briefly. 

Miss Millard. I respectfully decline to answer that question. I feel 
it is not relevant to the inquiry of this committee. 



862 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Tavenner. How are you presently employed ? 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer that question under the protec- 
tion of the first and fifth amendments, and also on the ground that this 
committee lacks authority to ask the question, and it has no jurisdic- 
tion under the power granted to it by Congress. 

Mr, Tavenner. What has been your previous occupational record ? 
That is, how have you been employed in the past, your main employ- 
ment? 

Miss IVIiLLARD. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. I hand you a photostatic copy of a passport, which 
has a picture bearing your likeness, and over the signature, purported 
signature, of Elizabeth B. Millard. 

Will you examine it, please ? It bears the date of October 20, 1948. 
State whether or not that is your signature. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Moulder. The document referred to by counsel will be marked 
"Millard Exhibit No. 1." 

(Document marked "Millard Exhibit No. 1" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Moulder. The record should show that the witness and her 
counsel are examining Millard Exhibit No. 1. 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Am I correct, Mr. Counsel, that this is an applica- 
tion ? I think the counsel inadvertently said it was a passport. 

Mr. Tavenner. It is an application for a passport ; yes, sir. 

What was your answer ? 

Miss IVIillard. Would you repeat the question, please ? 

Mr. Tavenner. My question was: Will you identify the signature 
as being your signature ? 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you issued a passport by the U.S. Govern- 
ment 

Miss Millard. I decline 



Mr. Tavenner. Excuse me — after October 20, 1948 ? 

Miss Millard. I also decline to answer that on the same grounds. 

Mr. Moulder. Would you give a brief description of tliis exhibit, 
Mr. Tavenner, that the witness is being questioned on ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. This is an application signed by the name 
of Elizabeth B. Millard, under date of October 20, 1948, to travel for 
a period of 2 months in England, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, 
and Italy, for the purpose of a vacation. 

My question was : Was a passport issued to you after the date of this 
application, which was October 20, 1948? 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer that on the same ground. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr, Chairman, may I have a direction that the wit- 
ness answer the question ? 

Mr. Moulder. Yes. The witness is directed to answer the question. 
In connection with that direction, I would like to ask you if you were 
present in the hearing room while the statement was being made by 
the chairman this morning. Were you present at that time? 

Miss Millard. Yes, I was. 

Mr. Moulder. It was explaining the purposes of this hearing. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 863 

Miss Millard. I was, and I still decline to answer on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Moulder. You are directed to answer the question. This is in 
response to my direction ? 

Miss Millard. Yes. 

Mr. Needleman. I think the record is clear, is it not, that the 
grounds are the first, fifth, and lack of jurisdiction of the committee? 

Mr. Tavenner. I didn't understand that she invoked the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Needleman. She has. 

Miss Millard. I have. 

Mr. Tavenner. She did? 

Mr. Needleman. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. That provision of the fifth amendment regarding 
immunity from testimony where it may tend to incriminate ; is that 
what you meant ? 

Miss Millard. That amendment. 

Mr. Moulder. As I understand it, Miss Millard, you fear that if you 
answer any questions in connection with the application for a pass- 
port referred to as Millard Exhibit No. 1, it would tend to incriminattt 
you, to expose you to criminal prosecution ? 

Miss Millard. I believe that is the same question I was just asked. 
I think T have answered that question. 

Mr. Moulder. I understand that is the purport of your answer. 
You are claiming that in good faith? You think it might subject 
you to prosecution ? 

Miss Millard. I have answered that question, I think. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you engage in travel to Communist China in 
the summer of 1949 ? 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer that on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer in evidence a photostatic copy of 
page 5 of the Daily Worker, the issue of April 17, 1950, which has 
m headlines, "Prague to Shanghai — A New World Voyage, By Betty 
Millard." 

I ask that this be marked "Millard Exhibit No. 2." 

Mr. Moulder. The record will show that the exhibit is marked 
"Millard Exhibit No. 2." 

(Document marked "Millard Exhibit No. 2" and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

(Document w^as handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you examine that, please, and state whether 
or not the article appearing there under your name was written by 
you? 

(The witness conferred witli her counsel.) 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer tliat on the same grounds. 

Mr. Moulder. Millard Exhibit No. 2 is admitted into evidence and 
made a part of the record. 

Mr. TA^^NNER. I see this statement : 

I went to China as a member of a delegation of women of many countries to 
attend the Conference of the Women of Asia in Peking. This conference, two 
years in preparation and the first of its kind in history, was organized by the 
Women's International Democratic Federation. 

39742— 59— pt. 2 9 



864 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Did you go to China as a delegate from that organization ? 

Miss Mii.LAiu). I decline to answer that question on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Tavenneu. I notice also a reference to tlie fact that the Wom- 
en's International Democratic Federation existed in — 

59 countries, which, along with the Congress of American Women, had the honor 
of being attaclced not long ago by the notorious House Un-American Committee 
for itiS "sinister" activities on behalf of peace. 

You recognize that language, don't you ? 

Miss Millard. Are you asking me if I heard such an estimate of 
the Un-American Committee in previous 

Mr. Tavenner. I am asking you if you recognize that as your 
language. 

Miss Millard. Because I would agree that there are a good many 
people who feel that the Un-American Committee has played a very 
negative role, shall we say. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am not asking you what you agree to. I am ask- 
ing you if you recognize that as language used by you. 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer that question on the same 
ground. 

Mr. Moulder. Well, do you now concur with it ? 

Miss Millard. Well, I would say that, if you are asking me an 
opinion 

Mr. Moulder. I am giving you an opportunity to concur. It is a 
w^onderful opportimity for you. 

Miss Millard. I do feel that this committee has probably done more 
to detract from the prestige of the United States abroad than possibly 
any other body and certainly, I would say, more than any of the 
individuals whom this committee has had before it, principally, as far 
as I can determine, because they have dissented from official and 
State Department points of view on certain subjects. 

Mr. Moulder. You say it lias detracted what? I didn't under- 
stand you 

Miss Millard. I feel that this committee has, over a good many 
years, done a great deal to put the prestige of the United States 

Mr. Moulder. Among the Communists of those countries and par- 
ticularly of the Soviet Union? 

Miss Millard. No, I would say among the people generally in the 
world who feel that the essence of democracy, as I feel, is the right to 
dissent and wdio feel that this committee and the McCarthy — in the 
McCarthy period — that element, have done a good deal to try to 
stifle democracy in that sense. 

Mr. Moulder. All right. 

Now, what do you base that opinion on ? 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Mr. Moulder. Was it as a result of your travels abroad ? 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Miss Millard. I simply, like many other Americans, have been 
reading the newspaper, and have done my own thinking. That is 
the result of it. 

Mr. Moulder. Isn't it a fact that you arrived at that opinion as a 
result of your association with Communists on your trip abroad? 

Miss Millard. I would not say so at all. 



I 



PASSPORT SECURITY 865 

Mr. Moulder. What newspaper did you read it in ? 

Miss Millard. I liave had that opinion, and a good many other 
Americans have had that opinion, for a good many years. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. I was not sure — my attention was distracted for a 
moment — whether the witness answered categorically as to whether 
she derived that judgment with respect to this committee from in- 
formation or expressions of opinion made to her while slie was abroad. 

Miss Millard. No, I did not say that. But if I may say so, I 
derive it in part from opinions such as this editorial in the New 
York Times. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. I am not interested in the editorial. I am in- 
terested in a yes or no answer tis to whether that opinion was derived 
from your contacts and experiences abioad. 

Miss Millard. It is derived from the totality of my experience. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Was it derived from your experiences or contacts 
abroad, or any part of it ? 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer that question on the grounds that 
I have mentioned. 

Mr. Tavenner. Between February 1 and 4, 1951, did you attend a 
meeting of the Communist International Democratic Federation of 
Women in East Germany ? 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer that question on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. I hand you a photograph clipped from an issue 
of tlie Tagliche Kunschau, a publication in East Germany, of Feb- 
ruary 4, 1951. 

Mr. Moulder. The photograph will be marked "Millard Exhibit 
No. 3." 

(Photograph marked "Millard Exhibit No. 3" and retained in 
committee files.) 

(Photograph was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Tavenner. I will ask if you recognize it. 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Mr. Needleman. If you can recognize anybody in that photograph, 
you are very good, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you read the caption under it? Maybe that 
would help refresh your recollection. 

Miss Millard. No, I am soriy to say, I don't read German. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then let me read to you the translation of it. 

After the speech of the Korean delegate Hsu Tschen Schu, at the rally of the 
IDFF in People's Hall on Sunday evening, the American delegate, Betty Millard, 
embraced the spokeswoman of the Korean women. This embrace illustrated 
more forcefully than any words the attitude and the wishes of American 
wives and mothers : We stand on the side of the Korean people. Down with 
the war in Korea. 

Doesn't that refresh your recollection ? 
(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 
Mr. Moulder. What was the date ? 
Mr. Tavenner. February 4, 1951. 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer that on the same grounds. 
Mr. Moulder. Millard Exhibit No. 3 is admitted into evidence and 
made a part of the record. 



866 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Tavenner. In light of the caption, do you now identify the 
picture as that of you embracing the Korean speaker, the speaker for 
Nort h Korea ? 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer that on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Immediately following your contact with the North 
Korean Communists in East Berlin, did you write articles in the 
Communist press relating to alleged atrocities committed by Ameri- 
can soldiers in Korea? 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer that on the grounds of the first 
and fifth amendments and the other grounds I mentioned. 

Mr. Tavenner. I offer for identification only a thermofax copy of 
"Masses & Mainstream," the November issue, 1951. 

I ask the witness to examine on the frontispiece the article listed, 
"A Look at 'Operation Killer,' " by Betty Millard. 

Will you look at that, please, and state whether or not you were 
the author of that article a few months after your return from East 
Germany ? 

( Document was handed to the witness. ) 

(The witness conferred wdth her coimsel. ) 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

(Document marked "Millard Exhibit No. 4" and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. Moulder. This Millard Exhibit No. 3 — I notice the memo at- 
tached to it says that the new^spaper referred to in the caption below 
the photograph is the official U.S.S.R. paper in East Germany. It 
is also very interesting to observe. Miss Millard, that you are referred 
to, assuming this is your photograph embracing the spokeswoman of 
the Korean women, you in the caption are referred to — well, the cap- 
tion refers to American wives and mothers. 

As I understand your testimony, you are single and not married? 

Miss Millard. That is correct. 

Mr. Moulder. And you are not a mother. It illustrates the propa- 
ganda used by official U.S.S.R. newspapers in East Germany. 

Mr. Doyle. Not a very well qualified delegate, I would say. The 
Communists are not always accurate in picking their delegates. They 
generally pick those who are not qualified in any other capacity than 
as Communists. This is a good illustration of it. 

Mr. Johansen. Mr. Counsel, the representative of the Korean 
women, as I understand it, was a representative of the North Korean 
women ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Johansen. And this was at the time that the United States 
was engaged in combat with North Korea ? 

Mr. Tavenner. That is correct. And at the time the Communist 
Party in the United States was advocating the cause of North Korea 
and, by propaganda, doing everything it could to embarrass the 
United States in that terrible conflict. 

I hand you a photostatic copy of an application for passport, in 
which I cannot find a date of the making of it that I could be abso- 
lutely certain of, but there is stamped on the front of it "Passport 
issued November 4, 1958," so the application must have been made 
prior to that date, and may have been made on July 14, 1958. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 867 

It bears a photograph which resembles yovi, and is over the pur- 
ported signature of Elizabeth B. Millard. 

Will you examine it, please, and state whether or not that is your 
signature ? 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with her counsel. ) 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer that on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Miss Millard, it is noted that underneath the photo- 
graph of your likeness there are three questions : 

Are you now a member of the Communist Party? (Answer "yes" or "no.") 
Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? (Answer "yes" or 
"no.") 

If ever a member state period of membership, From to 

All tliree of those questions were not answered. Why didn't you 
answer them ? 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Mr. Moulder. Are you questioning the witness on Exhibit No. 1, 
or is this a new exhibit ? 

Mr. Tavenner. This is a new" exhibit. 

Mr. Moulder. It will be marked "Millard Exhibit No. 5." 

(Document marked "Millard Exhibit No. 5"' and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer that, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you now a member of the Communist Party ? 
Is that the reason you didn't answer question No. 1 ? 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer that on the same grounds. 

Mr. Moulder. The last exhibit referred to by counsel, Millard 
Exhibit No. 5, will be admitted in evidence and made a part of the 
record. 

Mr. Tavenner. Haven't you been a member of the Communist 
Party for a long time and that is why you didn't answer question 
No. 2? 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer that on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. It is stamped on this exhibit that passport was is- 
sued November 4, 1958. That was after the rendition of the decision 
of the Supreme Court in the cases of Kent and Brwhl v. Dulles^ and 
Dayton v. Dulles. 

However, before this passport was issued, isn't it a fact that there 
was sent to you on October 13, 1958, from the Department of State, a 
communication listing several pertinent questions it wanted you to 
answer ? Do you recall that ? 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. TA^^NNER. I offer in evidence a letter from Edward J. Hickey, 
Acting Director, Passport Office, directed to Elizabeth Boynton Mil- 
lard, under date of October 13, 1958, and ask that it be marked "Mil- 
lard Exhibit No. 6." 

Will you examine the letter, please, and state whether or not you 
have received it ? 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Moulder. Millard Exhibit No. 6 has been marked for identifi- 
cation now. 

(Document marked "Millard Exhibit No. 6" and retained in com* 
mittee files. ) 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

3974a— 59— pt. 2 10 



868 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 
Mr. Moulder. Exhibit No. 6, referred to by counsel, will be ad- 
mitted into the record and made a part of the evidence. 
Mr. Tavenner. They asked you : 

1. Have you in the past traveled or are you now contemplating travel for the 
purpose of delivering, transmitting, or otherwise communicating information, in- 
structions, or funds to any person or persons for transmission to a foreign 
government or representative of a foreign government? 

2. Have you engaged in any activities on behalf of a foreign power or foreign 
principal? Have you agreed or voluuteered to engage in such activties or have 
you assisted others in engaging in such a tivities? 

3. Have you furnished, communicated, delivered or transmitted or attempted 
to furnish, communicate, deliver or transmit, directly or indirectly, any informa- 
tion, instructions or funds to any person or persons for transmission to a foreign 
government or representative of a foreign government? 

If you have engaged in any activities of the nature outlined above, please give 
complete particulars including the nature of the information or instructions 
and the identity of the person or persons involved. 

4. Are you now or have you in the past registered under the Foreign Agents 
Registration Act? 

5. Are you now or have you in the past engaged in any activities of such a na- 
ture as to require your registration under the provisions of the Foreign Agents 
Registration Act? 

Did you reply to that letter? 

ISIiss Millard. I decline to answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. In fact, you have never given any answer, have 
you? You have never given any answer as to the information re- 
quested ? 

(The witness conferred with her comisel.) 

Miss ]\Iillard. I decline to answer on the same gromids. 

Mr. Tavenner. As a matter of fact, had you answered the letter 
truthfully, you would have had to have told the State Department that 
you had been a member of the Latin American Affairs Section of the 
Communist Party ; isn't that true ? 

( The witness conferred with her counsel. ) 

Miss INIillard. I never heard of such a thing. I don't recognize 
that term. 

Mv. Tavenner. Were you a member of any section of the Coimnu- 
nist Party which was principally interested in Latin American 
affairs ? 

INIiss IMiLLARD. I decline to answer on the same gi'ounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. If you had answered that inquiry truthfully, you 
would have had to advise that you had been in contact with Commu- 
nist leaders of Central America, South America, and the Carribean 
area, would you not ? 

JNIiss ISIii-lard. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner, Well, you had been in contact with them, had 
you not ? 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. What? 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

However, I will say, if I may be allowed to, that I have always 
felt that our State Department's support of Latin American dictators, 
such as Batista, Perez Jimenez in Venezuela, and so on, has been 
something that was — well, that has certainly injured our relations 
with other countries, and the regard of people of other countries for 



PASSPORT SECURITY 869 

our Government. For that reason, I have always felt that that policy 
should be opposed. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you offering that as a reason for the contact 
of yourself with Communist leaders in the area ? 

Miss Millard. I am offering that as an observation, with your per- 
mission. 

Mr. Moulder. If those dictators were Communist dictators, do you 
think then it would have injured or caused disrespect and lack of 
respect for our Govermnent ? 

Miss JNiiLLARD. I am opposed to dictation of any sort. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you think the Soviet Union has a dictator? 

Miss Millard. Well, I don't know whether the committee wants to 
engage in philosophical discussion. 

Mr. Moulder. What about Tito ? 

Miss Millard. Well, I— 

Mr. Moulder. Is Tito a dictator ? 

Miss Millard. I don't believe it is within the competence of this 
committee to inquire into the political and social opinions of citi- 
zens of this country. I tliink on the same grounds that I stated in the 
beginning 

Mr. Moulder. You expressed an opinion about some dictators, and 
I wondered if you had the same opinion about other dictators. I am 
opposed to dictators, too. I wondered if you were opposed to Com- 
munist dictators. 

Miss Millard. We were discussing Latin America, and with the 
permission of the committee I wished to interject that observation. 

Mr. ISIoulder. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Notwithstanding the State Department was not 
given any information regarding the important matters that it re- 
quested information about, it nevertheless, under the ruling of the 
Supreme Court, apparently felt that it had to give you a passport. 

Mr. Needleman. May I volunteer something to the committee? I 
think, Mr. Tavenner, apart from the legal position that my client 
is taking, you are mistaken in saying that that letter was not an- 
swered. You check the records. My client has to take a certain legal 
position. 

Mr. Tavenner. I understand it was answered in this way — that 
the witness considered that these were insulting insinuations. 

Isn't that the answer that you gave ? 

]Mr. Needleman. Mr. Tavenner ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me queston the witness on that. 

Mr. Needleman. May I finish? I was offering something for the 
clarification of the committee. Counsel Tavenner said there was no 
answer. I said, apart from the legal position that my client has to 
take, there was an answer that would be in the record that she is not 
going to affirm or deny, but I am telling it for the edification of the 
committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. We want her testimony; not yours. 

Mr. Needleman. You made a misstatement. 

Mr. Tavenner. I asked the witness if she ever answered that letter 
in the way of giving the information that was sought. 

Miss Millard. And I declined to answer on the grounds I stated. 



870 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Tavenner. However, you did answer to the extent that you 
said the questions were insuking insinuations. That was tlie answer 
you gave, was it not ? 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Mr. Tavenner. And that w^as no answer. Is that right? 

Mr. Moulder. What Mr. Tavenner is asking is. Do you adopt the 
statement made by your counsel as your testimony ? 

Miss Millard, I think I have given my answer to this question. 

Mr. Moulder. Then you do not adopt the statement made by your 
counsel as j^our testimony ? 

Miss Millard. I repeat the answer that I gave previously. I de- 
cline to answer. 

Mr. Moulder. You decline to answer my question for the same 
reasons given ? 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Mr. Needleman. I didn't understand your question. 

Mr. Moulder. I am asking the witness this question : Whether 
or not you adopt as part of your testimony the statement he made 
concerning an answer to this letter. 

Miss Millard. No; I am adopting only my own testimony as my 
testimony. 

Mr. Moulder. What? 

Miss Millard. I stand on my own answers. 

Mr. Moulder. Well, I am asking you a question. 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer that on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. So you will not advise this committee, then, 
whether you endeavored to furnish any information of value what- 
ever to the State Department to enable it to pass upon the merits of 
your application, and that appears to be the situation the State De- 
partment is in. If you don't want to give it, no matter what informa- 
tion they have regarding your activities, they seem to be precluded 
from effectively preventing harmful travel in foreign countries. 

Mr. Needleman. Why don't you offer, Mr. Tavenner, the letter 
that you have? 

Mr. Tavenner. I did offer it. 

Mr. Needleman. The answer which my client, because of legal rea- 
sons, can't identify, but which I indicated was in the record. Why 
don't you offer it to the committee ? 

Mr. Tavenner. I haven't any letter for it because it is our in- 
formation when we subpenaed these records she did not answer the 
questions. That is the full record on it. 

Mr. Needleman. How did you know, then, to characterize the 
letter? 

Mr. Moulder. Counsel understands the rules of the committee, that 
he has the right to confer and advise, but counsel will not engage in an 
argument with committee counsel or members of the committee. 
I^t us proceed. 

Mr, Tavenner. I want to apologize, Mr. Chairman. I do find that 
there is a letter here which I thought was not here. I will very gladly 
offer it. 

First of all, I want to ask the witness if she wrote it. It is over 
her signature. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 



PASSPORT SECURITY 871 

Mr. Moulder. The document referred to by counsel will be marked 
"Millard Exhibit No. 7." 

(Document marked "Millard Exhibit No. 7"' and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Doyle. At this point, I wish to suggest to counsel for the wit- 
ness that in view of his urging and insisting that there was a letter, 
and he knew of the letter, that in my humble judgment it pretty 
nearly puts the witness in the position where she might have to admit 
the signature if it is hers. 

Mr. Needleman. She is going to stand by her answers. I was going 
to try to enlighten the committee, which wants to recommend legis- 
lation on the basis of it. I think in fairness to the State Depart- 
ment 

Mr. Doyle. You wish to get the benefit of that letter for your client. 

Mr. Needlemax. No, not for the benefit of nw client. I want to 
get it for the State Department. 

Mr. Tavenner stated that the State Department issued a passport 
to Miss ]Millard despite the fact that there were no answers to the 
questions he read into the record. I told you my client took a certain 
legal position. I felt that the State Department should not be placed 
in that position when I knew, as you will see, that there was a letter. 

Mr. Doyle. I think the letter will speak for itself. Your client is 
pretty well bound by your otfer before the committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to read the letter, dated October 22, 
1958: 

Replying to ttie insulting insinuations contained in your letter of October 13, 
the answer to all your questions is No. 

In case a possibly lingering cold war mentality in the Department leads you 
to imagine that my previous activities in connection with the Women's Inter- 
national Democratic Federation and as editor of Latin America Today (activi- 
ties of which you are doubtless aware) were activities referred to in your letter, 
please be assured that nothing is further from the truth. 

It seems to me that the State Department is exceeding its authority and 
denying me my rights as a citizen by inordinately delaying action on my pass- 
port application and by asking irrelevant and purposeless questions. I must 
insist on your prompt issuance of my passport. 
Sincerely yours, 

Elizabeth Millabd. 

Mr. Moulder. Is that under oath ? 

Mr. Ta\tenner. Yes; it is sworn to in the State of New York, with 
a notary signature. 

Afr. Moulder. And the letter does specifically deny all of the ques- 
tions referred to ? 

Mr. Ta\'enner. Yes ; it does. 

"Were you a member of the Communist Party on October 22, 1958, 
the day on which you addressed this letter ? 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Moulder. Millard Exhibit No. 7 will be admitted in evidence 
and made a part of the record. 

Mr. Tavenner. I notice you refer there to the fact that you were 
editor of Latin America Today. 

I ofTer for identification only the May 1955 issue of that publication, 
and refer to an article entitled, "Guerilla Warfare In Colombia," 
by Betty Millard. 

Will you identify that as having been written by you ? 

(Document referred to was handed to the witness.) 



872 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. MouLDKR. The document referred to by counsel will be marked 
"Millard Exhibit No. 8," for identification only, as requested by 
counsel. 

(Document marked "-Millard Exliibit No. 8" and retained in com- 
mittee files. ) 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you answer the question, please ? 

Miss Millard. What was the question ? 

Mr. Ta\7<:>7Ner, The question was : Will you identify that article 
as having been written by you ? 

Miss MiLi.ARD. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. TA^^i:NNER. I hand you a photostatic copy of a leaflet of the 
Jefferson School of Social Science, September — December 1948. 

Mr. Moulder. The leaflet will be marked "INIillard Exhibit No. 0." 

(Document marked "Millard Exhibit No. 9" and retained in 
committee files.) 

Mr. Ta^^nner. I ask wliether or not it reflects that you Avere at that 
time a teacher in that school. 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Mr. IMouLDER. What is your ansAver to the question ? 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Moulder. Any questions, Mr. Doyle ? 

Mr. Doyle. I have one question. Witness, sevei-al minutes ago you 
volunteered, I think, quite a discourse in criticism of this committee. 
Do you remember so doing ? 

IMiss ]\IiLLARD. I do. 

Mr. Doyle. I was sure you would remember that. 

I take the position that when you volunteered that criticism and 
stated the things you stated, j'^ou waived your privilege and, therefore, 
I want to ask you a few questions on the subject matters which you 
dis-^ussed when you volunteered to this committee, on your ovrn behalf 
and without being asked questions, your position in criticism of this 
committee. 

I make that statement because I want you to understand that I 
think now that you are in a position where you cannot claim, legally, 
the privilege that you have been claiming. 

In that volunteered criticism of this committee, you stated that your 
opinion of this committee was gained on your total experience. Do 
you remember so stating? 

Miss Millard. I believe I did, yes. 

Mr. Doyle. Was part of that total experience which sliaped your 
opinion of this committee, and which you gave to us voluntarily this 
afternoon, gained from your conferences with the Communists in 
North Korea when you were there at about the time that this picture 
was taken ? 

Miss IVIiLLARD. I decline to answer that question on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. DoYT^E. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the witness be instructed to 
answer. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness will be directed to answer the question. 
However, T thought this was in East Germany. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 873 

Mr. Doyle. It was in East Germany. I will stand corrected. 

I ask that the witness, in view of my correction of tlie geographic 
location as being East Germany instead of North Korea, be instructed 
to answer. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to answer. 

Miss Millard. I will still decline. 

Mr. Doyle. I will ask you whether or not this total opinion that 
you testified to as having arrived at was partially formed by you, at 
least, as a result of your association, if you had any, with Communists 
in Latin America, or your cooperation with them. 

Miss Millard. I decline on the same grounds. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, I ask the witness be instructed to answer. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is instructed and directed to answer the 
question. 

Miss Millard. I decline on the same grounds. 

Mr. Doyle. In view of your voluntary statements and criticism of 
the committee, what portion of your total experience which 7/0U 
volunteered you had, or total opinion formed which you said you had 
formed of this committee, was gained as a result, if any was — Counsel, 
let me please finish my question to your client. 

Going back, so that the witness will have in mind my question : 
What part of this total opinion was formed by you as a result of your 
cooperation, active cooperation, with others or with members of the 
Communist Party in the United States? 

Miss Millard. I decline to answer that on the same grounds. 

Mr. Doyle. Was any part of this total opinion which 3^011 volun- 
teered in criticism of this committee formed at any time by you wdien 
you were a member of the Communist Party in the United States ? 

Miss Millard. I decline on the same grounds. 

Mr. Doyle. Mi". Chairman, I ask that the witness be instructed to 
answer. 

!Mr. Moulder. The witness is instructed to answer. 

Miss Millard. I r'ecline to answer on the same grounds, 

Mr. Doyle. I think that is all. 

Mr. Moulder. JMr. Johansen ? 

Mr. Joiiansen. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make this observa- 
tion for the record, because we are so frequently confronted with the 
claim in these liearings that association with the Communist Party 
and with Communist activities is merely a political association and 
that the matters with which we are concerning ourselves are matters 
of the right of dissenting opiiiions. I would like to make the obser- 
vation that on the basis of the testimony that has been adduced here, 
and on the basis of the evidence in the record, it clearly demonstrates 
in this case the complete fiction of mere political association. It is 
established by this evidence that this witness attended a rally of the 
IDFF in East Germany ; that by her actions, as reflected in the photo- 
graph, she indicated her sympathy with, and adherence to, the North 
Korean cause at the time American forces were engaged in mortal 
combat; and that it comes, it seems to me, perilously close to giving 
comfort, if not aid, to an enemy of the United States. 

I don't know any clearer indication of the fiction of a mere political 
association. 



874 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, in view of the objections or reasons 
given by tliese three or four witnesses today in tliis passport hearing, 
claiming nonjurisdiction of the committee, nonpertinence, and non- 
relevancy, may I ask our distinguished legal counsel of the committee, 
if you think it would not be inappropriate, just to take a minute or 
two to give for the record his extemporaneous statement of what 
connection this sort of evidence has with our study of the passport 
problem with reference to possible legislation ? 

Mr. Moulder. That has been covered, has it not ? 

Mr. Ta^tenner. Yes. 

Mr, Doyle. The preliminary statement did, but then the witnesses 
had not yet testified. 

Mr. Tavenner. I did also in the course of the testimony of Mr. 
Popper. 

Mr. Doyle. You think you have given all you wanted ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is excused. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, we have requested the Honorable 
John W. Planes, Jr., Administrator of the Bureau of Security and 
Consular Affairs of the Department of State, to appear before the 
committee. 

Will you come forward, please, Mr. Hanes ? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. HANES, JR., ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU 
OF SECURITY AND CONSULAR AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 
ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN W. SIPES, SECURITY COUNSEL, DEPART- 
MENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are Mr. John W. Hanes, Jr. ? 

Mr. Hanes. Yes, sir, John W. Hanes, Jr., Administrator of the 
Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, of the Department of State. 

Mr. Tavenner. Please present your associate. 

]\Ir. Hanes. Mr. John Sipes, Security Counsel, of the Department 
of State. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I have had a conference with Mr. 
Hanes, and thought that the best way to start out in obtaining informa- 
tion from him regarding the problems before us was to have him 
make a preliminary statement to j^ou. He gave us a copy of his state- 
ment yesterday. I suggest that he start out by presenting his prepared 
statement. 

Mr. Moulder, You may proceed, Mr. Hanes. We want to first 
express our appreciation for your assistance and cooperation given 
to this committee in studying this problem. 

Mr. Hanes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express 
my appreciation in turn for the opportunity to come before you in 
the important work that you are carrying on, a work to which I attach 
a very considerable amount of importance, a work that I have at- 
tempted myself to further since I have assumed this present position. 
I consider it a very great privilege, therefore, to appear before you. 

Mr. Moulder. Thank you. 

Mr. Hanes. Your investigation today, sir, is into the advisability 
of passport security legislation. 



J 



PASSPORT SECURITY 875 

This inquiry spotlights a current and particularly dangerous hole 
in our defenses against the operations of the international Communist 
conspiracy, and is a further example, sir, in my opinion, of the 
service which this committee renders to Congress and to the American 
people. 

Passport security is not a new subject for this committee. In 1956, 
two years before the Supreme Court's decision in the Kent-Briehl 
case, this committee recommended legislation in order to strengthen 
the hand of the Secretary of State in controlling the international 
travel of adherents of the Connnunist Party. No action was taken 
on that recommendation by Congres, however ; and the Supreme Court 
has since luled that the Secretary's regulations in this matter were 
without an adequate statutory basis. I have noted that this com- 
mittee's report for 1958 lists passport legislation as the number one 
recommendation and urges Congress to rise immediately to its respon- 
sibility in this all-important matter. 

Mr. Chairman, the Department of State also feels it is essential 
that legislation be passed authorizing the Secretary to deny passports 
to hard-core, active Communist supporters. Today, such persons can 
demand passports, and we have no alternative but to issue them. 
These people who knowingly and wilfully support the international 
Communist conspiracy are American citizens, but they are very far 
from being ordinary American citizens. Their loyalty is given not 
to our Government nor to our free way of life, but to the purposes 
of a foreign government which seeks world conquest and our 
destruction. 

It is a well-known basic Communist doctrine that all means, legal 
and illegal, can and must be used to gain its ends. We believe that 
active American Communists should no longer be allowed to use a gap 
in our laws to permit, and even to help, their travel abroad, which 
is itself so essential to the successful operation of their conspiracy. 

I don't know exactly how many members the Communist Party of 
the United States now" has — perhaps fifteen or twenty thousand. But, 
however many there are, each and every party member as of today can 
get a passport from the Department of State, except in the rare in- 
stance that he happens to be ineligible for some other reason, such as 
being a fugitive from justice. This is a breach in our defenses which 
our enemies have been quick to take advantage of. Many persons 
with known Communist affiliations have applied for passports since 
the decision of the Supreme Court, some of them even though they 
have no present intention of going abroad. 

Testimony before you several weeks ago, and more recently, further 
demonstrated this fact. I would gu^ss that many of these people are 
applying under orders, because the Communist Party fears that they 
may soon again be unable to get passports. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. May I interrupt you at this point ? 

I do not want to anticipate testimony. But in the event the correc- 
tive legislation that the gentleman is testifying to were enacted, would 
it, in the gentleman's judgment, be possible to make it effective retro- 
actively with respect to these passports which, in a sense, might be 
said to be stockpiled in anticipation of the inability to secure them ? 

Mr. Hanes. Yes, sir ; I believe this could be done essentially in two 
ways. The legislation could, and I trust would, make specific the Sec- 



876 PASSPORT SECURITY 

retary's authority not only to deny passports in the future, but to in- 
validate passports already issued. The Department of State could 
implement that invalidation in a number of ways which could even 
include, I suppose, if the situation became difficult enough, the issu- 
ance of a new type of passport to succeed the old type. 

This was something, incidentally, that the Department had to do 
once before, at the time of the Spanish civil war. So many Ameri- 
can passports fell into the hands of the Soviets, were lifted from 
Americans who went to join the Communist armies in Spain, and were 
taken from them and shipped to Moscow, that the Department had to 
issue a new type of passport in order to correct that situation. 

So I would say the answer to your question is definitely "Yes." 

Mr. JoHANSEN. And it would be a most important feature of the 
legislation ? 

Mr. Hanes. It would indeed, sir. 

Mr. Johansen. Thank you. 

Mr. Hanes. Since June 1958, many leading American Communists 
have been enabled to travel to the Soviet Union and have done so. 
Today we must issue United States passports to such people — pass- 
ports which not only permit, but greatly aid, their travel. The 
United States passport clothes them abroad with all the dignity and 
protection that our Government affords. And yet their dedicated 
purpose in life is to destroy our Government and our freedom. 
Surely this situation is a perversion of the liberty which the Constitu- 
tion and the laws are meant to guarantee us. 

I would like to expand on the point that Mr. Johansen made 
recently. 

Congress and the courts have both foimd that the loyalty of Amer- 
ican Communists is given not to the American Government but to 
a conspiracy working to overthrow it. This subcommittee is cer- 
tainly familiar with the findings made by the Congress in the In- 
ternal Security Act of 1950 and the Communist Control Act of 
1954 concerning the nature of the Communist movement and the 
true allegiance of its American adherents. In 1950 the Congress 
f omid that : 

those individuals wbo knowingly and wilfully participate in the world Com- 
mmiist movement, when they so participate, in effect repudiate their allegiance 
to the United States, and in effect ti-ansfer their allegiance to the foreign coun- 
try in which is vested the direction and control of the world Communist 
movement. 

Again in 1954, the Congress found that the Commmiist Party is 
not merely another political party in the United States, but is a 
"clear, present and continuing danger" to our security. 

The courts have also vigorously and consistently exposed the myth 
that the Communist Party is merely another political party. 

In Dennis v. the United States, the Supreme Court found that the 
defendant's— 

conspiracy to organize the Communist Party and to teach and advocate 
the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and violence 
created a "clear and present danger" * * *, 

Mr. Justice Jackson, in American Comnmnications Association v. 
Douds, also came to the conclusion that the Communist Party is not 



PASSPORT SECURITY 877 

a political party but is "a conspiratorial and revolutionary junta 
organized to reach ends and to use methods which are incompatible 
with our constitutional system." 

Other decisions of the Supreme Court and of lower courts have 
been based on a judicial recognition of the true nature and purposes 
of the international Communist movement. . . . , 

I should like to quote here the description which Circuit Judge 
Prettyman gave of the Coimnunist movement in his 1957 opinion 
in Briehl v. Dulles^ upholding the regulations of the Secretary of 
State regarding the issuance of passports to Communists. Judge 
Prettyman's decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in Kent 
and Briehl v. Dulles, but on other gromids. His characterization 
of the nature of the Communist movement stands as a valid and lucid 
statement of judicial opinion. I quote : 

There exists in some quarters a dogged insistence that the Communist move- 
ment be treated as any other political organization. It is as though one argued 
that, since opiates and aspirin both possess medicinal properties, they must be 
subjected to the same permissions and restrictions. The fact is that opiates 
are to be and are regulated because of their own peculiar characteristics. And 
so is the Communist movement and its affiliates. It would be inexcusably naive 
for any court to declare in the present state of the world that adherence to the 
Communist cause is a mere matter of politics or political opinion. We shall treat 
the Communist movement according to what the Congress, the President, and 
the Supreme Court have declared it to be. * * * 

As we have pointed out, the Communist movement is, in the view of this Gov- 
ernment, an aggressive conspiracy potentially dangerous to this country. Travel 
abroad by members of or adherents to the Communist movement is obviously 
an easy method of communication between such persons or organizations in this 
country and the prime sources of Communist policy and program in the Soviet 
Union and its satellites. Once a person with a passport is out of this country, 
this Government has no control over where he goes. His travel is controlled 
entirely by whatever countries he thereafter wishes to leave and to enter. * * * 

la the second place, unless all the major foreign and fiscal policies of this Gov- 
ernment, under two administrations of opposing political parties, have been a 
gigantic fraud, it is the unequivocal duty of the Department of State to prevent 
international incidents which might arouse hostile activities on the part of the 
Soviet Union or its satellites. * * * 

Promptly after the Supreme Court decision last June which struck 
down the Department's regulations as they pertained to passports for 
Communist supporters, the President of the United States and the 
late Secretary Dulles both sent messages to Congress asking for correc- 
tive legislation and emphasizing the urgency of the situation. 

Representatives of the Department of State, both before congres- 
sional committees and in public statements, have repeatedly m^ade ciear 
our conviction of the necessity for prompt congressional action on 
this matter. In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I ask your permission 
to insert in the record a recent statement of the Department's strong 
feeling on this subject, contained in a speech I recently gave before the 
Council of Foreign Relations in Chicago. 

INIr. Moulder. Tlie statement referred to is an address by the Honor- 
able John W. Hanes, Jr., Administrator, Bureau of Security and 
Consular Aifairs, before tlie Chicago Council of Foreign Relations, 
Chicago, 111., March 24, 1959. It will be admitted and incorporated 
into the record at this point. 

(The statement referred to follows :) 



878 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Passports and the Communist Conspiracy 

I am very pleased to have an opportunity to meet with this particular group 
in this particular city. I want to talk with you about some basic matters involv- 
ing our foreign relations and our national security. 

Foreign relations used to be something that this country thought it could 
afford largely to ignore, or at least to delegate to the sole attention of a few 
people who were interested in such things in Washington. The pioneer work 
which your own organization, comprised of so many leading citizens of this 
great central city of the United States, has done for nearly 40 years is one very 
tangible reason why that situation has changed. 

Today it is self-evident that our foreign relations are inseparable from our 
national security. We all recognize that our security, our lives, and our very 
existence, both as individuals and as a nation, are effectively threatened from 
abroad. We all recognize the existence of a powerful and implacable hostile 
force dedicated to world conquest, and to the destruction of all that our republic 
and our people stand for. The hostile force is international communism, and 
its primary manifestation is Soviet Russia. It is also, however, an inter- 
national conspiracy that extends into every nation in the world, including our 
own. 

These facts have a connection with the U.S. passport. I would like today to 
tell you why. 

A great deal of confusion and misunderstanding has surrounded the matter of 
Communists and passports. The misunderstanding has related both to the facts 
and to the issues which are involved, as well as to others which are not, but 
which have been introduced into the controversy. I hope to set the record 
straight on these facts and issues. 

THE SUPREME COURT DECISION 

In June 1958, in the Kent, Briehl, and Dayton cases the United States Su- 
preme Court by a majority of 5 to 4 handed down decisions holding, in effect, 
that the Secretary of State does not have the authority to refuse a passport 
because of membership in the Communist Party, or even because he has specifi- 
cally found that an applicant is going abroad willfully and knowingly to engage 
in activities which would advance the Communist movement. In both decisions, 
the Court denied the Secretary's right because the Congress has not passed leg- 
islation specifically giving the Secretary that right. Contrary to popular belief 
the Supreme Court did not hold that it was unconstitutional to deny a passport 
to a Communist. It did say that any legislation giving the Secretary the right 
to make such a denial must carefully protect the constitutional rights of citizens. 

Since that date, the administration has been urgently seeking the passage of 
such legislation by the Congress. Although the House overwhelmingly passed 
a bill in the closing days of the last session of Congress, the Senate failed to 
act ; and neither house has taken action as yet in this session. 

THE NATURE OF THE COMMUNIST CONSPIRACT 

In order to understand why this situation is serious, it is necessary first to 
understand the nature and methods of the international Communist conspiracy. 

That conspiracy today creates a greater menace to the United States than we 
have ever faced before. 

With assets of some 900 million people and IG once independent countries that 
have fallen under its control, it commands frightening resources. The United 
States is the only power strong enough to maintain the alliance which alone 
keeps international communism from its goal of world conquest. We would be 
naive indeed if we believed that its vast and harshly regimented resources were 
not consistently committed against us in every way which could do us harm — 
openly and secretly ; abroad and at home. 

This conspiracy is triUy international. It is controlled and directed from 
Moscow. That part of it which exists in America is no more American than that 
part which rules in Hungary is Hungarian. Some hard-core supporters of the 
international Communist movement hold American citizenship, but they are not 
ordinary American citizens. They voluntarily give service and allegiance to a 
foreign ideology which promotes the objectives of a foreign power. 

Some people feel that, because actual membership in the Communist Party, 
U.S.A., as of today is small, the American brand of communism therefore offers 



PASSPORT SECURITY 879 

no threat to our internal security. Many top Communists, of course, are not 
party members. Tlie Communists themselves do not even agree that the party 
is weak. Last month, William Lorenzo Patterson in an editorial in Tlie Worker 
said : "The prevailing political atmosphere permits increasing activities with 
lessening dangers of victimization * * * Let's be bolder." Every day brings 
us new evidence of the vitality, the farflung operations and the current danger 
of the Communist conspiracy in the United States. 

We believe that the travel abroad and the possession of a valid American 
passport by hard-core American Communists constitutes a real danger to our 
country. This is so because all the evidence about Communist organization 
and methods shows that the effective functioning of the international party 
machinery depends in large part on the freedom of its members to travel. 

One does not have to be a student of Communist organization to realize the 
truth of this. Think of your own organizations. Everyone in business today 
travels almost constantly. You all know that personal contact is an essential 
part of doing business. The mails — even the telephone— are not an adequate 
substitute. If this is true of normal business operations, how much more true 
must it be of the enormously complex worldwide operation of an international 
conspiracy where virtually everything must also be kept secret. I do not know 
how one would go about recruiting an espionage agent by mail or by telephone. 
I doubt if the Communists know either. Such things require personal assess- 
ment, personal recruitment, personal contact. In an organization of this sort, 
to hamper the movements of any members of the organization is a crippling 
blow and puts the operations of the organization under a most heavy handicap. 

Another thing that is important to understand is that the size and complexity 
of this Communist organization requires a very great variety of orders and in- 
structions and information and activities to keep it operating. It has top 
people in it, and it has little people. It isn't only the top people who are im- 
portant. Each of the little people in this highly disciplined machine is a cog 
who has his own place and his own usefulness to the functioning of the whole 
macliine. A relatively unimportant but reliable member of the conspiracy 
may act as a courier to carry an important message between Communist leaders 
in different countries. The whole elaborate organization which has surrounded 
every Communist espionage network which we know about in this country, such 
as in the Rosenberg case, has demonstrated conclusively the essential role played 
by the numerous "unimportant" little people in the organization without whom 
it would cease to function. 

We are by no means helpless against this conspiracy, nor has our Government 
been inactive or unsuccessful in fighting back. Much of the success we have 
had is attributable directly to the dedicated fight over many years and many 
obstacles which has been carried on personally by Mr. J. Edgar Hoover and by 
the FBI. Their persistence and their results have inspired others who work 
in this field, and have done much to awaken the American people to a clear 
and present danger. 

Our weapons against Communist subversion have been a closely interlinked set 
of techniques. They have included penetration of the conspiracy and constant 
surveillance and, always, to the extent we could achieve it, by passport and visa 
and immigration regulations, the denial of free movement in and out of the 
country and thereby of easy and satisfactory communications. 

The loss of our ability to stop American members of the Communist apparatus 
from getting passports has blunted the other weapons we have against the 
(,'.ommunist conspiracy. For example, our success in preventing the entry of 
foreign Communist agents and couriers with their financing and instntctions 
from headquarters becomes rather hollow if American members of the ap- 
paratus can travel freely out of the country. Similarly, the most successful 
penetration of the domestic Communist apparatus by agents of the United States 
is rendered much less viseful if the persons watched can evade observation for 
extended periods by traveling abroad, probably behind the iron curtain where 
we can hardly expect to know what they are doing. 

I have sometimes been asked whether there is really any point in denying 
passports to American Communists, for after all they can travel legally to Latin 
America without a passport, and from there usually can obtain illegal passage 
to wherever they wish to go. This is undeniably true. However, it is also a 
fact that, in the years during which we denied passports to Communists, very 
few important members of the apparatus took advantage of this roundabout 
route. One reason may be that whenever you require an organization to 



880 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Utilize cumbersome and devious and illegal methods of this sort, you stretch 
that much farther and that much thinner the trail which the conspirators can- 
not fail to leave. They must utilize more people with more risk of some break- 
down in the system and compromise of its secrecy. It is that much more likely 
that somewhere along the trail those whose job it is to counter the Communist 
conspiracy will uncover it. Undoubtedly one of the greatest protections we 
have against the conspiracy is knowledge of what is taking place within it. 
Whenever such a trail can be uncovered at any point, it can usually be un- 
ravelled fairly easily in both directions with the result of a considerable increase 
of our knowledge about the whole conspiracy. 

COMMUNIST INTEREST IN PASSPORTS 

Our own Government has long recognized how important American passports 
are to the Communist conspiracy. Forty years ago, just after the Bolshevik 
Revolution, the Department of State became aware that American Communists 
were carrying on espionage, propaganda, and revolutionary activities for the 
Soviet government and the international Communist movement. The State De- 
partment decided in 1920 that passports should be refused to persons who advo- 
cated the overthrow of governments by force, who espoused publicly the Soviet 
cause, or were carriers of Communist correspondence. This policy remained in 
force until 1931. At no time, I might point out, during this eleven years was the 
Secretary's discretion in the matter ever challenged in the courts. 

The American pas.sport has always been valuable to espionage rings, as you 
can well imagine. For example, prior to World War II an espionage agent 
was arrested in Copenhagen and found to have four U.S. passports in his pos- 
session. The Communist underground has long maintained workshops devoted 
to the wholesale forgery and falsification of passports and other documents. 

However, genuine American passports were highly prized at intelligence head- 
quarters in Moscow, according to a former chief of Soviet intelligence in Europe. 
During the Spanish Civil War, Communist leaders assiduously collected the 
passports of the several thousand Americans in the International Brigade, and 
the bulk of these passports eventually found their way to Moscow for altera- 
tion and possible use by Soviet agents. In fact, so many American passports 
were collected from this source that, as a countermeasure, the United States had 
to replace every outstanding passport in the world with a new document. 

CONGRESS ACTS 

In 1949, eleven members of the National Board of the Communist Party, 
U.S.A., were convicted of conspiring to advocate the overthrow of the U.S. Gov- 
ernment by force or violence. In 1950, American Communists were actively 
supporting the enemy position in the Korean War. Congress, recognizing these 
dangers, passed the Internal Security Act and found that : "travel of Com- 
munist members, representatives and agents from country to country facilitates 
communication and is a prerequisite for the carrying on of activities to further 
the purposes of the Communist movement." Congress also said that Americans 
who participate knowingly in the world Communist movement "in effect repudi- 
ate their allegiance to the United States, and in effect transfer their allegiance 
to the foreign country in which is vested the direction and control of the world 
Communist movement." Yet allegiance is the touchstone of (he right to a 
passport. 

Indeed, the Internal Security Act of 1950 made it a crime to issue passports 
to members of registered Communist organizations ; but this sanction still has 
no legal effect because protracted litigation in the courts has been able to prevent 
that part of the act from becoming applicable. 

Again in 1954 Congress made its intention clear when it declared that the 
Communist Party of the United States, "although purportedly a political party. 
is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of 
the United States." Congress further found that the role of the Communist 
Party, U.S.A., as the agency of a hostile foreign power renders its existence 
a "clear, present and continuing danger to the security of the United States." 

THE department's REGULATIONS 

The Secretary of State, charged by law with the issuing of passports, could 
hardly have ignored these Congressional findings. In 1952, the Department's 



PASSPORT SECURITY 881 

policy was made a matter of official record when Secretary Acheson issued 
regulations establishing the criteria for refusing passports to Communists and 
Communist supporters. 

The publication of these regulations triggered a violent attack by the Com- 
munists through their press and through the courts, utilizing every device of law 
and procedure. Their clever campaign gained respectability because many sin- 
cere persons, who have no sympathy whatever with communism, became dis- 
turbed by the argument that the I'egulations permitted the Secretary of State 
artibtrarily to restrict a citizen's rights. These were the regulations which in 
1958 the Supreme Court struck down by finding that they had not been specifi- 
cally authorized by Congress. 

I think it might be well to put into perspective exactly how these regulations 
operated, and their practical effects, by giving you some statistics on the num- 
bers of Communist supporters refused passports under them and the numbers 
of Americans who received passports. For the two calendar years preceding 
the Supreme Court's decision, 1956 and 1957, 1,145,000 passports were issued 
or renewed. During that same period, the Passport Office limited the passport 
privilege of 51 persons because of Communist grounds. Every one of those per- 
sons had access to an elaborate and impartial appeal mechanism, and many of 
them utilized it. 

From the time this mechanism was set up in 1952 until the Supreme Court's 
decision in June 1958 the Secretary of State — and it must be the Secretary 
personally — refused passports to only 15 persons on Communist grounds after 
full hearings. A number were granted passports after hearings ; some others, 
of course, did not contest the Passport Office's denial ; and undoubtedly many 
active Communists never bothered to apply at all, knowing they would be 
scrutinized and required to make a sworn statement about Communist Party 
membership. 

I believe it is important to remember these figures when statements are made 
about the "arbitrary" action of the Department in passport matters. I assure 
you that these 15 persons who were denied passports by the Secretary did not 
include a single one who was an ordinary American citizen, or whose only activity 
in behalf of the Communist movement was some vague alleged "beliefs and 
associations." 

HISTORY OF PASSPORTS 

American passports, of course, are valuable documents, and well worth all 
this trouble that the Communists have gone through to get them. Our pass- 
port requests foreign governments to let the bearer, an American citizen, pass 
safely and freely, and to give him all lawful aid and protection. It invokes for 
him the full prestige of the United States Government; and foreign govern- 
ments usually accept it as meaning that he is a reputable person. 

The passport has also become a practical necessity for travel. Today 75 
percent of all countries, including most of Latin America, require foreigners, 
including Americans, to have passports for entry ; and we ourselves require 
Americans to obtain passpoi-ts for travel outside the western hemisphere 
because we are still in a state of national emergency. 

We have made it easy, however, to meet this requirement. We issue nearly 
three-fourths of a million passports each year, each one valid for a maximum 
of four years. We refuse only an infinitesimal number. 

Much* of the meaning of even the very few, but very important refusals be- 
came academic, of course, in June 1958, when the Supreme Court's ruling was 
handed down. Since then, as we anticipated, there has been a flood of ap- 
plications from persons with records of Communist affiliations or activities. 
Some of them had previously been denied passports, but many had never pre- 
viously applied. Many we know a great deal about, and none of it is good. 
Others we would like to know more about, but the Department of State is no 
longer in a position even to inquire, much less investigate, whether any such 
applicant is a Communist Party member, or how dangerous he may be. There 
is quite a difference, for example, between a known courier and a harmless 
fellow traveller. 

This flood of applications continues today. The Communists are getting 
passports while they can. Naturally, in all these cases the Department's 
previous policy has had to give way and passports have been and are being 
issued to all these people. 



882 PASSPORT SECURITY 

LEGISLATION REQUIRED 

Immediately following the Supreme Court decision, Secretary Dulles sent 
Congress a draft bill to provide the specific legislative authority which the 
Court held was lacking. He wrote to the Congress : 

"I think there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that we are today engaged 
for survival in a bitter struggle against the international Communist move- 
ment * * * [This] movement seeks everywhere to thwart United States for- 
eign policy. It seeks on every front to influence foreign governments and 
peoples against the United States and eventually by every means, including 
violence, to encircle the United States and subordinate us to its will. The 
issuance of United States passports to supporters of thaf movement facilitates 
their travel to and in foreign countries. It clothes them when abroad with all 
the dignity and protection that our government affords. Surely, our govern- 
ment should be in a position to deny passports to such persons." 

President Eisenhower urgently endorsed the legislation, saying : "Each day 
and week that passes without it exposes us to great danger." 

What must such legislation do? 

Again, the President has expressed it well. He said : 

"In exercising these necessary limitations on the issuance of passports, the 
Executive Branch is greatly concerned with seeing to it that the inherent 
rights of American citizens are preserved. Any limitations on the right to 
travel can only be tolerated in terms of overriding requirements of our na- 
tional security, and must be subject to substantive and procedural guarantees." 

Simply stated, what we need is legislative authority which will allow the 
Secretary of State to deny passports to hard-core supporters of the international 
Communist movement. We believe such denial should occur under due process 
of law, including judicial review. We believe that it should apply only to those 
who knowingly engage in activities — not merely hold beliefs or have associa- 
tions — but engage in activities in furtherance of the international Conmiunist 
movement, or who are going abroad to engage in such activities. 

We do not seek statutory passport authority to stifle criticism of this Gov- 
ernment or its policies. We do not believe that the passport should or can 
be used to restrict the movement of people who hold political, social or eco- 
nomic opinions which are not of the orthodox American variety. 

We do not seek or want authority to deny passports to any whose travel or 
activity abroad is merely an embarrassment to our country. I believe that the 
United States is strong enough to survive embarrassment if we must. 

Neither do we wish to penalize loyal Americans w^ho at one time, before the 
nature of the Communist conspiracy became as crystal clear as it is today, may 
have sympathized with Communist theories or even belonged to Communist 
organizations in this country. 

All we seek, and what I feel we must have, is the capacity to protect our- 
selves by denying passports to those relatively few hard-core, active Com- 
munist supporters who are not ordinary American citizens and whose travel 
abroad constitutes a danger to the United States. 

Much has been said concerning the constitutionally protected "right to travel" 
of an American citizen, Communist or not. I believe we should understand such 
terms thoroughly, for they are central to this issue. 

Our Constitution can and does guarantee the citizen's freedom to travel among 
the -50 States in the Union. However, it obviously does not and cannot guarantee 
any right of an American citizen to enter any foreign country. We do not recog- 
nize the right of any alien to enter our own country except as we, as an act of 
sovereignty, grant him permission to do so. An excellent example of a foreign 
regime exercising sovereignty in this way is the Chinese Communists. For 
nearly two years now, some twenty-five American newsmen representing the 
major foreign newsgathering organizations of this country have had and still 
have American passports valid for travel to Communist China, but that regime 
has refused to let them enter. 

The constitutionally protected "right to travel" abroad, therefore, is really 
only the right to leave the United States, and I certainly ag'i-ee that this right 
is part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due 
process of law of the fifth amendment. However, like any other Constitutional 
right, it is not absolute and may be abridged by society for good and sufficient 
reasons involving its own protection so long as due process is observed. 

In the case of passports "due process" means that the Secretary of State 
cannot be arbitrary or capricious but must have sound reasons for restricting 



PASSPORT SECURITY 883 

an individual's right of exist. It means that he must tell the individual the 
reasons for his action in sufficient detail and under such circumstances that the 
individual may have an opportunity to show the reasons untrue. Such circum- 
stances should include a full hearing and review within the Department of 
State, and, ultimately, of course, the right which now exists to appeal to the 
courts. 

It is interesting to note in this connection that even such citadels of democ- 
racy and individual rights as the United Kingdom, France, and Canada do 
not provide for any judicial review of passport denials. In those and other free 
countries, passport denials are matters strictly within the jurisdiction of the 
Executive Branch, from whose decision there is no appeal. 

There is one other essential of passport legislation which is much misunder- 
stood, and that is the necessity for the government to be able to utilize confi- 
dential information as part of the basis of its decision. 

I can say bluntly that any legislation concerning denial of passports to Com- 
munist supporters would be meaningless and would not achieve any purpose if 
It prohibited the government from utilizing confidential information. Almost 
without exception, dangerous cases in the Communist area involve confidential 
information and investigative soxu-ces. Indeed, the more recent and mean- 
ingful our information is, the more likely it is that it has come from current 
confidential investigative sources within the Communist moA'ement. 

The government has a legitimate and overriding interest in maintaining the 
security of these investigative sources and methods. If faced with the unpalat- 
able choice between exposing and thereby destroying a valuable and continuing 
source of information about the activities of the Communist conspiracy, and 
issuing a passport to an individual member of that conspiracy, the government 
has no alternative but reluctantly to issue the passport as the lesser evil. 

Some people feel that the use of confidential information in such cases means 
using vague and unsubstantial gossip or allegation that will not stand the light 
of day. This is nonsense. In the first place, if one is prepared to believe that 
the Secretary of State who must personally decide passport appeals cases, 
would actually base a considered decision upon anything less than substantial 
and corroborated evidence, then one must believe that our country's security 
is in far grenter danger than from the capricious denial of passports. 

In the second place, confidential information is almost always a small part 
of any total case, although usually essential because of the clear proof it pro- 
vides. Most of every case can be fully and publicly disclosed. 

Beyond this, however, we believe, based on a careful review of the Commu- 
nist cases we have had in the past, that in every case the government can 
provide a fair summary of even the confidential information both to the appli- 
cant and to the courts. Such a fair summary would include all the pertinent 
reasons for which the passport is denied, and would exclude only those details 
required to protect confidential sources of information. 

I would have no objection to any legislation requiring the government in all 
cases to provide such a fair summary of the content of any confidential infor- 
mation relied upon. 

THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER 

One other thing should be clear. What we are talking about is not a crim- 
inal proceeding in which someone is being tried or punished for past actions, 
but an administrative process which attempts to predict someone's future course 
of action if he travels abroad, and to balance its potential danger to the United 
States against the desirability of facilitating the travel and giving him pro- 
tection while he is performing it. These are services which the government 
should extend to its citizens, but they are not inviolable rights which the indi- 
vidual can demand no matter what the menace to society may be. 

Even having said this, however, much about this subject remains repugnant 
to Americans. The use of "confidential information" in any kind of proceed- 
ing, judicial or not ; indeed any sort of governmental restriction, whether on 
travel or passports or any other activity of the individual ; these are things 
which we will never like and which I hope we never accept apathetically. 

Here, however, I believe, we must face squarely one fact which is inherent 
in every aspect of this matter which we have been discussing today. That is 
simply stated, that our nation, although not technically at war, assuredly is 
not at peace. We face, almost on a daily basis, actual threats to our national 
security and to our very existence which very clearly are the equal of any 

39742—59 11 



884 PASSPORT SECURITY 

threats we have ever faced in peace or war. One need only think of the impli- 
cations of Berlin today, or the countless crises of the past decade, to realize 
that the "cold war" is a contradiction in terms. 

This uneasy situation of not peace, not war, is something entirely new to our 
experience. It places a tremendous strain upon our governmental and Consti- 
tutional institutions, for it blurs lines which had always previously been con- 
sidered sharp and clear. 

It used to be that when our nation was not at war it was truly at peace. 
Certain miles obtained and governed our lives in peacetime. These rules were 
evolved over a century and a half by and for a free people who since the earliest 
days of their history had been faced by no serious external threat to their freen 
dom or their national existence. Occasionally war came, and there was a clear 
line of demarcation. War was declared and waged with certain formalities. 
During wartime certain special rules obtained because the nation temporarily 
required the subordination of individual desires to the overall national effort. 
These special rules, while repugnant, were considered tolerable for the limited 
duration of the war. When the war was over, other prescribed formalities 
occurred, the nation was at peace again, and the special wartime rules, which 
were usually incompatible with complete constitutional freedom were dropped. 

This sharp demarcation between peace and war does not exist today. Inter- 
nationnl communism has thrown away the rule book. It does not consider 
itself ever at peace. It is always totally mobilized to advance its aim of world 
domination. It does not recognize any of the accepted rules of international or 
legal or human conduct except when, and only for as long as, those rules may 
suit its purpose. 

This situation creates an unprecedented threat both to our liberty and to our 
very existence. Our response must include a recognition of these changed cir- 
cumstances, or risk the loss of existence and liberty together. 

The threat, moreover, will continue to exist, perhaps for many years in the 
future. This makes it imperative that whatever response we do adopt must 
be one that we can indefinitely sustain, -and without endangering the strength 
or the integrity of our basic and cherished institutions which we are seeking 
to protect. 

I believe that such a response is possible to a free people. I believe that our 
institutions — our Constitution, our laws, and our form of government — are 
strong enough and flexible enough to adjust to these changed circumstances, 
just as they have adjusted to many changes in the past. 

I have tried to illustrate what I mean by suggesting, in the limited but impor- 
tant field of passport policy, a procediu'e which meets these criteria. It meets, 
I believe, the most pressing requirements of national security. It does so by 
law and under the Constitution. 

I think, for the reasons I have given, that adequate passport legislation is 
essential to our security. But let me be very clear. I do not believe that 
this piece of legislation will eliminate all the dangers which we face from the 
Communist conspiracy ; or even all of those which it is intended to counter. 

I do believe that adequate passport legislation is a necessary and integral 
part of the screen of weapons we have raised against the conspiracy, and that 
it will seriously cripple the effectiveness of that conspiracy. 

I do believe, finally, that all our weapons together, wisely and effectively used, 
will contain the internal menace of the Communist conspiracy within tolerable 
limits while our military strength deters its worldwide menace and our foreign 
policy seeks to replace its threat with a just and durable peace. 

Mr. Hanes. I think it is both of importance and interest to this 
committee to know that the late Secretary Dulles personally went 
over carefully and vigorously approved the text of my speech that 
has just been inserted into the record. 

I believe it will also be of interest to this subcommittee, in its con- 
sideration of passport legislation, to note that the speech deals not only 
with the need for legislation but also with the type of legislation we 
feel is most adequate from an administrative and legal viewpoint. _ 

The Department of State strongly believes it is essential that legis- 
lation be passed authorizing the Secretary of State to deny passports 
to hard-core, active supporters of the international Communist move- 



PASSPORT SECURITY 885 

ment. We believe, moreover, that such denial should occur luider ap- 
propriate guarantees of due process of law, and that the authority 
should never be used capriciously or merely to attempt to stop criticism 
abroad of this Government or its policies. Such criticism of our laws 
and our institutions by Americans traveling in foreign countries 
may sometimes be hard for us to stomach, but we can survive it. 

The Department seeks only the capacity to protect the United States 
by denying passports to those relatively few active supporters of the 
Communist movement whose travel abroad constitutes an actual 
danger to the United States. 

This concludes my opening statement. I shall be happy to attempt 
to reply to any questions the committee may wish to ask. 

Mr. Moulder. Have you any questions, Mr. Doyle ? 

Mr. Doyle. What legislation should be suggested to Congress? 

Mr. Hanes. Mr. Doyle, we have never felt that there is any one 
single bill that will answer all questions. 

Mr. Doyle. I will withdraw my question because of the time ele- 
ment, and 1 will let our counsel ask the questions to bring out what I 
had started to go into. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, there are a few questions that I had 
in mind asking to point out a little more definitely some matters re- 
ferred to in the statement. It may save a duplication of effort. 

Is it correct that the Secretary cannot now deny a passport to an 
active Communist Party official ? 

Mr. Hanes. Yes, sir; it is entirely correct that he cannot deny a 
passport to an active Communist official. 

We have no authority whatsoever to deny a passport on those 
grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Foster, himself, I believe, has applied, or has indi- 
cated he is going to apply, for a passport. I do not want you to 
express an opinion in advance of such an application, but that would be 
one matter the State Department would have to act upon ? 

Mr. Hanes. Well, let me say on the grounds of his being a Com- 
munist official, we have no grounds to deny him or any other person 
a passport. 

Mr. Tavenner. If the Department had knowledge that a Commu- 
nist Party official was going to the Soviet Union to receive directives 
for the Communist Party in this countiy, could the Department re- 
frain from issuing a passport under the present law? 

Mr. Hanes. I see no way, sir, in which we could. In fact, I would 
find it inconceivable that any Communist who went to the Soviet 
Union would not receive instructions at the time that he was there. 
I am quite certain he would. Even if, however, we had knowledge 
of this fact, that does not provide any grounds on which we could 
deny a passport under the rulings of the court. 

Mr. Tavenner. To emphasize the far-reaching effect of the Su- 
preme Court decisions, I would like to ask you whether or not, in a 
case where you had information, let us say direct evidence, that a 
Communist Party official was going to the Soviet Union to enter a 
training school on espionage, you could do anything about denying 
him a passport. 

Mr. Hanes. No, sir; we could do nothing about denying him a 
passport. There is no violation of U.S. law in entering a school for 



886 PASSPORT SECURITY 

espionage. There are no grounds which we have left on which we 
could deny him a passport, even if we had the information you sug- 
gest. 

Mr. Tavenner. How does travel abroad by a hard-core, active par- 
ticipant in the Communist movement hurt the United States? 

Mr. Hanes. This, Mr. Tavenner, is a question that we are very fre- 
quently asked, and it is a very central question to the whole matter 
that you are considering. 

I would like, therefore, to give a slightly extended answer to this, 
because there really is more than one part to this answer. 

The basic answer lies in the nature of the Communist conspiracy, 
the international conspiracy and that part of it which exists in our 
country. It is a conspiracy. It is directed from outside, as you are 
well aware. It is directed basically from Moscow. It is aimed at 
subversion, at espionage, and at all of the other things that can 
weaken our country, weaken the strength that we have, which is the 
only strength in the world that prevents the Soviet Union from 
achieving world conquest. 

It operates as a conspiracy. It operates secretly. It also operates 
openly at times when it can. But it always operates secretly. 

It has agents, it has couriers. It is a large conspiracy around the 
world. It is an immense thing. It has unlimited fmids and resources 
from the Soviet Union. In many ways, it is a large bureaucracy. It 
requires all of the things that any large organization does require. It 
requires people and requires communications. It requires orders being 
transmitted. It requires all of the type of movement that any large 
organization does. 

Above all, I emphasize it requires communication. It is directed 
from outside. It requires, therefore, most particularly, a continuing 
and a trusted method of contact between its outside sources of direc- 
tion (and, incidentally, frequently of financing and sometimes of per- 
sonnel support) and that branch of the organization which exists in 
this country. 

It is true that such communication can take place by letter, perhaps 
through a diplomatic pouch, or even by cable or telegraph or tele- 
phone, but the Communists, no more than any other secret organiza- 
tion, care to utilize methods like this when they can possibly avoid 
doing so. 

They don't like to put things down in writing. I would not either 
if I were running a secret organization of this sort. There is too 
much danger of compromise. 

Their own security regulations, in other words, have always pro- 
vided, as has always been well known to us, that the maximum amount 
of communication shall be maintained by word of mouth, by indi- 
viduals, by somebody going from one place to another with a message 
or in order to get the information or the instructions or the money, 
or whatever it may be that is required. 

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

Mr. Hanes. On the basis of all of these things, it becomes apparent, 
it seems to me, that it is necessary for this large organization to be 
able to have its people in contact with others who are in this con- 
spiracy elsewhere than in this country. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 887 

This could, of course, be achieved by others coming to our country 
to bring these messages. But we have laws and regulations which 
rather effectively control that. Therefore, what is left in this 
sense is that American Communists must go where they need to 
go; and, incidentally, this is useful in itself because there are some 
sources of direction, some institutions of what we might call higher 
subversive learning, which they couldn't attend by being brought 
here, they could go to only if they could travel. 

Now, I have answered this at some length. This does not answer 
completely why the travel of any one Communist is a danger to us. 
But let me emphasize what I said in my testimony, that at the present 
time the state of the law and our regulations are such that it isn't 
j ust one Communist who is able to travel. It is any one of the members 
of this organization, and the total pattern of their travel is the pat- 
tern that makes this organization work. 

This is the thing on which it is dependent to work. I don't say 
that if we had passport legislation we could cut off all means of their 
traveling and of their communicating. We could not. They could 
still perhaps travel illegally at times. You can go to South America 
and travel further illegally, you can do these things, but the record 
shows they have done practically none of this during the years they 
could. 

Very few have taken advantage of this, and it seems to me for a 
good reason, because when you go around corners like that, when you 
stretch a trail thin, when you have to do things illegally and back- 
ward, you leave a much more open and obvious trail that somebody is 
going to pickup. 

You have that many more people who have to be in on it, you have 
that much more danger of compromise and, therefore, again, they 
don't like to have to do this. In extremity, they_ would, and in ex- 
tremity I suppose they would communicate by mail, too, and through 
the pouch. But in some things this is not enough. 

I don't know, for example, how you would recruit an agent by mail, 
and I don't think they know, either. 

Mr. Moulder. And, too, don't you believe that visits by American 
Communist Party members from the United States to the Soviet 
Union strengthen their following into particular Communist prac- 
tices in that country through the use of propaganda? They make 
propaganda use of those visits by Communists in the Soviet Union in 
their newspapers and publicity which they give as a result of those 
visits. 

Mr. Hanes. There is no question, Mr. Chairman, that this is abso- 
lutely true. Because it is a little more intangible I didn't mention 
this, but it certainly is another aspect of the danger. 

But even the demonstrable and obvious dangers of the type that I 
mentioned, it seems to me, should be enough without our looking 
even beyond this. 

Mr. Moulder. That brings the Americans toward the people of the 
Soviet Union when that happens. 

Mr. Hanes. There is no question in my mind but that every time an 
American gets up in front of a Communist Party congress and starts 
praising the Soviet Union, the Soviet system, and tearing down the 
American system, certainly this has an effect wherever the Connnu- 
nists put it out throughout the world; and they certainly do put it 



PASSPORT SECURITY 

out throuiihoiit the world, lond and clear throiifi^h theii- media. And it 
does work with some people in the more backward areas of the world, 
where people are more naive, I have no doubt that sometimes people 
take this as an authoritative voice from America. 

Mr. Moulder. And it also keeps down dissensions within the Soviet 
Union itself, discourages resentment or dissension of the people. 

Mr. Hanes. To the extent it can be made to appear that there is 
strong support for communism in America, it certainly does so. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. In one exhibit introduced into the record this after- 
noon, we had a graphic illustration of that with the American woman 
representing wives and mothers embracing the North Korean with re- 
spect to the prosecution of the Korean conflict. 

Mr. Hanes. I think there is no question about that, sir. This sort 
of thing, with regard to North Korea particularly, was at a time 
when American troops were fighting a war there : anything, of course, 
that strengthens the belief that the Communists constantly try to fos- 
ter, that there is a vast difference between the American people and 
their Government, of course this is something that does what you say. 

I have tried, as I say, to suggest the total danger. Sometimes, of 
course, there is a specific danger, even in an individual traveling, 
that can be demonstrated. Not very often, however, because usually 
these dangers are things that we can only predict on the basis of our 
total Iniowledge of the Communist conspiracy and how it operates. 
They don't volunteer to us exactly what they are doing. Sometimes 
they do, and sometimes there is a demonstrable danger in an individ- 
ual's travel. 

Mr. Tavenner. In that connection, I suppose in many cases you 
are compelled to use confidential information in coming to a decision 
or a conclusion in a particular instance? 

Mr. Haistes. I would go further than that. In the field of Com- 
munist passport matters, I would say tliat almost in every instance, 
you are required to use confidential information. Certainly in almost 
every instance if you are going to use the kind of criteria that I 
suggested, which is that you are talking about persons who are a 
real danger. A real danger means a current danger in most cases, 
not a danger that existed twenty years ago but which has since dis- 
appeared. 

The more current our information is about someone in the Commu- 
nist apparatus and the danger he poses, the more likely it is that we 
are unable to use it or to ex]iose it publicly, and we must keep it confi- 
dential : because more than likely it comes from our primary sources 
of information, which are sources within the Communist Party. The 
greatest defense that we have, of all our defenses against the internal 
Communist menace, is knowledge of what it is doing. 

We have other defenses, travel controls, and others, but the greatest 
of the defenses is knowledge. Any time we are forced to choose 
between the use of one defense and another, in other words to dry up a 
current source of knowledge in order to defend against, let us say, the 
travel of an individual, we must, however reluctantly, if we are made 
to take that choice, choose to m.aintain the greatest defense, which is 
knowledge, and accept the other risk, however grave it is. 

But without question I would say that the primary sources, the 
fundamental sources of our information, on current Communist cases 
are confidential. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 889 

This does not mean, by the way, that the entire case is confidential 
by any manner of means. Generally the confidential information in- 
volved in a case is a relatively small part of the total case, yet an ex- 
tremely important part, because it usually provides the truth, the 
proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 

If you have something from a firsthand informant whom you know 
is all right because he is yours, this is what is called A-1 information, 
and this is the convincing proof on which you are willing to act. 

All of the otlier things, then, that are, in general, able to be produced 
are given credence because of this. 

The total case cannot be made public in most cases. However, we 
feel that in all cases, what we would call a fair summary of the con- 
fidential information, could be made available publicly, keeping con- 
fidential only those aspects required to protect the source of 
information. 

But the general nature of the information, ample information to 
demonstrate why a passport was being refused, ample information 
upon which somebody could base a rebuttail if he were able to rebut it, 
this, we feel, could be made available. 

Incidentally, I might point out one other thing, that you generally 
can't even prove that a Communist is a Communist or a Communist 
organization is a Communist organization without the use of confi- 
dential information. So very often the whole ground on which a case 
must rest also depends on that. 

The Communists don't mail their party cards around, and generally 
you don't have them. The only way you know that they exist is 
that somebody has seen one or has helped write it or has seen the 
book, or something of that sort. 

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, for a program of security pass- 
port legislation to have any chance of being successfully administered, 
it would have to take into consideration the discretion on the part 
of the Secretary of State in his use of confidential information ? 

Mr. Hanes. It would absolutely have to do this. As I say, this 
would not in any way preclude the Secretary giving a full ground on 
which he bases his refusal, but it would require that he be able to do 
whatever is necessar}^ to protect investigative sources and methods; 
and it is usually the sources more than the nature of confidential in- 
formation. 

If I might make one comment in this connection, when people talk 
about confidential information, you frequently get a reaction indicat- 
ing that they feel that you are talking about gossip or allegation or 
something vague, and the reason tliat it is confidential and you have 
to keep it confidential is that if you get it in the light of day it is so 
tenuous it would fall flat. 

This, of course, is not in any sense the kind of information I am 
talking about. In fact, the harder, the more conclusive, the more 
current, and, indeed, the more authoritative any piece of confidential 
information in this field is, the less likel}' it is that we can make it 
public, because the more likely it is that it comes from one of our 
very highest, trusted, and best and most current sources of informa- 
tion, whereas the kind of information that you can make public is gen- 
erally that which has long been in the public domain or creates no 
such problem. 



890 PASSPORT SECURITY 

I would also point out that the final decision under our old regula- 
tions, subject, of course, always to review by the courts, the final de- 
cision had to be made (and we always felt it was a wise regulation) 
by tlie Secretary of State personally. And the Secretary of State did 
make tliese decisions personally after going over this information. 

As I pointed out before, if you feel that the Secretary is going to 
exercise this discretion in order to utilize some tenuous and worth- 
less information in order to come to a decisio)i, then you must feel 
that the country is in a lot graver danger than by his being arbitrary 
in the issuance of passports. 

Mr. JoHANSEN". May I comment at that point, that I gather the 
import of your testimony, Mr. Hanes, to be that there must be some 
discretionary authority, and obviously that discretionary authority 
must be vested somewhere in a responsible Federal official in the State 
Department. 

jSIr. Hanes. Yes, sir, absolutely. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. I will he perfectly willing to be called to order bj^ 
the chairman for this observation, but I find that testimony not 
only very sound and solid, but I find very important relevance in 
that principle to hearings which are currently being held before an- 
otlier committee of which I am a member, the House Committee on 
Post Office and Civil Service, with respect to Government security 
legislation. 

I wish that that sort of a principle and statement could be enunci- 
ated as clearly and as brilliantly as I think the witness has with re- 
spect to that legislative field before that committee. 

Mr. Hanes. Thank you, sir. It certainly is true that in a field of 
this sort, unless somebody is trusted to exercise some authority and 
discretion, then you are not talking about anything that is capable of 
administration in any practical sense. You can surround adminis- 
tration by all the safeguards that are needed. I think you can sur- 
round it by perfectly ample safeguards. But somebody has to have 
some authority and discretion. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. Would you conceive it possible to have such elab- 
orate and extensive safeguards, and to still have the effect of shackling 
and handcuffing the operation ? 

Mr. Hanes. Yes, sir, I would. Again, safeguards, it seems to me, 
have to be realistic also. There are some safegiiards that are basic 
and elemental. But in the first instance, any administrative proce- 
dure in any major department of government, as is well known to this 
committee, anything that goes to the Secretary of State and goes 
through the kind of hearing process tliat we had in our former pass- 
port regulations is going to go through careful sciiitiny at level after 
level after level, and finally, as I say, at the highest levels of the ad- 
ministration of government. 

Mr. JoHANSEN. But not to the point that you completely, as I say, 
shackle the very intent of national defense and national security. 

Mr. Hanes. No, sir. As I say, somewhere, somewhere, there has 
to be a point where, having gone through this, somebody can make 
an authoritative decision. 

Mr. JonANSEN. Isn't the ultimate, final safeguard the right of ad- 
judication in the courts? 

Mr. Hanes. That is what I was just going to say. This always 
exists. It seems to me that having provided these safeguards, which 



PASSPORT SECURITY 891 

I have mentioned and which I thmk are not shackling that the provi- 
sion, on top of that of saying that even with all this nobody is al- 
lowed to make a decision, that does become shackles. 

I would like to add one word to this, Mr. Johansen. One of the 
things that would most definitely be shackling as you suggested, is 
any legislation that enjoined the use of confidential information, 
because, as I say, to do that would be to create the illusion of control- 
ling the travel of Communists whereas in operation there would be 
no effective control. 

Mr. Johansen. I am sure you meant to bring that out. 

Mr. Hanes. Yes, certainly. 

Mr. Tavenner. May I ask you to Avliat extent derogator}' infor- 
mation, which applicants so frequently harp upon as being denied 
them, is actually used when furnished hj the State Department ^ 

Mr. Hanes. You are referring to these Communist cases, I suppose ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. In the Commmiist cases. 

Mr. Hanes. I listened to you here earlier this afternoon, and you 
have gone through this sort of thing a lot of times. It is well known 
to all of us, and it has certainly been tirelessly made apparent to us 
in all of these hearings, that they are not interested in having deroga- 
tor}^ information, they are not interested in having anything else that 
they don't have or that they claim they want. If you give them what 
they want, then tliey just find something else that they want. Wliat 
they want to do is harp on something they don't have and try on that 
basis to challenge the whole validity of the proceedings. They are 
not interested in derogatory or any other information because they 
are not interested in the facts. That is just what they are most dis- 
tinctly interested in not having come out, the facts. 

What they are interested in is trying in every way to drag out, to 
slow down, to stop, to cripple, to throw doubt on the validity of, to 
throw doubt on the legality of, to do every obfuscating thing possible 
that they can with regard to any kind of process, any kind of hearing, 
any kind of procedure, that is set up, and to seize on any one thing, 
such as the fact that they are not able to have certain derogatory in- 
formation — in the cases where they have asked in some hearings for 
information which we didn't think at first should be made available 
and later on we found could be made available, this didn't satisfy 
them. They were no longer interested in the information once they 
could get it. All they were interested in Avas that they could claim 
they were being denied something. 

If they got it, then they wanted to bury it under the table, because 
if it came out, then it was information and it was usually pretty 
derogatory information and they didn't want it then. 

Mr, Tavenner. The committee would be interested in knowing or 
getting an appraisal from you as to the value of a nonmembership 
oath requirement. Of course, that has been at this time invalidated 
by the Supreme Court,'s decision. 

But I ask you that question for another reason. It has nothing to 
do with passports. We so frequently hear opponents of all loyalty 
programs saymg, "Well, there is no use in asking a Communist to give 
an oath because he doesn't regard the sanctity of an oath and, there- 
fore, it doesn't mean anything to him." 

Wliat has been the experience of your department in your oath 
requirement ? 



892 PASSPORT SECURITY 

Mr. Hanes. I feel veiy strongly that the oath requirement was one 
of the most provenly useful aspects of our regulations when we had 
it, and I would very strongly suggest that it be a ]:)art of any future 
legislation. I say this for two reasons: One is that a great many 
people who have applied have failed to execute the oath, and this 
permitted us, without the necessity of these endless hearings which 
they love, to just stop the proceedings because the applicant: was not 
prepared to satisfy a basic requirement. 

We have always felt that if they weren't prepared to do so, we need 
not proceed; and the regulations and Executive orders and laws al- 
ways said there are certain recpiirements you had to meet, such as if 
you don't pay the $10 you don't get a passport. If you don't fill out 
the oath, you don't get it. 

A great many people have refused to do this. This has been one 
of the areas where the Congress has been concerned. It is a little 
bit like income tax and gangsters. It is hard to get^ — — 

Mr. Tavrnner. You are speaking of perjury prosecutions? 

Mr. Hanes. Yes. They are frightened. This has been something 
a great many of them have come to and have not gone over the hurdle. 
Then, of course, a tremendous number apparently never came forward 
at all seeking a passport because of the existence of this oath require- 
ment. I sa}^, apparently, because they are coming forth now. 

But there were an awful lot of these people that did not try. 

Incidentally, the kind of oath is not necessarily one of nonmember- 
ship. This is the point I wanted to make on this : We have felt that 
people going forward to get passports should, as a matter of proce- 
dure, be required to state whether they are, or have l^een, members of 
the Communist Party. The requirement was not that you take an 
oath first that you were never a. member of the Communist Party in 
order to be eligible to receive a passport. The statement was con- 
sidered on its merits under the regulations. Thus it is improper to 
refer to it, as many have, as a test oath. This term is often misunder- 
stood. We have never felt that you have to get up and swear you 
are not a Communist and have never been a Communist, but the im- 
portant aspect of this is that before you can proceed with a passport 
application, you have to state whether you have been a Communist. 
In other words, our requirement was that the oath be submitted, not 
that it be answered in a certain way. So it was not a requirement that 
you swore you had not l)een one, but that you were willing to state 
under oatli what you had been. 

As you say, there has been an awful lot of comment about this oath 
provision. We felt it to be tremendously useful. The vast majority 
of ordinary citizens (and these people whom we are talking about are 
not) never would worry about taking an oath of this sort. I have 
always been pleased to take an oath on this subject mj^self . 

]\Ir. JoHANSEN". Actually it would involve a disclosure from the 
standpoint of Communist security concerns, a disclosure of confiden- 
tial information, which, for security reasons, quite a]>art possibly 
from even fear of perjury prosecution, they wouldn't be willing to 
disclose. In other words, they don't want to surface. 

Mr. Hanes. Yes. That is the point I was trying to make. Ab- 
solutely. 

I might add one or two points which I intended to cover in answer 
to some of Mr. Tavenner's earlier questions. 



PASSPORT SECURITY 893 

There is generally no way we can know or ascertain exactly why a 
particular Communist wishes to travel abroad. He is not going to tell 
us on his application that he wants to subvert us or that he has a Com- 
munist mission to accomplish. We would be exceedingly naive if we 
did not assume that a Communist is certainly not going to advance our 
foreign policy interests; nor is he going to miss any opportunity to 
engage in activities inimical to our national security even if siich is not 
the primary purpose of his trip. We may have information in a par- 
ticular case as to what a Communist intends to do abroad, but the more 
nefarious the purpose, the less likely we will be in a position to docu- 
ment it for the open record. Our foreign intelligence depends upon 
close cooperation with other friendly governments, and we cannot 
afford to prejudice our arrangements in this area. The facts in a par- 
ticular case are almost always speculative, if for no other reason than 
because they relate to future action. However, as Circuit Judge Fahy 
said in his dissent in Briehl v. Dulles^ "The Secretary cannot be re- 
quired to assume that a real Communist Party member who is a citizen 
of or otherwise owes allegiance to the United States, can be relied 
upon to adhere to his obligation of citizenship when it conflicts with 
the responsibility he has assumed by party membership." Moreover, 
we have no way of knowing, at least until after the damage has been 
done, where a Communist is going and what he is doing. ( Once a per- 
son with a passport is out of the country we have no control over where 
he goes or what he does.) His travel and his actions are governed 
entirely by whatever country he is able to and >v4shes to enter. Fur- 
thermoi'e, Communists are notorious for misrepresenting the purposes 
of their travel and for that matter tiie places they intend to visit. 
They can always manufacturing a ''sick grandmother" they must visit 
or any number of compassionate reasons for the proposed travel. 

Legislation vvdiich would require the Department to demonstrate the 
specific anticipated harm to be caused by the travel of a particular 
Communist, as some well-meaning commentators have suggested, 
would in my opinion place an intolerable burden on the Department 
and render ineffective any realistic control over the travel of Commu- 
nists abroad. And, of coui'se, legislation in this area should not be 
restricted to members of the Communist Party or persons under paity 
discipline or control, but should include any person, regardless of liis 
organizational affiliations, who is going abroad knowingly to engage 
in activities in furtherance of the Communist conspiracy. Wliatever 
may be said about the Communists, they are not dumb, and they are 
very adept at utilizing non-Communists to accomplish their purposes. 
We kriow, for example, that most of the Communist underground 
apparatus maintains no demonstrable comiection with the Communist 
Party. Top espionage agents are rarely formal membsrs of the party. 
This problem is clearly apparent in the f:ir-rcaching effect of the Day- 
ton case, where the Supreme Court iield that, quite apart from the 
question of Communist Party membership, the Secretary of State did 
not have statutory authority to deny a passport to a person whom he 
has found to be going abroad knowingly to engage in activities in 
furtherance of the Communist movement. 

Let us not forget with reference to this matter that a Communist 
utilizing the vast resources of the party has little trouble documenting 
the "fact" that the purpose of his travel abroad is innocuous. Expe- 



894 PASSPORT SECURITY 

rience has shown that a Communist can produce an endless stream of 
affidavits from Commnnist lawyers, doctors, etc., attesting to the "fact" 
that he is going abroad to paint or to sing or for his health. We should 
not be taken in by so obvious a tactic, 

Mr. Moulder. Proceed with the next question. 

Mr. Tavenner. I believe that is all, Mr. Chainnan. 

Mr. Moulder. Without excusing Mr. Hanes as the witness, the com- 
mittee will convene in executive session immediately. 

The record will show that the subcommittee is now convening into 
executive session. 

(Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the subcommittee proceeded into execu- 
tive session, at the conclusion of which it reconvened in public session, 
and the following business was transacted :) 

Mr. Moulder. The committee after executive session returns and is 
now in open session. 

The committee, Mr. Hanes, is very much impressed with the clear, 
frank statements which you have made regarding the passport secu- 
rity regulations and practices and the state of the law with regard to 
them. You have the thanks of the committee for the contribution 
you have made to its efforts in this field. 

The subcommittee, after discusion of the matter, has unanimously 
agreed to request you to report specifically to the committee, orally or 
in writing, any suggestions that you have to offer regarding the form 
that a bill should take to cover the subjects of chapters 2 and 3 of the 
provisions of the immigration and passport security bill, referred to 
this committee as part of H.R. 2232. 

However, I think I should point out to you that this committee is 
concerned only with the security provisions of the passport laws, and 
we do not consider that matters relating to broader subjects in the field 
of passport law come within our jurisdiction. 

In other words, we only invite your comment and recommendations 
on the security phases of this subject under consideration by this 
committee. 

In response to this action by the subcommittee in executive session, 
I extend this invitation to you, and on behalf of this subcommittee I 
repeat our appreciation for your important and helpful cooperation 
in our hearings and deliberations on legislation to amend and 
strengthen the security provisions of the passport laws. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hanes. Mr. Chairman, I wnll be very happy to respond to that 
request. It will take perhaps a few days. I will be glad to submit 
my comments concerning these chapters and concerning my thoughts. 

Incidentally, I have liad occasion to look at the chapters you 
referred to of the passpoii: security bill, and while there are a number 
of amendments I would suggest, I think my ideas are very close to the 
ideas expressed therein. 

Mr. Moui.DER. I see. Thank you. 

The committee will be adjourned. 

(Members of the subcommittee present at time of adjournment were 
Representatives Moulder and Johansen.) 

(Wliereupon, at 4:30 p.m., Friday, June 5, 1959, the subcommittee 
adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.) 



INDEX 



Individuals 

A Page 

Acheson (Dean) 881 

B 

Batista (Fulgeneio) 868 

Bentley, Elizabeth Terrill 818, 819 

Berman, Victor Michael 746, 784, 845-849 (testimony) 

Boudin, Leonard B 784, 785, 788, 803, 825, 845 

Bridges, Harry 771 

Browder, Earl 860 

C 

Chambers, Whittaker 818, 819 

Clark, Tom 781 

Clifton, Evelyn 800 

Cronan, Walter (Irving) 784 

D 
David, Jay 818 

Dennis, Eugene 843 

Dulles (John Foster) 877, 882, 884 

B 

Efross, Sidney Tzvie 747, 849-861 (testimony) 

Eisenhower (Dwight D.) 877, 882 

F 

Fahy (Charles) 893 

Forer, Joseph 773, 793, 803, 849 

Foster (William Z.) 860, 885 

Friedman, Dorothy Ray 743, 785-788 (testimony) 

Fuchs, Herbert 822 

G 

Godsy, Sharon 792 

Golos, Jacob : 818 

Gross, Natalie 813 

Grotewohl, Otto 812 

H 

Haimowitz, Ely 798 

Haimowitz, Leonore (Mrs. Ely Haimowitz, nee Kantor) 744, 

798-801 (testimony) 

Hanes, John W., Jr 747, 748, 874-894 (testimony) 

Hickey, Edward J 867 

Hoover, J. Edgar 879 

Hsu Tschen Schu 865 

I 
Illsley, Walter 800 

J 
Jackson (Robert H.) 830, 831, 837, 876 

i 



11 INDEX 

K 

Kahn, Arthur David 745, 809-814 (testimony) 

Kantor, Leonore. {See Haimowitz, Leonore.) 

Khrushchev (Nikita) 771 

Knight, Frances G 745, 817, 819, 821, 844 

M 

Markward, Mary 852 

Medina (Harold R.) 841,842 

Millard, Elizabeth Boyntou (Betty) 747, 803, 861-874 (testimony) 

Mlrcheff, Bocho 743,744,793-798 (testimony) 

Muller, Emmy 790 

Muller, Fred Paul 743,788-792 (testimony) 

N 

Needleman, Isidore G 861 

Nowacki, Casimir Tliaddeus 742, 743, 773-784 (testimony) 

Nowak, Stanley (Stanislaw) 744, 803-808 (testimony) 

O 
O'Connor (Roderic) 745, 821 

P 
Padilla, Mario 800 

Patterson, William L. (Lorenzo) 741, 742, 749-771 (testimony), 879 

Penha, Armando 743, 786 

Peoples, Frank 747, 858-861 

Perez Jimenez, Marcos 868 

Perlo, Victor 745,814-822 (testimony) 

Peters, J 818 

Popper, Martin 746, 808, 825-845 (testimony), 874 

Prettyman (Elijah B.) 837,877 

R 

Racolin, Alex 845 

Rein, David 814 

Reineuier, Vic 847 

Rienier, Mortimer 746, 845 

Riesel, Victor 771 

S 

Sacher, Harry 845 

Shipley, Ruth B 767, 768, 841, 842, 852 

Silberstein, Robert J 826 

Sipes, John W 747, 874 

Stalin, Joseph 771 

T 

Tito (Josip) 869 

Truman, Harry S 781, 841 

U 

Unger, Abraham . 749 

V 

Vincent, Craig 813 

Vincent, Jeanette Wells 813 

W 
Ward, Roosevelt 848 

Organizations 

A 
All-Slav Congress, 1946, Belgrade 794 

American Bar Association 750, 830 

American Labor Party (New York State) 813 



INDEX lil 

B 

Bulgarian-American People's League 794 

O i 

Chicago Council on Foreign Relations 877 

Civil Rights Conference, November 13, 14, 1948, London. (See entry 
under National Council for Civil Liberties. ) 

Civil Rights Congress 752, 761, 843 

Communist Party, U.S.A. : 

Latin American Affairs Section 868 

National Board 880 

States : 

California : 

Los Angeles : 

Nationalities Commission 781 

Colorado : 
Boulder : 

Bill Haywood Branch 848 

University of Colorado, Student Branch 746, 747, 848 

New York City 845 

La Pasionaria Club (Brooklyn) 813 

Ohio: 

Lorain : 

Steel Club 858, 859 

Conference of the Women of Asia— Peking 863 

Council on Foreign Relations (Chicago). {See Chicago Coimcil on For- 
eign Relations.) 

F 

Freedom of the Press Committee. {See National Committee for Freedom 
of the Press.) 

H 
Howard University 846 

I 

Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees 815 

International Association of Democratic Lawyers, Third Congress, Sep- 
tember 6, 1948, Prague, Czechoslovakia 832-834 

International Congress of Lawyers (1946, Paris, France) 746, 832, 833 

International Democratic Federation of Women, East Germany, IDFF 865 

International Labor Defense 752 

M 
Mexican-Russian Cultural Institute 800 

N 

National Committee for Freedom of the Press, Chicago 821 

National Council for Civil Liberties ; Conference for Civil Rights, No- 
vember 13, 14, 1948, London 761 

National Council of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions 843 

National Federation for Constitutional Liberties 843 

National Lawyers Guild 746, 826, 830-833, 8.36, 845 

National Tube Company, Lorain, Ohio 853-855, 858, 859 

P 

Polish Workers Party, United 776 

Polonia Club 780 

S 

San Cristobal Valley Ranch (New Mexico) 813 

Slavic Council of Southern California 781 



iv INDEX 

U 
United Polish Workers Party. {See Polish Workers Party, United.) 
U.S. Government: 

Army, Department of the : 

Office of Military Government, Office of Director of Infonuation 

Control (OMGUS), Berlin 810 

Office of Strategic Services (OSS) 745, 809, 812 

State Department 747, 823, 874, 875, 877, 880, 881, 884, 885, 893 

Supreme Court 824, 875, 878 

V 
Veterans for Peace 813 

W 

Women's International Democratic Federation 863, 864, 871 

World Youth Festival, Second, Budapest, August 1949 746, 847 

Publications 

Betrayal: Our Occupation of Germany (book) 812 

Bonus for Murder 812 

Glos Ludowy 781, 806 

Latin America Today 871 

Narodna Volya 795 

People's Voice. ( See Glos Ludowy. ) 

Slavic American, The (quarterly) 796 

Slavic American News 781,782 

Tagliche Runschau (East German publication) 865 

Worker, The 741, 749, 752 

O 



r-i- 



BOSTON PUBLIC UBRA^^^^^ 



ill 
3*9999 05706 3131 



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

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