States, and the power of the Federal Government itself to protect its very existence against subversive conspiracy.

The committee on Communist strategy and tactics of the American Bar Association recently reported on the current Communist line, and the first four items it listed were these:

1. Repeal or weaken the anti-Communist legislation on the books, especially the Smith Act, the Internal Security Act, and the Subversive Activities Control Act.

2. Discredit and hamper the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, the House Un-American Activities Committee, and State officials investigating communism. 3. Weaken the effectiveness of the FBI and reveal its sources of information. 4. Destroy the Federal security system.

All of those purposes have been well served by the recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court to which I refer.

I think it would be helpful, Mr. Chairman, if this report of the American Bar Association's committee could be included in our hearing record.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be admitted.

(The report follows:)

[From New York Herald Tribune, European edition, July 26, 1957]

TEXT OF REPORT TO THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ON COMMUNISM

LONDON, July 25.--Following is the text of a full report made today to the 80th annual meeting of the American Bar Association by Senator Herbert R. O'Conor, Democrat of Maryland, former chairman of the Committee on Communist Activities of the American Bar Association House of Delegates:

PRIVY COUNCILORS ON SECURITY

In the statement of findings of the Conference of Privy Councilors on Security which was presented by the Prime Minister to Parliament in London last year, several conclusions are of especial interest and pertinency in relation to the vitally important subject of subversive activities and of the preferable way in which they can be handled.

This well-considered document stresses basic principles which must ever be observed under the system of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. Commendable indeed is the deliberation which was manifested by this undertaking; and significant is the fact that Her Majesty's Government indicates the approval with which the recommendations were received by the House of Commons. Among the most important items are to be found the following:

“(a) *** That whereas once the main risk to be guarded against was espionage by foreign powers carried out by professional agents, today the chief risks are presented by Communists. *** The Communist faith overrides a man's normal loyalties to his country and induces the belief that it is justifiable to hand over secret information to the Communist foreign power. This risk extends to sympathizers with communism." (b) * ** in certain areas-notably in the Foreign Service, the defense field, and the Atomic Energy Organization-the need for stringent security precautions is greater than elsewhere."

(c)

***** that in these different and often borderline cases it is right to continue the practice of tilting the balance in favor of offering greater protection to the security of the state rather than in the direction of safeguarding the rights of the individuals."

(d) "*** that some of the measures which the state is driven to take to protect its security are in some respect aliens to our traditional practices, thus in order not to imperil sources of information, decisions have sometimes to be taken without revealing full details of the supporting evidence *** that regretfully these countermeasures, although they are distasteful in some respects, are essential if the security of the state is to be ensured."

THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER

Modern history is filled with the wrecks of republics which were destroyed from within by conspiracies masquerading as political parties. The nine justices of the Supreme Tribunal of Germany refused to see that the Nazis were a conspiracy against the very existence of the German Republic. The Kerensky government of Russia thought it could tolerate and coexist with the Communist conspirators. The Communists responded to this toleration by disbanding the Constituent Assembly at bayonet point and destroying the newborn Republic of Russia. The Republics of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and China tried valiantly to coexist with the Communist Party in their midsts, but were unable to do so. We are spending more to equip and defend ourselves and our allies from Communist aggression that we ever spent to stop Japanese aggression. The Japanese found it difficult to purloin our military secrets, but the Communists have stolen many of our military secrets, including vital details of the American atomic and hydrogen bombs which were known to the traitors, Dr. Klaus Fuchs and Dr. Bruno Pontecorvo.

The cynical cruelty with which the Kremlin crushed the Hungarian patriots and executed their leaders is proof by deeds that "the spirit of Geneva" was always a tactic and a sham. Likewise, the admission of Mao Tse-tung in his recently published Peking speech of February 1956 that the Chinese Communists completed the "liquidation" of 800,000 persons between October 1949 and January 1854, and the report published June 15, 1957, by the Senate Internal Security subcommittee that, in fact, more than 15 million persons have been executed in Red China since 1951 proved the fatuity of those who argue that Red China should be admitted into the family of nations and recognized by our Government.

The Communists have conquered large areas of the world according to a carefully enunciated plan. In 1903, Lenin established communism with 17 supporters. In 1917, the Communists conquered Russia with 40,000. In 1957, the Communists are in iron control of 900 million people. Their advance since the end of World War II has been especially tragic.

The Korean war proved that aggression does pay because it was followed by Soviet advances in Tibet, Indochina, and Hungary. After Soviet tanks rolled Into Hungary the Communists succeeded by clever propaganda in electing their Ent government by forms of democratic processes-in the state of Kerala, in In To the Communists "peaceful coexistence" means Communist conquest without war.

COMMUNIST OBJECTIVES

The greatest asset the Communists have at the present time is not the hydrogra bomb, certainly not Soviet satellites, but world ignorance of their tactics, rategy, and objectives. The biggest need today for the free peoples is an awareness of the menace of communism and the ability to isolate the Comwaist line so that whoever utters it may be detected. One speech from the ath of an important American innocent can be worth a truckload of New I Daly Workers in advancing the international Communist conspiracy. nevarrent Communist line includes the following:

1. Repeal or weaken the inti-Communist legislation on the books, especially th Act, the Internal Security Act, and the Subversive Activities Control

2 Discredit and hamper the Senate Internal Security Sumcommittee, the Be Un-American Activities Committee, and State officials investigating turism.

2 Weaken the effectiveness of the FBI and reveal its sources of information. Destroy the Federal security system.

Recognize Red China and admit her to the United Nations.

pose the possibility of the United States breaking off diplomatic relations Soviet Russia.

7 E-large East-West trade, especially in items of short supply behind the Iron

Revive the idea that the Communist Party is just another political party. 1 Use the recent shakeup ni the Kremlin as a guise to revive a “Communist ensive." just as a previous shakeup in the Kremlin brought about the

rit of Geneva."

AMERICAN CASES ARE CITED

In the last 15 months, the United States Supreme Court has decided 15 cases which directly affect the right of the United States of America to protect itself from Communist subversion

1. Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board.-The Court refused to uphold or pass on the constitutionality of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, and delayed the effectiveness of the act.

2. Pennsylvania v. Steve Nelson.-The Court held that it was unlawful for Pennsylvania to prosecute a Pennsylvania Communist Party leader under the Pennsylvania Sedition Act, and indicated that the antisedition laws of 42 States and of Alaska and Hawaii cannot be enforced.

3. Fourteen California Communists v. United States.-The Court reversed two Federal courts and ruled that teaching and advocating forcible overthrow of our Government, even "with evil intent," was not punishable under the Smith act as long as it was "divorced from any effort to instigate action to that end," and ordered 5 Communist Party leaders freed and new trials for another 9.

4. Cole v. Young.-The Court reversed two Federal courts and held that, although the Summary Suspension Act of 1950 gave the Federal Government the right to dismiss employees "in the interest of the national security of the United States," it was not in the interest of the national security to dismiss an employee who contributed funds and services to a not-disputed subversive organization, unless that employee was in a "sensitive position."

5. Service v. Dulles.-The Court reversed two Federal courts which had refused to set aside the discharge of (John Stewart) Service by the State Department. The FBI had a recording of a conversation between Service and an editor of the pro-Communist magazine Amerasia, in the latter's hotel room in which Service spoke of military plans which were "very secret." Earlier the FBI had found large numbers of secret and confidential State Department documents in the Amerasia office. The lower courts had followed the McCarran amendment which gave the Secretary of State "absolute discretion" to discharge any employee “in the interests of the United States."

6. Slochower v. Board of Education of New York. The Court reversed the decisions of three New York courts and held it was unconstitutional to automatically discharge a teacher, in accordance with New York law, because he took the fifth amendment when asked about Communist activities. On petition for rehearing, the Court admitted that its opinion was in error in stating that Slochower was not aware that his claim of the fifth amendment would ipso facto result in his discharge; however, the Court denied rehearing.

7. Sweezy v. New Hampshire. The Court reversed the New Hampshire Supreme Court and held that the attorney of New Hampshire was without authority to question Professor Sweezy concerning a lecture and other suspected subversive activities.

8. United States v. Witkovich.-The Court decided that, under the Immigra tion and Nationality Act of 1952, which provides that any alien against whom there is a final order of deportation shall "give information under oath as to his nationality, circumstances, habits, associations and activities, and such other information, whether unrelated to the foregoing, as the Attorney General may deem fit and proper," the Attorney General did not have the risk to ask Witkovich: "Since the order of deportation was entered in your case on June 23, 1953, have you attended any meetings of the Communist Party of the U. S. A.?"

9. Schware v. Board of Bar Eraminers of New Mexico.-The Court reversed the decisions of the New Mexico Board of Bar Examiners and of the New Mexico Supreme Court which had said: "We believe one who has knowingly given his loyalties to the Communist Party for 6 or 7 years during a period of responsible adulthood is a person of questionable character." The Supreme Court substituted its judgment for that of New Mexico and ruled that "membership in the Communist Party during the 1930's cannot be said to raise substantial doubts about his present good moral character."

10. Konigsberg v. State Bar of California.-The Court reversed the decisions of the California Committee of Bar Examiners and of the California Supreme Court and held that it was unconstitutional to deny a license to practice law to an applicant who refused to answer this question put by the bar committee: "Mr. Konigsberg, are you a Communist?" and a series of similar questions.

11. Jencks v. United States.-The Court reversed two Federal courts and held that Jencks, who was convicted of filing a false non-Communist affidavit, must be given the contents of all confidential reports which were made by any Govern ment witness in the case, even though Jencks restricted his motions to a request

for production of the reports to the trial judge for the judge's inspection and determination whether and to what extent it hinted the reports should be made available.

12. Watkins v. United States.-The Court reversed the Federal district court and six judges of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, and held that the House Un-American Activities Committee should not require a witness who admitted "I freely cooperated with the Communist Party" to name his Communist associates, even though the witness did not invoke the fifth amendment. The Court said: "We remain unenlightened as to the subject to which the questions asked petitioner were pertinent."

13. Raley Stern and Brown v. Ohio.-The Court reversed the Ohio Supreme Court and lower courts and set aside the conviction of three men who had refused to answer questions about Communist activities put to them by the Ohio Un-American Activities Commission.

14. Plazner v. United States.-The Court reversed two Federal courts and set aside the conviction of Flaxner of contempt for refusing to produce records of alleged Communist activities subpenaed by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee.

15. Sacher v. United States.-The Court reversed two Federal courts and set aside the conviction of Sacher of contempt for refusing to tell the Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee whether he was or ever had been a Communist.

The Communist Daily Worker described the effect of these decisions as follows: "The Court delivered a triple-barreled attack on (1) the Department of Justice and its Smith Act trials; (2) the free-wheeling congressional inquisitions; and (3) the hateful loyalty-security program of the Executive. Monday, June 17. is already a historic landmark. * * * The curtain is closing on one of our worst periods."

CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS

The Watkins case decided that it is not pertinent for a congressional committee, established for the investigation of un-American activities, to ask a witness to give information concerning persons known to him to have been members of the Communist Party.

The courts have repeatedly said: "The power to legislate carries with it by Devesary implication ample authority to obtain information needed in the rightfu exercise of that power, and to employ compulsory process for that purpose." Although the congressional investigations into communism by the House UnAmerican Activities Committee (which was a particular target of the Watkins (a) and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (which was ruled $21 st in the subsequent decision of U. S. v. Flaxner) may be considered as Rimarily the information type of inquiry, they have resulted in a considerable quantity of legislation. This includes the Smith Act, the Subversive Activities Gatrol Act of 1950, the Internal Security Act of 1950, certain sections of the Marran-Walter Immigration Act, the Immunity Act of 1954, and considerable kite legislation, such as the United States Supreme Court-approved New York Pezberg and Maryland Ober laws. Congressional investigations have also red in repeated attempts to legislate the Communist Party into an illegal The repeal or the weakening of these anti-Communist laws and comees is in the forefront of the program of the Communist Party of the United States.

stil the Watkins case, the Court had long held that the information funcfan of congressional committees properly extends the scope of inquiries far bod immediate legislative considerations. In a unanimous decision which sidered for more than 2 years before its pronouncement, the Supreme

Aislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of 2tration respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to effect " (hanze; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite lamation-which not infrequently is true-recourse must be had to others &. possess it."

FRANKFURTER OPINION CITED

in defending the congressional power to investigate the Teapot Dome scandals, Live Felix Frankfurter (then professor) wrote:

question is not whether peoples' feelings here and there may be hurt, or ragged through the mud,' as it is called. The real issue is whether * grave risks of fettering free congressional inquiry are to be incurred by arti

ficial and technical limitations upon inquiry the abuses of the printing press are not sought to be corrected by legal restriction or censorship in advance because the remedy is worse than the disease. For the same reason, congressional inquiry ought not to be fettered by advance rigidities, because in the light of experience there can be no reasonable doubt that such curtailment would make effective investigations almost impossible * * * the power of investigation should be untrammeled."

In defending the congressional power to investigate the abuses of business, Mr. Justice Hugo L. Black (then Senator) wrote:

"Witnesses have declined to answer questions from time to time. The chief reason advanced has been that the testimony related to purely private affairs. In each instance with which I am familiar the House and Senate have steadfastly adhered to their right to compel reply, and the witness has either answered or been imprisoned. * * *

"Public investigating committees *** have always been opposed by groups that seek or have special privileges. That is because special privilege thrives in secrecy and darkness and is destroyed by the rays of pitiless publicity."

In refusing to enjoin Senator Black's lobby inquiry committee from what was widely construed as improper use of the congressional power of exposure, the Court said: "It is legislative discretion which is exercised, and that discretion, whether rightfully or wrongfully exercised, is not subject to interference by the judiciary."

If it is proper for congressional committees to investigate businessmen, it is surely proper to investigate Communists. If congressional inquiry into dishonesty "ought not to be fettered by advance rigidities," neither should congressional inquiries into disloyalty.

ROYAL COMMISSIONS CALLED MODEL

The Watkins majority opinion charged that congressional inquiry in the decade following World War II "involved a broad-scale intrusion into the lives and affairs of private citizens." It pointed to the Royal Commissions of Inquiry as something to be imitated by congressional committees because of the commissions' "success in fulfilling their factfinding missions without resort to coercive tactics.” The report of the Canadian Royal Commission on Espionage, which was created on February 5, 1946, to investigate the charges of Igor Gouzenko, revealed the following differences between the methods used by Canadian and British Royal Commissions of Inquiry investigating subversion and methods used by congressional committees:

1. The Royal commissions are empowered to arrest witnesses. A United States congressional committee has no such power.

2. The commissions can hold the witnesses incommunicado for many days until after they are questioned.

3. The commissions have power to order a witness to testify and to impose sanctions for refusing to testify. They do not recognize a fifth amendment or privilege against self-incrimination.

4. The commissions do not, like congressional committees, permit the witness to have his lawyer present at the questioning.

5. The questioning by the commission is secret, not public; the press is barred and, since only selected excerpts of the testimony are made public, it is impossible to know whether a fair selection was made.

6. A commission is not subject to, or under, the control of the courts and "it is the sole judge of its own procedure."

We do not approve, or urge, all of the foregoing practices, but cite them to show what other freedom-loving nations do to protect their security.

REMEDIAL LEGISLATION

Our committee deems the bill introduced to overcome the effect of the Steve Nelson decision (S. 654) to be in the public interests. Serious consideration must be given to legislation which will:

1. Safeguard the confidential nature of the FBI files;

2. Give to congressional committees the same freedom to investigate that these committees have always had to investigate businessmen and labor leaders;

3. Sanction the right of the Federal Government to discharge security risks even though they occupy so-called nonsensitive positions;

4. Vest in the Department

deportation about any sub

ice the right to question aliens awaiting

tions and contacts;