So I said in Christian charity he ought to have waited until I said or did something before he put me in the category of the devil and all the rest.

Then Mr. Jackson made his speech, and before we knew it the bishop asked for an opportunity to be heard in order that he might clear up some misunderstanding, and that is how the thing developed. Mr. MORRIS. The difficulty we have here, Congressman, is that at Senator Lehman's suggestion we are looking into the case, we find, if anything was said unjustly, it proceeded not from anything a particular committee was doing but rather from statements made by members of the committee on the House floor. Now, one of the problems is, we can't look into the advisability or the merits of individual Congressmen or individual Senators making speeches on the floor.

Mr. CLARDY. You would have a never-ending task, and besides, I wouldn't like it, anyway. I don't think it would be a good precedent. Mr. MORRIS. But are we right, Congressman, in finding that this proceeded from the speech made by Congressman Jackson and yourself rather than the committee?

Mr. CLARDY. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, it was no committee action that brought this hearing about?

Mr. CLARDY. None whatever. And as to Mr. Jackson's speech, the factual data was taken from published accounts of what the bishop had been saying, from published accounts of organizations the bishop belonged to and he belonged to no less than seven Communist-front organizations over the years. He says he regrets that; that he went into them without knowing what he was doing. Well, there ought to be a time when a man wakes up.

Mr. MORRIS. I don't want to go into it now. We will have to find time to give to people to testify about this matter, but is that the general substance of the charges?

Mr. CLARDY. That is correct.

Incidentally, there is a misstatement of fact in this hearing which would offend one of the members of my committee. I have not called it to his attention, but it should be corrected.

Gordon Scherer happens to be an attorney of note, an outstanding attorney, out in Cincinnati. But one of your witnesses said he conducted a one-man subcommittee hearing in New York when Zack Kornfeder was heard. That witness said the man who conducted the hearing was not a lawyer. I don't think Mr. Scherer is going to like that.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Congressman Clardy.

You have no other questions?

Mr. MORRIS. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for appearing before us today and giving us the benefit of your experience.

Mr. CLARDY. I thank the committee very much.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Congressman Dies.

Do you swear the testimony given in this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. DIES. I do.

TESTIMONY OF HON. MARTIN DIES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. DIES. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any prepared statement, and I don't want to take up too much of the committee's time. I am here to be of what little assistance I may.

Let me say in the beginning that I think some of the criticism directed at investigating committees has been just. I think a great deal of it has been inspired by people who were exposed. There is no committee or institution so perfect that it cannot be improved or so sacred that it cannot be criticized.

When our committee began in 1938 at the very first session I enunciated the rules of the committee; that is, I made a prepared statement which met with the approval of the committee, which I believe embraced all of the elements of fair play that anyone could think of. I shall not read this statement to the committee so that I can conserve time.

The CHAIRMAN. But could you put the statement into our record and have it become a part of the record?

Mr. DIES. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Without objection it will become part of the record.

(The prepared statement of Hon. Martin Dies, made on August 12, 1938, is as follows:)

The Chair wishes to reiterate what he has stated many times-namely, that this committee is determined to conduct its investigation upon a dignified plane and to adopt and maintain throughout the course of the hearings a judicial attitude. The committee has no preconceived views of what the truth is respecting the subject matter of this inquiry. Its sole purpose is to discover the truth and report it as it is, with such recommendations, if any, as to legislation on these subjects as the situation may require and as the duty of Congress to the American people may demand.

We shall be fair and impartial at all times and treat every witness with fairness and courtesy. We shall expect every witness to treat us in the same way. This committee will not permit any character assassination or any "smearing" of innocent people. We wish to caution witnesses that reckless charges must be not made against any individual or organization.

The Chair wishes to make it plain that this committee is not "after anyone." All that we are concerned with is the ascertainment of the truth, whatever it is. It is the hope of the committee that we can admit the public to the hearings. However, in the interest of a dignified and judicial hearing we cannot tolerate any demonstration, disorder, or interruption on the part of those who are the guests of the committee. If such demonstration, disorder, or interruption occurs, the person or persons responsible for it will be immediately ejected by the police and denied further admittance.

The Chair wishes to emphasize that the committee is more concerned with facts than with opinions, and with specific proof than with generalities. Opinions, conclusions, and generalities have no probative force in any court of justice and they cannot be made the basis of any findings on the part of this committee. It is the Chair's opinion that the usefulness or value of any investigation is measured by the fairness and impartiality of the committee conducting the investigation. Neither the public nor Congress will have any confidence in the findings of a committee which adopts a partisan or preconceived attitude. Statements and charges unsupported by facts have no evidentiary value and only tend to confuse the issue. It is easy to smear someone's name or reputation by unsupported charges or an unjustified attack, but it is difficult to repair the damage that has been done. As I previously stated, this committee is determined to be fair and just to everyone, and when any individual or organization is involved in any charge or attack made in the course of the hearings, that individual or organization will be accorded an opportunity to refute such charge or attack.

In investigating un-American activities it must be borne in mind that because we do not agree with opinions or philosophies of others does not necessarily make such opinions or philosophies un-American. The most common practice engaged in by some people is to brand their opponents with names when they are unable to refute their arguments with facts and logic. Therefore, we find a few people of conservative thought who are inclined to brand every liberal viewpoint as communistic. Likewise, we find some so-called liberals who stigmatize every conservative idea fascistic. The utmost care, therefore, must be observed to distinguish clearly between what is obviously un-American and what is no more or less than an honest difference of opinion with respect to some economic, political, or social question.

Mr. DIES. In this statement, among other things, I cautioned against one of the dangers of investigating communism, nazism, or fascism, and that is the tendency of people to classify everyone under some label, the tendency of people who are ultraconservative to call anyone a Communist who happens to disagree with them; or, on the other hand, people who are so-called liberals who use the word "Fascist" indiscriminately as applied to their opponents; such labeling of opponents is an easy way to avoid meeting an issue. Simply to hurl an epithet at someone does not settle any question; and we sought to avoid that.

In spite of those rules and the firm determination of the committee to conduct itself judicially, calmly, fairly, and impartially, we soon found that we were dealing with a subject that was wholly different from anything else that the Congress had investigated. It wasn't like investigating banking or agriculture or monopolies. We were dealing with people who, in the first place, wanted to use the committee as a sounding board. That was the first thing. They wanted the advertisement; they wanted to put on a demonstration. You couldn't get them to agree to any sort of a procedure that was dignified or that was fair.

For instance, witnesses would come before the committee and they would proceed in the very first instant to denounce the committee. Sometimes we had to have the police eject them.

As to their attorneys, I would say, "Yes, we are willing for this witness to have an attorney, provided you have some respect for the rules of the committee and for the members of the committee."

Immediately, the attorneys generally defending the Communists would take advantage of the opportunity to denounce the committee and denounce the Fascists and to make a stump speech for the benefit of the press.

Now, that was a part of their tactic, their propaganda, and nothing you could do could stop that sort of thing.

Now, I don't say that our committee was perfect; it certainly wasn't. We started out pioneering in a new field. We had a great many difficulties. The U. N. has had a great many difficulties. And in all the conferences that are held with Communists by our most skilled diplo mats and lawyers, they find themselves baffled by the tactics and the strategy of the Communists, but

Mr. MORRIS. Congressman, may I break in and ask a question?
Mr. DIES. Yes.

Mr. MORRIS. Congressman, I wonder if you could tell this committee of the origin of the committee?

Mr. DIES. Well, that is a very interesting thing, and let me give it to you very briefly.

Mr. MORRIS. I don't mean to disrupt your formal presentation, but it would be proper at this point.

Mr. DIES. The first committee was the committee of Hamilton Fish. He introduced the resolution, I think, in 1924. His committee lasted about 10 months, and he had the episode, as I recall, about the tomatoes in the barn-I wasn't in Congress at the time, but I learned about it later which brought a great deal of ridicule on the investigation. That is the understanding that I have, though I can't say that personally, of my personal knowledge.

The next committee was Mr. McCormack's committee. He introduced the same resolution, and his committee lasted about 12 months, I believe. That must have been in 1936.

Mr. Dickstein, a member of the House, conducted a number of hearings throughout the country. The Democratic high command was alarmed by the reaction. There were near riots in some of the cities.

When Mr. Dickstein introduced the resolution to continue the committee they came to me and asked me to introduce the resolution and to take the chairmanship of it.

At the time I did so, there were in the Congressional Record strong endorsements from several hundred organizations demanding that the committee be established. Among those organizations were a number that we later classified as Communist-front organizations, and they were classified as such by the Attorney General. There were, of course, some outstanding liberal organizations.

Now, they had all lobbied for the investigation, but the moment my resolution was passed by the House and I announced it was our intention to investigate communism just as vigorously as we intended to investigate nazism and fascism, that entire group changed overnight and began to fight the investigation.

We hadn't had any opportunity to begin our work. There wasn't any basis for any objection at that time. But they succeeded in persuading the Accounts Committee to give us $25,000. Now, of course, with $25,000, and such investigators as we could pick up here and there who would only work for 6 or 7 months, it was impossible to build the kind of a staff that was necessary. Yet we either had to move forward or the entire investigation would have fallen, and there never would have been another one, I don't think, during that entire period.

I just give you that as an illustration.

Now, we made mistakes. I have never contended that we didn't. I think if I had it to do over again, with my experience, my knowledge and I am an older man-I think I perhaps could conduct a little better investigation.

Basically, however, all of the facts which we produced and all of the findings and all of the recommendations of the committee have proven to be true.

I spoke before the House a few days ago and cited the findings and recommendations of our committee in 1941, and I said to the Houseand no one has ever taken issue with me-that if those recommendations had been followed by the administration we would have avoided the situation that we now find ourselves in.

For instance, it was my primary purpose to convince President Roosevelt and his Cabinet that it was the fixed aim of the Kremlin to conquer the world.

Now, that was a very simple thing, and yet to me that was the most important thing. That was the thing I think I tried to drive home. To me that was far more important than exposing the Communistfront organizations or Communists in the Government. I thought that if we could get our Government to understand that Communist Russia is dedicated to the overthrow of all non-Communist governments, we could shape our domestic and foreign policies accordingly. Unfortunately, we could not convince the administration. Mr. Roosevelt had a different idea.

We had some conferences; we had some heated conversations. It is a rather long story, and I shall not attempt to relate it, but we simply could not see eye to eye on the question.

Well, at any rate, whenever we made a mistake, if we made a mistake, it was immediately seized upon; great publicity was given to it. Yet all of the instances of abuse and of persecution of our committee were ignored or condoned.

For instance, let me catalog a few of them very briefly.

One of the most outstanding incidents was when Dr. Matthews was testifying before our committee before he went to work for the committee. Among other things that Dr. Matthews said was that it was the practice, the tactic of the Communists, to deceive gullible people, and to use them as fronts to build prestige for the party. And even after we exposed certain Communists they were received at the White House. Cabinet officers spoke under the auspices of Communist fronts. This gave the Communists prestige. If the Nazis whom we investigated could have secured this kind of recognition they would have made far greater progress in this country.

At any rate, Dr. Matthews made the statement that on the occasion of the anniversary of the Ce Soir newspaper, which was a known Communist newspaper. Isn't that a fact?

Dr. MATTHEWS. Yes.

Mr. DIES (continuing). Which was a known Communist newspaper in Paris, France, that they got a telegram of congratulations from prominent people; and that among other movie stars, they got the name of Shirley Temple.

Now, the minute he said that I saw the newspaper reporters run to the telephones, and I knew that we were in for serious trouble.

The papers came out with glaring headlines-I would like for you to see today some of the headlines the papers carried-"Dies accuses Shirley Temple of being a Communist."

Now, the truth was that Dr. Matthews preceded his testimony by the statement that none of these people were Communists. Notwithstanding that very clear statement, we were then accused of saying that Shirley Temple was a Communist; a very clever thing to do, because it tended to make the committee look ridiculous.

Immediately I asked for time on the radio. NBC wouldn't let me have the time. They told me frankly they were afraid of political reprisal. Columbia wouldn't let me have the time. Finally it was Mutual