Of course, it is much more prevalent in the open country than in the legislative halls, but it is rather astounding to find that the cutting of a power rate is designated as a Soviet power policy.

Senator LANGER. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Moore, do you have any questions?
Senator MOORE. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator O'Daniel?

Senator O'DANIEL. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further, Mr. Wallace, you want to tell the committee?

Mr. WALLACE. I think not, sir.

.. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you for appearing, and we hope your appearing here has not disarranged your campaign schedule.

Mr. WALLACE. I appreciate your courtesy in complying with my time schedule as thoughtfully as you have, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Well now, there was one gentleman who preceded you when you came in. He was giving us what I would call a Kiwanis talk for politicians. It was in substance this:

There is so much good in the worst of us,

And so much bad in the best of us

That it hardly becomes any of us
To talk about the rest of us.

So with that blessing, sir, I let you go.

Is Mr. Kenney in the room?

Will you raise your right hand and be sworn?

Do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. KENNEY. I do.

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT J. KENNEY, FORMER ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. KENNEY. Mr. Chairman, I am here with Judge Pacht, chairman of the California Prison Board. Judge Pacht was also recently appointed by our government of California the chairman of the crime commission.

One of his duties, as chairman of the crime commission is the investigation of civil liberties within the State.

Judge Pacht is also the President of the California Council of Civic Unity.

I would like to yield most of my time to Judge Pacht, and then merely discuss certain administrative features of the bill at the conclusion of Judge Pacht's testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the Judge's full name?

Mr. PACHT. Isaac Pacht is the full name.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you be sworn?

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you are about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. PACHT. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Make it as brief as you can and please talk to the point. Both of you gentlemen are lawyers, and we want light. We

do not care to have a lot of generalities, such as: This is bad or that is good.

Tell us why it is good or why it is bad and quote your authorities.

TESTIMONY OF ISAAC PACHT, CHAIRMAN, PRISON BOARD, CHAIRMAN, CRIME COMMISSION, PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF CIVIC UNITY

Mr. PACHT. The point made by you, Mr. Chairman, I think is very timely and well taken. My remarks will be very brief.

I am, in common with a great many other citizens, extremely disturbed about the power which this bill vests in the Attorney General to designate any group or organization as a communistic front organization.

I have seen what such power given even to a legislative committee may result in.

For instance, a committee calling itself the un-American activities committee of our State legislature has undertaken to terms such a patriotic organization as the American Jewish Congress as a subversive organization. One of the members of that committee has undertaken to designate so fine an organization as the California Federation for Civil Unity, composed of some of the finest men and women in the State of California and some of its most patriotic citizens, as a Communist-front organization.

I think it is truly extremely dangerous to vest in one man the power to determine whether or not an organization is a Communist-front organization, and to enable him to visit upon that organization and its members directly and indirectly the penalties prescribed by this proposed act.

History is not silent upon similar activities by persons enjoying that kind of power. I will cite one example.

Lord Macaulay, in his history of England, dwells upon this at considerable length. When King James II made his attempt to recapture the throne of England, he convoked a parliament in Ireland which, as one of his first acts, proceeded to pass what is called the Great Act of Attainder. This bill, in many of its features, is an act of attainder, and in many of its implications is an act of attainder.

By that bill, some 3,000 of the finest men and women, and in many instances, children were proscribed and convicted without trial or adequate hearing, and all that was necessary to bring anyone within the act of attainder was to hand in the name of a suspected individual to the clerk of the parliament.

Thus, any creditor, or any political enemy of a person could be brought under suspicion.

This bill makes it possible for political enemies, people with religious differences, different social and psychological ideas, people with different economic ideas, to bring under suspicion the activities of any person or group of persons.

That bill was brought into parliament by Attorney General Nagle who, upon being asked upon what evidence this bill of attainder was made to apply to this vast number of people stated that it was upon such evidence as satisfied him, and, as to the remainder, it wasbased upon common rumor.

Now, this bill would place in the hands of the Attorney General without adequate standards the power to determine that any group or organization, no matter how worthy or patriotic its motives might be, the stamp of being a Communist-front organization.

All of us know that we all contribute money and answer letters from various organizations asking for contributions to various worthy causes from members of such organizations on the basis of their declared principles, and none of us, or very few of us, I should say, have the opportunity or the time to investigate each and every such organization to determine who its real backers are and where its funds are coming from.

This bill is opposed, not only by so-called progressive people or liberals, but it is also opposed by many well-recognized men and

women.

Senator EASTLAND. May I ask you a question?

Mr. PACHT. Yes.

Senator EASTLAND. What is the meaning of "clear and present. danger" doctrine? How far does it go?

Mr. PACHT. Well, I would say that it means such a situation as reasonably minded men

Senator EASTLAND. Have you studied the cases?

Mr. PACHT. Well, I have read a good many cases on the subject. Senator EASTLAND. All right, sir. Now go ahead.

Mr. PACHT. I should say that it means such a clear and present danger as would satisfy reasonable men that the danger does exist. Senator EASTLAND. Danger from what source? Without, or

within?

Mr. PACHT. I would say from either place.

Senator EASTLAND. In other words, is it your contention that if there is a clear and present danger to change this system of Government by force from within, that Congress would have the authority under the Constitution?

Mr. PACHT. I say that a clear and present danger situation is one of evidence and proof and not merely by legislative fiat.

Senator EASTLAND. I was trying to get the legal principles involved. Mr. PACHT. Yes, Senator.

Senator EASTLAND. Do you think that under those "clear and present danger" decisions, if an organization in the country desired, by force if necessary, to change the predominant rule or thought to control the country, that Congress would have the right to enact a bill of this nature to cause them to register?

Mr. PACHT. Well, I think that the matter of registration is a dangerous procedure in the first place, but I believe, Senator, that there is adequate law on the books today to prosecute and convict.

Senator EASTLAND. I understand that, and I am not taking issue. I simply want to have information.

Mr. PACHT. Yes.

Senator EASTLAND. I say that I am a racist. Say that I am an extreme racist, which I am. If there is an organization in this country that is set up to bring about by force or violence the separation of the races, to enforce Jim Crow statutes all over the country, could the Congress pass an act of this kind to suppress that organization? Mr. PACHT. I do not believe that Congress has the power to pass

any law which would prohibit anyone from freely expressing his opinion concerning any legislative matter.

Senator EASTLAND. Do you think that if this bill were sustained by the courts, that that power would exist?

Mr. PACHT. I say that any bill, any law that is sustained by the courts, it is the duty of all law-abiding citizens to conform with.

Senator EASTLAND. I am not taking issue with you there. I ask you, if this bill were sustained by the court, then would Congress have the power to enact a bill of the kind I just described?

Mr. PACHT. If the Supreme Court sustained the bill as being a constitutional exercise

Senator EASTLAND. Sustained this bill.

Mr. PACHT. I am talking about this bill. If the Supreme Court sustains this bill as the proper exercise of constitutional legislative authority, that would settle the matter.

Senator EASTLAND. Of course this bill would not apply to an organization that I just described. I asked you if the precedent would be established, and if the power would be placed to suppress an organization like the one that I described.

Mr. PACHT. I am sorry. I do not understand that question, Senator. Senator EASTLAND. That is all right.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you read the forepart of this bill?

Mr. PACHT. Yes, I have.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you satisfied one way or the other as to whether or not this is a correct delineation of a situation that exists down from (1) to 11, on page 5?

Mr. PACHT. Yes. I am not prepared to say of my own knowledge that many of these so-called findings of fact are fell founded.

The CHAIRMAN. Which ones would you dispute? We had a good liberal in here this morning. I do not know whether you were here

or not.

Mr. PACHT. Mr. Thomas?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Norman Thomas.

Mr. PACHT. Yes, I heard his testimony.

I think there are different views on that, and he may be correct for all I know, but I have no knowledge concerning many of these matters. The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Thomas gave us a pretty clear conclusion as to the menace of communism. There was no mincing of his words as to what communism was doing abroad in the world, and that it was an international organization; and I guess there is enough evidence here to indicate that the organization, at least the heart of the organization in America is tied pretty closely to the heart of the parent organization in Russia.

I am not talking about sympathizers and liberals. In view of the fact that we viewed history in the last few years, does it present in your mind a situation that at least needs the consideration of Congress, and Congress should not be damned for considering it?

Mr. PACHT. Oh, I think that Congress certainly should not be damned for considering it, and I think Congress is well warranted in considering any situation of this kind. But I wish to state emphatically that I do not believe that communism constitutes any threat to the American people, because so long as we have freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and freedom of the press in this country,

the sound common sense of the American people will be immune against Communist doctrine,

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I have that hope, sir. But I remember it was less than a week before Czechoslovakia was taken over, our own State Department got reports from our own agents over there that there was not a possibility of Czecheoslovakia being taken over. Mr. PACHT. Mr. Chairman, may I venture an opinion as to that situation and others which have existed in Europe?

That is, we must bear in mind that the whole European Continent has become devastated as a result of this war that we have just gone through. The people were starving; they were ready victims of Communist propaganda. That is not the situation in the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. That is not the report you had from Czechoslovakia up to a week before they were taken over. The point is that they were the most democratic country in Europe, and Thomas says today that communism is not democratic; if anything, it is way over on the other side.

Mr. PACHT. Well, let me indicate to you what a Republican citizen of our community, a very distinguished lawyer, former president of our Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, of which I take it you have heard

The CHAIRMAN. Brother, is there anyone living on God's green footstools that has not heard about California?

Mr. PACHT. I just did not want to let this opportunity pass, Mr. Chairman, without advising

The CHAIRMAN. Have you had any sunshine out there in the last 6 months?

Mr. PACHT. Let me read you what he has to say.
The CHAIRMAN. Whom are you quoting?

Mr. PACHT. Mr. Frank Doherty, former president of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, and a very distinguished lawer at our bar: I have read hurriedly a copy of H. R. 5852, which I believe is known as the Mundt bill. This measure is apparently receiving some serious consideration in Congress.

I

You know, of course, how I feel toward Communists and all subversive organizations and individuals. We now have a lot of law on the books. believe it is adequate, with probably some minor amendments, to catch any person who would attempt to. destroy or undermine our Government. Speaking facetiously, we Republicans for nearly 16 years

The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute. I have to look into that. The Republicans speak facetiously?

Mr. PACHT. That is what Mr. Doherty says.

Speaking facetiously, we Republicans for nearly 16 years have been doing our darndest to undermine the Government we had at Washington, and we hope by November 2 the majority of the people of this country will agree with us.

I am against the type of bill that Mr. Mundt is seeking to have enacted. We already have too many policemen. It would give the Attorney General vast powers, and an unscrupulous and politically minded Attorney General could use these powers to smear and otherwise harm good people. I sincerely trust you will not get tied up with this measure.

There is something in the Bible about the farmer who planted a crop and found that a large amount of cockle was coming up with the grain. He stated that an enemy must have done this. He did not, however, pull up the cockle for fear of destroying the grain. He directed his assistants to let the crop