I can see that such organizations must be and should be protected, but the type of organization which is here involved, its purposes, and its foreign control combined, seem to me to make it entirely practical to go as far as one thought was desirable.

The difficulty, as I see it, is the question of the whole business of driving underground an organization, whether it isn't better to leave it with a certain legitimacy so it has to stand out in the open.

Senator DONNELL. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. In your judgment, is the bill sufficiently clear as to the acts it prohibits to meet the constitutional test that a law must define understandingly what the citizens affected can or cannot do under it?

Mr. RICHBERG. I think it is, Mr. Chairman, although that is legally one of the most difficult questions to be presented. As you know, there is a line of cases in which the Supreme Court of the United States has held there was a lack of definition or definitness to support a criminal charge and in other cases that was sufficient and everybody knew what that meant.

It is not an easy problem. I have read too many cases on the subject to say that you can immediately answer and say, for instance, that the Supreme Court would say this was sufficiently definite or not. To my personal judgment, yes. I think it is quite clear.

The CHAIRMAN. Quite clear.

Have you any suggestions to make it any clearer?

Mr. RICHBERG. If I had. I would be very glad to present them. I haven't at the present moment.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you give a little thought to it and let us have your judgment on that?

Mr. RICHBERG. I will be very glad to.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank you very much for your very clear, forceful, and forthright presentation of this subject. It is a matter that all good citizens are interested in, and you have made a valuable contribution, I am sure.

Mr. RICHBERG. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Father Cronin?

I am glad to see you, Father. Tell us a little bit about yourself. Have you any objection to being sworn?

Father CRONIN. No objection whatever.

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

Father CRONIN. I do.

TESTIMONY OF REV. JOHN FRANCIS CRONIN, S. S.,

WASHINGTON, D. C.

Father CRONIN. My full name is Rev. John F. Cronin. My title is Assistant Director of the Department of Social Action, National Catholic Welfare Conference. I am speaking here as an individual, not to represent the conference. The conference has taken no stand whatever on the bill. We frankly have not had enough time to call our members and reach any kind of conclusion.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your background? I presume you have studied theology. Have you studied law?

Father CRONIN. I am an economist. I don't know whether that is something to brag about or not. I have written several books on the subject. From that I got into labor relations. I did quite a bit of arbitration work and conciliation work with unions, and so forth. That led me into this Communist problem with this by virtue of the fact that during the war a number of unions in Baltimore found that some outside organizers were coming in and taking over control. Being a friend of these labor organizations they asked me to help them to fight this outside Communist influence, which I did. From that I became interested in the subject and started going into it a little bit further and I have studied it at some length in the meanwhile. The CHAIRMAN. Carry on.

Father CRONIN. I wish to testify in favor of the principles enumerated in this bill, for reasons which I shall presently present.

In the first place, there is evidence that communism imperialism is meddling in the internal affairs of nations throughout the world. Communism has been imposed by force in the lands behind the iron curtain. It is a constant threat in western Europe. There is evidence that it was behind the attempted revolution in Colombia, and that it is stirring up trouble elsewhere in Latin America. It is waging civil war in China and is active in many other parts of the Far East. Coming closer to home, Canada uncovered a Communist spy ring, apparently connected with a similar organization in the United States. We cannot be complacent about these moves.

Secondly, the American Communist Party is an agent of the Kremlin. There is abundant evidence that it follows every twist of the Soviet line. It subordinates American interests to those of the Soviet Union. Accordingly, we cannot look upon the American Communist Party as just another political party, to be accorded all the rights given to other parties. It is a tool of a hostile foreign government; an agent of world revolution. Regulating communism is not a matter of interfering with political thought; rather, it is a gesture of self-protection by democracy against tyranny.

Thirdly, the American Communist Party has done serious harm here, largely through undercover methods. It has penetrated the labor movement; stirred up strife among minority groups, and engaged in successful propaganda campaigns through its front organizations. It is incredible how successful Communists have been through their front organizations. They have influenced millions of Americans who would never listen to them if their propaganda had been correctly labeled. They have Communist-front organizations for youth, women, lawyers, scientists, writers, and artists, intellectuals, liberals, from foreign-language groups, religious groups, veteranspractically every profession and group in the Nation. They have organized fronts for every occasion important for them and in every field in which they can exploit our gullibility.

It would be foolish to underestimate the power of indirect Communist propaganda through front organizations and infiltrated groups. It has been an amazing spectacle through the years to watch. a program grow from its first announcement in the Daily Worker through some front organization, then into the liberal press, and finally into our general press and radio. As specific illustrations of this technique, it would be interesting to note the pressures which led

to our original policies in Germany-the Potsdam agreement-in Argentina and in China neutrality. We have since repudiated the policies as utterly unworkable and contrary to American interests. But have we forgotten the organizations which put pressure upon the executive branch to adopt these original policies?

The very campaign against this bill is an illustration of the effectiveness of Communist propaganda. Thousands who never read the bill have protested against it in language originally coined by the Daily Worker. Congress has been flooded with protests using almost identical language, and repeating misrepresentations which were not and could not have been coincidences.

This is the real menace of the Communist Party here. There is no foreseeable danger of an American Communist revolution. But there is danger that the American Communist Party will confuse and mislead public opinion through its subtle propaganda methods. There is the constant attempt to infiltrate and control legitimate reform groups. There is the fear lest Communists in Government and among our scientists act as Soviet espionage agents or as tools in pushing Kremlin policy. In normal times, we might overlook these moves, feeling that America is too strong to be hurt by them. But these are not normal times. We cannot consistently engage in a cold war abroad and leave our enemies to work freely at home. We can hardly urge other countries to suppress communism, while we do nothing about it here.

As to the Subversive Activities Control Act, present laws are not adequate to meet the real danger of communism. Possibly they would be sufficient to deal with open treason or espionage, if diligently enforced. But they can do nothing to force exposure of Communistfront organizations or to label Communists who have infiltrated into reputable liberal societies or labor unions. Yet these activities, which are not technically treason, constitute a serious menace to our welfare. The present bill meets this problem in a manner consistent with the American tradition. We have laws for truth in securities, correct labeling of food and drugs, truthful advertising, and general honesty in business dealings. Surely it is as important to protect the public against mislabeled propaganda as it is to safeguard it from mislabeled drugs, dishonest securities, or the use of the mails with intent to defraud.

The registration provision, in my judgment, is the only important new provision in the present bill. I would say that sections 4 and 6 merely tighten existing laws against treason and the employment of Communists in Government positions. Other parts of the bill deal with minor, although useful, remedies against communism. But if the Congress were to drop these other provisions and retain section 8, together with the definitions and administrative provisions, the essential purpose of the bill would be met.

Furthermore, I believe that the bill could be enforced, if enacted into law. The party declares that it will refuse to register. But the Federal Bureau of Investigation has the facilities to discover the names of Communists and to force them into the open. I believe that public sentiment would support such a move. It would not be persecution for political beliefs; but prosecution for conspiracy and underhand methods. As a Nation, we are honest and open in our dealings.

We do not relish deceit and conspiracy. Surely the least we can do to agents of a hostile foreign movement is to force them to operate in the light of day.

I know that many sincere liberals, strongly anti-Communist, are not in favor of this bill. Frankly, I believe that some of them have unconsciously been misled by indirect Communist propaganda. In talking to many opponents, I found that some had not read the bill and were opposing it for features which it did not actually contain. Thus, it does not prohibit strikes or criticism of government. It does not call for registration of members of front organizations. And it does give an accused group every right to defend itself and crossexamine witnesses. The bill will not affect non-Communist liberals, Socialists, or similar groups. Its language is carefully drawn to affect only Communist groups following the Moscow line.

Apart from objections based on misreading or nonreading of the bill, there are two main difficulties raised against it. The first is based on the radical departure from traditional American methods. We have never before so drastically regulated a political party. I would not personally concede these points as faults. I do not consider the Communist Party a genuine political party; it is a subversive conspiracy. Furthermore, exposure of fraud is in the American tradition. But even if the bill is an innovation in American law, it was made necessary by new dangers to our security. We have ample evidence elsewhere that Communists work by methods not covered in previous definitions of aggression. We have the constitutional right to protect ourselves from new forms of aggression, as well as from open military attacks.

The second objection stems from fear of abuse on the part of an unscrupulous Attorney General. This danger appears to be farfetched, when compared with the danger arising from Communist

activities.

There are abundant safeguards written into this bill. If there is any doubt on the matter, more could be added. Moreover, in enacting any law, we just must trust the basic integrity of our public officials and the courts. If a situation arises where this law could be seriously abused, any other law could be equally perverted to serve the cause of tyranny.

In conclusion, I would say that Congress should take positive action to meet the problem of communism. If this bill is imperfect, it can be amended. If there is a better approach to the problem, then we should have it. The one approach that is surely wrong is inaction in the face of a serious threat to our internal security.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Father. We appreciate your testimony very much.

Father CRONIN. Thank you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Nixon?

We are glad to see you, Congressman. Will you be sworn, please? Do you solemnly swear the evidence you will give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Representative NIXON. I do.

TESTIMONY OF HON. RICHARD M. NIXON, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Representative NIXON. I appreciate being here, Senator.
The CHAIRMAN. You are a lawyer, are you, Congressman?
Representative NIXON. Yes, by profession.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is your home?

Representative NIXON. My home is in Whittier, Calif., a town 12 miles from Los Angeles, to the east.

The CHAIRMAN. How old are you?

Representative NIXON. I am 35 years old.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you practiced law considerably before you came to Congress?

Representative NIXON. Yes. I became a member of the bar in 1937, the California bar. I am a graduate of Duke University School of Law. I have been a member of the bar since that time.

The CHAIRMAN. Carry on in your own way. I do not know whether you were here when Donald Richberg talked. Were you here?

Representative NIXON. Yes, sir. I heard the latter part of his statement, and I understand that he went into some detail concerning the provisions of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. You are the co-author of this bill, as I understand it; is that correct?

Representative NIXON. Yes. I was chairman of the legislative subcommittee which considered the original bills which were referred to the committee, and I worked on the revisions to the bill and presented it to the Congress in final form.

The CHAIRMAN. If you will give us in your own way the legal basis for the bill; please give us in the record the constitutional arguments for the bill, the practicality of the same, and whether or not you feel there is any invasion of any civil or political rights of any of our citizens.

Representative NIXON. I might say on the question of constitutionality, first, Senator, that I have had made available for the members of the committee a study which was made by the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress on constitutionality. I think that mimeographed copies of that study are now available for each member of the committee.

I have gone over that statement quite carefully, myself, and I have read the cases which are referred to in the statement. I would like to submit it for the consideration of the members of the committee. The CHAIRMAN. It will be incorporated in the record at this point. (The document follows:)

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF H. R. 5852, EIGHTIETH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION (Prepared by Legislative Reference Service, the Library of Congress)

I. IN GENERAL

H. R. 5852, in its declaration of purpose and in the definitions of "Communist political organization" and "Communist-front organization," is quite specific and detailed. It would thus seem to avoid the objection that the word "Communist”