mountain is worn away by the flutter of the tip of a bird's wing. It is haste of the type my small boy experienced in November while waiting for Santa Claus to appear on the 25th of December. Passion which would cause you to act in a fit of anger after 3 long years have elapsed would certainly be an abiding one. We have had too many of these specious and dilatory arguments. Now the people of America pray that you will act. And so does the American Legion.

Legislative measures of this type are intended to expose. They are based upon sound principle and solidly founded in substantial law. The Federal Government and the Congress have a duty, laid down by our Constitution, to protect the republican form of government to the States and to the ultimate sovereign, the people. This duty cannot be fulfilled if we are not protected against the intrigues of a foreign power carried into operation by its extended arm, the Communist Party.

The character of every act must be judged upon the circumstances under which it is done. Certainly, under existing world conditions and pressures, the acts of Communists and their party are legally criminal and morally wrong. They should be prohibited from employment in our Government; they certainly have no legal right to it. They should be prevented from stealing and betraying our classified information, and punished if they succeed. They should be denied passports. It would not be wise to give free transport to them so they can exchange information and hand over secrets. They should not be permitted to make a mockery of our mails and instrumentalities by using them as transmission belts for their propaganda. They should not be permitted to deduct from taxes funds donated to assist the process of breaking down and destroying liberty. The task to be done by this legislation too long has gone undone. That can be remedied by your thoughtful and patriotic action. We hope that you will take it.

That concludes the prepared statement which I have for you gentlemen, and I shall be glad to answer any questions.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Green, it has been the practice of committees functioning on matters of this kind, both in the Senate and in the House, to ask of all witnesses the same question, which I would like to ask you: Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. GREEN. I have answered the question before and I would like to answer it again. I am not now and never have been and never will be a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. Wood. Mr. Walter would like to ask Mr. Green a question.

Mr. WALTER. I have examined the opinions of William Schnader, chairman of the committee selected by the American Bar Association to examine this bill, and of John W. Davis. I am persuaded that they are very sound arguments. Don't you think that it might be advisable to wait for a circuit court decision rather than to wait for final word from the Supreme Court, because, as I see it, that decision might well set up some guideposts so that we would not enact something which might run afoul of the decisions of the courts and thereby undo all of the work that we are going to do?

Mr. GREEN. Assuming, Mr. Walter, that the circuit court acts whichever way, what have you got? You only have the decision of an intermediate court. You do not have the final judgment of the Supreme

Court of the United States. It is still subject to the processes of appeal. I think there are 10,000 volumes in my library alone showing decisions that have been reversed when they went to the United States Supreme Court. If I would adopt your line of reasoning, which I do not, I would say we should wait until we had a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. WALTER. When it gets to the Supreme Court there will be two views, and it is safe to say when the Supreme Court acts there will be majority and minority views. I am thinking more of writing legislation that will stand the test.

Mr. GREEN. I am thinking of that, too. If you are my client and I your lawyer, and you submit a problem to me, it may be a new problem. The only way I can advise you is to take the legal reasoning of our courts and apply it to your problem. This has been done here, but what they quote here are decisions of our Supreme Court to which our present Supreme Court is the successor by appointment. Why should we give precedence to the present Supreme Court over the past Supreme Court, which certainly had precedence in our legal jurisprudence.

Mr. WALTER. I would agree with you entirely if what we are attempting to do had been decided, but it has not.

Mr. GREEN. They take it point by point and justify it in those briefs. The briefs are by men familiar with the precepts in constitutional law. They have applied them to the reasoning here. I don't see why this committee should ask more. That is just one man's opinion, of course.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Harrison.

Mr. HARRISON. You may recall in the Eightieth Congress the bill of Congressman Cole of Missouri was pending before the House Administration Committee, and at that time Attorney General Tom Clark objected to consideration of the bill until evidence in the case against the 12 Communists could be developed by trial, and after such evidence had been presented, then we would have more light upon which to base legislation. Now we come to a situation where the argument is made that we should wait until the circuit court opinion is handed down before we proceed to legislate on this subject. Can you anticipate any time when there will not be some decision pending?

Mr. GREEN. No.

Mr. HARRISON. And when this same argument could not be made with equal force?

Mr. GREEN. It could be extended infinitum.

Mr. HARRISON. Even if such legislation as this were struck down by a divided decision of the Court, wouldn't the enactment of it and subsequent decisions have a salutary effect on public opinion in directing the attention of the rank and file of the people to the Communist menace?

Mr. GREEN. Let us go a step further. During the early days of the depression we came here to try to work out a solution to the problem, and our approach was represented by the big Blue Eagle, which was later thrown out by the Court, but it was the forerunner to subsequent legislation which is the law of the land today.

Mr. WALTER. In the definitions on page 7, paragraph (5), of H. R. 7595, it is stated:

The term "Communist organization” means a Communist political organization or a Communist-front organization.

Now, suppose that the circuit court would define activities which would come entirely within the purview of that. It might be desirable to change this language so that some organization called another name could not escape because it did not come directly within this definition.

Mr. GREEN. Couldn't that be done by amendment, Mr. Walter? If we wait for perfection we will wait forever. There is no such thing as perfection in life.

Mr. WOOD. If other members of the committee desire to interrogate you, could you be here at 2 o'clock this afternoon?

Mr. GREEN. Any time at your convenience, including tomorrow or the day after.

Mr. WOOD. We will adjourn until 2 o'clock.

Mr. VELDE. Do we have other witnesses on these bills?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes. There will be another witness we can probably get here by 2 o'clock who is not present now.

Mr. VELDE. Do you have any witnesses in opposition to the bills? Mr. TAVENNER. Yes. They will appear next week.

Mr. WOOD. If you can meet with us at 2 o'clock we will appreciate it. Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir.

(Thereupon, at 11:30 a. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

(The subcommittee reconvened at 2 p. m., Representatives Wood (chairman) and Velde being present.)

Mr. Wood. You may proceed.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Green.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Green is late. He is not here at the moment. Mr. WOOD. I imagine, since we have this quorum call, none of the other members will be here, and we will have to leave, anyway.

Mr. MILES D. KENNEDY. We have no other witnesses from the American Legion, but there is a Mr. Goldberger here from AMVETS. Mr. WOOD. You are here in the city?

Mr. MARVIN L. GOLDBERGER. Yes, sir.

Mr. WOOD. I wonder if you could come at 10:30 in the morning? Mr. GOLDBERGER. I may have a conflict. I have a national legislative committee meeting at that time.

Mr. WOOD. I would like for other members of the committee to be present when you testify, and it is difficult to get them here when the roll calls are coming in as rapidly as they are now.

Mr. GOLDBERGER. I will make it my business to be here at 10:30 in the morning. I will manage somehow to do it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, will you need Mr. Green back? We had planned on leaving at 6 o'clock tonight.

Mr. WOOD. That will be all right. Please convey to him, and we also express to yourself, our appreciation for your coming here and for the information you have given us.

Mr. KENNEDY. If there is any question that comes up at any time, we will be glad to give the answer to you.

Mr. WOOD. I am conscious of the splendid work the American Legion has done in this field. I have had the pleasure, on one or two occasions, of serving on the Americanism Commission of the American

68369-50- -4

Legion at the national convention. I was at San Francisco several years ago and served on the commission. I know of no organization in America that for so many years has done more in this field than has the American Legion. I think you are in better position to speak on this particular subject than perhaps any other organization.

Mr. VELDE. May I join the chairman in expressing my appreciation to the American Legion, and especially to Mr. Green for appearing here before this committee and rendering such valuable service. Mr. Green is a personal friend of mine. I have had occasion to work with him on this matter, and have always found him very cooperative, and the American Legion has been very cooperative and very informative in the fight against communism and subversive activities.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. We will continue to cooperate with you.

Mr. GOLDBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I may be the first witness tomorrow?

Mr. WOOD. Yes; you will be the first witness called tomorrow morning.

(Thereupon, a recess was taken until Friday, March 24, 1950, at 10:30 a. m.)

HEARINGS ON LEGISLATION TO OUTLAW CERTAIN UN-AMERICAN AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

FRIDAY, MARCH 24, 1950

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES,

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:30 a. m., in room 226, Old House Office Building, Hon. John S. Wood (chairman) presiding.

Committee members present: Representatives John S. Wood, John McSweeney (arriving as noted), Morgan M. Moulder, Harold H. Velde, and Bernard W. Kearney.

Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel; William Jackson Jones, investigator; John W. Carrington, clerk; and A. S. Poore, editor.

Mr. WOOD. The committee will be in order. The record will disclose that there are present at this hearing Messrs. Moulder, Velde, Kearney, and Wood, and Mr. McSweeney is on the way, which will make a quorum.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, in continuing the hearings on the legislative proposals, we have here this morning Mr. Marvin L. Goldberger, national legislative director of the American Veterans of World War II.

Mr. GOLDBERGER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WOOD. Good morning, Mr. Goldberger. You will be sworn, please. You solemnly swear the testimony you will give this committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. GOLDBERGER. I do.

Mr. WOOD. Have a seat, Mr. Goldberger.

Mr. GOLDBERGER. Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF MARVIN L. GOLDBERGER

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you state your full name, please?
Mr. GOLDBERGER. Marvin L. Goldberger.

Mr. TAVENNER. Are you a representative of the American Veterans of World War II?

Mr. GOLDBERGER. Yes, commonly known as the AMVETS. Mr. TAVENNER. What position do you hold with that organization? Mr. GOLDBERGER. My position is that of the national legislative director of AMVETS.