tion. I would like, before I forget it, to see this pamphlet and make a note of it. I would like to investigate further that statement. Mr. VELDE. I am sure the committee would be glad to give you any statements or literature it has. Mr. KEARNEY. The statement is on the back of this pamphlet, Father [handing to witness copy of 100 Things You Should Know About Communism in the U. S. A.]. Father PARKER. Thank you. The question resolves itself, for me, into this: That it seems to me we are in danger, if I may use a colloquialism, of throwing out the baby with the bath. We want security, but the impression this bill has made on me from the first, even with the revisions that the chairman has mentioned, is an impression that some of the methods used by people whom we disapprove of are now going to be employed, whenever we think it necessary, by us. Mr. KEARNEY. Father, is your organization opposed to the President's Loyalty Board headed by Mr. Richardson? Father PARKER. Yes. Well, not to the principles of the Board, necessarily, but to the principles of the Board which functions as it is set up to function. Mr. KEARNEY. That is all. Mr. WOOD. That presents another very interesting query, Father. You say your organization is not opposed to such a board if properly set up and functioning, but this particular Board you do oppose? Father PARKER. The question, I believe, was, are we opposed to the Loyalty Board. I should rephrase that answer to say we are opposed to the principle of investigating people without their knowledge that they are under suspicion; of taking action on their cases without their knowing, in many instances, what they are charged with. Lately there has been a little change, according to the newspapers, but not a great change. Action is taken without their knowing, for the most part, what they are charged with; without their being able to prepare their defense and bring witnesses. The Board does not go back, I believe, to the beginning. Before the Board came into existence, people were thus placed under suspicion of disloyalty and they lost their employment, nearly all of them. May I continue a moment? I want to get this out in right form if I can. The punishment is terrific, not only losing their employment, but, far worse than that, it is hard to think of anything that could be such a crushing thing upon an American as to be suspected of disloyalty. People who give currency to the suspicion don't know that in many cases, or in most cases, the persons themselves for a long time didn't even know what they were accused of, and for the most part they never know who their accusers are. Mr. WOOD. Of course, that line of thought is not involved in this legislation. Father PARKER. We are opposed to anything that would do that sort of thing. Mr. WOOD. That is not involved in this legislation. It has been determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, in a decision by Mr. Justice Holmes, that a man does not have a constitutional right to be a policeman, but he does have a constitutional right to belong to any organization he wants to belong to, short of an organi lation to bring about the overthrow of our Government by force and violence. Father PARKER. I was interested in the case of a policeman who was accused of doing wrong, and I felt he should be energetically defended. He was, as a matter of fact, and didn't need anything particularly from me. It is true that a man does not have a constitutional right to demand and have a job as a policeman or any other Government job, or any other job, I guess. He has a right to live. But he certainly has a right, while he is on the force, to have his reputation protected. He has a right when he leaves the force not to leave it under a cloud of suspicion. It ought to be cleared up. Mr. WOOD. By some method adopted by the American people? Mr. WOOD. I can't leave unchallenged the statement you made using as an illustration that this legislation is somewhat akin to throwing the child out with the bath. Don't you agree, from a careful study of the proposed legislation, it rather is designed to prevent having to burn down the barn to get rid of the rats? Father PARKER. I think it is burning down the barn to get rid of rats we are not sure are there. Mr. WOOD. If we wait until the Government is overthrown, haven't we done that? Father PARKER. I don't think the American people will let this Government be overthrown. I don't think we need have any uneasiness about that. Mr. WOOD. Thank you, Father, for coming here. I enjoyed very much your discourse. The committee will stand at recess until 10:30 tomorrow morning. Thereupon, at 12: 10 p. m. on Wednesday, March 29, 1950, a recess was taken until Thursday, March 30, 1950, at 10:30 a. m.) HEARINGSTON LEGISLATION TO OUTLAW CERTAIN UN-AMERICAN AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 1950 UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, PUBLIC HEARING Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:30 a. m., in room 226, Old House Office Building, Washington, D. C., Hon. Francis E. Walter presiding. Committee members present: Representatives Francis E. Walter, John McSweeney (arriving as indicated), Morgan M. Moulder, Harold H. Velde, and Bernard W. Kearney. Staff members present, Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel; Louis J. Russell, senior investigator; Charles McKillips and William Jackson Jones, investigators; John W. Carrington, clerk; and A. S. Poore, editor. Mr. WALTER. The meeting will come to order. Mr. Straight, will you raise your right hand, please. You swear the testimony you will give in the matter now in hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God! Mr. STRAIGHT. I do. Would you like to swear Mr. Nikoloric also? He will be with me. Mr. WALTER. Do you swear the testimony you are about to give in the matter now in hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. NIKOLORIC. I do. TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL STRAIGHT AND LEONARD A. NIKOLORIC Mr. WALTER. State your names, please, for the record. Mr. STRAIGHT. My name is Michael Straight. I am the national chairman of the American Veterans Committee. Mr. NIKOLORIC. My name is Leonard A. Nikoloric. I am a lawyer with the firm of Arnold, Fortas & Porter in Washington. I have advised the American Veterans Committee with respect to this bill. Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Straight, will you state your official position with your organization? Mr. STRAIGHT. I am the national chairman of the American Veterans Committee. Mr. TAVENNER. It is the practice and custom of this committee and committees of the Senate to ask each witness appearing on subversive questions whether or not he is now or has ever been a member of the Communist Party, so I would like to ask you that question. Mr. STRAIGHT. I am not and have never been a member of the Communist Party. Mr. TAVENNER. Do you have a prepared statement? Mr. STRAIGHT. We have a prepared brief which I understand you would like to have submitted for the record rather than read out loud. I would like to make a few spontaneous remarks regarding our feelings on this matter, which are not legal. The brief contains our legal interpretation of the bill. Mr. TAVENNER. That is satisfactory. Mr. STRAIGHT. Mr. Nikoloric has prepared this brief, and in the brief we explain why we feel the bill before you is unconstitutional. We feel that any effort along the lines of this bill to legislate in matters of opinion is probably unconstitutional. We feel in this particular case if the bill were enacted by the Congress and were upheld by the Supreme Court, then, because the bill attempts to legislate by fiat, and because it attempts to punish people for association and opinion without the safeguards of common law, it would open up not only the Communist Party but other organizations in this country to a threat of prosecution for holding adverse opinions to the normal trend of the time. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, as a principal proponent of this bill, has declared, as has the Marine Corps League, that the world-government movement is treasonable. Mr. KEARNEY. Let me interrupt you on that point you have brought out here. Have they declared the world-government movement treasonable? Mr. STRAIGHT. The chairman of the Marine Corps League has, and I believe the Veterans of Foreign Wars has too. Mr. KEARNEY. I will take issue with you on that. I don't think they have. I have been strongly criticized for being one of the sponsors of the world-government bill, but I am a past commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and no spokesman for that organization, to my knowledge, has ever declared the world-government movement a treasonable movement. Mr. STRAIGHT. I could show you some briefs that I believe indicate that position. In a speech in Boston the chairman of the Marine Corps League has declared the world-government movement to be treasonable. Mr. KEARNEY. That is not the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Mr. STRAIGHT. No, it is not. Advocates of world government are placed in jeopardy if this bill were considered constitutional. If there were no legal objections to this bill, we would still think the political objections to this bill were overriding. We share much of the opinion of many witnesses who have appeared before this committee that the Communist Party is a party directed from abroad by a foreign power. We believe it does advocate the overthrow of the Government by force and violence. We believe in many cases the Communist Party is used as a reception center and a training ground for espionage agents on behalf of a foreign power. However, we don't believe that the Communist Party today is a clear and present danger. We do not believe it can be isolated, and that it can be found to be concentrated in a very few front organizations such as this bill supposes. On the contrary, we believe the Communist Party can be found to be working in a very broad field |