STATEMENT OF JAMES G. PATTON, PRESIDENT NATIONAL FARMERS UNION, SUBMITTED TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES, MARCH 31, 1950, IN OPPOSITION TO H. R. 7595 AND H. R. 3903

By this time, it should be clear to everyone that repressive legislation of the kind before this committee not only does not achieve the objectives it is designed to achieve but actively interferes with the fulfillment of the best in American traditions.

H. R. 7595, the Mundt-Nixon bill, has been before Congress some time now. Its provisions are well known and it is not necessary at this time to go at length into its specific provisions.

The National Farmers Union always has regarded this legislation as unconstitutional and that it authorizes invasions of individual liberties which are repugnant to the basic character of our national existence. Denial of the fundamental guaranties of individual liberties contained in the Bill of Rights and elsewhere in the Constitution cannot but weaken that magnificent document as a whole.

Perhaps we should recall the experience of the American people with national prohibition. During the dismal period when the eighteenth amendment was in force, disrespect for law had extended so far as to include disrespect for the Constitution itself. The genius and spirit of the American people tends toward the utmost possible personal freedom compatible with the orderly workings of society. It is our firm conviction that legislation such as the Mundt-Nixon bill goes as much counter to this spirit as did the eighteenth amendment, and that ultimately any such legislation is bound to become a dead letter.

The unfortunate part of such prcedure, however, is that while this was happening great damage might be done to the public faith in the Constitution itself. Aside from the constitutional objections, we also feel that such bills as the Mundt-Nixon bill inevitably tend to cast the American people in the image of totalitarianism. As we see it, the greatest danger we have to face in the years immediately ahead is the temptation to fight fire with fire. In other words, if we adopt suppressions of thought, of speech, of assembly, and even of belief, every instance of such suppression brings us closer to the kind of policy against which we are invoking these various suppressions. The best hope of America is now as it always has been the strict and faithful adherence to the best in American precedence in history. That best, as it differentiates us from other peoples, is embodied primarily in the assurances of personal freedom contained in the Bill of Rights.

As for H. R. 3903, the Wood bill, we have somewhat the same objections but on a minor scale to this bill as we have to H. R. 7595. H. R. 3903 is the same type of legislation. Its provision for barring Government workers from contributing to organizations officially labeled as subversive appears to us to be simply another way of cluttering up the statutes. The executive branch now has a wholly adequate system of assuring the loyalty of governmental employees. In fact, we believe that the so-called loyalty check program itself is an extravagant misuse of Government power and that the question of treason is such as to call for careful and scientific investigation by investigative agencies rather than the elaborate machinery now in existence. In any case, existence of the present system certainly makes it unnecessary further to overload the statutes in this field.

As to the provisions in the bill which would attempt to extend this kind of screening to private employees of firms obtaining governmental defense contracts, we regard these as wholly fantastic. The establishment of the kind of comprehensive snoopery that would be required to enforce such a provision would involve an enormous amount of useless expense to the Government, wholesale invasions of personal liberties, and a genuine foundation for an American police state. We regard this proposal as so alien to anything American, as we conceive it, that we consider it unnecessary to go into further detail as to our reasons for opposing it.

In summary, we urge that the committee permanently table both of these

measures.

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL CIVIL LIBERTIES CLEARINGHOUSE

JOINT STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO THE MUNDT-FERGUSON-JOHNSTON AND NIXON BILLS (S. 2311 AND H. R. 7595)

The Senate Judiciary Committee on March 21 reported out the Mundt-Ferguson-Johnson bill (S. 2311). This bill differs only slightly from S. 1194 (Mundt) and S. 1196 (Ferguson), on which hearings were held last spring. Its major objections are to compel registration by "Communist political organizations" and "Communist-front organizations" and to impose criminal sanctions on individuals for various "subversive activities," whether or not in connection with such organizations. Meanwhile, Mr. Nixon has introduced H. R. 7595, identical with the new Senate bill, into the House of Representatives, and hearings on it have been begun by the Committee on Un-American Activities.

We who sign this statement are completely and unalterably opposed to communism and all threats to our national security, whether from the extreme right or the extreme left. We are equally opposed to any violation or weakening of the civil liberties guaranteed in the Constitution-freedom of speech, press, and assembly; due process; and all othe other great foundations of our democracy. We believe the proposed legislation would be such an unconstitutional violation of those civil liberties, and would be more dangerous to our American democracy than the evil it seeks to control. We believe, moreover, that its passage would materially aid the cause of Communism. It would thus undermine the structure of the American Government and the American society which it ostensibly is meant to buttress.

In our opinion, there are three basic characteristics of the proposed legislation which render it both undesirable and unconstitutional:

(1) The language of the bill, which makes criminal any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment of a foreign-controlled totalitarian dictatorship, violates the due-process requirements of the Constitution because of its vagueness. The vagueness of the phrase "subsantitally contribute" threatens the organizational activity of the entire liberal movement in the United States since people would be afraid to join with their fellow citizens to seek any form of change, progress, or reform which is or might be supported by the Communists. It is standard technique for the Communists to give lip service to a great many liberal causes for their own nefarious purposes. In addition, if enacted, the bill might well be construed as making criminal the performance by an attorney of his duty in defending a Communist client. It might even make criminal the mere advocacy of the repeal of the law itself.

(2) It would inflict serious penalties on individuals-criminal sanctions, social and economic ostracism, and character assassination-merely on the ground of association with certain organizations whose natures are not themselves defined with sufficient precision, and would thus inevitably restrict inquiry and thought, belief, and expression.

(3) The bill would inflict penalties by legislative proscription of organizations instead of by judicial proceedings in which said organizations would be individually tried in accordance with our constitutional guaranties. Hence the bill is a bill of attainder; this is shown, for example, by the fact that members of Communist political organizations face loss of passport privileges and access to Federal employment, merely by virtue of their membership and not after determination by the courts.

Moreover, it is our conviction that the enactment of the proposed legislation is completely unnecessary for American security and indeed perversely likely to strengthen the very enemies it is intended to disarm. The registration provisions of the bills would not give the Government any information which the FBI does not already possess, nor is it needed to authorize the prosecution of anyone for actual acts which are genuinely subversive-they are already covered adequately by a number of laws. On the other hand, Communists, who would have to label their propaganda as such, would be clever enough to support publicly only the worthiest ideas, in an attempt to enhance the appeal of communism; and every good cause to which they added their unwelcome help would be tarred with their brush, and non-Communists who believed in the same cause would be subject to the unjust accusation of furthering the designs of communism and the Soviet Union. Communism and all its works were never at a lower ebb in American public opinion than they are today. Driving the Communists underground can only make it more difficult to combat them. Helping the Communists make martyrs of themselves can only enhance the appeal they make to the unthinking.

Our supreme interest in defeating the proposed legislation is self-interestthe self-interest of all of us Americans who are not Communists but uncompromising opponents of all totalitarian dictatorships. If this proposed action is taken against Communists today, a dangerous precedent is created for extending it tomorrow to progressives, socialists, or trade-unionists. Let such fear be called fanciful, we call attention to a recent statement by Guy Gabrielson, Republican national chairman, that the socialists will be next "We haven't gotten around to spotlight them yet, but I promise you we will. Avowed socialists have no more place in the official family of the President of the United States than have Communists * * socialism is just the first step toward communism."

*

*

The only important fear which we need have of Communists in this country today is that they will provoke us into suicide, by piecemeal destruction of our own free institutions. Police-state tactics will not destroy communism. We must not forget that in Czarist Russia, the first nation in which communism triumphed, these tactics turned out to be a boomerang. By refusing to adopt police-state tactics, America will strike the heaviest possible blow against communism, and preserve its own democracy.

Patrick Murphy Malin, national director, American Civil Liberties Union; Charles M. LaFollette, national director, Americans for Democratic Action; Dr. Ralph E. Himstead, general secretary, American Association of University Professors; Elmer W. Henderson, director, American Council on Human Rights; Helen Blanchard, legislative representative, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO; John Slawson, executive director, American Jewish Committee; David W. Petegorsky, executive director, American Jewish Congress; Michael Straight, chairman, American Veterans Committee; Benjamin R. Epstein, executive director, Antidefamation League of B'nai B'rith; Rev. Thomas B. Keehn, legislative secretary, Council for Social Action, Congregational Christian Churches of the U. S. A.; E. Raymond Wilson, executive secretary, Friends Committee on National Legislation; Jacob Pat, executive director, Jewish Labor Committee; Ben Kaufman, executive director, Jewish War Veterans of the U. S. A.; Isaih M. Minkoff, executive director, National Community Relations Advisory Council: Mrs. Irving M. Engel, president, National Council of Jewish Women; Elisabeth Christman, secretary-treasurer, National Women's Trade-Union League; Philip Schiff and Herman Shukofsky, cochairmen, Social Action Committee, National Association of Jewish Center Workers; John W. Edelman, legislative representative, Textile Workers Union of America, CIO.

STATEMENT OF DAMES OF LOYAL LEGION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

URGE ENACTMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION ON UN-AMERICAN AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Whereas there exists a Communist or Marxian movement, which is a worldwide revolutionary political movement, whose purpose is to establish a Communist or Marxian totalitarian dictatorship in all countries of the world through the medium of a single Communist political organization; and

Whereas the recent successes of radical methods in other countries present a clear and present danger to the security of the United States and to the existence of free American institutions, and make it necessary that Congress, in order to provide for the common defense, to preserve the sovereignty of the United States as an independent Nation, and to guarantee to each state a republican form of government, enact appropriate legislation recognizing the existence of such world-wide conspiracy designed to prevent it from accomplishing its purpose in the United States: Therefore be it

Resolved, That the Dames of the Loyal Legion of the United States of America unqualifiedly endorse the principles contained in H. R. 3342, as originally intro

duced by Representative Nixon, to regulate and control activities of Communists and Communist-front organizations.

MISS FRANCES EDDY CURTISS, National President, Dames of the Loyal Legion of the United States of America. DETROIT, MICH.

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE AMERICAN LABOR PARTY

The American Labor Party respectfully urges the defeat of the Mundt-Nixon bill (S. 2311; H. R. 7595).

The American Labor Party, New York's Progressive Party, associates itself with, and joins in, the statement presented to this committee by Prof. Thomas I. Emerson, on April 4, 1950, in behalf of the Progressive Party.

In addition, we submit the following brief statement:

The Mundt-Nixon bill is a legislative blueprint for fascism in America. It is derived, in spirit, purpose, and content, from a series of decrees issued in 1933 by the Nazi Government at the express direction of Adolph Hitler and Paul Goebbels. These official Nazi decrees were entitled as follows:

"Law regarding the revocation of naturalization and the deprivation of German citizenship Reichsgesetzblatt, 1, 480, July 14, 1933. Regulation to implement this law-Reichsgesetzblatt, 1, 538, July 26, 1933."

"Emergency decree for the protection of the people and the state-February 28,

1933."

The February 28, 1933, decree referred to, provided as follows: "Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the constitution of the German Reich are hereby suspended until further notice."

This Hitler decree arbitrarily suspended existing guaranteed rights to free expression of opinion, freedom of the press, the right of assembly, the secrecy of the mail, telephone, and telegraph. The Mundt-Nixon bill would similarily nullify existing constitutional guaranties essential to the liberties of the American people.

Section 4-a of the Mundt-Nixon bill would make it a crime for any person "Knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree with any other person to perform an act which would substantially contribute to the establishment, within the United States, of a totalitarian dictatorship, the direction and control of which is to be vested in, or exercised by, or under the domination or control of, any foreign government, foreign organization, or foreign individual." Under this section, the right of the people to associate together freely to advance their common views, or to support or oppose legislation, would be nullified and rendered a crime.

By arbitrarily labeling any activity as "an act which would substantially contribute to the establishment * * * of a totalitarian dictatorship," the Board set up under the bill could make it a criminal offense for persons to join in common action for ending the cold war; for effective rent control; for outlawing discrimination by passage of the FEPC, antilynch and antipoll tax legislation; for low rent public housing; for health insurance; for Federal aid to education; for increase in social-security benefits and coverage.

At this very moment, the white supremacists and the fomenters of bigotry and bias are alleging that FEPC legislation is "totalitarian dictatorship." The real estate interests are alleging that rent control and public housing are “totalitarian dictatorship." The opponents of health insurance are alleging that it is "totalitarian dictatorship" to provide urgently needed medical and health care to the American people. The monopolies are screaming that any increase in old-age benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, is "totalitarian dictatorship."

The Mundt-Nixon bill would write into the law of the land these deliberately lying labels-and would strait-jacket the American people into a pattern of thought control. The Board would be the dictatorial arbiter of political orthodoxy in this country. Dissent-by anyone-would mean criminal prosecution. Difference of opinion on issues would be a crime. America would be degraded to a police-state level.

The Mundt-Nixon bill is aimed at the liberties of all-regardless of their political affiliations-who seek to exercise the right of the people to speak their minds, to hear every viewpoint on public questions, and to act in common to advance a shared view.

a

Professor Emerson has, in his statement before this committee, analyzed in detail the separate sections of the bill. We should like to point out, in addition, that under section 11 the door would be opened for an examination of every letter posted. The ostensible pretext would be that the Board is seeking to determine whether the requirement for labeling wrappers "Disseminated by Communist organization" has been complied with. Thus, under this section, the mails would become subject to un-American invasion of the basic privacy of communications. Similarly, under this section, censorship of all radio scrips in advance would be established, on the same pretext.

The American Labor Party is proud to associate itself with millions of Americans who have protested the Mundt-Nixon bill and have urged its defeat. As the minority report of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Rept. 1358, pt. 2), points out:

"In the atmosphere created by this bill the American tradition of freedom could only stifle and die. That is why the trade-union movement represented by the AFL, the CIO, and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, has expressed its vigorous opposition to this bill. That is why the National Farmers' Union has opposed the principles which underlie this bill. That is why the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the American Jewish Congress have expressed their opposition to such a bill. That is why the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Lawyers Guild have opposed the bill. That is why the most distinguished constitutional lawyers, including those whose opinions were sought by the Senate Judiciary Committee, have said that the principles which underlie this bill are repugnant to the Constitution, which every Senator is sworn to uphold. These authorities include the late Charles Evans Hughes, Jr.; John W. Davis; Seth W. Richardson, chairman of the Loyalty Review Board; and Zechariah Chafee, Jr., of Harvard."

To these, can be added the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, which has issued a report opposing passage of the Mundt-Nixon bill.

Instead of enacting this legislative blueprint for fascism, the American Labor Party calls upon Congress to meet the real needs of the people. Enact the Powell FEPC bill, together with antilynch and antipoll tax legislation. End the cold war and outlaw the manufacture of the H-bomb. Expand social-security. Pass a national health insurance bill. Meet the acute crisis in our schools by Federal aid to education, including a specific prohibition of discrimination against or segregation of Negro children in the schools receiving such aid. Increase the minimum wage to $1 per hour, with expanded coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Build low rent public housing. Extend and strengthen Federal rent control. These are on the agenda of the people of America. They should be on the agenda of Congress.

STATEMENT ON H. R. 7595 FILED WITH THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES BY REV. WILLIAM H. JERNAGIN, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL FRATERNAL COUNCIL OF NEGRO CHURCHES, U. S. A., INC., AND NATIONAL BAPTIST SUNDAY SCHOOL AND BAPTIST TRAINING UNION CONGRESS

Mr. Chairman, I appear before your committee in my capacity as national affairs consultant, executive board member, and past president of the National Faternal Council of Negro Churches, U. S. A., Inc., with offices at 318 Third Street SW., Washington, D. C. The council represents 11 denominations and 7,000,000 Negro church members throughout the country. I also appear on behalf of the National Baptist Sunday School and Baptist Training Union Congress, of which I am president.

In our

We have reviewed the Mundt-Nixon bill, published March 7, 1950. opinion, it will not eliminate un-American activities. All information and statistics known to us show that the problems experienced by every person or persons in every sphere of American life hit with double impact upon the nonwhites, of whom Negroes comprise the majority. It is being increasingly recognized by Negroes, therefore, that the decisive test of any bill or measure designed to alleviate the basic problem facing American citizens must turn on the degree to which the program or measures operate fully and effectively for all races by equalizing, more or less, their opportunities throughout American life.

Instead of studying the Mundt-Nixon bill, therefore, we feel this committee should be studying ways of eliminating the real un-American practice of denying