« 이전계속 »
U. S, research.” It might be well, in our own research, and as a preliminary approach to this matter, to quote some pertinent passages from that article. [Reading :)
Minutes of the Inter-Society ('ommittee for a National Science Foundation, a group of scientists promoting a bill to spend $15,000,000 a year on research, dis close that the group intends to pick the personnel of the Foundation when and if it is approved by Congress.
Prominent in lobbying for the legislation is Dr. Harlow Shapley, director of the Harvard University Observatory. He is a member of various organizations des ignated by Attorney General Clark as subversive. Shapley is vice chairman of the group which would make the selections.
Shapley has a long record of affiliation with groups which the House Un-American Activities Committee has labeled as communistic or ('ommunist fronts. Recently he was disclosed as the master mind of The Committee of One Thousand. a group formed to press for abolition of the House committee.
Cite his affiliations: Shapley was a member of the American Committee for Democracy and Intellectual Freelom, which the House committee cited as a Communist front organized to defend ('ommunist teachers in a report March 29, 1944. He was a member of the League of American Writers, which was described as a ('ommunist-front organization in three committee reports,
He was revealed in the columns of the Daily Worker as the signer of various letters supporting the aims of organizations, described by the committee as Communist fronts, and of appeals in behalf of Communists such as Gerhard Eisler and Earl Browder.
Minutes of a meeting in Chicago last December 28 of the executive committee of the group sponsoring the research bill, report :
“It was agreed that the committee's recommendations should be ready for submission immediately upon enactment of the proposed legislation."
Members of Congress have learned that the list has been prepared and is now ready for submission to the White House upon passage of the bill.
The accusations in that article are very serious ones. Naturally I wished to learn whether or not the alleged connection of Dr. Shapley with such organizations had been considered by the Committee on Un-American Activities. I made due inquiry in that regard, and I quote the following information from the records and publications of that committee:
À letter read dated September 22, 1939, discloses that Harlow Shapley was a member of the National Committee of the American Committee for Democracy and Intellectual Freedom. According to the Daily Worker of July 25, 1940, page 2, he was one of the signers of that organization's open letter setting forth a five-point program to aid refugees, which was sent to Secretary of State Hull. Letterheads dated January 17, 1940, and May 26, 1940, reveal that he was a member of this organization's executive committee. The Special Committee on Un-American Activities, in its report of June 25, 1942, page 13, cited the American Committee for Democracy and Intellectual Freedom as a Communist front, stating: “In recent years, no other organization has been more clearly stamped as a Communist front." Again in the report of March 29, 1944, the committee cited the organization as a ('ommunist front, which defended Communist teachers.
A folder of the Citizens' Committee To Free Earl Browder, which was issued in 1942, names Harlow Shapley as one of the prominent Americans who favored Presidential clemency for the release of Earl Browder, general secretary of the Communist Party in the United States. Report 1311 of the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, March 29, 1944, page 6, states: “When Earl Browder was in Atlanta Penitentiary serving a sentence involving his fraudulent passports, the Communist Party's front which agitated for his release was known as the Citizens' Committee To Free Earl Browder." This committee had previously been cited as a (Communist organization by Attorney General Francis Biddle. (Congressional Record, September 24, 1942, p. 7687.)
Harlow Shapley has been affilated with the Council for Pan-American Democracy as a signer of the open letter which that organization sponsored and sent to the President of Brazil to save Luiz Carlos Prestes, Brazilian Communist leader and former member of the executive committee of the Communist
International. The list of signer's appeared in the December 3, 1940, issue of New Masses, page 28. The Council for Pan-American Democracy, also known as the Conference for Pan-American Democracy, has been cited as a Communist front in two reports of the Special Committee on Un-American Activities. (Report, June 25, 1942, p. 18; report, March 29, 1944, pp. 161 and 164.) The organization has also been cited as “subversive" and "Communist” by Attorney General Clark in lists furnished the Loyalty Review Board, which were released to the press by the United States Civil Service Commission, June 1, 1948, and September 21, 1948.
The affilation of Harlow Shapley with the League of American Writers is shown by the Daily Worker of July 21, 1940, page 7, which reveals that he was one of the signers of the League of American Writer's open letter to Secretary of State Cordell Hull and the Pan-American Conference. The League of American Writers was cited as a Communist front by the Special Committee on UnAmerican Activities in its reports of January 3, 1940; June 25, 1942; and March 29, 1944. Attorney General Francis Biddle said of the league: "The League of American Writers, founded under Communist auspices in 1935. * * * The overt activities of the League of American Writers leave little doubt of its Communist control.” (Congressional Record, September 24, 1942, p. 7686.) The League of American Writers has also been cited as “subversive" and "Communist" by the present Attorney General. (Press releases of the United States Civil Service Commission, dated June 1, 1948, and September 21, 1948.-)
Harlow Shapley, according to a letterhead of February 15, 1940, was a sponsor of the National Emergency Conference for Democratic Rights. The Daily Worker of May 13, 1940, pages 1 and 5, discloses that he was one of the signers of an open letter issued by this organization in support of one of its policies. The National Emergency Conference for Democratic Rights was cited as a Communist front by the Special Committee on Un-American Activities in Report 1311 of March 29, 1944, pages 48 and 102.
According to the Daily Worker of March 18, 1945, page 3, Harlow Shapley was one of the signers of a statement issued by the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties which hailed the War Department order on commissions for Communists. This organization was cited as a Communist front by the Special Committee on Un-American Activities in the report of June 25, 1942, page 20, and again in the report of March 29, 1944, page 50. Attorney General Biddle characterized the organization as “Part of what Lenin called the solar system of organizations, ostensibly having no connection with the Communist Party, by which Communists attempt to create sympathizers and supporters of their program." (Congressional Record, September 24, 1942, p. 7687). The National Federation for Constitutional Liberties has also been cited as "subversive" and "Communist” by the present Attorney General. (Press releases of the United States Civil Service Commission dated December 4, 1947, and September 21, 1948.)
Harlow Shapley was one of the signers of the New Masses letter to the President, according to New Masses of April 2, 1940, page 21. Both the Special Committee on Un-American Activities and Attorney General Francis Biddle have cited this publication as the weekly organ of the Communist Party (committee reports of June 25, 1942, p. 4, and March 29, 1944, p. 48; and Attorney General Biddle, in the Congresisonal Record, September 24, 1942, p. 7688).
Harlow Shapley was one of the signers of a statement in defense of Gerhart Eisler which was printed in the Daily Worker of June 28, 1947, page 6. On February 6, 1947, the Committee on Un-American Activities held public hearings on Gerhart Eisler. In the hearings, Gerhart Eisler was revealed as an international Communist agent directing Communist activities in this country.
What I have cited is but part of the records of the Special Committee on Un-American Activities with reference to affiliations and activities of Dr. Harlow Shapley, by I think it is enough to be sufficiently informative.
Now, finally, the very pertinent question arises as to whether Dr. Shapley actually participated in conferences with governmental authorities concerning the provisions to be included in a National Science Foundation bill. In that respect, I think convincing proof is readily available.
I have before me a copy of the Congressional Record of May 5, 1948. On page 5434 of the daily Record for that day appears a speech of Senator Smith with reference to the National Science Foundation bill which was then pending in the Senate. In that speech, and recorded on that page, Senator Smith included a letter, dated May 5, 1948, which he had just received from the Director of the Budget, the Honorable James E. Webb. I quote for your information a passage from that letter of Director Webb, which appears on the page indicated :
As you know, in all of our discussions concerning the organization of the Foundation, the awarding of contracts had been vested in the Director with the concurrence of the executive committee. In this way, both the interest of the scientists and the interest of the Government were adequately safeguarded. Without the safeguarding of both of these interests the bill is subject to one of the major criticisms advanced by the President in disapproving S. 526.
Now listen to this, and remember that I shall still be quoting from that letter from the Director of the Budget:
This was a key point in previous drafts of the bill to which Dr. Shapley and Dr. Bush fully agreed.
Note that priority of mention is even given to Dr. Shapley over that eminent scientist, Dr. Bush. Note also that Dr. Shapley had been consulted about such proposed legislation even prior to 1948.
Well, gentlemen, the records speak for themselves. I think any loyal American can interpret their import with reasonable accuracy. When did Dr. Shapley first get interested in such legislation? Maybe you can find out. At least we know that it antedates 1948. What was the original source of this proposed enactment? Wouldn't it be wise to endeavor to determine that before taking action on this bill? Surely even the disclosed facts are enough to arouse suspicions and put us on notice that in the original conception of the suggestion may have lurked a desire of other than American origin to lead us to abandon our time-honored principles and systems. It is certainly a very serious decision which faces you.
Of one thing we may be very sure. The American pre-eminence we have attained has not been based upon the centralization of arbitrary power in government. That's a doctrine of certain foreign regimes, and it is becoming increasingly evident that they wish us to adopt it to their own totalitarian advantage. Our progress has come from that rugged individual upon whose freedom of action our governmental philosophy has been predicated, an individual laboring under the incentives of our Constitution and laws to give full expression to his God-given ingenuity in creative accomplishments for our progress. And, oh, how well the achievements of that unhampered individual have proved the wisdom of our policy. From the cellars and garrets of these humble, but independent, folk have emanated the forces of American greatness. Let us be sure to remember that. Surely no such legislation as this is necessary to inspire loyal American scientists to do their duty, and isn't it equally clear that no step should be taken which could diminish the ardor or the effort of those who have taken us to the forefront?
As I conclude, let me draw an analogy from an incident recited in the Scriptures. You remember that the great prophet Elijah was once in a land of drought and that he received a command from on high to go to a little brook called Cherith. He was told that there he would
be fed by the ravens and that he could drink the water of the brook. And then the Scriptures go on to say:
And it came to pass after a while that the brook dried up.
Gentlemen, if we decide to follow the un-American philosophy of establishing governmental institutions to centralize and dominate the field of research and thereby diminish or destroy the incentives of that rugged American individual to work for the advancement and the welfare of our country and the world, let us bear in mind that the source of the water in the brook of our preeminence is destined to dry up.
When I contemplate the hardships and the privations and the suffering and the courage of those brave souls who made possible our American way of life, so productive of the blessings of liberty that have glorified our progress, and then meditate upon the seductive songs of governmental sirens who would lure our ship of state upon the rocks of totalitarian regimentation, my mind and my heart seek refuge in the prayer of the poet : Lord, God of Hosts, be with us yet; lest we forget! Lest we forget!
Mr. Priest. Mr. Lanham, I am sure the subcommittee appreciates very much your statement, and most of us, I believe, have served with you and know of your utter sincerity in the position you take, whether we agree with you or not. So far as the fundamental objective is concerned I think we all agree. There is no doubt that there are some different interpretations insofar as the route toward the goal is concerned that we may not agree on. For instance, before opening up for general questions on your statement, in the concluding part of your statement you suggested thatno such legislation as this is necessary to inspire loyal American scientists to do their dutyand then you asked the question:
Isn't it equally clear that no steps should be taken which could diminish the ardor or the efforts of those who have taken us to the forefront?
I agree with you fully that legislation should not be necessary to inspire American scientists to do their duty. I have studied the reasons, as I see them, for a National Science Foundation for a good many years pretty carefully. I have felt for 4 years, at least, at the beginning of this study, that all the economic factors indicate that if we are to give opportunity to the American scientists to do the job that we want to do, to do that duty that you referred to, from some source the economic aid must be obtained. Private foundations can no longer, it appears, do that job. I read an interesting article in the New York Times magazine section Sunday on that very question, showing how the assets of private foundations are drying up, that they are no longer able to finance on the broad scale that they have in the past this basic research.
For that reason, I have been pretty firmly convinced in my own mind that the Government, without attempting to bind the mind of the scientist, without attemping to interfere with his freedom of action and his freedom of thought, should step into this picture and provide, particularly in the form of grants, scholarships, and fellowships some opportunity to permit the carrying forward of research, basic research primarily.
I am not particulaly interested in the applied research. Our industrial system will take care of that. But in basic research I feel that we can no longer depend, as we have in the past, on Europe. Most of our basic research did come from Europe prior to, say, the last decade. We can no longer depend on that. We must step in as a government and project the Government into this field to provide with the minimum of restrictions and the maximum of freedom this opportunity for scientists to pursue basic research.
There are one or two other points that I wanted to mention in connection with your statement. I am not at all interested in carrying out any alien philosophy. As to Dr. Shapley, I have had no direct connection with him whatsoever. I do know him to be a very distinguished scientist. My first interest in this legislation came, as I stated in the subcommittee the other morning, when Dr. Vannevar Bush called me, Mr. Mills, Senator Magnuson, and a few of us back in 1945 to a little conference at his apartment to discuss the report known as "Science, the Endless Frontier.”
I would like to emphasize that I have no interest, and I am sure this committee has no interest in making any departure that would in any way encourage alien philosophy in connection with this legislation.
With reference to the statement that you read that indicated that Dr. Shapley and a group that he represented might be rather influential in picking the membership of the Foundation or at least in submitting a list, it seems to me that the provisions in all of these more or less identical bills on the membership of the Foundation tie it down rather tightly, if we might put it that way, requiring Senate confirmation, requiring that all these persons selected shall be eminent in the field of medical, biological, and research in all of the sciences mentioned. I don't believe that we are very apt to get on a foundation of this sort that has to be confirmed by the Senate any persons who would advocate any dangerous alien philosophy. I just have that confidence in the appointment of the President, whoever he might be, and in the Senate of the United States.
There is one other point, and then I shall not monopolize questioning here. That is with reference to whether those who are working under scholarships or fellowships were employees of the Foundation.
Mr. LANHAM. Of the Government.
Mr. PRIEST. Of the Government; yes. That question has come up before in consideration of this legislation, and whether the bill makes it clear or not, it certainly should be made clear that they are not employees of the Government in any sense.
Mr. LANHAM. If you have concluded-
Mr. LANHAM. May I say in response to what you have just said,