From the standpoint of where the money is to come from, most of the witnesses that have appeared before this committee have had naturally the selfish interest of getting some money from the Government for the various institutions of different kinds that they represent. We all know that the Government hasn't any money except what it takes from the people and that the Government is now very deeply in debt, so much so that any child born in the country today likely has an obligation to Uncle Sam of perhaps approximately $1,500 hanging around its neck.

Individuals are making very great contributions today to scientific pursuits. I know there are a great many in the State where I live who are being very helpful in this regard. Just think, for instance, of what is being done with reference to cancer today, trying to find the cause and cure of cancer with private funds.

I have been so much convinced by my service here, my experience, reinforced by the very able statement of the chairman of this committee, that throughout our history the very basis of our progress has been this rugged individual upon whom American advancement has been predicated. Take the Wright brothers. Leonardo da Vinci laid down some principles of flying

Mr. O'HARA. Will the gentleman yield a moment?

Mr. LANHAM. Just a minute. Langley, another scientist, worked on that. Who finally gave us aviation? And perhaps it is basic. Two men who, as I recall and they richly deserve all the honor that has come to them-were at that time bicycle dealers. I think you will find all the way through our history that the instance after instance of a similar kind could be cited.

Mr. O'HARA. Did they get any governmental aid?

Mr. LANHAM. None whatever. If you will look through the catalog of American accomplishments-and perhaps the Patent Office could help you somewhat in that regard-you will see that perhaps most of our useful inventions that have meant so much in the daily life of every American have come from those little fellows with their little shops who get an idea and then in their garrets or in their cellars, and free under the incentive of our economic system, work and work and work until finally, unhampered by anybody, with not even an intimation that the Government is going to come in and interfere with them, arrive at something of practical utility. What does the patent law do? The patent law simply says to the inventor, because of your wonderful efforts, the sacrifices you have made, and the fact that you are going to give this discovery to the public and that all the world can have it, we are going to allow you a little period of years in which you can have the exclusive right to get something to reward you for your labors. That incentive has led these humble people all over the country to give us our outstanding inventions. If you will look through the history of our American inventions, you will find that they have emanated very largely from just such sources.

I made a reference to a bill which became a law and which I sponsored, which was enacted shortly before our entrance into World War II when every indication was that it was going to be necessary for us to enter that war, calling upon the American people in effect to submit, and submit to be kept secret, inventions that were primarily useful for our national defense. While that law was still in opera

89560-49-11

tion, from a thoroughly reliable and very high authority I was advised that at that time there were over 9,000 inventions being kept secret that had been supplied by these humble American folk, and that their efforts far exceeded everything that Hitler had been able to accomplish.

Do you know what led to the introduction and the passage of that law? Let me tell you. One of the agencies of our Government engaged in our defense and security, through its research department— and bear in mind that our Army and our Navy and our Air Force, and so forth, have their research departments to which we contribute from the Federal Treasury many millions of dollars each year discovered a very important idea for our defense. Of course, it was being kept secret. There was an old gentleman, as I remember he was past 70 years of age, who had never invented anything in his life, who in his little basement or humble home hit upon that idea, and he filed an application for a patent, and he had priority of invention. There wasn't any reason in the world that the Patent Office could give to refuse a patent, but they called that old gentleman in, a very patriotic citizen, and they explained the situation to him, and of course he said, "Well, now, we will just forget it. Go ahead. We will just let this rest for the whole. I won't pursue it."

Gentlemen, if you will just look through our history-go back and read what Thomas Jefferson said and how in the early days of our Republic he was so surprised at what we were accomplishing through our patent system and the incentive that it gives to this rugged individual-you may be surprised to see where these wonderful inventions come from. Aviation came from over here. The submarine came from over here. You can go on and mention all kinds of things that came from these humble individual American folk.

Mr. PRIEST. On that point, Mr. Lanham, most of these things that you have mentioned here as examples are the applied techniques, the applied research, the industrial techniques applied to a basic research discovery that has been made in a laboratory somewhere.

Mr. LANHAM. How about aviation? Is that basic?

Mr. PRIEST. The science of aerodynamics is basic, and that far antedates the actual perfection of a heavier-than-air craft; that is, the study of the science of aerodynamics.

Mr. LANHAM. But it had no practical worth or utility in aviation until finally the Wright brothers put it into effect.

Mr. PRIEST. The point I asked you to yield on is simply this: If you felt that the individual's rights were adequately protected in this bill insofar as a patent on inventions are concerned, and that the foundation would devote most of its time and effort and energy and what funds it gets from the Congress to broad, basic research that is envisioned as the major part of the program, if you felt that those conditions were met, then how would you feel about the legislation?

Mr. LANHAM. In the first place, I do not think that all basic research in its productiveness would come from any such source. I don't think it has come from such sources in the past.

In the next place, even if you should eliminate the patent provisions-which in my judgment should be studied very carefully and very long in hearings by the committee having jurisdiction of patents under our Legislative Reorganization Act-in addition to the fundamental objections which I have recited to measures of this kind as

being interference with our traditional and constitutional American policy, you still have the provision that this Foundation can take any property of anybody that it decides has either resulted from scientific research or that is useful for scientific research. You do not propose to establish any laboratories or pilot plants. What would the Foundation do with that property?

Mr. O'HARA. Would you enlarge upon that point? I never have had the thought that this bill, with some misgivings that I have had, went that far, Mr. Lanham. You say they can take it. How can they take it, except as it might apply to an employee or someone who is being paid, whose education or whose study is being paid for by the Government?

Mr. LANHAM. In section 11 of H. R. 12 we have this language:

The Foundation is empowered to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act, and without being limited thereby, the Foundation is specifically authorized * * *.

(e) to acquire by purchase, lease, loan, or gift, and to hold and dispose of by sale, lease or loan, real and personal property of all kinds necessary for or resulting from scientific research.

That is a very broad authority. It certainly, in my judgment, includes condemnation.

Mr. O'HARA. I don't think so, Mr. Lanham.

Mr. PRIEST. I don't think So, either.

Mr. LANHAM. I think perhaps you will have some further testimony in that regard. Consequently, I did not dwell up. n it.

Mr. O HARA. It is the usual corporation language, the enabling corporation language, which permits a corporation to do business, but certainly it doesn't give it the right of condemnation or acquisition other than by purchase.

Mr. LANHAM. But condemnation is purchase.

Mr. O'HARA. If you are right, Mr. Lanham, we certainly want to do something about it.

Mr. LANHAM. You are going to have to look into that section, in my judgment, very, very carefully. This Foundation is not going to establish any laboratories or or pilot plants.

Mr. O'HARA. No.

Mr. LANHAM. Then why are they going to be taken unless the Foundation is going to turn them over to some of these people who are trying to be beneficiaries of governmental grants?

Mr. O'HARA. Your point is, Why do they need that power?

Mr. LANHAM. Why do they need it unless they are going to turn the property over through their contracts to somebody who has a governmental grant to carry on? What necessity is there for it? They are not going to run any plants themselves.

Mr. PRIEST. That question was pretty fully developed in discussions last year. I am sure we will give it some more attention. I feel that other members of the committee might have some questions.

Mr. LANHAM. I think that will need a great deal of thought and study.

Mr. PRIEST. You may be assured that it will receive it. To add to what Mr. O'Hara said, in adopting the language last year, the committee was of the unanimous opinion, after thoroughly exploring it, that condemnation was not involved.

Mr. Sadowski?

Mr. SADOWSKI. First of all, without being facetious, I would like to suggest that maybe your statement is a little out of context in one place. After you get through with your great exposition of Dr. Shapley on page 11, don't you think that you ought to insert those last two paragraphs on page 6 where you cite from the statement made by Chairman Crosser in which he refers to Thomas Jefferson. Then after we get all of this stuff from the Un-American Activities Committee and others who are trying to shape Dr. Shapley's mind, suppose we would insert there then:

It is, therefore, the duty of everyone to be on guard against any interference with the freedom of the mind. Remember those words of Thomas Jeffersonand let me remind you that Thomas Jefferson was the father of our American patent system at the very beginning of its operation—

"I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Because of fear of economic power, social ostracism, ecclesiastical censure, scholastic scorn, or governmental oppression, men have refrained from responding to their inspirations and highest intuitions, and so mankind has been denied the benefit of incalculable good which would otherwise have resulted from the unfoldment of truth in human experience. * * *

Government should prevent men's infringement of each other's rights and should assure equality of opportunity to utilize the bounty supplied by the Creator.

That also goes for the mind, man's thinking.

* * * That done, the individual, in the free play of his individuality, will develop capacity and ability not possible for the man whose actions are so constantly directed by governmental authority as to make of him a mere mechanism.

It seems to me that should follow after page 11 after you cite all these condemnations against Dr. Shapley, because to my mind Dr. Shapley is a great educator and a great man and a great intellectual. Mr. LANHAM. Do you contend

Mr. SADOWSKI. I don't think he is Communist just because a man thinks differently from you. He still has that right, and you stated here that that right should go to other people, but not, in other words, to Dr. Shapley. I think it goes to Dr. Shapley and others as well. Mr. LANHAM. To be sure; I made no personal references of any opinion of my own concerning Dr. Shapley.

Mr. SADOWSKI. There are about 212 pages of reference to Dr. Shapley.

Mr. LANHAM. I simply quoted the records.

Mr. SADOWSKI. It is the most derogatory I have ever read of any

man.

Mr. LANHAM. It is simply a quotation from the records, if they are derogatory. But I did want to show that he has been consulted by governmental authorities about the provisions of legislation of this character. I do not think there is any inconsistency in the two passages quoted from my statement. I will say to my friend from Michigan, for whom, as he knows, I have a very high regard, that there is no inconsistency whatsoever in the statements to which he has referred, because, if under our traditional and constitutional system of Government Dr. Shapley can present something which will be helpful for American progress, of course we would all be glad to have it. Mr. SADOWSKI. Certainly. He may not agree with you and your way of thinking, but he is a great American and a great educator and not a Communist.

Mr. LANHAM. What I am pleading for is to leave free this individual who has been the backbone of our progress in accordance with our traditional and constitutional policy. If Dr. Shapley can come along and give us something that will help, by all means let us have anything we can get from any source.

Mr. SADOWSKI. It may even be possible that Dr. Shapley may understand the teachings of Thomas Jefferson more greatly and more nobly and more deeply than some of us.

Mr. LANHAM. I do not know to what extent he has studied Jefferson's writings and so forth. I have studied quite a bit about Thomas Jefferson and of course with special reference recently perhaps to his interest in the patent system and getting it started for this country. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. O'Hara?

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Lanham, as you know, I have very high regard and very deep personal affection for you.

Mr. LANHAM. Which is reciprocated in full.

Mr. O'HARA. I submit that you have given us something to think about, and while I know nothing of Dr. Shapley, if you are correct I am rather concerned about some of the people he associates with if he is going to be of some power or some eminence in this Science Foundation which is to be created. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in view of what has transpired this morning, we invite Dr. Shapley to appear before the committee and testify. If these findings bearing upon Dr. Shapley by the Un-American Activities Committee and the Attorney General's office are wrong, maybe we ought to let Dr. Shapley testify. I certainly think it enters into my concern about what we are doing in this bill.

Mr. SADOWSKI. The point I make, Mr. O'Hara, is that Dr. Shapley's ideas as to the political freedom of man's mind or the freedom of a man's mind as to political ideas, political thoughts, views, and his conceptions, are his own personal opinion. I, too disagree with some of our international policies.

Mr. O'HARA. I grant that, but I am concerned. I am certainly concerned that we are dealing with things that concern our national defense. I think if we are dealing with a problem that certainly is something that is going to involve the national defense of this country, then one of two things is true: Before we do it we had better be sure of what we do and to provide the proper safeguards that no one be appointed as Director or member of the Foundation whose patriotism there is any question about, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LANHAM. May I say just one word there? Of couse I do not know Dr. Shapley. I do not say that he is not a very eminent scientist. I may add I made no personal attack upon him unless that is involved in a citation of the record. It is very clear that he was confering with governmental authorities about legislation of this character. Of course, I would have no objection whatever to having Dr. Shapley come before your committee and perhaps you could determine from him when he first became interested in legislation of this character and to what extent he has participated in the formation of the policies represented in the bill.

Mr. PRIEST. The Chair will take the suggestion of the gentleman from Minnesota under consideration, and we will discuss that in an executive session of the subcommittee and reach a decision on that point, but not at this particular moment.