policemen and procurers of Government. Senator Kilgore in his debate above referred to made the following amazing statement:

This is wartime, and technology cannot be permitted to develop on commercial terms. We cannot afford the peacetime luxury of finding the best techniques by: trial and error. In wartime we must have the best at once, and put it to use without a moment's delay. Government initiative is required-these steps will not be taken without it.

Why has Senator Kilgore withheld from industry, since 1943, his information as to how solutions of involved research problems can be had at once and without trial? Has he not overlooked here an unusual opportunity for public service?

Seriously, is there not in the Senator's statement above quoted a warning that the "best at once" thinking of the master planners would be hard indeed to live with under the broad grant of power proposed in these Science Foundation bills, hard even for fellow planners?

Regardless of the skillfully applied pressures of war hysteria, the Kilgore bill did not become the law. Industry went steadily ahead and applied its seasoned capacity for organization and its technological know-how to every task of production-including that of producing the atomic bomb-with results which brought consternation and defeat to all the enemy nations. Those nations had enjoyed for years the benefits of the kind of regimentation of mind and spirit, and of physical resources, which would have resulted inevitably from a projection of our economy toward the objectives of the Kilgore bill, now again substantially renewed in these Science Foundation bills.

As cofounder of the Automotive Council for War Production in Detroit, as an officer and member of its board of directors, and as chairman of its military replacement parts governing board, throughout the war, it was my privilege to see industry rise admirably, to challenges for intercooperation, with sacrificial devotion to the highest concepts of patriotism. That cooperation produced abundant proof that industry's inventive and productive muscle, seasoned throughout generations of competitive enterprise, could give to the world a salutary demonstration of the superior power of our normally competitive economy, greatly in contrast with the performance of nations long regimented in their activities for production.

There is submitted herewith, as an exhibit, a printed transcript of my address entitled "Better Look Now-Over Your Shoulder!" delivered March 11, 1949, to the Dayton Patent Law Association, Dayton, Ohio, with extensions and revisions to April 1, 1949.

Another exhibit offered as a part of this testimony, and already supplied to each member of your subcommittee, is the book entitled "Ordeal by Planning," published by the Macmillan Co., and written by Dr. John Jewkes, noted British economist.

(The two afore-mentioned exhibits are on file with the committee.) You are referred particularly to pages 20 to 28, inclusive, of the transcript mentioned the Dayton address-for quotations from Dr. Jewkes' book and for documentation bearing upon late industrial calamities in Britain attributed to the injection of governmental influence and controls into the business of research as affecting industrial development for peace and for war.

Perhaps worthy of direct inclusion in this statement is the following excerpt beginning on page 20-with an editorial in the London Times

of August 11, 1846, more than 100 years ago-and concluding on page 22 of the transcript mentioned:

"The greatest tyranny has the smallest beginnings. From precedents overlooked, from remonstrances despised, from grievances treated with ridicule, from powerless men oppressed with impunity, and overbearing men tolerated with complacence, springs the tyrannical usage which generations of wise and good men may hereafter perceive and lament and resist in vain. At present, common minds no more see a crushing tyranny in a trivial unfairness or a ludicrous indignity, than the eye uniformed by reason can discern the oak in the acorn, or the utter desolation of winter in the first autumnal fall. Hence the necessity of denouncing with unwearied and even troublesome perseverance a single act of oppression. Let it alone and it stands on record. The country has allowed it and when it is at last provoked to a late indignation it finds itself gagged with the record of its own ill compulsion."

Days could be spent profitably in contemplation of Dr. Jewkes' revelations, out of the frightening experiences of Britain, of what is in store for us unless wa at once dismiss our power planners and all their deluding devices. Time permits only brief references. One of particular interest to those who must decide whether to open to our planners new channels by which to tap our treasuries for the support of research controlled by Government, is found on page 162 of Dr. Jewkes' book, from which I quote as follows:

"The highest type of intellectual effort, such as pure research in the sciences, can only be carried out where the individual is virtually autonomous. Those who are to do the path-breaking work for society, those upon whose success progress so uniquely depends, must in their activities be allowed to go their own gait, to follow their own intuitions wherever they lead. Now it is logically impossible to permit these liberties in a planned economy. They outrage the general principles of orderly control; no sincere and authentic planner can be expected to sympathize with the idea that one group in the community does not fit in with the general scheme and is up to tricks which the State knows nothing about. Pure research must inevitably wither in the planned economy for a double reason. It cannot go on in that sort of environment. And, in any case, it will not go on, because those who are capable of it will be disgruntled by what appears to them the foolish policy of the state in failing to provide the only environment in which they can work."

Appended by asterisk to the above-quoted material is an ominous footnote which reads:

"One of the most striking illustrations of this is provided by the wholesale resignation of the experts on jet propulsion, who had given Great Britain a substantial lead in this field, when the Government took over this type of research."

The emphasis is supplied.

SIR ROY SAYS PLANNERS' RESULTS GHASTLY

What can happen in a planners' paradise, so long as transfusions of outside cash continue, is reported on page 94 of March 14, 1949, Time under heading "Last of the Tudor IV," opening with the sentence:

"In the first lap of the postwar international air race Britain had bet on the long-beaked 'Avro Tudor.'"

After reporting how British Overseas Airways tested their performance and refused to accept Tudors-how two out of four Tudors disappeared in salt water with a total of 51 aboard-it reports how Civil Aviation Minister Lord Pakenham "solemnly intoned":

"I have regretfully come to the conclusion that this type of aircraft should not continue to be used for carrying passengers."

The report closed with a quotation from the lips of Avro managing director Sir Roy Dobson, in this sentence:

"I would like to see the whole lot (of Tudors) swept out and burned so that we can forget this ghastly chapter and start again."

Research controls established by the planners of Britain we thus see breaking down, almost overnight, the British accumulation of technological skill and know-how developed in her private industries

89560-49--12

over generations of participation in the competitive exercises of British industrial economy and of the world." In those exercises Britain had developed, for industrial research and production, tough muscle which carried her through to victory in a Second World Waragainst what had been in Germany for many years perhaps the most exhaustively regimented industrial economy of all history wherein scientists labored constantly in the shadows of police state coercion. May we pause here, not only to consider broader lessons of history. but also to examine significant current pressures toward similar political domination of our industries?

H. R. 12 and its companion bills make no discernible effort to hold the proposed Science Foundation free from political dominance and resultant exposures to unfortunate inadvertances such as the selection, for control positions, of men at heart committed to ideologies repugnant to American traditions-men now perhaps having no choice but to follow the dictates of alien masters or be confronted with dire consequences of public disclosures of previous indiscretions.

Dr. Frank B. Jewett, speaking as the then president of the honored National Academy of Sciences, as shown on page 118 of the record of the hearings on H. R. 6007-identical with H. R. 12-said, with respect to the question of political dominances under Science Foundation bill H. R. 6007:

The elimination of these ol jction; make; the present bill more purely a politically controlled affair and if passed would make the Foundation a firmly fixed bureaucracy which Congress will find hard to control. As a purely political body it will be subject to all the pressures of every sort of interested group. As such it runs counter to the strongly expressed views of all the scientists who objected to the dangers of political control and were in favor of the bill passed last year.

Parenthetically, Dr. Jewett, on page 119 of the record, in discussing the claim that Science Foundation legislation is needed to accelerate the development of new scientists and technical specialists, from his preeminence in the field of science, says:

At best such a Foundation may possibly produce a few more good scientists, doctors, and engineers, and a little more first-rate science than would otherwise be produced, but at a high price. One thing it certainly will produce is a

torrent of second-rate scientists, doctors, and engineers.

What assurance is offered that the few "good scientists, doctors, and engineers" that might be produced, by the vast expenditures contemplated in this legislation, would be less reluctant to serve in the regimentation of Science Foundation bureaucracy than other good scientists, doctors, and engineers have been to serve under the Atomic Energy Commission?

And is it not true that the GI bill of rights, since its enactment in 1944, 5 years ago, already has produced such a surplus of scientists and engineers that many of them are walking the streets today looking for jobs that do not exist? It is understood that this condition recently has become so common as to deserve the notice of this committee, as one of the altered aspects, but recently apparent, which have suggested a complete reevaluation of the entire Science Foundation scheme even by its strongest proponents of but a few months ago?

Possibly the sponsors of this Science Foundation legislation, who have argued its urgency because of a presumed need for increasing the supply of scientists and engineers, may again demonstrate their ver

satility by arguing now that the legislation is needed because of an oversupply of scientists and engineers.

Many dire prophecies were made to hasten enactment of the illfated Kilgore bill of 1943. The prophets were completely discredited by ensuing events. Now presumed urgencies advanced in support of the plea for enactment of H. R. 6007—now H. R. 12—already are fading. Even recent publicity, stirring memories of the "flying saucers" hoax, has excited little public interest and has raised few "goose pimples" in Congress.

Appalling examples of studied infiltrations into Government by subversive personnel, at positions within range of vital governmental functions affecting national security, have not been lacking. That the proposed Science Foundation would be immune from such attacks can scarcely be imagined. That the foundation has been planned as a destructive instrumentality to be controlled by subversionists and employed to disable our industries is not now totally unsupported by significant facts.

For example, it is doubted that any man on this subcommittee, or more than a very few men in all of Congress, would choose Dr. Harlow Shapley, director of the Harvard University Observatory, as director of the proposed foundation. Yet, as pointed out by witness Fritz G. Lanham in his statement delivered before your subcommittee on April 4, 1949, Dr. Shapley, identified as participating actively in the work of an amazing number of organizations branded by our Government as subversive, is identified in a letter from the Director of the Budget as having been consulted as to the phraseology of "previous drafts"-note the plural-of Science Foundation bills-even prior

to 1948.

On page 103 of the record of testimony on H. R. 6007 there appears, in extension of remarks by Hon. Robert Nodar, Jr., of New York, a press report by Walter Trohan, as follows:

Washington, April 25, 1948.-Minutes of the Intersociety Committee for a National Science Foundation, a group of scientists promoting a bill to spend $15,000,000 a year on research, disclose 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 designated 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 Communist 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.

In view of such identification of a member of subversive groups as influencing over such a long period the phrasing of science foundation bills, perhaps even more interesting in its implications is a statement in the public press to the effect that, in anticipation of the enactment of this science foundation legislation, a list of persons to be proposed to the President for appointment to all the controlling positions in the foundation has been prepared-for submission immediately upon the enactment of the proposed legislation--but has not been published.

It is not understood, therefore, whether the names of Dr. Shapley, W. A. Higinbotham-who has submitted a statement in favor of H. R. 12 in these hearings-Alger Hiss or Henry Wallace are included

in any slate presumably prepared or sponsored by Dr. Shapley perhaps with the advice and consent of his conferees at the recent scientific and cultural conference of the National Council of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions which is the subject of a sensational review prepared and released under date of April 19, 1949, by the Committee on UnAmerican Activities of the House of Representatives. You are respectfully referred to that review as of particular interest in establishing the character and possible origin of our succession of science mobilization-foundation bills and hoped-for liaisons between the dominating structure proposed to be set up by these bills and the core of communistic task forces operating at all levels in America today.

Among the list of panel moderators and chairmen participating in the recent subversive meeting with which the above-mentioned review deals at length, we find the name of Harlow Shapley. In the list of panel speakers we find W. A. Higinbotham, also above-mentioned. There has been encountered nowhere any report to the effect that either of these gentlemen opposed in any particular the hostile purposes of the meeting or attacked in any manner the subversive philosophies therein advanced.

On page 12 of the review of April 19 by the Committee on UnAmerican Activities, above-mentioned, under the heading of "Civil disobedience" these words occur:

*

A member of the Communist Party struck the main chord of the conference in his outright advocacy of civil disobedience. Chosen for this role was Richard Boyer, who spoke openly as a member of the Communist Party *. Those who have thoughtlessly lent their names to the so-called Scientific and Cultural Conference for World Peace, should weigh carefully the motive behind his remark that "the very heart of American thought was that no act or policy of the Government is binding on the individual unless it meets the requirements of his conscience," and that "it is the duty of Americans to defy an American Government intent on imperialist war."

On page 15 of the review we find, under the heading "Scientists," a statement by the Committee on Un-American Activities as follows:

It is by no means accidental that Richard Boyer's appeal for civil disobedience was directed to an audience which included the following atomic scientists: Harlow Shapley, of Harvard University; William A. Higinbotham, of the Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, Long Island; William Orr Roberts, High Altitude Observatory, Colorado; Philip Morrison, of Cornell University; Victor Weiskopf, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Oswald Veblen and Albert Einstein, of Princeton. If the Communists could succeed, by playing upon the notorious political naiveté of physical scientists, in inciting scientists to a strike against their own Government, or sabotage, it would be a real achievement for the Soviet fatherland. They would like nothing better than a repetition in the United States of the cases of the Canadian atomic scientists, Raymond Boyer and Allan Nunn May, who divulged atomic secrets to the Soviet military intelligence. Such is the main purpose of this international movement, which is headed by Frederick Joliot-Curie, French Communist and atomic scientist, who has attacked the United States for keeping the atomic bomb secret, a tactic he called dangerous. Echoing the Soviet position, he has also demanded the United States halt its production of atomic bombs.

It may be helpful to note in H. R. 12, section 4 (a) under the heading "Powers and duties of the foundation" a subsection bearing upon the above-quoted comment, as follows:

The foundation is empowered * ** * (5) to foster the interchange of scientific information among scientists in the United States and foreign countries. For relentless tenacity in pursuing their objectives, and for enforced unanimity of purpose, the planners surely are outstanding.