« 이전계속 »
That makes the United States Government probably the largest launderer in the United States, and it seems to me that this type of letter should be included in the record, and I would like to have it placed in the record, as written.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. OSMERS. I have nothing further. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions from any member of the committee?
Mr. HOLTZMAN. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one or two questions.
The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.
Mr. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Griffith, I think we can agree that wherever possible we should get Government out of business, but frankly, I am not sure it wouldn't be better to get business out of Government.
Now, from how you spoke of the New York City transit system, I take it that you are opposed to subsidies.
Is that not so?
Mr. HOLTZMAN. I take it that your opposition would apply as well to airlines, steamship companies, newspapers, and railroads; is that correct? Mr. GRIFFITH. As subsidies, yes, sir.
. Mr. HOLTZMAN. You then said, and I did not quite get the inference, that you could suggest where to send these people on the subways. Just what do you mean by that?
Mr. GRIFFITH. May I withdraw it, and retract that?
Mr. HOLTZMAN. That's too bad because the next question would be how shall we send them—by subway, by air, or by boat?
Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes, sir.
Mr. HOLTZMAN. You also said that the very people who used the term "big business” use it invidiously, and that they are the same type of people who undoubtedly feel that there is a better system than the American system.
What did you mean by that?
Mr. GRIFFITH. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get on this subject, because it has been well aired before another committee of the Congress, but I believe there are people in this country who very probably desire to stir up strife and differences of opinion, and divide us, and I believe that the emphasis of the threat of big business carries connotations of soulless corporations, and soulless individuals, who have no other desire than to get the almighty dollar, by fair means or foul.
I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that in my personal experience in dealing with business I have not encountered that in any line of so-called big business.
I believe that those statements are made for the purpose of causing dissension and distrust among us.
Mr. HOLTZMAN. In other words, anybody who would disagree with you is committing some unkind act to the country; is that correct?
Mr. GRIFFITH. No, sir.
I think it is time in this country that we accepted the notion that people can disagree without being charged with disloyalty and I
think it is a shame that in this country of ours we cannot disagree without some imputation to our honesty, our decency, and integrity.
Mr. HILLELSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OSMERS. Mr. Chairman. I think that is taking undue liberty with the testimony of this witness. He did not say anything about disloyalty or anything about anyone disagreeing with anyone else.
If my good friend wants to make a speech on that subject, he is perfectly entitled to do so, but I do not think he should do it at the expense of this witness, and I do not think such a charge is fair or well founded.
Mr. HOLTZMAN. I would like to say in reply to Mr. Osmers that there were certain inferences brought in here by this witness, to wit: that people in New York City should be sent somewhere else, and that was withdrawn.
Then, there was the inference that anyone who disagreed with big business has something wrong with them; that he is not the fine type of American. I think it is time that that was stopped, and I think, also, that it should be stopped first in these committee rooms.
Mr. OSMERS. Mr. Holtzman, I think I can say this: It has been more or less open political season for a generation in this country to make or try to make political capital of big business just as it has been open season and fair game to make political capital of the big lator unions and I do not think anybody should be taken out and shot because of that, and I do not care which side of the argument you are
Mr. HOLTZMAN. I will join you in your statement that no one should get shot, but by the same token, the very people who talk about those who criticize big business and from that leave an unkind inference, should not be committing the same act here, and should not be saying that we should send them back to some other and foreign country, or leave the inference that we should.
Mr. Osmers. Now, we are going to go back to a foreign country.
Mr. HILLELSON. Mr. Holtzman, are you against the bill which we have under consideration?
Mr. HOLTZMAN. I started by saying, my friend, that I agree that wherever possible Government should get out of business. I also said it might be wise to get business out of Government.
Mr. HILLELSON. Actually, you agree with quite a bit of what Mr. Griffith has said?
Mr. HOLTZMAN. I agree with practically nothing he has said, because he has left a great many innuendoes here, which are not kind.
The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute, please. As a rule, in all courts of which I have ever heard, or read about, or been in, it is not the privilege of any witness to express an opinion of the testimony or the motives of any other witness, and certainly, at least, it is my opinion-and I do not know whether the committee will go along with me—that no member of the committee should express any opinion as to the accuracy of the testimony given by any witness or the truthfulness of a witness. I do not believe there is anyone in Congress, and certainly no one on this committee, who has taken what I personally think is more abuse than I have, and I doubt if I have ever resented it. But the veracity of the witnesses should not be questioned.
Mr. HOLTZMAN Mr. Chairman, I do not resent anything personally here.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think anyone should criticize the witness for what he says though we may all disagree.
Mr. HOLTZMAN. I will make whatever comments I think are right and proper, particularly when I think some unkind inference has been left.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, you can do that if you insist.
Mr. Holtzman. Yes; and I propose to do it, and to continue to do it.
The CHAIRMAN. No one, of course, can deny your right of free speech, but I want the witness to understand that I, for one, will not criticize what he says nor question his motives.
Mr. OSMERS. I feel that Mr. Griffith has come here and that his testimony on the subject which he has given has been in the form of a measured, careful, helpful statement to the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Unless I am overruled by the committee, there will not be in the printed record any expression which reflects upon the integrity or character or patriotism of any witness.
Mr. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, just one more statement.
The CHAIRMAN. That will be the rule unless the committee overrules me.
Mr. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on that?
I have not questioned the character or the integrity or the motives of this witness. I have questioned his own statement, and I have a right to do that, and I object very strenuously to any move to strike anything from this record.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course we all know that the actions of this body and the other body and of their committees are under very, very severe and often unqualified criticism. So far as I have been able, I have endeavored to protect all witnesses by giving every member of the committee a right to express his own opinion, but not an opinion of the witness and that is the rule I will adhere to until the committee overrules me.
Mr. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, this witness came in here and he has testified that we should
The CHAIRMAN. Let us forget it, and discuss it among ourselves in executive session.
Mr. HOLTZMAN. May I be heard just on this point?
Mr. HOLTZMAN. This witness talked about sending people away, I do not know what he meant by it, but he withdrew it.
The CHAIRMAN. All right; he withdrew it.
Mr. HOLTZMAN. This witness talked about those who used the term "big business” and who think there is a better system than the American system.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you deny that there has been such thinking and talking along that line?
Mr. HOLTZMAN. Would you let me make my statement, please?
Mr. HOLTZMAN. If I am not able to question this witness on the statements he has made, then I do not know what purpose we are here for.
If this witness is to come in here and make a statement and leavo inferences without the members of this committee having the right to cross-examine, or question him, I think we are wasting our time.
The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you on that, but I say it is not the prerogative or privilege of any member of the committee to question the motive or integrity or patriotism of any witness.
Mr. HOLTZMAN. He is questioning the patriotism of other people, I did not question his patriotism, nor do I at this time.
Mr. OSMERS. He did not question anybody's patriotism, either. He did not mention the word "patriotism" at any time in his statement.
Mr. HOLTZMAN. He said he knew where to send those people who are terribly subsidized in the city of New York. He also said that those who disagree with what he says believe that there is a better system than the American system. There is a time when disagreement is not disloyalty, and it is time that we recognized that here in this committee, and in every other part of the Congress.
Mr. Osmers. If a person believes there is a better system and does not act to overthrow the Government by force and violence, there is not any reason why he could not organize a political party or join one of the existing parties, and press his views there.
Mr. HOLTZMAN. There is no reason why I should not be able to question the witness on this point.
The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute, please—we are giving an exhibition to our guests and our witnesses which does not reflect credit
Mr. HOLTZMAN. We have had exhibitions before, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Who will be the next witness?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I just have one observation to make.
The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think we are pretty well agreed here that our effort to get Government out of business is a worthy effort, but I did want to inquire of Mr. Griffith whether he knows of any area where the Government has operated which might appear on the surface to be in competition with private enterprise, and which he would say has not choked off private enterprise but has opened up new areas for private enterprise to operate, and I am thinking particularly of situations like the TVA.
Do you have the feeling that there is an activity of Government which far from being an unworthy governmental operation, has contributed to our free and private economy by opening up a new area for private development and new plants?
Mr. GRIFFITH. I think I stated that there was no line of demarcation and that there were projects where different States were involved that certainly business could only applaud the Federal Government going into those kinds of projects.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Does that apply to TVA?
Mr. WARD. Is the representative of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce in the room, or does he have a representative here?
If those are all the witnesses who are supposed to be here this afternoon, and if there are any witnesses here who expect to testify tomorrow, they may come forward now, if they want to and give their testimony.
The CHAIRMAN. All right; the committee stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.
I would like to have the members stay for an executive session this afternoon.
(Thereupon, at 3 p. m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Thursday, July 15, 1954.)