headed by Members of the House and Senate who come from the same States in which brutality and mob violence are at their very worst.

The colored people of these States cannot believe that the threat of communism is a more serious menace to their freedom than the actual and present danger of mob violence. Since 1922, when the Dyer antilynching bill was passed by the House, every Congress has failed to give protection against lynching.

We are told that when elections are held in Communist countries, everyone votes, but the results are always the same. The goal of those who oppose the right to vote for colored people is a "free election" in which only white supremacy candidates can win. This is the reality we face in South Carolina and Alabama. To colored people this bill may be a very good bear trap, but what we need is a cage to contain the wildcats who are tearing up our civil rights.

Any colored man who faces the threat of job discrimination that now exists in the Nation's Capital, where he cannot operate a streetcar simply because of his race, would be certain to tell the members of this committee that action on fair employment practice legislation. is much more important for the preservation of our democracy than the passage of H. R. 7595.

There is little difference between the language describing treachery and infiltration set forth in this bill and the incredible conduct of certain members of the United States Senate, certain governors of Southern States, and others who are currently engaged in a battle for control of the Democratic Party. On the one side, we have those persons who are seeking to win control under the guise of protecting States' rights, and, on the other side, we have alleged liberals who boast that because they are a part of the Democratic Party they have been able to keep the civil rights legislation from passing by undemocratic methods.

There are some sections of the country where any Government official who deals fairly with racial minorities would be considered a Communist and taking his orders directly from the Kremlin. You gentlemen have only to consult the pages of the Congressional Record to find substantiation of this.

As an illustration, I cite the remarks of a former member of this committee, Congressman John Rankin, of Mississippi, which appear on page 2224 of the Congressional Record for February 22, 1950.

In referring to Fair Employment Practice Legislation which was then under consideration he said: "You are driving through a piece of communistic legislation that Stalin promulgated in 1920." There is not a scintilla of evidence to support that statement; but under H. R. 7595 it could undoubtedly be used to frighten off many sincere but timid backers of FEPC.

Mr. KEARNEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly, sir.

Mr. KEARNEY. I come from the State of New York, and we have a fair employment practice bill on our statute books, and I don't think Mr. Stalin had anything to do with the passage of that bill.

Mr. MITCHELL. I am certain he didn't, and I am certain he had nothing to do with the bill under consideration at the time the comment I have read was made. I thank the gentleman for his remark.

68369-5013

It must be a source of great comfort to dictators everywhere that we are all busy fighting the Communists while ignoring the President's civil rights program.

If, as has been announced in this bill, it is the intention of those who framed it to fight communism because communism is an evil, then I would suggest that the attack be positive. I would suggest that we begin now to strengthen the weak spots in our democracy so that it will in fact be the most attractive form of government.

I offer as a positive example of what I mean the recent announcement by the Catholic Church that three of its institutions in the State of Kentucky will admit colored students without discrimination and without regard to any factor except scholastic fitness.

I offer as an example the State of New York, which has passed a law prohibiting segregation in housing that is built with the support of public funds.

I offer as an example the fight our own organization is making before the Supreme Court of the United States against the so-called separate but equal doctrine, under which one segment of the population is set apart and humiliated simply because of color.

The presence of Attorney General J. Howard McGrath and Solicitor General Philip B. Perlman in the United States Supreme Court a few days ago arguing against this odious doctrine is the kind of positive action that is needed to meet the threat, if there be a threat, of any foreign ideologies. Their words, calling for the recognition that all citizens of the United States are equal before the law, show that the Government is officially opposed to such doctrines. This is the best possible way of prolonging the life of democracy. H. R. 7595 is one of the most effective ways of shortening that life.

Under section 2 this bill states that:

In the United States those individuals who knowingly and willfully participate in the world Communist movement, when they so participate, in effect transfer their allegiance to the foreign country in which is vested the direction and control of the world Communist movement.

It appears that the framers of this bill were faced with the practical question of whether they should outlaw the Communist Party. However, all of us know that the idea of making a political party unlawful is not acceptable to the majority of the American people.

Subsection (f) of section 4 carefully points out that holding office or membership in a Communist organization shall not constitute a violation of the law. In short, this bill makes communism a crime but does not punish those who openly admit that they are members of the party or Communist-front organizations.

H. R. 7595 proclaims to the people of the United States that evil persons known as Communists live in a house that is carefully described by the wording of the bill. But there is no suggestion that these persons be dealt with. Instead, it is proposed that Government assemble a raiding party to slip around to the kitchen entrance and arrest the so-called servants in the house of communism. In this bill the servants are defined as members of Communist-front organizations who fail to register as such.

In the history of our country there have been many movements and causes which have been considered dangerous to the welfare of the Nation. Time has demonstrated that these have merely been tests of the strength of our free institutions.

During the pre-Civil War period, the fugitive slave laws were willfully and effectively violated by men and women who knew this legislation could mean the death for freedom for all people in the United States. Some of them went to jail. Some of them died. But history has demonstrated the correctness of their position and the value of the service they performed for the Nation.

On the other hand, we have seen various rabble-rousers and miniature dictators who have attempted to establish foreign ideologies or native tyranny in our own time. There have even been those who attempted to establish an arm of the Nazi philosophy in the United States. They have been repudiated by the people.

It should be noted in passing that H. R. 7595 makes no mention of ideologies based on race which were responsible for World War II.

In section 3, this bill provides that the term "Communist political organization" means any organization in the United States having some, but not necessarily all, of the ordinary and usual characteristics of a political party. Section 14 (e) (2) provides that in making a determination of whether an organization is a Communist political organization, among those things it will be necessary to take into consideration is the extent to which the views and policies of the organization do not deviate from those of a foreign government or a foreign organization.

It seems clear that these portions of the two sections mentioned, when taken together, establish a most undemocratic basis for ensnaring innocent people who are members of organizations and groups whose principles and objectives happen to coincide with the announced principles and objectives of the Communist political organization.

These sections say that every generous citizen must closely examine and diligently study the aims and purposes of any organization to which he may make a contribution, no matter how small. The reason he must make such a diligent study is that the giving of a contribution may be considered as an application for membership. Years later he may find that by the simple act of making a small gift to what he considered a worthy cause he has placed his name on a list of subversive individuals in the hands of the Attorney General of the United States. Thus, 25 cents given to a cause that he has forgotten may be the thing that places him among traitors to his country.

Should this bill pass, it undoubtedly will come before the Supreme Court for a determination of its constitutionality.

Successful or unsuccessful, the court action would be of a great benefit to our enemies, because it would reveal that America had resorted to police-state methods in stamping out an unpopular movement. It would say to the world that we have lost faith in our democratic processes and that we find it necessary to use the very totalitarian methods that we now condemn in order to maintain the integrity of our Government.

The NAACP does not believe it is necessary to adopt totalitarian methods in America to protect democracy. I am certain that this is also the view of the majority of American people.

If communism and democracy are mortal enemies and one or the other must be destroyed, then, certainly, we cannot hope to save democracy by making it like communism. If Communist governments deny free speech to their citizens, then we cannot stop their en

croachments by denying free speech to our own citizens. If communism brands whole classes of citizens as persons who must be interned in concentration camps or assigned to slave labor battalions, we cannot destroy it by consigning our own citizens to a similar fate. We cannot overcome a real or imagined threat of foreign ideologies by the enactment of harsh legislation which will silence the voice of reform in our own country. If we are to win the present battle for first place in world leadership, we must give positive evidence of action to safeguard the civil liberties of all of our citizens, even those with whom we may vigorously disagree.

Mr. HARRISON. Any questions, Mr. Kearney?

Mr. KEARNEY. No. I want to thank you, Mr. Mitchell, for appearing and for your very fine statement.

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you.

Mr. HARRISON. Thank you.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mrs. Stewart.

Mr. HARRISON. Do you solemnly swear that in the evidence you give before this subcommittee you shall speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mrs. STEWART. I do.

TESTIMONY OF MRS. ALEXANDER STEWART

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you state your full name and address, please? Mrs. STEWART. Mrs. Alexander Stewart, 625 Fullerton Parkway, Chicago.

Mr. TAVENNER. And you are appearing here as a representative of what group?

Mrs. STEWART. I am appearing in behalf of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. I am president of the United States section.

Mr. TAVENNER. You have heard my question to the other witnesses as to whether they are now or have ever been a member of the Communist Party; and the reasons for asking that question. I would like to ask you that same question.

Mrs. STEWART. No; I have never been and am not and do not expect to be.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you have a prepared statement?

Mrs. STEWART. I do.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you file it with the reporter as a part of this proceeding, and make such comments as you would like, or read it, if you wish.

Mrs. STEWART. I would like to read it, if I may.

The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom was founded in 1915 in the midst of the First World War. We are celebrating our thirty-fifth anniversary this year. Jane Addams became its first international president, and held this office until her death. She and Emily Greene Balch, who is now honorary international president, are the only two American women to win the Nobel peace award, and they did their work through the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.

Throughout its history the league has maintained a policy and a program consistent with the ideas of its founders. As an international and interracial organization, it aims to work by nonviolent means for

the establishment of those political, economic, and psychological conditions both at home and abroad which can assure peace and freedom.

Let me quote directly our definitions first of peace, then of freedom, as they appear in our statement of principles and policies.

Peace: The peace for which we work is much more than the absence of war or maintenance of order through dominance of force. It is a positive principle in human relations and can be found only where there is free cooperation for the common good.

Freedom: Liberty of the human spirit is a basic value. Although freedom must be exercised with much responsibility and individuals in society must accept much control in the common interests, nevertheless they must have the right to contribute to decisions and to express differing opinions through free democratic processes.

The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom has always believed that peace and freedom are inseparable.

The present disintegration of our culture is a demonstration of the deep-seated injustices in our economic and political structures. The only answer to the threat of totalitarianism is the development of a democratic social order in which the dynamic forces of scientific discovery and economic change can be utilized to enrich the life of all the human family.

Since the guaranty of freedom of speech is necessary to a democratic society, the league views with alarm the growing tendency to interfere with freedom of opinion by the use of loyalty tests. We vigorously oppose all forms of discrimination against individuals on the basis of political opinions. Fully recognizing the danger of either Fascist or Communist totalitarianism, the league believes that such forces can be best opposed by open discussion and by the strengthening of our own democratic procedures, rather than by attempts at direct control. We oppose this bill because it is an attempt at direct thought control. It has the effect of undermining the right of free speech, free thought, and peaceful political action and assembly of people who have committed no crime against the Government but who, as members of a proscribed organization, are subjected to intimidation, persecution, and loss of livelihood.

Section 2 of this bill amounts to a legislative finding that the Communist Party is an agent of a foreign government and that it is attempting to overthrow the United States Government by conspiracy and to substitute a totalitarian dictatorship. Since being a foreign agent without registering as such and attempting to overthrow the Government by force are crimes, a member of the party is automatically found guilty of these crimes without a trial. Such action is diametrically opposed to our constitutional democratic system of justice, under which an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty before a court and jury according to due process of law.

Not only does the Communist Party come within the scope of this legislative finding, but an indeterminate number of organizations may be proscribed if their views on certain subjects coincide with the views of the Communist Party. One of the characteristics of American life, thought, and achievement has been the open expression of the faith, hope, dreams, and ideas of many minds. This process of sharing ideas and ideals has offered the opportunity for rejecting the lesser good and discovering the best. The best in achievement is never reached by one set of ideas alone, but by the challenge which comes in