Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Ferman, do you find that the committees have been guilty, as frequently has been charged and as several witnesses who have appeared before this committee have contended, of going into the views and political opinions and the beliefs of individual witnesses, rather than undertaking an inquiry into the organizational connection of various individuals? Is that clear? Mr. FERMAN. Yes; the question is clear to me, Judge Morris. I might say at this point I am somewhat heartened by the trend in committees investigating subversive activities to direct their injuiries and to direct their questions and to direct the wording of their questions to acts and to associations. However, the line is admittedly very, very thin when one, on one hand, recognizes organizational associations involve political beliefs, which we in the union feel represent an area which should not be the subject of congressional investigation; on the other hand, associations in certain political groups can be construed as an act properly within the purview of a congressional investigation. The line is very, very difficult to draw, but I want to make particular emphasis that in the form of the questions asked by several congressional committees I think there has been an attempt not to ask questions concerning political beliefs, but to emphasize acts, acknowledging, of course, the difficulty in drawing such a line. Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Ferman, have you been able to observe congressional committees with respect to their granting the right of crossexamination and the right of confrontation of witnesses? Have any of the committees that you have observed gone ahead in granting such rights to individual witnesses? Mr. FERMAN. Yes. I think there hasn't been as much cross-examination and confrontation as I would like. Mr. MORRIS. You would like more than you have observed? Mr. FERMAN. Oh, yes; but I have observed some. I think it indicates a trend that I think should be recognized. I think even our worst problem, Senator McCarthy's committee, has had a form of confrontation and cross-examination in some of his hearings, and so has the House Committee on Un-American Activities. A good number of their hearings have been based upon confronted testimony. I am not suggesting there isn't still remaining a problem, but there has been much more confrontation and some cross-examination than has been realized by the critics of congressional investigations. Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Ferman, have you observed, as I have, in the various problems confronting congressional committees, a certain conflict between two desirable trends? One is the trend, on the one hand, to preserve the anonymity and the identity of an individual who appears before a congressional committee in executive session and answers very candidly, "Yes; I have been a member of the Communist Party. I joined in 1938, stayed in the party for 7 years; then realized it was a totalitarian organization; it was doing damage to the free world, and I left that party," and he testifies very candidly and fully before the subcommittee in executive session about many of the details of that particular experience. Now, various committees, for the most part, have encouraged that, have encouraged men to come forward and, in executive session, tell the full story, being very candid, and they, themselves, have either commended the particular performance or else have reserved decision, feeling it was not for them to judge the propriety or impropriety of the man's behavior. Meanwhile, he has given the committee evidence. Now, the committees have assured these people-at least from my own experience that their anonymity would be preserved, that their identity would not be brought forth, because no purpose would be served in bringing out evidence about a man's past activity, particularly if he gives an indication that that activity is something in the past. Don't you find there is a certain conflict between that and the situation of forcing the identity of that man to be known, to have this man reappear before a congressional committee and then subject that particular witness to cross-examination and the testimony of witnesses against him in connection with his testimony? Now, there are two trends there, Mr. Ferman. I am sorry it is such a long question. Mr. FERMAN. No. Mr. MORRIS. But it brings out two trends that I have observed. Each is a desirable trend. You want to get as much truth as possible from a particular witness, and at the same time you do want to encourage people to come forward and give these very necessary secrets to both the executive and the legislative branch of the Government. Have you given any thought to that, Mr. Ferman, that would be helpful to us? Mr. FERMAN. Yes; and, of course, the conflict is based upon our inability to precisely characterize the investigative process. If we consider it an investigative process, an inquiry, a looking into facts, rather than an indictment, which basically it is, then I would say there should be no necessity to force our anonymous person to come forward—and, indeed, I have discussed this problem with our board chairman, Mr. Ernest Angell, who was faced, as the chairman of the second region loyalty board, with the precise problem, and I know in the light of his experience he shares my feeling. I think, in rare situations, where you do have, by the very circumstances of the case, more or less an indictment, then I think I would require confrontation, but in the long pull I think more can be gained by the emphasizing of the inquiring nature of the process and not requiring anonymous persons to come forward. Mr. MORRIS. By that, Mr. Ferman, do you mean if the committee comes forward and brings out the fact that a particular witness has testified to certain facts against an individual-if the committee does that, it, of course, has to provide for the source of the information and present it for confirmation? Mr. FERMAN. I think one way to answer the problem is to try to impress upon the people of this country that a person appearing before a congressional committee is not a person guilty by his very presence of an illegal act. I think the problem rests very largely in educating the American people as to precisely what the investigative process is, and I think we go a long way if we impress that fact upon the American peoplethat mere presence before an investigative committee is not answering an indictment; and I must confess-and I state personally now-that public-service organizations of the kind I represent have been remiss in not teaching the American people just what this investigative process is. That is, of course, a personal view. Mr. MORRIS. You think, in other words, many of the evils that are associated with congressional committees proceed from a misunderstanding of their function rather than any improper action? Mr. FERMAN. In that respect, I think the American people should be made to understand that mere presence before a congressional committee means nothing more than that. They should be made to understand the difference between an indictment that is handed down by a grand jury and the presence before a congressional committee. Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Ferman, do you have any views with respect to the admissibility of wiretap evidence? Mr. FERMAN. I would be unalterably opposed to wiretap. Mr. FERMAN. And I would like to express a difference in view with my board chairman, whom I hold in tremendous esteem. Mr. Angell emphasized the qualitative nature of wiretap testimony and emphasized that wiretap testimony is usually of a high quality. I don't think it is. As a matter of fact, testimony has been presented before the subcommittee on wiretapping attempting to show that wiretap testimony is the most easily forged type testimony-that is, with the manipulation of tapes and the cutting out of certain language-that it doesn't have quite the probative value that we attribute to it because it can be so easily forged. Senator McCarran discussed that point before the subcommittee and emphasized that quality of wiretap testimony. Mr. MORRIS. I don't know how wiretap evidence could conceivably come before a congressional committee. After all, if it is wiretap evidence, it is done by either the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the various police agencies of the respective States. Mr. FERMAN. I would assume, under section 605 of the Federal Communications Act, it would be illegal, even under the interpretation of the act by the Justice Department, to divulge wiretap testimony to congressional people. Mr. MORRIS. Have you any comment on monitored phone conversations; that is, the admissibility thereof? Mr. FERMAN. Well, I suppose I am an old-fashioned civil libertarian. I hate to see privacy invaded-period. Mr. MORRIS. Do you have any views on your observations of committees operating with only 1 Senator or 1 Congressman present to take testimony? Mr. FERMAN. I think Senator Hennings discussed that the first day of the session, expressed his view and discussed the problems. As I see the problem, viewing committees, I think it is more a problem of getting majority consent to any action. One-man committees don't quite this is a personal view again and not expressing the view of the union-meet or curb the abuse that is so often associated with a one-man committee. My observation has been that when you have several Members of the Congress, Senate or the House, that if the chairman's demeanor is something not to be desired, an undesirable kind of demeanor, that the other Members of the Senate or House will not inject any words of caution or object to the demeanor of the chairman, so that I don't think much will be solved by the mere setting up of a one-man committee. I think the abuse of a one-man committee can be curbed in requiring majority consent or two-thirds consent in certain instances before committee action is taken. Mr. MORRIS. Do you think, Mr. Ferman, that some of the abuse, some of the alleged abuse, proceeds rather from the observations and the statements and the conclusions of an individual member of a committee, either of the Senate or the House, who comments on the testimony as it is being taken, and that comment is misinterpreted as being the conclusion of the whole committee with respect to that particular witness and that particular testimony? Mr. FERMAN. Yes; and that won't be solved by the setting up of or prohibiting of one-man committees. That is the loaded summary type statement or comment. I don't think it will be easily solved by requiring more than one Senator to attend the hearing. Mr. MORRIS. If you got 2 or 3 Senators present or 2 or 3 Congressinen, they may at any time make an observation about the testimony that is going into the record; may they not? Mr. FERMAN. Yes; but I have seen the worst loaded summaries put into the record by committees that consisted of more than one member, and I can appreciate the feeling of Senators toward the chairman of their own committee and not acting as a gadfly. Perhaps the distinguished gentleman can answer these questions better than I can. Mr. MORRIS. You don't think there is any way, Mr. Ferman, do you, of prohibiting a Senator or Congressman from making any observation on the testimony that has gone into the record, particularly if the testimony is made public? Mr. FERMAN. No; no. That is a matter of demeanor and a matter of conscience, which will not be solved by having more than one Member attend the session. It is possible, of course, that a Member might make his own statement which would counteract the statement of the chairman. Mr. MORRIS. You think that any conclusion Mr. FERMAN. But you have got to offset the possibilities again of, say, a Member of the opposite party making a statement which would counteract the statement of the chairman, with the problem of getting Senators and Representatives to attend committee sessions with their arduous duties and tasks. Mr. MORRIS. You think, then, that individual members of committees should refrain from commenting on the testimony until the whole committee or majority of the committee passes on any conclusion? Mr. FERMAN. Yes; I think that would solve the abuses that most people are desirous to curb when they suggest prohibition of one-man committees. Senator CARLSON. Is that all? Mr. MORRIS. I think so, Senator. Senator CARLSON. We appreciate very much your statement, Mr. Ferman. Mr. FERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator CARLSON. The next and last witness this morning is Mr. Louis J. Cohen of the National Community Relations Advisory Council. Mr. Cohen, do you promise and swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. COHEN. I do, Mr. Chairman. Senator CARLSON. Mr. Cohen, in view of the time, I would appreciate Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, your patience has been singularly taxed. I shall not impose upon it much further. My reaction to your suggestion of cooperation is instantaneous. Senator CARLSON. We appreciate that very much, I assure you. TESTIMONY OF LOUIS J. COHEN, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS ADVISORY COUNCIL Mr. COHEN. My name is Louis J. Cohen. I am a member of the New Jersey bar and have been so for some 37 years. I am a former assistant attorney general of the State of New Jersey, and I am chairman of the Civil Liberties Committee of the National Community Relations Advisory Council, which is comprised of 6 national agencies and 32 regional, State, and citywide community councils. Mr. Chairman, this statement is submitted on behalf of the National Community Relations Advisory Council, a coordinating body consisting of the following 6 national Jewish religious and civic organizations and 32 local Jewish community councils: National organizations: American Jewish Congress; Jewish Labor Committee; Jewish War Veterans of the United States; Union of American Hebrew Congregations; Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America; and United Synagogue of America. Local, State and regional community councils: Jewish Welfare Fund of Akron; Jewish Community Relations Council for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, Calif.; Baltimore Jewish Council; Jewish Community Council of Metropolitan Boston; Jewish Community Council, Bridgeport, Conn.; Brooklyn Jewish Community Council; Community Relations Committee of the Jewish Federation of Camden County, N. J.; Cincinnati Jewish Community Council; Jewish Community Federation, Cleveland, Ohio; Connecticut Jewish Community Relations Council; Detroit Jewish Community Council; Elizabeth, N. J., Jewish Community Council; Jewish Community Council of Essex County, N. J.; Community Relations Committee of the Hartford, Conn., Jewish Federation; Indiana Jewish Community Relations Council; Indianapolis Jewish Community Relations Council; Community Relations Bureau of the Jewish Federation and Council of Greater Kansas City; Community Relations Committee of the Los Angeles Jewish Community Council; Milwaukee Jewish Council; Minnesota Jewish Council; New Haven Jewish Community Council; Norfolk Jewish Community Council; Philadelphia Jewish Community Relations Council; Jewish Council Relations Council, Pittsburgh; Jewish Community Council, Rochester; San Diego Jewish Community Relations Council; Jewish Community Relations Council of St. Louis; Southwestern Jewish Community Relations Council; San Francisco Jewish Community Relations Council; Jewish Com |