against him. Of course the character of a witness is a relevant item. As to Daugherty, it was a damning item. But the testimony of such people is not at all incompetent, and their character, as the New York World pointed out in an editorial on April 24, may be conclusive testimony on the issue of the fitness of a man to be Attorney General of the United States. If by the witnesses which Senator Wheeler produced he was able to furnish a living demonstration of the atmosphere which prevailed in and around the Attorney General of the United States, how possibly could that conclusion have been demonstrated except in the way in which Senator Wheeler demonstrated it? Eminent lawyers might have done it a little differently-but the chances are very strong that they wouldn't have done it at all. It requires pertinacity and high indifference to the winds that blow to drive through the obstacles which faced Senator Wheeler. The performance of such a man in such a situation cannot be finely weighed, by a distant onlooker after the event, on an apothecary's scale. We have clear indications as to how a better lawyer than Senator Wheeler would have dealt with the situation. The indications are furnished by the attitude of Senator Pepper; they are furnished by the supine silence of the bar before Senator Wheeler began, for from the time of his appointment as Attorney General lawyers widely knew Daugherty's unfitness for the post; they are revealed in the criticisms by the bar not of Daugherty but of his exposer, after the first flicker of indignation over the disclosures had subsided.

(4) Revision of procedure of congressional investigations: Nothing in the experience of the Walsh and Wheeler investigations reveals the need of changing the process or confining the limits of congressional investigations. The proper scope and methods of procedure appropriate to congressional investigations depend on the conception of the part they play in enabling Congress to discharge its basic duties. This has been nowhere better expressed than by Woodrow Wilson in his Congressional Government:

"It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the Government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct. The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function."

Undoubtedly, the names of people who have done nothing criminal or wrong, or nothing even offending taste perhaps, have been mentioned in connection with these investigations. A number of such instances appeared in connection with Ned McLean's name. All those references are pertinent in showing the ramifications of McClean's influence in official Washington. Also the names of counsel were mentioned who have had dealings with the Department of Justice which were wholly proper. But where so much that the Department of Justice was doing under Daugherty was not innocent, it is highly important that even innocent transactions in the general field of fraud and suspicion be explained in order to separate the sheep from the goats. The question is not whether people's feelings here and there may be hurt, or names dragged through the mud, as it is called. The real issue is whether the danger of abuses and the actual harm done are so clear and substantial that the grave risks of fettering free congressional inquiry are to be incurred by artificial and technical limitations upon inquiry. Any quantitative and qualitative judgment of what Walsh and Wheeler were up against, what they produced and how they produced it, leaves the experienced and disinterested mind, duly regardful of the investigating duties of Congress, wholly without justification for changing congressional procedure.

It must be remembered that our rules of evidence are but tools for ascertaining the truth and that these tools vary with the nature of the issues and the nature of the tribunal seeking facts. Specifically, the system of rules of evidence used in trial before juries "are mainly aimed at guarding the jury from the overweening effect of certain kinds of evidence." That system, as pointed out by Wigmore, "is not applicable by historical precedent, or by sound practical policy" to "inquiries of fact determinable by administrative tribunals." Still less is it applicable to inquiries by congressional committees. Of course the essential decencies must be observed, namely, opportunity for cross-examination must be afforded to those who are investigated or to those representing issues under investigation. Despite Daugherty's statement to the contrary, that opportunity has been scrupulously given by the Brookhart committee.

It must be remembered that in various fields there is no legal protection against harm due to unfettered speech. The only safeguards are those secured by social and moral pressure. Thus the immunities enjoyed by judges and legislators for anything said by them as judges and legislators are founded on deep experience. So also, the abuses of the printing press are not sought to be corrected by legal restriction or censorship in advance because the remedy is worse than the disease. For the same reason, congressional inquiry ought not to be fettered by advance rigidities, because in the light of experience there can be no reasonable doubt that such curtailment would make effective investigation almost impossible.

Our criminal procedure has been constantly under fire by the legal profession from Chief Justice Taft down because of its self-defeating technicalities. In a report to the American Bar Association, vigorous demand has recently been made for the liberalization of rules and evidence and procedure in criminal cases. Taken in connection with the proposal to curb the investigating powers of Congress, what is urged, in effect, is that we abandon the technical limitations which have been established to protect men from being sent to jail too readily, but introduce them into a field where they have never been resorted to and where they are wholly out of place, namely, in the exercise of the informing function of Congress. A good deal must be left to the standards which Congress imposes upon itself and its committees; a good deal must be left to the duty of newspapers to report fairly and not sensationally, and to interpret wisely; a good deal must be left to the good sense of people.

In conclusion, there is no substantial basis for criticism of the investigations conducted by Senator Walsh and Senator Wheeler. Whatever inconveniences may have resulted are inseparable incidents of an essential exertion of governmental power, and to talk about these incidents is to deflect attention from wrongdoing and its sources.

The procedure of congressional investigation should remain as it is. No limitations should be imposed by congressional legislation or standing rules. The power of investigation should be left untrammeled, and the methods and forms of each investigation should be left for determination of Congress and its committees, as each situation arises. The safeguards against abuse and folly are to be looked for in the forces of responsibility which are operating from within Congress, and are generated from without.

The CHAIRMAN. Also, I would like to state for the record that the staff studies that are being made continuously from day to day by this committee may go into the record at the proper time after their completion and become a part of the record.

(The staff studies referred to may be found in the appendix.)

Mr. BERKOVITCH. I wish to ask one last question of Senator Mundt on the point that he and Judge Morris were discussing. That is, with respect to the firing of executive employees, presumably or allegedly because they cooperated with a congressional committee.

Now, Senator, of course, there are very elaborate procedures set up by the executive branch to protect the rights of those employees who might be accused of disloyalty, and before a man is removed on the ground that he is disloyal or a security risk, he is given certain opportunities to protect himself.

Would you recommend that a person who feels that he is being discriminated against because he has testified before a committee should be given an equivalent right to bring out that he is a loyal and conscientious employee, and that he is being fired only because he exercised the right of a citizen to petition Congress and acquaint it with the facts?

Senator MUNDT. Yes, I think he should have that right; and I would assume in most cases he does, because under the civil service protective law he has the right to make an appeal regardless of the cause of his dismissal, and if he can establish the facts alleged in that opening paragraph, that he was dismissed because of testimony before a committee, it would be inconceivable to me that any hearing board would not reestablish him.

It seems to me that with respect to the occurrence in the particular case that Judge Morris mentions, because it was in the Voice of America, it is entirely possible that they were not covered by civil service. Mr. BERKOVITCH. Thank you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, I want to thank you, Senator Mundt, for your contribution on this very important question.

Senator MUNDT. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand in recess at this time until 10:30 tomorow morning in this same hearing room.

(Thereupon, at 12:30 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a. m., Friday, August 13, 1954).

RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR SENATE INVESTIGATING

COMMITTEES

FRIDAY, AUGUST 13, 1954

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RULES,
Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10:30 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 318 of the Senate Office Building, Senator Frank Carlson presiding. Present: Senator Carlson.

Also present: Boris, S. Berkovitch, counsel to Subcommittee on Rules; W. F. Bookwalter, chief clerk of the Committee on Rules and Administration; Darrell St. Claire, professional staff member, Committee on Rules and Administration; and Judge Robert Morris. Senator CARLSON. The committee will come to order.

The witness this morning will be Dr. Bella V. Dodd, of New York. Dr. Dodd, we are very happy to have you with us at the committee this morning, and I believe, if you do not object, we will swear you in. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give in this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Dr. DODD. I do.

TESTIMONY OF DR. BELLA V. DODD

Judge MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, the reason this particular witness was called here today is that in examining the problems that confront various legislative committees we thought it necessary for our record to have someone here who could authoritatively, based on her own direct, personal experience, tell us about the attitude of the Communist Party toward congressional committees. This witness plans to give some of these firsthand experiences of what she, as a Communist attorney and as the legislative representative of the Communist Party, knows about their work against congressional committees, and it is for that purpose that this witness is here, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CARLSON. Dr. Dodd, you may proceed in any way you choose. Do you have a prepared statement this morning?

Dr. DODD. I do not. I understand Judge Morris will ask me some questions.

Judge MORRIS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We stated to Dr. Dodd that we would ask her certain questions.

Senator CARLSON. Do I understand that you were the legislative representative of the Communist Party for some period of time? Dr. DODD. I was.

Senator CARLSON. Proceed, Judge Morris.

Judge MORRIS. Dr. Dodd, will you tell us when you first became associated with the Communist movement?

Dr. DODD. Well, I began working with the Communist movement from 1932 to 1943.

I worked very closely with the Communist Party without having a party card. However, I was privileged to attend most of the meetings and I was under discipline to the Communist movement from 1943 to 1947.

I worked very actively as an officer of the Communist Party.

My position as legislative representative of the Communist movement in New York itself ended in 1948. I was expelled by the Communist Party in June of 1949, as you know.

Judge MORRIS. You were a member of the national committee of the Communist Party, were you not?

Dr. DODD. I was a member of the national committee of the Communist Party from 1944 to 1949.

Judge MORRIS. You were the legislative representative of the New York Teachers' Union?

Dr. DODD. From 1936 to 1944.

Judge MORRIS. And then were you the legislative representative of the Communist Party in Albany at any time?

Dr. DODD. I was the legislative representative of the New York district and from time to time I came to Washington and went to Albany and to city hall representing the Communist Party from 1944 to 1948.

Judge MORRIS. Later on you were the legislative representative of the Communist Party on a national level; is that right, Dr. Dodd? Dr. DODD. No, sir; the fact that I was legislative representative of the New York district meant that I covered for the New York district both the city, State, and National as well as the New York district.

Judge MORRIS. You were a graduate of what university, Dr. Dodd? Dr. DODD. Hunter College.

Judge MORRIS. What degrees do you hold?

Dr. DODD. I received the A. B. degree from Hunter College. My master's degree came from Columbia University, and my doctor of jurisprudence came from New York University.

Judge MORRIS. Are you a lawyer by occupation?

Dr. DODD. Yes.

Judge MORRIS. You spent many years teaching?

Dr. DODD. Yes: I taught political science at Hunter College from 1926 to 1938, and I am now teaching at St. John's as a lecturer in the law school there.

Judge MORRIS. What subjects do you teach?

Dr. DODD. I am teaching labor law at present, and I am going to be teaching legislative law this coming fall.

Senator CARLSON. Dr. Dodd, I was interested in this: Is your home in New York City?

Dr. DODD. Yes.

Senator CARLSON. Are you a native of that State, or where is your home?

Dr. DODD. I am a native of New York State and have lived there most of my life.