III. TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS WERE NOT UNDER OATH

The committee to investigate foundations failed to require the officers and trustees of foundations who appeared before it as witnesses to give their testimony under oath. It did not require the representatives of the foundations to swear to the truth of the information they furnished the committee in answer to its questionnaires. The usual jurat was omitted. As a result of this, neither the Congress nor the people know whether these officers and trustees were telling the truth. For the sake of the foundations, this error should be rectified. In fact, under this practice some officers and trustees of foundations used the hearings as a soundingboard for their opinions and views rather than giving sworn testimony regarding questionable activities of their foundations. The only witnesses I can find who were actually sworn and placed under oath were 2 anti-Communists, 2 Department of Justice employees, and Ira Reid and Walter Gellhorn. Only 6 witnesses out of 40 were sworn. In view of these circumstances, much of the testimony has no more validity than common gossip, and no proper investigation has taken place. House Resolution 217, to create a special committee of the 83d Congress, explicitly charges the proposed committee to administer the oath so that the serious omission of the former committee in this respect would be remedied.

IV. ONLY A FEW FOUNDATIONS WERE INVESTIGATED

The committee of the 82d Congress had only time to consider evidence about a few foundations, and much of the information it received in answer to its questionnaires it did not have time to digest. It did not publish the voluminous but revealing answers to its questionnaires, which would have been valuable source material for anyone interested in what the foundations are doing. The select committee of this Congress would have time to digest, utilize, and publish the answers that the foundations have given to the questionnaires. In fact, House Resolution 217 specifically charges the Sergeant at Arms of the House to obtain the records of the former select committee and to make them available to the new committee.

V. PROPAGANDA ACTIVITIES OF FOUNDATIONS WERE NOT INVESTIGATED

The select committee of the 82d Congress did not ask the representatives of the foundations to explain why they were indulging in propaganda, in view of large grants to organizations, projects, and persons which are promoting special interests or ideologies. These representatives were also not requested to explain activities of foundations which are, in fact, influencing legislation, inasmuch as their grants frequently have an outright political objective rather than an educational one.

Foundations, in their statement of policy, say that because of the legal exemption from income tax they cannot undertake to support enterprises carrying on propaganda or attempting to influence legislation. Such large foundations as Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Sloan, and Field explicitly make this assertion in their published reports. Although foundations contend that they are promoting education, documentary evidence in my possession raises the question whether some large foundations are not actually engaged in propaganda.

Large foundations have a tremendous influence on the intellectual and educational life of our country. These foundations, possessing huge sums of untaxed wealth, seem to be dedicated to promoting specific views on such matters as the welfare state, the United Nations, American foreign policy, the nature of the American economy, and so on, rather than presenting objective and unbiased examination of these issues. Extensive evidence that I have examined shows that organizations which are primarily committed to a given ideology have received large grants from some big foundations over many years, and in numerous instances they have received such grants simultaneously from different foundations.

The assets of the large foundations are tax exempt and, therefore, ought to be spent on projects and organizations representing the views of all of the people and not only of a segment dedicated to a specific ideology. Since the activities of some of the large foundations appear to be biased in favor of a particular ideology, in reality they are indulging in propaganda calculated to influence legislation on both domestic and international matters. Under such circumstances, these foundations are violating their charters given to them by the

United States Congress and are betraying a public trust. I do not mean to imply that all foundations and all of their activities are not serving the public welfare. Some foundations by some of their grants have made great contributions to medical and technological research and have improved the health and general welfare of the people. But in the realm of the social sciences many foundations have not observed the highest standards of scholarship and ethics, which require the presentation of only factual and unslanted material. In fact, the want of ethics and the misrepresentations of some foundations are so low that a business corporation doing the same thing would be condemned by the Federal Trade Commission and held guilty of false advertising.

The foundations must be investigated in terms of the above-mentioned statements of fact, and should be given an opportunity to try to disprove them. The all-important question of the foundation's propaganda activities and attempts to influence legislation was completely ignored by the previous committee. However, House Resolution 217 explicitly authorizes the new committee to determine which foundations are using their resources for political purposes, propaganda, and attempts to influence legislation.

VI. FOUNDATIONS WERE NOT ASKED WHY THEY DON'T SUPPORT PRO-AMERICAN PROJECTS

A very important question, which is vital to the future of the American Republic, was never raised at all during the inquiry of the 82d Congress. This question is: Why do the pro-American projects find it so difficult to get grants from some of the foundations? Some large foundations must answer questions such as the following:

A. Have they financed studies regarding the excellence of the American Constitution, the importance of the Declaration of Independence, and the profundity of the philosophy of the Founding Fathers? And, if not, what is their excuse for neglecting the study of the basis of the American Republic?

B. Have they given support to the educational programs of the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Catholic and Jewish veterans' organizations? And, if not, what is their explanation of the fact that they have been supporting agencies which are left of center and are internationalists, and not similarly favoring nationalist organizations?

C. Have they supported studies which are critical of the welfare state and socialism, and demonstrate the merits of the competitive private-property system? And, if not, what justification do they have for such negligence, while they have given numerous grants to persons and organizations which favor the welfare state and socialism?

D. Have they given grants to active anti-Communists and repentant Communists who have served the United States bravely and at great self-sacrifice by exposing the Communist conspiracy within our borders? And, if not, what are their reasons for not giving grants to such persons, while they have admittedly supported Communists and pro-Communists?

These large foundations must be given every opportunity to answer fully such questions to the committee of the 83d Congress and to submit evidence to the extent they are able, to prove that they have given support to proAmerican projects and organizations. Should they not be able to do this, or should their contribution to such projects and organizations be very scanty, they must furnish a detailed justification for policies which overlook the preservation of the American Republic.

VII. EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE WAS NOT USED

The select committee of the 82d Congress did not use a great deal of the documentary evidence that was actually in its possession. Much of this extensive evidence showed subversive and un-American propaganda activities on the part of foundations, as well as outright political activities which attempted to influence legislation. It is obviously impossible for me to even summarize this voluminous evidence, but I feel that my colleagues should have at least a few examples of foundation-financed projects which are not only unscholarly, but of such nature as to aid and abet the Communist and Socialist movement. Since time does not permit the full documentation of these examples on the floor of this Chamber, the documentation will be presented as an appendix in a revision and extension of my remarks in the Record.

49720-54-pt. 1- -3

VIII. FORD FOUNDATION WAS NOT INVESTIGATED

Important and extensive evidence concerning subversive and un-American propaganda activities of the Ford Foundation, which was available to the committee of the 82d Congress, was not utilized. Thus, the Ford Foundation-which is the wealthiest and the most influential of all foundations-was not actually investigated. In fact, the hearings on the Ford Foundation constituted merely a forum for the trustees and officers of this foundation to make speeches instead of answering specific questions regarding the many dubious grants made by them. Documentary evidence in my possession raises some serious questions regarding some of the officers and activities of the Ford Foundation. Again, time does not permit the presentation of this evidence regarding the Ford Foundation on the floor of this Chamber, therefore, the evidence will be given in the extension of my remarks in the Record.

I have submitted for the consideration of this Chamber an eight-point analysis of the omissions and faults of the work of the select committee of the 82d Congress and justification of the vital need to remedy these faults and omissions by a special committee of this Congress, to be created by House Resolution 217.

The matters to which I drew your attention are not only vital for the future of our Nation, but have also very practical consequences for the pocketbooks of every American taxpayer. Foundations actually operate by Federal subsidy through enjoying tax exemptions by authority of section 101 of the Internal Revenue Code. Considerable revenue is lost to the Government by the tax exemption given to foundations. This revenue must be made up by augmented payments on the part of the average American taxpayer. Thus, tax-exempt large foundations may be abusing their status at the expense of the American taxpayer. This abuse of tax exemption is particularly relevant at this time, when we end up the fiscal year over $9 billion in the red and the Secretary of the Treasury has to go out and borrow this amount in cash to keep the Government operating.

Should the investigation disclose that some foundations, because of their activities, are not entitled to tax exemption, the Federal Government would actually obtain additional revenue in taxes, which, in turn, would lessen the tax burden of average citizens. I mention this fact because in view of the need for Government economy, and because Congress is already spending money for investigations, it is important to justify the creation of a new investigating committee in terms of what it may do to assist the Government to close loopholes in the tax laws.

The assets of tax-exempt foundations already run into billions. Tax-exempt foundations are bound to become more and more important due to the trend of putting more and more businesses in such trusts. The present laws governing the inheritance and transfer of property are creating a great many tax-exempt foundations whose assets are based on corporation securities. In view of this trend, the foundations may soon become the dominant owners of tax-free American business. Under such circumstances, a very large segment of American business will be under the control of a few trustees who will be also spending the large tax-exempt funds entrusted to them. Such a tremendous concentration of control and power would be in itself an unhealthy development and could get completely out of control; furthermore, such concentrated power and control could easily be abused. This is still another reason why a careful investigation of the tax-exempt foundation situation is imperative.

The questionable activities of foundations are of such vital concern to the American people that in recent weeks two committees of the United States Senate the Internal Security Subcommittee and the Committee on Government Operations have announced their intention to look into the activities of foundations. Thus, it appears that my recommendation made in signing the report of the select committee of the 82d Congress was well taken. However, the Internal Security Subcommittee is specifically concerned with the subversion, and with matters directly affecting the internal security of the United States. Since the scope of the committee is limited, it would be impossible for it to investigate adequately the propaganda activities of foundations and their attempt to influence legislation. These activities are in a sense much more important than foundation grants to Communists. Similarly, the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Un-American Activities is limited to subversion.

Moreover, these three committees, as well as the Ways and Means Committee or any other standing committee, are too preoccupied with other matters to be able to undertake a thorough and complete investigation of the complex and extensive

activities of numerous foundations. This, of course, is not intended as a reflection on the excellent work done by these committees, but is merely a statement that only a special committee of the House could do the job properly. Only a special committee would have the time, specialized staff, and facilities to undertake a thorough inquiry into the complex problems raised by the foundations' activities, which require exclusive concentration on the part of an investigating body.

The House must undertake this task not only because its previous committee was not able to complete the job entrusted to it, but also because some foundations chose to interpret the report of that committee as a mandate for continued support of subversive and un-American propaganda activities and for undermining the investigative processes of Congress. For instance, the previously mentioned Ford Foundation grant makes available $15 million for investigating congressional methods of inquiries into communism and subversion. On the other hand, the House Committee on Un-American Activities has an appropriation of only $300,000; the Senate Committee on Government Operations, $200,000; the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, $200,000. It would seem that because of the large sum provided for this task, the Ford Foundation considers the investigation of Congress highly important. This intention of the Ford Foundation constitutes an insult not only to the Congress of the United States but the American people as well, since this body is the representatives of the American people. It is up to the House to meet such a challenge by establishing a new special committee for a thorough and complete investigation of the Ford and other foundations.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that House Resolution 217 deserves the immediate and serious consideration of all those interested in the safety and welfare of our Nation and the dignity and accomplishments of our Congress.

PRO-COMMUNIST AND PRO-SOCIALIST PROPAGANDA FINANCED BY TAX-EXEMPT

FOUNDATIONS

A few examples of foundation-financed unscholarly projects which are, in fact, pro-Communist and pro-Socialist propaganda are the following: A. The Encyclopedia of Social Sciences is slanted toward the left

The Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, financed by tax-exempt funds, is considered a sort of supreme court of the social sciences. It is the final authority to which appeal is made regarding any question in the field of social sciences. The encyclopedia has influenced the thinking of millions of students and other persons who have consulted it since the appearance of its consecutive volumes during 1930-35. Alvin Johnson, who has been the moving spirit behind the encyclopedia and was its associate editor and is now president emeritus of the New School for Social Research, estimated that "there are at least half a million consultations of the encyclopedia every year, in spite of the fact that it is out of date." The Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Russell Sage Foundations initially subsidized the encyclopedia to the amount of $600,000. The eventual cost of the encyclopedia was $1,100,000.

Although the preface of the encyclopedia says that it endeavored to include all important topics in the social sciences, it does not contain an article on the American Revolution, while it has articles on the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution.

Johnson, in his book Pioneer's Progress, on pages 310–312, said that two of his assistant editors were Socialists and that another editor was a Communist. Johnson, in his great naivete, expected that these editors would not try to slant the encyclopedia in favor of communism and socialism. Yet articles dealing with subjects on the left were primarily assigned to leftists, while articles dealing with subjects on the right were also assigned primarily to leftists.

The article on bolshevism and Gosplan were written by Maurice Dobb, an economist sympathetic to the Soviet point of view. The articles on bureaucracy and Lenin were written by the Socialist Harold Laski. The articles on Fabianism and guild socialism were written by the Socialist G. D. H. Cole. The article on communism was written by Max Beer, of the University of Frankfort, who was a devoted, wholehearted disciple and enthusiastic biographer of Marx. The article on socialism was written by Socialist Oscar Jaszi. Otto Hoetzsch, of the University of Berlin, in his article on Government, Soviet Russia, says, -among other things:

"National autonomy is thus guaranteed in theory and largely in practice as well; there is no legal discrimination between the rates of the Soviet Union ** The Soviet principle thus results in a parliamentary democracy functioning on the basis of indirect representation, but exclusively for the proletariat. Although the elections are subject to the pressure of Communist dictatorship, this worker's democracy is not entirely a fiction."

The following articles on the subjects dealing with the right were also written by leftists: The article on Middleman was written by Maurice Dobb. The articles on The Rise of Liberalism and Liberty were written by the Socialist Harold Laski. The article on Individualism and Capitalism was written by Charles Beard, who at the time he wrote this article was a leftist. Capitalism was written by Werner Sombart, a former Marxist who became eventually affiliated with the Nazis. Laissez Faire was written by the Socialist G. D. H. Cole, who refers to laissez faire as "unworkable' and as "theoretically bankrupt." He concludes:

"As a prejudice, laissez faire survives and still wields great power; as a doctrine deserving of theoretical respect, it is dead."

The fair and scholarly procedure would have been to assign articles on subjects of the left to leftists and the articles on subjects of the right to believers in limited government and classical economics. Since this was not done, the encyclopedia is to a large extent propaganda for communism and socialism. It is indeed regrettable that this encyclopedia, financed by tax-exempt funds, should have sponsors which were listed in the preface of the first volume of the encyclopedia as follows:

American Anthropological Association

American Association of Social Workers
American Economic Association

American Historical Association

American Political Science Association

American Psychological Association

American Sociological Society

American Statistical Association

Association of American Law Schools

National Education Association

The student or anyone else consulting the encyclopedia is thus misled, because, upon noting the sponsorship, he assumes that the encyclopedia is bound to be unbiased and is representative of the highest available scholarship. B. The University of Chicago Roundtable is propaganda, not education

The University of Chicago Roundtable has received during the last 12 years over $600,000 as of 1950, from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The listening audience of these Sunday noon roundtable radio broadcasts has been estimated by its staff to be between 5 to 8 million persons. The roundtable claims to be an educational program, but this is doubtful. To be a genuinely educational program, everyone of the roundtable broadcasts dealing with controversial subjects should have participants who are truly representative of each side of the problem discussed. However, on the basis of my examination of transcripts of a great many of these roundtable discussions, it appears that in most cases the background and ideology of the participants were so similar that no genuine discussion of controversial subjects could take place and no fair presentation of all sides of these issues could be expected. And in many cases thet ideology of the participants was leftist.

For example, the August 18, 1946, broadcast dealt with What Is Communism? The participants were Milton Mayer, a Socialist journalist, and Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. of Harvard University and of Americans for Democratic Action, and Lynn A. Williams, vice president of the Stewart-Warner Corp. and subsequently vice president of the University of Chicago. Part of the discussion said:

"Mr. SCHLESINGER. It certainly would appall the editors of Pravda to know that you, an American capitalist, are teaching the Communist manifesto to your workers.

"Mr. WILLIAMS. I certainly did not sell it to them, because, try as I would to teach them all the merits of what Marx had to say, they would have none of it. "Mr. MAYER. *** socialism, as we see it operating under the labor government in Great Britain, has collective or social ownership of the means of production just as communism does. But socialism is still parliamentary, nonviolent, gradualist, democratic, progressive."