Mr. HAYS. Do you say that saying, now the very implication of brotherhood carries a connotation of religion, does it not?

Mr. SARGENT. A majority group sort of religion, but not the concept in the Declaration of Independence, sir.

Mr. HAYS. It is no inference, it so happens I believe in the Christian religion. I also understood that Christ preached brotherhood. Now are you saying there is something bad about that?

Mr. SARGENT. No, I am talking about the effect of this as a legal document.

Mr. HAYS. But brotherhood isn't good unless it comes from your side, is it?

Mr. SARGENT. I say this is bad to substitute this provision for the Declaration of Independence.

Mr. HAYS. To act in a spirit of brotherhood, I have sort of advocated that, and if I am being Leftist I would like to get away from it. Mr. SARGENT. This is a substitution for the Declaration of Independence concept, and the present controversy over the Bricker amendment

Mr. HAYS. Was it different, now, Mr. Sargent? You have a very voluminous flow of verbiage there but let us pick a little structure out of it. What did you say the Declaration said again?

Mr. SARGENT. The Declaration of Independence says all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them. That is the gist of it.

Mr. HAYS. We subscribe to that.

Mr. SARGENT. Yes; those rights belong to you and to me, at birth, and they are ours.

Mr. HAYS. Will you please read the other one?

Mr. SARGENT. The other one says all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and they are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Mr. HAYS. You say that there is something subversive about that? Mr. SARGENT. I didn't say subversive; I said it makes an important change in our basic law in connection with the other provisions of this declaration I am about to discuss.

Mr. HAYS. It seems to me that the teachings of God have certain elements of brotherhood in them that you cannot get away from, and when you start picking or finding fault with the word "brotherhood," that you are quibbling on pretty technical ground with language.

The CHAIRMAN. It does not seem to me it is on very technical ground when he makes reference to God having been left out of the provision that was substituted for the Declaration of Independence.

Mr. HAYS. This wasn't substituted for the Declaration of Independence at all, and you cannot leave God out whether you want to or not. He will be around, and I expect that He will even have an opinion on this if you want to get right down to it. I am not going to tell you what I think it will be, because that is not my province; I am not omnipotent, and I wish the witnesses wouldn't try to be omnipotent, either.

Mr. SARGENT. I will tie this in for you. I am discussing this from the standpoint that this is a proposal for a possible treaty which will become the supreme law of the land, and may be judicially interpreted as a modification of our existing legal system. Article 1, to be under

standable, should be read in connection with article No. 29, that is subdivision 2, which says:

In the exercise of his rights, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others, and meeting its just requirements of morality, public order, and the general order of a democratic state.

Now, that term "general welfare of a democratic state" seems to create a power by majority vote to limit the rights granted in the rest of this article. The next subdivision of 29 says that these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

In other words, if someone does not believe in the United Nations and wants to do something contrary to what you want to do, he hasn't any civil rights at all. Subparagraph 3 says so, in article 29. Article 25 provides for social housing and medical care, which are made constitutional rights.

Article 26 says that the purpose of education is the furtherance of the activities of the U. N. Article 21 guarantees free access to public service, and that could interfere with the right to discharge Government personnel who are bad security risks.

Article 19 guarantees freedom of opinion and expression through any media.

Mr. HAYS. Are you reading from your own notes?

Mr. SARGENT. I will read the original for you, and it is a true quote. Article 19 says:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart foreign ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Now that could be interpreted to protect the right to advocate forcible overthrow of this Government.

Mr. HAYS. It could be interpreted, and I don't know who is going to interpret it, and I suppose possibly it could be interpreted the way you have been interpreting things, depending on what you mean.

Mr. SARGENT. If a court laying this alongside of our present constitutional law saw this they could reason that there must have been an intent to substitute something different, and otherwise why make the change. This tends to throw our constitutional law out on the table to be argued out all over again.

Mr. HAYS. I have a sneaking suspicion that Congress is going to protect that. They haven't passed that thing yet, have they?

Mr. SARGENT. Not yet, but these are the grounds upon which many people very seriously opposed this pamphlet which was being actively used in Los Angeles city schools. Article 14 says that everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries the asylum from persecution. Doesn't that mean that the immigration laws can be broken down and we can be compelled to receive hordes from any nation in the world regardless of the impact on American conditions? This article would seem to say so.

There have been many, many things written on this. And very, very serious objections made. The proponents of the Bricker amendment agree I think in substance, and have additional reasons from my own for opposing that particular proposition. That is an example of more propaganda, and more propaganda power, and the Ford Foundation through Mr. Hoffman apparently backs that one.

Mr. HAYS. You are a pretty cagey lawyer, and you keep saying seemingly. Apparently you just tread on the border of libel, but you don't quite get over it.

Mr. SARGENT. I am talking about the UNESCO propaganda bill here.

Mr. HAYS. You mentioned Mr. Paul Hoffman.

Mr. SARGENT. He was there using the weight and prestige of the Ford Foundation to try and influence a city board of education in support of this proposal, which is legislation to make that a part of the law of the United States.

Some of you gentlemen may be interested in what kind of a propaganda outfit this UNESCO really is. You will find the detail on that in a pamphlet entitled "Every Man's United Nations, a Ready Reference to the Structure and Functions of the Work of the United Nations and its Related Agencies.'

It is a publication of the United Nations Department of Public Education, in New York, and the publication date is 1952, and this is a third edition. It is quite recent. UNESCO is discussed commencing at page 312, and it talks about their worldwide activities, that they are preparing a scientific and cultural history of mankind, and that they set up an international clearing house to promote exchange of publications between libraries and institutions, and that they have study programs.

Mr. HAYS. Does the Government of the United States belong to that organization at all? Do they contribute to it?

Mr. SARGENT. I think there was some question before the Senate Appropriations Committee about further contributions toward it, if I recall correctly. We still belong to it, and we

Mr. HAYS. Who is our representative there? Do you know?
Mr. SARGENT. This is UNESCO, this is a separate thing.

Mr. HAYS. This is a subdivision of the U. N.

Mr. SARGENT. This is the body incidentally to which Mr. Willard Givens, of the NEA, offered a resolution protesting the removal of Superintendent Goslin from Pasadena.

Among other things, UNESCO has put out a pamphlet called Television and Education in the United States. This is printed, UNESCO, Paris, 1952.

Mr. HAYS. Now just a minute before you start putting that document in the record. Is that put out by some foundation?

Mr. SARGENT. No, UNESCO.

I am talking about the propaganda power of this setup we have here, which the foundations seem to have, and it bears on the propaganda power of foundations.

Mr. HAYS. It has about as much relation to this investigation as Chic Sale's book, if I can figure it out.

Mr. SARGENT. This discusses the propaganda network, that UNESCO is looking at. I think, Mr. Hays, you will find that the foundations are supporting educational television, and taking a flip at that one also.

Mr. HAYS. These foundations are supporting education television, and UNESCO has a book about it, but what is the relationship?

Mr. SARGENT. I am talking about the organized power of foundations.

Mr. HAYS. I have a television program, too, and I am not connected with any of those. You just use the word "television," and everybody hooks up that has anything to do with television.

Mr. SARGENT. There is an organized movement underway with some foundations

Mr. HAYS. You said yesterday you didn't believe in astrology, did you not, and you don't use a crystal ball, either.

Mr. SARGENT. Must we go back to that? I am talking about this pamphlet here, and I am talking about the pamphlet on educational television, sponsored by UNESCO, in which they have examined the educational policies of the American Broadcasting Co., Columbia, Du Mont, National Broadcasting Co., and they have inquired into the use of television so far in the schools of Philadelphia, Chicago, Minneapolis, and they have conducted some research on television and children and even considered its use as a teaching tool.

Mr. HAYS. Now you say that is a book put out by an organization which you refuse to state has any foundation funds, and you said it is published in Paris, and you say it is a bad book and perhaps it is. I wouldn't know. But will you kindly try to relate it to the hearing and tell us what we should do about it? Should we pass a law prohibiting them from importing it, or what? I am at a loss.

Mr. SARGENT. You should consider seriously adopting a law which will keep foundations out of entering into things

Mr. HAYS. But this book, Mr. Sargent, where do they get into the picture with this particular book?

Mr. SARGENT. This is one of the UNESCO activities.

Mr. HAYS. And you said UNESCO is not financed by the foundations.

Mr. SARGENT. I say they are supporting the UNESCO program, and the UNESCO program includes this, which is propaganda power. Mr. HAYS. They are supporting it 100 percent?

Mr. SARGENT. I didn't say 100 percent..

Mr. HAYS. Well, you see there is the point.

Mr. SARGENT. Did I say 100 percent?

Mr. HAYS. Mr. Reece is a Republican, I am a Democrat, and we subscribe generally to the principles of our party, but we do not subscribe to every single thing that every Democrat or every Republican has done, and sometimes we even vote against them.

Mr. SARGENT. We are in an area where propaganda power is acquiring enormous importance to the people, and becoming a growing danger, unless kept within some kind of bounds, and foundation money is being used for operations of which that situation is a part. There was foundation support offered incidentally in my own community for the Bay Area Educational Television Association in San Francisco. That was to promote publicly owned and operated television stations for educational purposes. There was one foundation there at least, and they went to the State government indicating that they would back the project. They are going even into that field.

Now, here is another area. I don't want to take your time on this now, but I would like to deal with it very briefly. I suggested a questionnaire to get the discrimination facts on this case. That is to ask the foundations if they have done any of these patriotic or other things favored by those who do not agree with them. In 1950, in October, when I was Chairman of the Americanization Committee

of the National Society, Sons of the American Revolution, I sent a letter to a list of 115 textbook publishers, throughout the country, to determine what materials were available for instructing students and adult groups desiring to study the propaganda and activities of Socialist and Communist organizations, or for the study of the economic, financial and political and constitutional effects of Fabian socialism and the social welfare state. I have an affidavit here, confirming the fact that such a letter was sent, and the affidavit contains a copy of my file copy of the letter, and a list of these book publishers' names.

I have here a stack of letters containing their replies. The substance of the replies is that practically no material of this kind was available by any of these publishers. Some of the publishers were not engaged in that line of work and their names of course should not be considered. A substantial number of others were in areas where it was possible.

The list itself was obtained from the official list of book publishers on file in the State of California Department of Education, at Sacramento. I would like to offer the affidavit now, and I would like to at my convenience in the next few days prepare a digest containing the substance of what those letters show, prepare an affidavit based on that digest and then offer that affidavit when I return for cross-examination. It will show the extent to which there is a serious lack of this kind of educational material. I think the committee would be interested in the facts.

May I do that?

The CHAIRMAN. That will be done, without objection.

Mr. HAYS. I am not going to let him put in a lot of documents that I do not know anything about, and so I object.

Mr. GOODWIN. What is the harm of letting them in? I assume that although the gentleman from Ohio apparently wants to clear up things pretty well as we go along, it is my thought that there will be ample opportunity later on in executive session for us to evaluate all of this testimony that comes in, and there decide.

Mr. HAYS. I don't think any committee would let anyone prepare a statement and without even knowing the thing that is in it, let it become a part of the record. There is a matter of expense, printing, and it may have no pertinency, and so on and so forth. I think the committee should look at it. This is the first time I have objected. The gentleman has put in many things.

Mr. SARGENT. I will furnish an affidavit certifying it and I will let a member of your staff examine the letters here and check it for himself. It just seemed to be a convenient way to give you the information without reading a lot of letters.

Mr. HAYS. Are you going to put all of the letters in there?
Mr. SARGENT. I am going to give you the substance of it.

The CHAIRMAN. See if I understand your suggestion correctly, that you are going to make a digest of your actions and a summary of the substance of the replies, which go in the record, and then the letters would be submitted for the record without printing.

Mr. SARGENT. I would rather keep possession of the letters, and I don't think you want the letters.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you restate your suggestion?

Mr. SARGENT. What I am going to do is prepare a summary of the replies received from these publishers. Classifying the material on