here to stay and we are going to do business with them. But there was always some merit there. The men were either getting not enough to live on-and I suppose from the viewpoint of the operators, they had merit, too, because they had to show a profit, and they had to try to pay some dividends to their stockholders.

It seems to me that the whole thing that has come out of it-neither this committee nor any other committee can edit the thinking that goes on in people's minds. I think the crux of this is not whether this little minute organization that has only $50,000 a year approximately to spend has espoused some, to me, rather radical ideas, if these quotations are accurate, and I assume they are. That is not the issue, as I see it, whether they have done it on tax-free dollars or whether they have not. It seems to me there is a bigger and more basic issue here. Who is going to edit the thinking of people? Who is going to say that you cannot demand social change? Who is going to say that you cannot advocate the changing of the social order? I think it is here that we have something basic.

The CHAIRMAN. In a much shorter speech, I will answer that: Nobody.

Mr. HAYS. I am glad to have that concession.

Mr. EARL. I might say this, before I continue, that it is my thinking that these quotes that we have listened to, Mr. Hays, although they concern very difficult problems of the times back in 1932 and 1933, that have since been solved to a great extent, all in the political arena. And they do more than that, as far as these people were concerned. You will notice all through here that their theme was the pushing of socialism. And a great many things that have happened are things that you and I agree with today. And just because a Socialist is supposed to love his mother and his wife, I should not turn around and say because they believe that I certainly will not love my wife or love my mother.

The things that they advocated were that all of these be done not particularly to help America and help the system that was then in, but to overthrow that system and supplant it with a system of socialism.

The CHAIRMAN. And your quotations later will indicate the doings right up to the present time.

Mr. HAYS. Mr. Earl, in a very friendly way, I am going to ask you to try to answer this question. Do you not suppose that if someone had spent as much time as you obviously have in studying the writings of people on the other side, we could come up here, somebody could come up here, with a pretty long document of pretty horrible quotations about people who were advocating the use of troops to put down the workers and to move in police and to surround the workers' homes and all that?

Do you not think we could dig up that kind of stuff?

Mr. EARL. You probably could, sir, but probably not with tax exempt money.

Mr. HAYS. Then let me say this, before you go any further. The thing that I am trying to point out is that despite all of the extreme argument on either side, I consider it kind of a tribute to the good commonsense of the American people that we rectified what were some obvious mistakes by peaceful means and did not listen to the extremists on either side. And I am just wondering about what the value

is of rehashing this 20 years later. And at the moment we are only rehashing one side of it.

As far as I am concerned, I do not even want to rehash the other side, which would be just as extreme, I am sure.

Mr. Kоcн. Mr. Hays, if there were another side that was financed by tax-exempt foundations, I think the staff would like to have it. Mr. HAYS. Well, now, right there, are you saying that this organization was financed by tax-exempt foundations?

Mr. KоCH. No; it is a tax-exempt foundation.

Mr. HAYS. No; it is not a tax-exempt foundation. It is a tax-exempt organization. I will grant you that. But it is not a foundation, by any stretch of the imagination.

Mr. KOCH. I think we can agree on this. It is one of those foundations that are created under section 101, subparagraph 6. And that section, Mr. Hays, has a provision against propaganda. And, as I understand it, it is our job to check whether that definition is clear enough, or whether we should throw the thing out and let all the foundations, whether they have an income of $33 million a year or $50,000 a year, get into the act. The thing is that we have to go into this question of propaganda, as I see it, under 101, subdivision (6), and I do say that LID is one of those creatures.

Mr. HAYS. Of course, there are a lot of other creatures, too. There is the Committee for Constitutional Government. But you do not want to go into that. I will promise you that you do not.

Mr. KOCH. Wait a minute. Did not the witness who mentioned the outfit-did we not find out that that was 101, subparagraph (8), which has not got that propaganda clause? And the contributions to that other are not tax-exempt.

Mr. HAYS. You mean to say that the contributions to the Committee for Constitutional Government are not tax-exempt?

Mr. KOCH. I understand that their own income is not tax-exempt. Mr. WORMSER. There is that distinction between 101 (6) and the other.

Mr. HAYS. Which one are they under? I will agree with this in principle to save further argument. And though I may disagree with some of the people who represent the Committee for Constitutional Government, I firmly agree that they have the right to espouse whatever belief they want to. But the only thing I will get into any argument on is that I think these people and the people from the Committee for Constitutional Government ought to be treated alike. If one is tax-exempt, the other should be, and if the one is not, the other should not be.

Mr. GOODWIN. And you will agree that if we can conclude these public hearings seasonably, we ought to leave plenty of time in executive session to go into all of those matters?

Mr. HAYS. Oh, yes. I have no optimism that we will ever be able to come to any agreement, but I am willing to devote as much time as necessary trying.

Mr. GOODWIN. I am going to be much more optimistic than you are, Mr. Hays.

The CHAIRMAN. Knowing the agreeableness of the gentleman from Ohio and his great capacity to study and resolve the facts and work amicably with people when he gets behind closed doors, I have con

fidence that we will be able to get out a report which will be signed by all the members of the committee.

Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, if I were as thin-skinned as you are, I would take offense at that obvious sarcasm, but I am going to accept it just as though you meant it, and when the record comes out there will not even be your inflection in there, and people will think mean it.

you

did

The CHAIRMAN. We do not have any trouble when we are together behind closed doors. We never have.

Mr. HAYS. I will just say: Do not be too optimistic.
The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. EARL. Alvin Coons made a similar report on the conference in Chicago, where the LID considered everything "from technocracy to technique." This is from page 9, and this is still back in 1933, in February:

Clarence Senior, national secretary of the Socialist Party, expressed the belief that reforms would only further encumber the capitalistic system and that every concession would only hasten its end.

Affirming his faith in democracy as an instrument of social change, he advocated its use as long as possible, not however, excluding the use of other methods should it fail.

"Radical students," he declared, "can spend their time more profitably getting acquainted with the problems of the workers, than they can in studying chemistry to learn how to make bombs, or in going into the ROTC to learn how to shoot. You can hardly expect to teach the workers to shoot straight for bread if you cannot teach them to vote for it" (p. 9).

Under Blueprints for Action, in the February issue of The Student Outlook, these techniques are advocated (p. 16):

Boring from within.-Never will it be emphasized too strongly that college radicals must shunt their freshmen, particularly, onto the college paper. Especially journalism students, those that write well, and will succeed. Send so many for tryout that one, at least, will make the grade. Keep their marks up to avoid disqualification or suspension.

Make interlocking directorates, by having your men in all school activities, to promote radical activity of otherwise quiescent groups, and to make the news of these groups redly tinged. Cosponsored action, possible with interlocking directorates, makes good news.

Then, if I may, I will turn to that article. They entitle this, "This Is One Way to Sell Radicalism." And down under a subheading called, Newspaper Style, paragraph E:

Propagandize only in quotations or in adroit wording. Examples: "Capitalism is bankrupt. At least this is what 100 youths contended at a meeting."

It is now time to turn from an analysis of LID ideology and revolutionary techniques in the early thirties to an examination of contemporary activities and beliefs. A study of LID personnel and pamphlets suggests that, even today, the league is expending more energy in political action than in education. Čertainly there is much evidence to support the view of LID "research" is designed to influence legislation.

On April 15, 1950, for example, the league sponsored a symposium entitled "Freedom and the Welfare State" to celebrate its 45th anniversary. Some of the speeches made at the conference will indicate the bias of the educators present. All of the quotations which follow

are taken from Freedom and the Welfare State, a published account of the conference.

Dr. Harry Laidler, executive director of the LID, called upon his associates to meet the need of college students for guidance from those who do "honest, independent thinking" and thus offset "reactionary" propaganda in the colleges and the "totalitarian" propaganda from abroad.

This is taken from pages 5 and 6 of that publication, which I have here.

We in the league are happy to record the social progress that has been made during the first half of the century. We are, however, conscious of the fact that the goals of full democracy and economic security have not as yet been reached *** Economic injustices in the distribution of the fruits of industry are widespread. An inner circle of owners and executives of mammoth corpo rate groups still possess vast power over the lives of our people.

Mr. HAYS. Mr. Earl, right there, on that very last sentence that you read, starting with "An inner circle," would you disagree with

that statement?

Mr. EARL. I would not necessarily disagree with it, no.
You mean, as regards my own thinking?

Mr. HAYS. Yes. It is more or less a true statement, is it not? The CHAIRMAN. I personally disagree with it, myself, but you have a perfect right to express your opinion if you care to do so.

Mr. HAYS. This committee has apparently been trying to make out the thesis that an inner circle of executives of foundations possess vast power over the lives of our people, and I am wondering if it is not true that an inner circle of owners and executives of great corporations possess vast power over the lives of our people.

Mr. Reece has a right to his own opinion, but I think he is pretty far out on a limb there.

To go back to my more or less famous quotation of last week, exactly the same words almost

The CHAIRMAN. All of our corporations now are controlled by the Government, under the law which has been set up to provide free competition in the enterprise system, so that today an inner circle of owners and executives of corporations can control the lives of the people.

Mr. HAYS. Of course, the law says that they shall not do that, but again any law is only as good as its enforcement agencies, and of course you will never forget, I do not suppose, and probably never will be able to live down the statement that "what is good for General Motors is good for the country."

The CHAIRMAN. Even the inner circle of the great New York Central Railroad was not able to control the lives of its own stockholders, much less the people.

Mr. HAYS. And that is the case right there, because I did not know how to get my friend, Mr. Young, into this. He went out and fought for the stockholders and the little people in the New York Central, and he had a tough time getting his battle won. It was not easy, and he will tell you that himself.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, we had better not get into that discussion. All of his associates were not particularly little people.

Mr. HAYS. No. That is true. They certainly were not. But he has put forth a program and a platform for the little stockholders,

and he has done an unusual thing in his very first meeting, saying that his board of directors are not even going to take expenses. So I kind of feel like the little stockholders are going to get a break.

The CHAIRMAN. I have a very high regard and very warm affection for Mr. Young. And I suffered no great pangs of disappointment when he gained control in his fight.

You may go ahead.

Mr. EARL (reading):

The league, with its program of total democracy in industry, government, and human relations, has surely a great educational task before it.

We are seeking to meet the social challenge in many ways. We are continuing to send distinguished lecturers from here and abroad to our colleges and cities. We have published more pamphlets on educational and social problems this year than in many years past. We are conducting a campaign for the organization of city chapters which is meeting with remarkable success. And I mention again that this is in 1950.

Our dinners and conferences during the last year or so, with Senator Humphrey, President David Dubinsky, John Dewey, Senator Lehman, and Walter Reuther, among others, as honored guests, have been of historic significance. Such college conferences as the recent regional conference at Harvard have been of a high order.

Our greatest educational task, is, however, before us. In the college world, the 21⁄2 million young people on the campuses are today groping for light on problems of democratic social change. They are being propagandized by numerous reactionary organizations which have large sums of money at their disposal. They are being propagandized by totalitarian forces that receive their line not from hard, honest, independent thinking, but from a dictatorial government abroad. They are bewildered. Students are looking to democratic organizations like the league for enlightenment and guidance (p. 6).

Recruiting, training, organizing, public relations-these are still the chief activities of the LID by the testimony of its own commanding officers.

Both Mr. Ewing and Mr. Reuther Mr. Ewing, as an aside, is Mr. Oscar Ewing, who went to represent President Truman at this particular meeting-seemed to feel that the real threat to America was from reactionaries.

The conservatives may yell "socialism" at any suggestion for improvement. They may feel the hot breath of revolution with every proposal for change. But most dangerous enemies we have to our American way of life are those very people whose emblem is not the eagle but the ostrich *** (p. 13).

Those blind forces of reaction in America who would lead us back down the road to so-called normalcy and commit the American economy to the economics of scarcity and special privilege, are the Cominform's most valuable allies. These same blind forces, if permitted to grow unchecked in America, will drive us again to depression and disaster as they did in 1929, and provide the Cominform with a weapon more devastating than a stockpile of H-bombs.

Mr. HAYS. Just one question there, Mr. Earl. Do you not agree that if we did have another depression, it would be a good weapon for the Cominform?

Mr. EARL. Would be what, sir?

Mr. HAYS. A very good weapon for the Cominform.

Mr. EARL. Sure, I agree.

The CHAIRMAN. It is now 4:30. It would appear evident that Mr. Earl is going to be unable to complete his testimony this afternoon, and I thought we ought to discuss what the program is.