Mr. Chairman, these acts committed by these unspeakable persons are acts of treason.

It is high time that we show some muscle and crack down on these traitors H.R. 3277 calls for imprisonment of not more than one year and a fine of not more than $1000. I respectfully request that you pass this legislation.

The American people who love and respect our flag have voiced their disgust and anger of the flag burnings by writing to all media of the press and to the Members of Congress. They want legislation which will punish these treasonable acts passed now.

I am sure that all of the esteemed members of this subcommittee were as revolted as I to see our grand American flag being desecrated by Communistlovers and beatniks.

This committee can act for all loyal Americans everywhere by passing the leg islation currently before it.

Mr. ROGERS. Our next witness is a distinguished gentleman, the Honorable Michael A. Musmanno, who is a justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and I am sure he will give us much informa tion as it relates to legal aspects of these proposals.

We welcome you here and appreciate the fact that you can take time out to come to Washington and give us the benefit of your views. Proceed in your own fashion.

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL A. MUSMANNO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, PITTSBURGH, PA.

Mr. MUSMANNO. Thank you. I will identify myself as Michael A. Musmanno, justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. I have been on that court 15 years; before that I was a trial judge for 20 years. I served in the State legislature for 2 years.

I am now chairman of the Americanism Committee of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, the American flag is the flag of the United States and not of any individual State. It therefore is the responsibility of the Federal Government to protect it from desecration and destruction.

Anyone who maliciously sets fire to the flag of the United States makes war on the United States. By his act he does not intend merely to destroy a colored cloth, his purpose is to dance in the flames of defiance of the authority of the United States.

He makes himself an enemy of our country, fit to conspire with Communists who would force our freedoms into the straitjacket of Bolshevistic dictatorship.

Those who put a match to the flag of the United States apply an acetylene torch to the police stations, courthouses and Federal and State capitols, because they demonstrate their contempt for law and order, and invite others to violently resist the forces of established government.

The act of burning the flag should be a Federal crime because it incites disorder and tumult. The bystanders cannot be neutral. Some may join the wildly shouting arsonists and some, angered to the core, by this insult to the country they love, will hotly try to prevent the desecration. And from this rise riot, tumult, and bloody fighting in the streets, chaotically disruptive of the peace of the community and the well-being of the Nation.

A responsibility devolves, therefore, upon Congress, as the highest legislative body in the Nation, to take appropriate measures to halt this anarchistic contempt for civilized behavior.

It is shocking enough for the emblem of our Nation to be desecrated in times of peace, but when our country is at war, the man who puts a match to the flag lights at the same time the fuse of a bomb in the midst of our armed troops defending that flag on the battlefield.

This is true because the burning encourages the enemy to continue shooting and killing, since he interprets flagburning as a revolt against our commitments in Vietnam and that soon America will be compelled to withdraw her troops from the field.

General Westmoreland, in his magnificent presentation in New York and in Washington a few days ago, pointed out that demonstrations against American policy strengthen the will of the enemy and this means the loss of more American lives. And how could demonstrations against American policy be more vividly and dramatically manifested than by burning the very flag of the United States?

Thus, Mr. Chairman, I believe it to be a matter of superlative necessity to halt at once, by the most effective means possible, the desecration of our flag. And the way to bring that infamous practice to a halt is to enact legislation which will make punishment swift and sure.

I recommend that this committee urge upon the Congress the passage of a law which will make the malicious destruction of the flag an offense punishable by a guaranteed 1 year's imprisonment without parole and with no alternative penalty of a money fine. No amount of money can compensate for an offense which increases the peril facing our soldiers.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the colloquy between the members of the committee and the distinguished Congressman from Georgia. He recommends that the maximum penalty be 5 years for the desecration of the flag. I would have no difficulty in adjusting my point of view to an increased penalty, more than 1 year, but what I would like to recommend to the committee is that we have a positive minimum as against a hypothetical maximum. And I make a recommendation here which I believe is an innovation. I have read through about 25 of the bills which have been submitted to the Congress-I understand there are about 60-and from that sampling of this mass of proposed legislation I presume that I can conclude that what I was looking for is not in the others, which I haven't had a chance to read.

I am going to recommend to you, Mr. Chairman, that there be included in the bill which finally emerges from the committee a provision that trials for desecration of the flag have priority over all other trials, since national security is involved.

Immediate trials are mandatorily necessary because, if the conviction does not come until a year or two after the flag has been destroyed, and the community outraged, the judge may be persuaded into misguided leniency, merely because of the intervention of time.

On the other hand, if the miscreant who traitorously tramples upon, tears, or burns the flag, finds himself in prison in the matter of days after his revolting deed, the deterring effect on others similarly minded will be considerably increased.

There are those who will oppose this legislation on two grounds: one, that there is sufficient legislation on the subject since every State prohibits desecration of the flag; and, two, burning the flag is merely evidence of dissent and that to stifle dissent is in derogation of the first amendment guaranteeing free speech. I reply to both arguments.

The first one needs but little refutation. As I have already stated, the flag involved is that of the United States, not the flag of Pennsylvania, Virginia, or any other State. Thus the Federal Government must protect its flag as much as it protects its post offices, battleships, and mail trains. Making the offense a Federal one adds substance to the crime.

There is the general feeling that a Federal prosecution is more formidable and meaningful than a State prosecution. The very phrase, "a Federal case," carries an aura of ominousness which will not be lost on the miserable wretches who commit sacrilege against the sacred symbol of our Nation.

With regard to the first amendment I must say that the Constitution which empowers the Government to suppress rebellion and repel hostile invasion, also empowers the Government to prohibit conduct which leads to the destruction of our rights to live as free men. No plea of free speech will save the scoundrel who falsely cried "fire" in a crowded theater, and no plea of free speech will save the traitor who by word of mouth conspires with others on how to destroy our Government.

After all, the conspirators who plotted the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and the overthrow of our Government only used their tongues in making arrangements for the foul and never-pardonable crime.

On the way to his inauguration, Lincoln spoke at Independence Hall in Philadelphia where he raised the flag. In his speech he said that he would rather be assassinated on the spot than surrender the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence symbolized by the flag.

Later he was assassinated, and the flag, as if fighting the assassin, caught John Wilkes Booth's boot and threw him heavily, breaking his leg, leading to his eventual capture and death.

That flag deserves our serious attention in providing measures for its protection. Practically all of America saw in person or on television the flag which was draped over the coffin of John F. Kennedy, reminding us that we have been remiss in offering proper protection to our Presidents.

The hand that pulled the fatal trigger which killed President Kennedy was trained in Russia which supplies guns and ammunition killing our boys in Vietnam. Every coffin which arrives from Vietnam, and every coffin which returned from Korea and from Europe during World Wars I and II was draped in the American flag.

It is a sacrilege to the noble figures entombed beneath that flag to allow it to be desecrated by the vile America-hating hooligans and criminal vandals who brought shame to America on April 15, before and since.

In addition to burning the flag, many of these ungrateful wretches, unworthy of the name of Americans, in a blatant demonstration of yellow stomached cowardice, burned their draft cards. Congress has already provided punishment for these draft card burners and I want

to hasten to say that I don't agree at all with the decision of the circuit court which said that destruction of a draft card is a form of expression of dissent.

There is a vast difference between dissent and betrayal; there is a gulf of differentiation between dissent and conduct which endangers the safety of the Nation; there is an ocean separating legitimate dissent from a type of behavior which prolongs the war which has saddened the hearts of so many families in the Nation.

Senator McGovern of South Dakota and Senator Fulbright of Arkansas found, in General Westmoreland's candid utterances in America, an attempt to suppress dissent. It is an erstaz brand of dissent that cannot bear to listen to a reply to the dissent.

Senator Joseph S. Clark of Pennsylvania, another dissenting dove, found fault with General Westmoreland's speech before Congress, stating it was irrelevant. I don't know of anything which could be more relevant than a general in the field reporting to Congress, under whose authority he is fighting in the field, what is happening in the field.

Gen. George Washington was constantly reporting to Congress, via communication, on the progress of the Continental Army. Gen. Giuseppe Garibaldi, in his defense of Rome, appeared before the Roman Assembly to report on the military situation; Gen. Simon Bolivar, in his heroic emancipation of much of South American territory, appeared before the Venezuelan Congress to report on his liberating expeditions.

General Westmoreland's speech to the American Congress was not only relevant; it hit the target with the accuracy of an expert rifleman. He said: "In evaluating the enemy strategy it is evident to me that he believes our Achilles' heel is in our resolve. Your continued support is vital to the success of our mission."

When the enemy sees pictures of the very symbol of the United States being torn to shreds, ripped to tatters, dragged in the mud, spat upon, and reduced to ashes, and no one being punished for such desecration, how can he believe other than that our resolve is weak?

You know, Mr. Chairman, what would happen to a burner of the Red flag in North Vietnam. He would be thrown against a wall and shot at once. Ho Chi Min interprets our failure to punish, even with a jail sentence, the destroyers of our flags as an infallible indication that we are afraid to punish the desecrators because the vandals represent a substantial part of our population.

Of course, that is not true; but the Communist propagandists are not restricted to the truth. By allowing the flag burners to go unpunished we give the enemy full opportunity to tell their lies with apparent documentary evidence of reality.

General Westmoreland said: "When a field commander does not have to look over his shoulder to see whether he is being supported, he can concentrate on the battlefield with much greater assurance of success."

Congress should pass legislation which will make it unnecessary for General Westmoreland to look over his shoulder to see whether the flag, for which his men are pouring out their blood, is being respected, protected, and honored at home.

I believe that stiff punishments meted out to desecrators of the flag may enlighten some college presidents and professors on their responsibilities in teaching the youths entrusted to their care.

Many of the culprits engaged in flag burning orgies are of college age. Do they learn from college presidents and professors, either as students or from what they hear, to show proper respect for the flag? Dr. Edward D. Eddy, Jr., president of the Chatham College of my home city, Pittsburgh, instructed his student body on September 19, 1961 as follows:

Please don't inherit either your religion or your nationality. Subject them to your own intelligence test * **. It would be senseless for us merely to wave a flag in your face, for you would be smothered by its folds * * *. It would be senseless for us to bellow "God bless America," for you would turn away from its abundance of cliches * * *. As Samuel Johnson said so wisely: "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels."

Note how this professor said that Samuel Johnson spoke "wisely" in declaring that patriotism is for scoundrels. Were the signers of the Declaration of Independence who pledged their lives, honors, and fortunes for the independence and defense of their country, scoundrels? I do not mention Mr. Eddy because I consider him particularly influential, and I certainly emphasize that he in no way represents the teaching profession of America, which, in the vast majority, is made up of men and women devoted to the ideals of America.

I refer to him only because his words typify a kind of thinking which is doing considerable harm to American in degrading patriotism and smothering love for the flag.

There are many others connected with universities who are as lacking in reverence for the flag as the language of Dr. Eddy would suggest he is lacking. Scarcely a week passes by that we don't read of some college persons insulting high officials of our Government by walking out on them after they have been invited to the university to speak there. Often these Government officials become targets for degrading epithets and decayed vegetables.

Only several days ago a Gabriel Kolko, who listed himself as assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania, denounced the United States at the so-called international war crimes tribunal squatting in moral squalor in Stockholm, Sweden. I am sure that every alumnus of the distinguished University of Pennsylvania winces at the very association of this venerable institution of learning with the educated guttersnipes daring to refer to themselves as a "tribunal," when they represent none other than their hatemongering selves.

This so-called tribunal is no more a tribunal than would be a gang of street corner loafers, swilling whiskey, smoking reefers and insulting passersby.

I have written the president of the University of Pennsylvania recommending that he disassociate his illustrious university from Professor Kolko by suspending him and ordering him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the university for his misconduct abroad.

Another professor who should be suspended from his university is Professor Douglas Dowd of Cornell University who told the dowdy tribunal in Stockholm that it was a "patriotic duty" to denounce the United States for its actions in Vietnam.