this espionage ring. If we had this bill, which would require the registration

Mr. NIKOLORIC. What you are doing here, Mr. Velde, at the risk of seeming impertinent, you are assuming that this bill is going to require some spies to register. What happens to the thousands of others who are not spies?

Mr. WALTER. And the spies are the last persons who will register. Mr. NIKOLORIC. Certainly.

Mr. VELDE. We don't expect them to register, but this bill will enable us to prosecute them for failure to register.

Mr. NIKOLORIC. This doesn't have anything to do with espionage. Mr. VELDE. The Communist Party would have to register.

Mr. STRAIGHT. Would you expect the majority of Communists to register? I wouldn't.

Mr. VELDE. I doubt it.

Mr. STRAIGHT. It seems to me the Communist Party would merely go a little deeper underground if this bill is enacted. The only way to root it out is destroy its base. We think they could pose as martyrs and confuse the issue.

Mr. VELDE. If you could suggest a way to handle this problem without legislation, I would be more than willing to vote against this bill, if we had some way of handling this problem.

Mr. KEARNEY. With respect to the section on treason, I am in favor of revising that particular section to make it apply to peacetime treason. As it is now, it only deals with enemies, and in peacetime we have no enemies.

Mr. NIKOLORIC. That is certainly a possibility. One thing that upsets me about this bill, I do not see a single provision in this bill that will accomplish what I consider a very lofty purpose. I don't like espionage agents floating around Washington any more than you do, but I don't see a single provision that would take care of that. Mr. VELDE. I tried to explain this bill could act as a tool. We recognize that the espionage ring in this country, the most serious one, is directed by the Communist Party through the Russian Embassy and consulate here. If we require the registration of these Communist Party members and they fail to register, then they are liable for prosecution. It is one way of bolstering our espionage laws that we have now.

Mr. NIKOLORIC. If I were a Communist and an espionage agent and this bill passed, I would sever my connection, as far as a label is concerned, with the Communist Party. I wouldn't have to register. I would just go underground.

Mr. VELDE. But if you are still determined to be a member of a Communist-front group or a subversive, you are still required to register.

Mr. WALTER. Anything further?

(No response.)

Mr. WALTER. Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, a letter has been received from Prof. William G. Rice, a professor of law at the University of Wisconsin. He expresses his regret at not being able to be here, but I want to incorporate his letter and argument in the record.

Mr. WALTER. Without objection it will be incorporated in the record at this point.

(The letter above referred to is as follows:)

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN,

LAW SCHOOL,

Madison, March 27, 1950.

CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: If it were possible for me to travel to Washington at this time, I would have asked to testify before your committee on H. R. 7595. Since it is not possible and since I believe my experience in teaching and practicing law and working for several years for the Government justify me in requesting you to ponder my views, I beg leave to present this statement for your consideration and records.

I am opposed to H. R. 7595 unless it is radically amended. While procedurally it is better than the Mundt bill that passed the House in the Eightieth Congress, I consider it on the whole bad legislation.

Subsections (b) and (c) of section 4 are either unnecessary or inadequate. I suspect they are unnecessary because the offense is provided for by other statutes. But if a new statute concerning disclosure of classified information is needed, it should clearly apply to unauthorized communication to all persons. That is, the limitation of lines 6-10 and 19-22 on page 9 should be struck out so that the prohibitions cover communications to whomever made and by whomever obtained.

This makes it unnecessary in subsection (f) to mention subsection (c). In subsection (d) the penalty of ineligibility, it seems to me, should not be automatic, but should be imposable at the discretion of the court.

The apparent purpose of the rest of the bill is to cause disclosure of Communist activity. The method chosen largely defeats this purpose, for the bill provides penalties for disclosure as well as for nondisclosure. If disclosure is desired, then rewards-or at least no legal penalties-should be attached to disclosure. For example, sections 5, 6, and 12 should be reversed. Contributions to registered organizations should be deductible for income tax purposes (if the organization is charitable, educational, etc.) and members should be in the position as other persons who seek jobs or passports. Registration might be even rewarded as by providing that a registered party may not be barred from the ballot in any State, which would facilitate disclosure of Communist leaders and plans.

However, if the purpose is not to cause disclosure, but to penalize Communist organizations and persons, the statute is muddled. The straightforward way would be to set up a criminal procedure by which individuals should be tried by jury and if found guilty should be punished (as under sec. 4). If imprisonment or fine is too severe a penalty, it would not be "cruel or unusual punishment" to deprive them only of certain rights (passport, public employment, vote) as felons are now deprived while they are imprisoned and thereafter. I am far from sure that such a law would be constitutional. But it would be more likely to pass the courts than this bill. For what is set up here is not a normal trial of individuals for a public crime according to the law of the land, but a semipenal administrative adjudication resulting in penalties due to association. If limited to public employment, the plan is, however, basically proper for some administrative organ has to decide whether a person should or should not be employed. But it should be noted that the present system of determination by the Attorney General that certain organizations are subversive provides evidence against their members, while the bill before you creates a bar against members of Communist political organizations (even against their serving as dogcatchers) but does not change the rule as to members of Communist-front organizations.

The pending bill entrusting to a Board, rather than to a presenting officer, the decision on whether organizations are "Communist," with full provision for hearing and review, is an improvement upon our present system. But the fact of membership in either type of organization ought to remain only evidence (not a bar) against applicants for employment. Decision as to employment should always be on the basis of individual character and ability-like decision as to innocence or guilt of crime.

I am much dissatisfied with section 6. The State Department today can deny passports for good or bad reasons and the applicant has no recourse. In my opinion this authority has been abused. To meet this injustice I believe Congress should provide recourse to an administrative agency outside the State Department for persons who desire to have a public investigation of the grounds

for denial or revocation of passports. Moreover, I think it is unwise absolutely to bar members of Communist political organizations from holding passports. Frequently we wish to facilitate their leaving the country voluntarily. But clearly each case should be decided on its merits, though the fact of membership in a Communist organization may properly be weighed in deciding on their worthiness to travel abroad under United States protection. Enlistment by Americans in organizations that are tied to other foreign governments (Spain, Israel, Vatican) also should be cause for investigation but not for automatic veto. I doubt whether enough is gained by requiring the filing of all names of contributors to Communist organizations and all members of Communist political organizations, to warrant the elaborate reporting required by section 7. Would not the sort of reports required of labor unions by the Taft-Hartley Act be sufficient? I have not considered this question from enough angles to have reached a firm opinion.

The most fundamental objection to the bill is that the standards it lays down are so vague that a partisan board could use its power to cripple any group that it disliked. For instance, a Senator McCarthy in such a position could rule that since a certain organization of which Judge Kenyon or Professor Jessup is a member has taken a position, let us say, in opposition to or in support of the admission of some applicant state to membership in the United Nations, which position is the same as that of the Soviet Union, therefore the organization is a Communist political organization and must so label all its public statements, and Judge Kenyon or Professor Jessup may not be employed by the United States or obtain a passport for any purpose. For the test "the extent to which its views and policies do not deviate from those of such foreign government" can easily be used by a board containing two Senator McCarthys to debilitate such an organization. Operated by appointees of an autocratic president like Peron, the board could easily find ground to list as "Communist" any opposition party and to make the listing stick with the courts, unless they concluded, as seems not unlikely, that the whole act is unconstitutional as an invasion of freedom of speech.

With deletion of this nondeviation test of "Communist" and omission of the rubber words "the extent to which" from all the tests, I would favor the transfer of the function now performed by the Attorney General to the proposed board. Finally, it is extravagant to pay $12,500 apiece to three men for doing the very light job that the bill assigns to them. When one compares this load with that of most administrative agencies, one wonders whether self-respecting men of high quality could be found who would accept so easy an assignment. Yet -obviously it is a very responsible job requiring high quality and expensive talent, and one that can be better done by three persons than by one. I suggest, therefore, that the Board be given additional duties. I should think it would be not inappropriate, for instance, to give to such a board review of the State Department's refusals and cancellations of passports of Americans (the question of nationality is adequately covered by the Nationality Code, 8 U. S. C. A. 903) and perhaps of its refusals and cancellations of visas of aliens within or seeking to enter the United States. Also, once its heavy initial duties are completed, the Loyalty Review Board might be merged with the proposed Subversive Activities Control Board. But I am sure that Congress would be wasting the public money to set up the latter Board with no duties except those set forth in the bill before your committee.

Sincerely yours,

WILLIAM G. RICE, Professor of Law.

Mr. WALTER. Professor Freeman, will you raise your right hand and be sworn. You solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give on the matter in hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. FREEMAN. I so affirm.

TESTIMONY OF HARROP A. FREEMAN

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you state your full name for the record? Mr. FREEMAN. Harrop A. Freeman.

Mr. TAVENNER. Are you a representative of the Society of Friends' Committee on National Legislation?

Mr. FREEMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAVENNER. Professor Freeman, it has been the policy of the committee to ask each witness appearing on subversive matters whether he is now or ever has been a member of the Communist Party. I would like to ask you that question.

Mr. FREEMAN. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Communist Party. For over 20 years I have been affiliated with the Republican Party. I haven't always voted the straight ticket, but I guess I qualify as a Republican.

Mr. KEARNEY. The gentleman qualifies.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you have a prepared statement?

Mr. FREEMAN. I do not.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you desire to be heard on this bill?

Mr. FREEMAN. I would like to be heard very briefly; yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. Proceed.

Mr. FREEMAN. I happen to be one of those things that was just mentioned, a professor of law, but I hope you don't hold it against me because I am also a practicing attorney and have practiced 25 years.

I have examined H. R. 7595 with a great deal of interest, particularly as it applies to the Society of Friends. The Society of Friends are Quakers. I suppose they outrun this committee in being against violence and the violent overthrow of government. They go so far as to be against violence even in the protection of lawful government, and surely they are against violence to overthrow the Government.

The thing that seems to me to be basically objectionable in this statute is the extent to which it departs from the whole philosophy of our Government; and that, I would say, is also the philosophy on a religious basis that the Society of Friends is based on, the concept you cannot coerce people in their beliefs, that the only way we can have a democratic form of government is by persuasion.

The Society of Friends has always stood out against government attempts at coercion of beliefs. I think the Supreme Court has frequently referred to our habits of refusing to doff our cap to the king and things of that sort.

Because of our religious belief, we believe even men you class as enemies should be treated the way you would treat friends. We feel we could easily be brought within some of the provisions of this act. The Society of Friends nationally advocates an attempt to achieve friendly relations with Russia. The Friends Society has issued a pamphlet on the basis on which we could get on a friendly basis with Russia. This pamphlet was published by the Yale University Press. We also take a position on the FEPC, on which issue the Communist Party also takes a position, and in many instances the position may be the same.

Mr. WALTER. Do you think under the provisions of the bill, because the Society of Friends takes positions similar to those of the Communist Party, it might be deemed guilty of violation of the act?

Mr. FREEMAN. I think it might be so charged under section 14. where it states the different things that would be considered. Certainly we would run parallel with the Communist Party on a good many things, on disarmament, for example. We have advocated disarmament for years and years. The fact the Communist Party advocates disarmament, we would run parallel at this point.

(Representative McSweeney enters hearing room.)

Mr. FREEMAN (continuing). I think you will find that is true of a good many religious bodies, who hold to their position regardless of whether the Communist Party position runs parallel or not.

The Society of Friends happens to be the religious group that might most quickly be considered, because we are more strongly antimilitarist than other groups, and believe there is another way. Those things are so long historically our position that I don't think it is necessary to restate them.

It seems to me further, as a lawyer, that the statute is certainly of very questionable constitutionality. It runs counter to the whole theory of the free-speech cases, beginning with the Holmes dissent in Whitney v. California, where he said only by a free exchange of opinions can you possibly support a democratic government; and it seems to me we certainly cut down on the theory set forth in that group of cases, without bothering to cite them.

It seems further to me that it runs up against the registration cases. There have been four or five registration cases that have gone to the United States Supreme Court. The only one involving Communist registration is 9 (h) of the Taft-Hartley law, where the Supreme Court said you can require registration in the Taft-Hartley law because in that law Congress gives the labor union a privilege and has the right to attach a condition to it; but the Court said if you were attempting to legislate on freedom of speech the same reasoning would not apply. The Collins case in Texas and the Hill case in Florida also went to the Supreme Court, in both of which the Supreme Court held the registration provisions violated the Constitution.

You do have one case in which the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld registration by a State, the New York case involving the Ku Klux Klan and secret societies of 1929. In that case the Supreme Court said you had an organization which was incorporated under the State law, with control over the incorporation, and the fact they met at night, wore masks, and so forth, gave control, so that they could be required to register. Apart from that, the Supreme Court has never upheld any registration case which was said to infringe on freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

As of the present time, the Supreme Court has said that the Communist Party was a legal party and Congress could not legislate them out of existence. What is attempted here is to do indirectly what the Supreme Court has said you could not do directly.

I am aware of the problem you have, but if what we are trying to do is preserve the kind of government we have here, the cure may be worse than the disease. We also have to recognize that, as I have heard the speakers before me state, whoever drafted this bill did attempt to give great protections so that it would not run into the difficulties of constitutionality.

For example, I teach administrative law, and I know from the provisions regarding quantity of evidence it is fairly clear that you are attempting to make some additional protections in the area of due process; but it still seems to me, having done everything you can, you still violate the basic requirements of constitutional law.

For example, I notice under the statute a man's name could be let out before has been cleared, and by doing that he is as effectively branded as though you had a final order saying he is a Communist or Communist affiliate. If this is criminal in nature, and the Supreme