Page images
[graphic][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

Mr. ROONEY. There does not seem to be much trial work in civil cases either; is that a fair statement?

Mr. YEAGLEY. That is correct. Most of these for this year were handled on motions and those

Mr. ROONEY. I do not know why you cannot take half of these professionals and put them over in the Criminal Division where they say they need people so badly.

Mr. YEAGLEY. The reason is not the trial load, although that is a part of it, but it is the 105,000 reports and memorandums that come into the Division. We have to do something before filing them and then there are also lesser related activities.


Mr. ROONEY. How many foreign agent registration violations resulted in informations or indictments, aside from Guterma and Soto in calendar year 1960?

Mr. YEAGLEY. Those are the only indictments brought last year.

Mr. ROONEY. Do you have any indication as to how many days your staff of 126 were engaged in grand jury proceedings?

Mr. YEAGLEY. No; but it would be reflected accurately here by the number of cases in which there were indictments, I believe. We have not run investigative grand juries, so to speak, except as the exception rather than the rule.

Mr. ROONEY. Here is a division with a budget of $1,180,900 whose primary function is the matter of punishment for violation of the laws; is that right? That is the reason you go through the foreign agents registrations and that is mainly the reason for your existence; is that a fair statement?

Mr. YEAGLEY. I do not believe so.

That is the reason I have said that the number of court cases is not a complete story of the workload of the Division. In the foreign agents field

Mr. ROONEY. I did not say that. I understand you have people who look at these registrations and such things, but is not the bulk of the work looking forward to criminal prosecution of people who violate laws?

Mr. YEAGLEY. Not the bulk of the work, Mr. Congressman.

For example, in the Foreign Agents Act that you mention, the purpose of the act is to obtain disclosure from those acting as agents. It is largely an administrative proposition to see that people do register. We do have a great deal of correspondence and other intercourse with these people to get them to register and disclose or reveal information they have tried to conceal. I think the history of the act, which was passed in 1940, will show there have only been a few prosecutions and those have been at the rate of about one a year in the last 3 or 4 years. Mr. ROONEY. That is the reason I am dicussing this. I do not think it was ever intended you go out and ask people to register as foreign agents. It is up to them to determine that. I think it is your responsibility to prosecute them if they do not.

Is it possible I am wrong in this?

Mr. YEAGLEY. It is possible that we do not agree with that policy. We have discussed this because we do write such letters, and usually the lawyers change their minds and they register and come in with the information.

We have some debates with them on what they should include Mr. ROONEY. You think in connection with this Foreign Agents Registration Act that your duties are more to get information than they are to prosecute people who violate the provisions of the act? Mr. YEAGLEY. Yes.

Our view of it is that we are to enforce the act and the act requires registration on the part of certain people. We believe in enforcement and it is up to us to call their failure to register to their attention. It is when they do not register, after that—which you may recall happened in a FARA case a couple of years ago we do prosecute. Mr. ROONEY. Why bring up all of the cases you lose?

Mr. YEAGLEY. We won that one.

Mr. ROONEY. You finally won one?

Mr. YEAGLEY. The court took a nolo contendere over our objection and fined him.


Mr. ROONEY. Each year we kick this thing around and I still do not understand why we need 69 lawyers and 57 nonprofessional people in connection with a program such as this one. It is just beyond


What a delightful title, the Internal Security Division.

Mr. YEAGLEY. On the other hand

Mr. ROONEY. What is "on the other hand"?

Mr. YEAGLEY. On the other hand, there is the handling of the 105,000 memorandums and reports, somebody has to do something with those rather than just put them in a file folder. This reflects that it is not courtwork. Nonetheless, it is security work. That is the bulk of the work.

As a matter of fact, our lawyers sometimes complain they would rather get into the court end of it than do what they are doing. Mr. ROONEY. From what I have heard here today, I think you could very well get along with two or three lawyers and hire clerks to take care of the rest of the job.

Mr. YEAGLEY. I would not like to run that operation. We would get into too much trouble, I am afraid.

Mr. ROONEY. As to this whole summary of criminal trials in which the Division attorneys participated during calendar year 1960, that would not be a couple of weeks' work for one good lawyer; would it? Mr. YEAGLEY. There was a lot of work involved; yes. There are a lot of legal questions involved in each of these cases. There were a lot of legal questions involved, as reflected in memorandums and trial briefs. We are not claiming that this is a big volume of courtwork at all. We are claiming that this, with the other work of the Division, does keep and has kept the lawyers busy.

I would like to point out and I am sure you are familiar with this, that we have not tried to pad our staff. As a matter of fact, we. have cut down from 3 or 4 years ago when the lawyer position total was 100 or 102.

Mr. ROONEY. You should have been going down each year and that is why we bring this up again. You do not have any workload that would justify these 126 people, 69 lawyers.

Mr. YEAGLEY. All I can say is that the lawyers are busy.


Mr. ROONEY. Let us just take the criminal section. I have here in my hand the insertion which has already been put in the record and I see that your entire criminal work during the whole year— this is the same sheet I referred to when I said this would not represent more than couple week's work for a good lawyer-you have in the criminal section 20 lawyers and 10 clerks; 30 people.


Mr. YEAGLEY. I would like to correct one misstatement I made in that regard. I said that sheet you have would reflect also the number of grand juries. That is not true. This would be reflected on page 18-17 as 20 indictments and informations filed. I believe it so happened those were all indictments involving—I do not know how many-perhaps 46 defendants.

Mr. ROONEY. During what period of time was that?

Mr. YEAGLEY. That was fiscal year 1960. However, that would indicate that the other additional indictments were handled on the scene by the U.S. attorney after we had written and normally supplied them with legal memorandums and recommended prosecution. That same sheet shows there are 41 outstanding, but it is not a large volume of cases we participated in directly.

We have 40 cases pending in our appellate section, cases either in the courts of appeal or the Supreme Court.


One of our important problems in the last few years, at least, as you know, has been winning cases in the security field.

We feel we have had a great deal of difficulty with the courts, particularly on constitutional questions.

The Government lost Parker v. Lester case and the Cole v. Young case some years ago on personnel security, and the Green v. McElroy case in industrial security as well as Yates and Watkins. We felt that one of the important things to do was to get ourselves on the winning side in the courts.

Mr. ROONEY. The pluses always look better than the minuses.

Mr. YEAGLEY. This we have done. We have had better than an 80-percent winning average in the courts of appeal in the last year; either fiscal or calendar years. Both figures are well up in the eighties. We have had some good results in the Supreme Court and we feel good about it because this is one of the objectives we had.

As far as the security program is concerned, we are getting some court law on our side, on the side of security. We have not done as much as we would like but we are much better off in that regard than we were 4 years ago.

The appellate section is very able but actually it is a group result. It is a matter of group concentration and emphasis on the appellate program, and ideas on how to win these cases.


Mr. ROONEY. It would appear from page 18-17 of your justifications in connection with prosecutions and these include the cases

handled by the district attorneys which are aside from the prosecutions contained in the sheet which has already been inserted in the record that you had but 36 convictions last year as compared with 113 the year before; that you had 46 defendants as compared with 140 the year before; 20 indictments and informations filed as compared with 31 the year before; is that right?

Mr. YEAGLEY. That is correct.

Mr. ROONEY. It seems to me as though we are right now at a point where the Department of Justice should look into this and do something about transferring some of these 126 people. What has to happen to bring this about? We had to bring up this question a couple of years ago and then they came along the following year with a reduced budget and put some people somewhere else in Justice. This activity just does not seem to warrant a staff of 126 people.

Mr. YEAGLEY. The work of the Division will not be reflected in court work. Internal security problems are basically other than courtwork.

Mr. ROONEY. Internal security problems are basically the FBI, are they not?

Mr. YEAGLEY. As far as gathering information is concerned. Mr. ROONEY. They bring these things to your attention; right? Mr. YEAGLEY. That is where our work comes from and their budget for security has stayed up over the years.

Mr. ROONEY. They are a police force, in effect, with regard to security?

Mr. YEAGLEY. Oh, no.

Mr. ROONEY. What do you object to, the word "police"?

Mr. YEAGLEY. Your point is right, that they are the investigative arm in the security area.

Mr. ROONEY. Let us call them the frontline.

Mr. YEAGLEY. Their reports come to us.

Mr. ROONEY. Very well.

Thank you, gentlemen.

[blocks in formation]



Mr. ROONEY. The next and the last item under "Salaries and expenses, general legal activities," is that for the Civil Rights Division. The information with regard thereto appears under tab 19 of the justifications. We shall insert pages 19-1 through 19–39 at this point in the record.

(The pages follow :)

69444 0-61-13

« PreviousContinue »