« PreviousContinue »
SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE
FEBRUARY 28, 1968
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1968
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Arkansas
EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, Ilinois SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina
ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska THOMAS J. DODD, Connecticut
HIRAM L. FONG, Hawaii PHILIP A. HART, Michigan
HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania EDWARD V. LONG, Missouri
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts BIRCH BAYH, Indiana QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, Maryland GEORGE A. SMATHERS, Florida
SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL
SECURITY ACT AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS
JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman
THOMAS J. DODD, Connecticut, Vice Chairman JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Arkansas
ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina
EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois BIRCH BAYU, Indiana
HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS
in room 2228, New Senate Office Building, Senator James O. Eastland, chairman, presiding.
Present: Senators Eastland and Thurmond.
Also present: J. G. Sourwine, chief counsel, and Frank Schroeder, chief investigator.
The CHAIRMAN. The hearings which begin here today may well prove to be as important as any other business transacted by the Senate during the present session.
The bill before us is S. 2988, the proposed new Internal Security Act of 1968.
This bill embraces a large number of recommendations made by the Internal Security Subcommittee as the outgrowth of hearings held over a period of more than 3 years.
During the course of these hearings, we are going to try to hear anyone and everyone who wants to testify on this bill. But we are much less interested in learning who is for or against the bill, or some particular provision of it, than of learning why he is for it or against it.
Some centuries ago, in England, disputes used to be settled by a procedure known as trial by compurgation. The two parties to the dispute would stand opposite each other and each party would marshal his witnesses. He would do that by asking everyone who was willing to say he was right to come and stand with him. When both parties had marshaled their witnesses in this way, the witnesses were counted and judgment was given on the basis of who had the most standing with him.
We are not going to pass judgment on this bill on the basis of a trial by compurgation.
What we want to know, and will try to develop through these hearings, are the facts. We shall try to get expert testimony from responsible officials of the departments and agencies which will have to administer this bill, and will be substantially affected by its provisions, with respect to the need for the proposed legislation, with respect to whether it will solve the problems, with respect to whether it will create new problems and, above all, with respect to whether its enactment will improve the security of this country.