respect to the employment of Communists and other subversive elements was the motion-picture industry. Some of the most important motion-picture executives have appeared before our committee to testify concerning their willingness and desire to deny employment to Communists of every hue and color, and they have called attention to the present difficulties confronting an industry which tries to bar Communists from its ranks. Eric Johnston came before this committee on a previous occasion to urge congressional action. Mr. Johnston was right in saying that no industry by itself can cope adequately with the problem of communism in the absence of a fixed national policy written by legislative action. I congratulate the motion-picture industry on the steps it has already taken to meet this menace. But neither this industry nor any other can complete the job of cleaning Communists out of its midst unless Congress acts. My bill will publicly identify the Communists of this country for the foreign agents that they actually are, and enable both public and private employers to be on guard against them. Communism is like a submarine in that its most dangerous element is not the periscope which one sees in the open, but the destructive force of communism is out of sight like the torpedo tubes of a submarine. H. R. 4422 will bring the whole mechanism of communism into the open. Once that is done, I have complete confidence in the capacity and determination of patriotic Americans everywhere to curtail the effectiveness of communism and to defeat its traitorous plots and plans to destroy our American way of life. Mr. NIXON. Does that conclude your statement, Mr. Mundt? Mr. NIXON. Mr. Vail, do you have any questions? Mr. VAIL. Mr. Mundt, your long years of experience as a member of the Un-American Activities Committee, in my opinion, qualify you as an expert on the subject of communism. Your bill provides for the registration of Communists and the labeling of their literature. There is a wide divergence of opinion, as you know, as to the best method of curbing communism, and I believe you are aware of the fact that some of our authorities and, particularly a number of our highly regarded patriotic organizations, notably the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the AMVETS, favor outlawing the party. As an expert, would you give us your opinion on the disadvantages, if any, of outlawing the party? Mr. MUNDT. Yes; and I want to say, first of all, that I want to commend the fine organizations that you have mentioned for their zeal in attacking this problem of communism. The reason I feel that a proposal such as mine to drive the Communists out of the ground and into the open is a more effective approach than one that would outlaw the Communist Party by name and, therefore, drive it further underground is that, in the first place, if we can require by law, as we can, the registration of Communist organizations, front organizations, offshoots of the Communist Party, and the Communist Party itself, together with its officers, together with their membership lists, we shall then have a valuable method of having available the identity of at least a considerable number of the Com munists of this country who are engaging in endeavors to sabotage the Government. Whereas if we simply make the party illegal they will continue their activities under some other name or through some other organization or individually, and we will not have such a clear opportunity to find out the identity of those trying to destroy the Government. I would like to point out, too, that the Communist Party was illegal and outlawed in Russia when it took over control of the Soviet Union. I would like to point out that simply outlawing the party by name does not outlaw the activities of the party nor cause them to stop. I think, too, that America strengthens its position abroad by following an American method of curtailing communism such as I have suggested by making them register as the agents of a foreign principal, which they are; that we gain strength abroad by showing European countries that over here we do not outlaw or make illegal that to which we are opposed, provided it will operate in conformity with the American rules of the game in the open, so people know what it is doing, so that its literature is identified as Communist. I have confidence in the patriotism, in the alertness of Americans who feel that once we have exposed the activities of Communists for what they are, once we have revealed the identity of the Communists and their front organizations and their fellow travelers, that this country will see to it that Communists no longer get into positions of authority in government; that they do not get into important positions in private industry; that they are smoked out into the open so that they will wither and die away under the bright sunshine of publicity. Mr. VAIL. Is it your feeling, Mr. Mundt, that the effect of the legislation that you suggested will definitely curb communism? Will it not be possible for the party to continue its activities although, as you say, they will be above ground? Do you think that exposure will represent a sufficient curb? Mr. MUNDT. I think so. In the first place, exposure-I would not say exposure alone represents a sufficient curb. I certainly favor barring Communists from Federal employment, for example. I think that exposure will result in barring Communists from State employment and municipal employment. I think exposure will induce such industries as the motion-picture industry to place clauses in their contracts which will abrogate a contract with anyone found to be registered as a foreign agent. I think it will result in a great many of our fine mediums of mass information such as the wire services, the AP, the UP, and INS, and I think it will result in the legitimate magazines and newspapers of this country including clauses in their contracts enabling them to abrogate a contract with a man who is surreptitiously entering their employment as a Communist. I think that flowing from that exposure will be a great many public and private moves which will tend to drive the Communists out of positions of authority and responsibility where they can secretly huddle their nefarious doctrines, and make them come out at the top, in the open, on the soap boxes, on the rostrums, on the ballots, where they have to sell communism for what it is and support it as Communists; and when that is done I am confident that not 5 percent of 71315 48- -2 the American public will wittingly and knowingly and openly support a traitorous organization such as the Communist Party. Mr. VAIL. Do you believe that the penalty provided by your bill, $1,000 fine and 1 year imprisonment, is a sufficient deterrent to prevent evasion of the act? Mr. MUNDT. My bill has a minimum penalty, but no maximum penalty. It provides for a fine of not less than $1,000 and a 12-month penitentiary sentence. Mr. VAIL. But you think the minimum is sufficient? Mr. MUNDT. I feel the minimum is sufficient, and I think that the judiciary of America is at long last becoming alert to the danger of communism, so that it will work far above the minimum to detect evaders of the act: Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Mundt, there are certain acts that you would outlaw, in addition, in your bill, certain conspiracies, which are not actually within the point of treason but are on the border line, and those may be outlawed, too? Mr. MUNDT. Correct. Mr. PETERSON. And the spotlight of publicity and the registration as required by you would undoubtedly prevent a lot of people who have been misguided into going into these front organizations from going into them? Mr. MUNDT. I think so, Mr. Peterson. I think that sunshine which has that great capacity to stamp out germs can stamp out a political germ like the Communist Party? Mr. PETERSON. We have a number of other witnesses today, and after they have made their statements I mean to ask you some more questions, and I presume you will be available later on to the committee. Mr. MUNDT. Certainly; I expect to sit in on part of the hearings. Mr. PETERSON. In view of that, I will not pursue other questions, because the other witnesses are waiting, but you have made a very fine statement, and as we develop other suggestions I would like to speak to you about them. Mr. HÉBERT. There is just one point I would like to ask about and have you elaborate. Of course, we are all in agreement on the Communist Party and we are well defined as to what the Communist Party is. Now, I note in your bill that you also suggest and, as a matter of fact, make all members of the front organizations subject to the same terms of this bill. Mr. MUNDT. That is right. Mr. HÉBERT. Now, we know that many front organizations, and we are convinced that they are in our own minds; for instance, I have reference to the Southern Conference of Human Welfare which is housed in the city of New Orleans against my objection; we know it is a front organization for the Communists; and yet they deny that. Now, how do you reach those organizations? Who will make that determination? Mr. MUNDT. The bill provides that all organizations_which are controlled or directed or dominated by the Communist Party shall be required to register, and for purposes of this act shall be considered to be front organizations, and, of course, the Department of Justice, which is charged with the responsibility of enforcing this act, and in whose files these organizations must register, is charged with the enforcement of the act and in arriving at a determination. I might say, Mr. Hébert, that we are well on the road to knowing what the front organizations now are, since the Attorney General's office has already published a substantial list of front organizations in this country, all members of which would obviously have to register under the terms of this act, and if the Attorney General's office is still making a study to determine what additional front organizations should be added to the list, that certainly would give us one very clear-cut index of the organization which would have to register under the terms of the Mundt bill. Mr. HÉBERT. What would happen, Mr. Mundt, if the Attorney General's office does not say, "Yes" or "No"? Mr. MUNDT. I would say that until the Attorney General's office says, "Yes" or "No," that the officials of the organization itself would have to make the determination whether or not they register, and if at a later time the Attorney General's office says, "Yes," and they have failed to register, they would be subject to the penalties of the act. Mr. HÉBERT. Don't you think it would be better to spell out in this act certain specifications and determinant yardsticks by which the Attorney General has a certain time in which to say, "Yes" or "No," instead of letting it go on forever? Mr. MUNDT. Except this is a continuing procedure, Mr. Hébert. It might be well to spell out an extra provision for the initial declaration on the part of the Attorney General's office, but we would expect him to make reports regularly, as he finds the information available. Mr. HÉBERT. But, at all events, the Attorney General's office will be the individual or the department which determines whether an organization is a front organization or not? Mr. MUNDT. That is correct, sir; and, unless we are to assume that the Attorney General and his office at any particular period of history is in league with the Communists and operating against the Government instead of for it, I think we have a right to assume that the Attorney General's office would support strongly a proposal of this type and act expeditiously in making available the list of front organizations. Mr. HÉBERT. As an example, I mentioned the Southern Conference of Human Welfare, with which I am fairly familiar because it is somehow housed objectionably in the city of New Orleans. This committee has repeatedly gone on record as classing that organization as a front organization, and to this date the Attorney General's office has not so ruled. Mr. MUNDT. I believe the Attorney General is going to be a witness before this committee very shortly. Mr. HÉBERT. I am aware of that, and I am laying the foundation. Mr. PETERSON. Whether it is a front organization or not would depend on the facts in the case. Mr. MUNDT. That is correct. Mr. PETERSON. And maybe no one would rule on it, but the facts would be there, and the facts would develop it. Mr. MUNDT. Yes. Mr. NIXON. Any further questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Mundt. Mr. MUNDT. Thank you for the privilege of appearing. Mr. STRIPLING. The next witness will be Attorney General Clark. Attorney General Clark. Mr. NIXON. Mr. Clark, will you please stand and be sworn? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. CLARK. I do. Mr. NIXON. Thank you. Will you be seated, please, and proceed? I believe you have a statement, Mr. Clark? Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir. Mr. NIXON. You may proceed. TESTIMONY OF HON. TOM C. CLARK, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appreciate very deeply the oportunity which your invitation affords me to discuss with your efforts to frame legislation which will assist the American people to meet the menace of subversive organizations seeking to attack our freedom. My views on all forms of totalitarianism, and particularly on communism, are known to you. I feel sure that they are identical with your own. We are opposed to the American Communists along with their deceit, trickery, and lies. We are opposed to that ideology because it would attempt to substitute for our present social freedoms a dictatorship that would mean the end of all of our freedoms-the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and the freedoms of religion and assemblage. We may say, I think, that you in the Congress and we in our Department of Justice are laboring in neighboring vineyards and that we have the same purposes in view. As it is your duty to inquire into the need for legislation and to write on to the statute books the necessary laws, it is mine to interpret and enforce those laws that you have put upon the statute books. In this instance I am particularly aware of the difficulties of your task. The program of this committee in bringing into the spotlight of publicity the activities of individuals and groups can render real service to the American people. There is no more potent weapon even on the statute books themselves than this weapon of publicity. From your hearings Americans have all become familiar with the charge of "Red baiting" that inevitably follows when the spotlight is placed upon subversive groups. Americans, too, are familiar with the vitriolic campaigns of innuendo, deceit, and character assassination that follow in the wake of prosecution against party members. We in the Department have come to realize that it is part of our job to expect charges from all sides. I shall not dwell on party policies or strategy. Suffice it to say that the American Communist program is a cause for concern. The numerical strength of the party itself does not concern us. It is, you might say, insignificant. Their claim, however, is important, that for every party member there are 10 others in the shadow ready to fight for the party. While I think they are doing a little wishful thinking when they say there are 10, we must not discount it too heavily, for these fellow travelers corrupt American life. They corrupt it by |