will direct questions to the members of the panel. So you read your statement.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Shall I stand?

Mr. STRIPLING. No; you may sit.

TESTIMONY OF EDMUND D. CAMPBELL, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR ASSOCIATION

Mr. CAMPBELL. What Mr. Parkinson has said, I am really in accord with. It is a question of mechanics that he and I differ on a little bit, chiefly because of the enforceability of certain provisions.

I believe that the spread of communism in the United States would constitute a deadly menace to our free institutions. Communists seek to use the civil liberties afforded them by our Bill of Rights for the purpose of undermining all civil liberties and destroying the Bill of Rights. It is the duty of a democratic nation to protect itself, insofar as possible, from those revolutionary forces which would overthrow democracy.

But communism cannot be effectively dealt with as a crime. It cannot be stamped out by calling it treason and by seeking to punish it as such. I disapprove of the McDonough bill now pending before your committee H. R. 4581. To proscribe communism and to seek to punish Communists because of their beliefs would (1) drive the movement underground, where it would be only the more dangerous; (2) fan the flames of the Communist movement by giving it a tinge of martyrdom; and (3) do violence to our own concepts of democracy which, in the last analysis, must permit any individual to hold and practice any belief he wishes.

In my opinion and in the opinion of this panel, the best way to rid America of Communists is to expose their activities and their motives to the broad light of day. The fog of Communist ideology cannot survive in broad American sunlight. Under the pitiless light of publicity the Communist detractors of democracy always slink

away.

In my opinion the principles of the Mundt bill, H. R. 4422, now pending before your committee, afford the best means of attacking the Communist menace by Federal legislation. The chief aims of this bill are, first, to require the registration as "an agent of a foreign principal" of all persons who are members of the Communist Party or of any organization or association which is dominated or controlled by the Communist Party; and, second, to require all propaganda distributed by such persons to be stamped so that readers will know that it is being distributed by "an agent of a foreign principal."

I would offer the following suggestions with respect to the Mundt bill:

1. The bill should be redrafted as an amendment to the act for the registration of foreign propagandists, enacted June 8, 1938 (22 U. S. C. A. 611–621).

2. In order to avoid confusion with the term "agent of foreign principal," as used in the act of June 8, 1938, I suggest that the term "Communist agent" be substituted therefor, when applying to persons required to register under the Mundt bill.

Mr. NIXON. You say "agents of foreign principal seeking to overthrow our form of government and the democratic process" should be changed to "Communist agent"?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir. If I may say, just in explanation, that while I concur heartily with Mr. Parkinson's general statement that we seek to attempt to reach persons who would attempt overthrow by revolution of the United States Government generally, then we try to work out an act that is enforceable from a practical point of view. It is much better to limit it with something we can actually prove and identify without getting into the realm of a real police state by such acts. One who is financially interested in, or has made financial contributions to, the Communist Party or has received financial contributions from the Communist Party. But I think we should limit it at the moment to what I believe is the greatest menace we have. I also suggest in the Mundt bill that registration be required (a) of any person who is a member of the Communist Party, or (b) of any organization, association, or other combination of individuals which is dominated, directed, or controlled by the Communist Party. I believe it is unwise to require personal registration of every individual who may belong, possibly unknowingly, to a Communist-controlled organization, and that may be the best way to start your legislation. That was point 3.

4. The stamping to be required on publications mailed by persons registered under this act should be entitled:

Published in compliance with the laws of the United States governing Communist agents.

Say Communist agents instead of agents of a foreign principal, as I have mentioned.

5. The bill should require a similar verbal identification of any person or organization registered as a "Communist agent" at the beginning of any radio broadcast by such person or sponsored by such organization.

6. Persons registered as "Communist agents" should be prohibited from holding (a) an office or position of trust in any labor union whose members are engaged in interstate commerce; (b) executive employment in any public utility engaged in interstate commerce; and if the word "utility" can be broadened to mean key industries, as Mr. Parkinson suggested, and some definition given of that, it might be helpful; and (c) employment in any department or agency of the United States Government.

7. The provisions of the 1938 act requiring the filing with the Library of Congress of copies of propaganda distributed under the act, and for inspection of books and records of agents of foreign principals, should be made to apply to "Communist agents." There are various provisions in that act of agents of a foreign power which can successfully be carried over into this act.

8. The bill should contain a reaffirmation of the rights of free speech guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.

It is important that communism be exposed to the light of day. I believe it equally important that the American right of free speech be preserved; that in seeking to expose communism for what it is we do not pillory through witch hunting those loyal American citi

zens who are members of minority groups trying, according to their lights and by constitutional processes, to make such changes in our democratic institutions as they think wise. We must not destroy our democratic principles in the very process of seeking to protect them. I believe that the Mundt bill, with the suggested amendments set out above, will be a helpful step in attaining these American objectives. Mr. STRIPLING. Mr. Parkinson, who will speak next? Mr. PARKINSON. Dr. Collier.

TESTIMONY OF DR. CHARLES S. COLLIER, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL

Dr. COLLIER. Gentlemen of the committee, I am entirely in accord with the statement that was read by Mr. Parkinson except possibly as to the definition of the class to be controlled. I think the statement was a partial settlement of that vexatious matter, once the class has been defined. I am entirely in accord with the other steps to require registration and the labeling of mailing matter, radio contributions, and moving-picture exhibitions, and also the prohibitions on officials of labor unions, and the part about deportation of aliens.

I would like to make the following statement, if I may be permitted. The main points in this connection seem to be as follows:

First, no statute should be adopted directly forbidding with criminal sanctions, Communist beliefs or propaganda, written or spoken. This conclusion is based primarily on the recognition of the requirements of the first amendment to the Federal Constitution. But it also seems clear as a matter of policy that it is not advisable to drive the whole Communist movement underground. Also such a statute would enable the persons believed to be active Communists to conceal their harmful activities under the cloak of constitutional immunity from compulsory self-incrimination.

Because the acts of sabotage are not being made criminal, thus this committee and the law-enforcement officers have an opportunity to ascertain the facts with regard to Communist activities, and I believe in the long run, when these continued prosecutions have been worked out to their conclusion, it will be seen that Congress and the lawenforcement officers do have this power, whereas if membership in the Communist Party was made a crime, serious constitutional difficulties would develop to these objects.

Second, a statute should be adopted forbidding members of the Communist Party or members of organizations affiliated therewith to hold any office in labor unions or labor organizations of any kind. This might well be extended to prohibit the holding by such persons of executive positions in key industries including public utilities. Such a statute would encounter temporary constitutional objections, no doubt. But it seems that such office holding is a special privilege which can be denied to persons of an obnoxious class or group, without shortening their general range of privileges and immunities as citizens.

Such a statute would seem to meet the test of "reasonableness" in the technical constitutional sense. It is directed against a recognized mischief, often illustrated by the exploitation of labor unions by Communist organizers for Communist Party purposes.

Most labor-union members are not Communists and are, indeed, hostile to Communists, but by active political and organizational work Communist workers may obtain and have obtained many key positions in labor unions. They next use the organization of labor to undermine the general social welfare by strikes timed to meet the political needs of Communists irrespective of the real economic needs of the workers. This relationship is one of the chief sources of Communist power as shown by experiences in France and Italy in recent months. This evil should be nipped in the bud in our country by excluding Communists from all official positions in labor organizations.

Thirdly, in connection with the definition of this obnoxious class, I should like to stress the point that any person who receives pay or other compensation, paid wholly or in part, or renders service to Communist organizations, or gives contributions or anything of value for any Communist activities, should be required to register and report full basic information about his work and his relationship to foreign governments.

This requirement could be related to the income-tax laws, which would help its constitutional position. It is perhaps broader and more comprehensive than the statute requiring foreign agents to register. At the same time its test is simpler and more difficult to evade. That is the receipt of value, or really, of money. It is like the evasion that arises in our tax laws.

The definition of Communist activities is difficult, but as such activities would not be made basically criminal offenses, the definition would be used merely for the purpose of information. The requirement may probably be applied to those who write or distribute Communist propaganda and are paid for it, as well as to those who are admittedly Communist Party workers.

It would be advisable perhaps to have the registration requirement applied to noncitizens in a separate statute so that that part of the plan which is easier to defend against constitutional objections would survive even if the requirements were thought obnoxious to civil liberties as applied to citizens. Of course, separate provisions in the same statute, with a perfectly clear separability clause added, would probably be equally effective for this purpose.

This registration system would identify the most active Communist workers-all who receive any compensation of whatever kind for such work and all who make donations to Communists' organizations. It thus would be a logical step toward special control over Communists but would not raise as many legal objections as direct regulatory measures would do. Also, such a registration system would be a means of obtaining information about Communist activities which would eventually furnish a sounder basis for comprehensive regulations.

Fourth, all civilian employees of the United States Government and volunteer soldiers and sailors should be required to make declarations as to whether or not they were affiliated with the Communist Party. Under statutes or administrative regulations, Communist Party affiliates should be made ineligible to all Government positions, except perhaps they might be allowed to serve in the Army and Navy.

The reasonableness of this requirement should not be judged by the analogy of like restrictions upon adherents of other political parties, but by the well-known tendency of Communists to follow a line dic

tated by a foreign power-Russia-which renders these persons of equivocal and unreliable character in relation to work as United States employees. Such a registration can be upheld on the contractual basis without infringing upon any basic civil liberties.

That is the objection raised. Would you endorse a law that excluded all Prohibitionists or all Populists from holding any official position. in the United States? The difference arises in the Communist Party following a line called for by a foreign power-the Soviet Union.

Fifth, a United States commission should be appointed with the permanent duty of checking on all Communist activities, in this country and elsewhere, for the ascertainment of the true purposes and the study of all the actual methods used by the Communist Party. The results of this continuous study shoud be published annually.

Now, let me see, I woud like to say a word more on the definition of the controlled group. That is, perhaps, the point with regard to which most differences exist in our very harmonious group here. Personally, it seems to me, that it would be better not to attempt to define this group as anti-American or subversive in the broadest sense, but rather to concentrate on the Communist issue, that is members of the Communist Party, affiliates of the party in practice, and those who have voted at recent elections for Communist candidates, and also members of all Communist dominated organizations, and those who have contributed money or services thereto or have been employed for pay thereby.

Now, the advantages of using this touchstone of Communist affiliation as compared with the broader classification of objectionable activities, it seems to me, are threefold:

Firstly, it is clear-cut, depending on membership or connection with this vast, complexity of Communist activities. It is easier to understand and enforce than a classification depending on individual beliefs, or a category named with a prima facie offensive name like subversive or anti-American. We want to have a category which is definite in itself so persons will know their rights and know what is objectionable and also it will be easier for enforcement officials to deal with it.

So that definite language of distinction along this Communist concept seems to be more acceptable than this idea of persons who, I fully agree are dangerous, but which are devious and as illustrated in the recent sedition trial in Washington, present many difficulties with reference to law enforcement.

Now, there are just two other considerations under that heading as to why lay the stress on the Communists rather than anti-Americanism in general. The Communist Party and its instrumental organizations are connected with a foreign government. The Communists are all foreign agents in a broad sense. But advocates of other American "isms" are not foreign agents.

We already have statutes requiring registration of foreign agents in the more specific sense. The Communists have a perfectly definite party line fixed in Russia by Russians. The United States has the constitutional right to control those who work on our soil for foreign governments. Thus it comes within Federal control over foreign powers, or those who work on our soil under the control of foreign powers, because this is the Federal law as compared to State and local laws.