The CIO expulsion of the West Coast International Longshoremen's Union and the trials of its leader, Harry Bridges, are matters of public record and knowledge. The HCUA had this to say about this union: This has 75,000 members. They have effective control of many ports in the U.S.A. and more than once have used it to paralyze shipping. Communist domination of this union in wartime could wreck the whole U.S. fighting power.* Harry Bridges is still president of the West Coast Longshoremen's Union. Neither the CIO expulsion of Communist unions nor the notoriety received from congressional exposure has deterred the Communist Party in its program of maritime union infiltration. Typically, the party revised its tactics to hold its ground. The HCUA reported in 1954 that the material from which to recruit was no longer available among the workers * * *. Therefore, the Communist Party directed its intellectuals and white-collarworker members to leave their own chosen fields and to obtain employment in the basic industries. This the Communist Party did, starting in late 1948 and early 1949.5 The party went underground in 1948 and Director J. Edgar Hoover had this to say: No longer are Communist Party membership cards issued; maintenance of membership records are forbidden; contacts of rank-and-file members are limited from 3 to 5-the basic club unit. Most of the local headquarters have been discontinued and party records have been destroyed. No evening meetings are permitted in headquarters without staff members present. Conventions and large meetings are held to the absolute minimum. The use of the telephone and telegraph is avoided." The party today is back in the open due to Supreme Court decisions of the past several years. It is just as dedicated to the destruction of this country by force and violence as it ever was. There has been no change in its goal of world domination and control, nor has there been a lessening in its policies of infiltration. The threat to our security by infiltration was clear and present when the Magnuson Act became law on August 9, 1950. This was the period of growing public concern over Communist action in Korea. Today we have another example of Communist aggression in Vietnam. The Supreme Court held that the Magnuson Act gave the President no express authority to set up a personnel security screening program with respect to merchant vessels of the United States. In spelling out congressional intent, Senator Magnuson in sponsoring the bill before the Senate stated: This is not a national emergency measure; it is only a limited emergency measure to take care of the water front security of the Nation. *** It would be impossible for destruction to come to any great port of the United States, of which there are many, as the result of a ship coming into port with an atomic bomb or with biological or other destructive agency, without some liaison ashore. This would give authority to the President to instruct the FBI, in cooperation with the Coast Guard, the Navy, or any other appropriate governmental agency, to go to our water fronts and pick out people who might be subversives or security risks to this country. ***7 4 HCUA, "100 Things You Should Know About Communism," House Doc. 136, 82d Cong., 1st sess., p. 82. 5 HCUÁ, "Colonization of America's Basic Industries by the Communist Party of the U.S.A.," Sept. 3, 1954, p. 13. 6 Ibid., p. 15. 7 Cong. Record, vol. 96, part 8, p. 11321, July 28, 1950. It seems to me that congressional intent was clear and that subversives or security risks were to be picked out from wherever they were found. But the Supreme Court said there was no express authority so I hope that congressional intent is made absolutely clear when the present bill is brought up on the floor of the House. The Commission on Government Security determined that a port security program is necessary to protect United States shipping, ports, harbor, installations, and the Panama Canal from destruction and crippling damage by saboteurs and subversives. As a member of the staff of that Commission, I thoroughly agree with its findings and recommendations. In my opinion, the danger to our country from international communism is greater today than ever before. The United States cannot coexist with communism because communism will not permit coexistence. I sincerely hope that the bill discussed here today, H.R. 15626, is passed, and quickly. Mr. TUCK. We thank you very much, Mr. Tracy. I would like for the record to show that Mr. Tracy had a very long and distinguished record of public service to the country. For 13 years prior to his retirement in 1954, he was assistant to the Director of the FBI. He is presently a member of the strategy staff of the American Security Council. He served as associate counsel in the Project Survey Division of the Commission on Government Security and that was 1956 and 1957. Prior to joining the FBI in 1933, he served with the Department of Labor Naturalization Service and the Veterans Administration. I have no questions to ask of you but some of the other committee members may have some questions. Mr. TRACY. I have an item that I worked on yesterday, but did not have time to put into my statement. I would like to suggest due to the decisions of the Supreme Court it has not been possible to force the Communist Party so far to register. However, the Supreme Court decision in the Robel case referred to it as a political association. Now. if the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have to file lists of contributions, I suggest this committee consider legislation to require contributors of money to Communist-action groups be made a matter of public record. Probably that would open the party more to exposure to the American public. Mr. ASHBROOK. Can I ask you whether or not they are trying to influence an election? Mr. TRACY. If it is a political party it would try to influence elections. Mr. ASHBROOK. Political parties do not have to report expenditures of money. That would be the Communist argument. Mr. TRACY. I am only thinking of the contributors who support it, and contributions are listed. Mr. Ashbrook. All of the money contributed to a party this year would be. Last year for its operation it was not listed if it was not trying to effect an election. Of course, the Communists argue they are not trying to effect particular elections. Mr. TRACY. If it is a political party, I think it might be worth a try. Mr. WATSON. If the chairman will permit me, I agree with you that it is not a political party and it is not a political affiliation, and my only comment is to thank you, Mr. Tracy; you have always been helpful to this committee. As you well know, it is not the most popular committee in the world, because we are in the business of exposing subversive activity and you are never popular when you do that. It looks to me since we have so many able men such as yourself and the American Security Council and we have the overwhelming majority of the Congress and the overwhelming majority of the American people, but we have difficulty a lot of times with the Federal agencies and especially the courts in trying to discharge our responsibilities. So, we appreciate your help here in testifying today. STATEMENT OF LOYD WRIGHT, FORMER PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION Mr. TRACY. Now, Mr. Chairman, you invited Loyd Wright, past president of the American Bar Association and Chairman of the Commission on Government Security, to be present but he was unable to be here. He is attending a meeting in Chicago and will be en route back. He has asked me to deliver to you his letter transmitting his prepared statement that he asked be accepted as part of the hearing record in this proceeding. Mr. TUCK. Unless there is objection, it is so ordered. (Mr. Wright's statement follows:) STATEMENT OF LOYD WRIGHT, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Committee: I deeply appreciate the privilege and opportunity of commenting upon the committee's efforts by way of H.R. 15626 to shore up the havoc caused by the Supreme Court decisions in the field of preserving our national security and the effort to overcome technical objections raised by a majority of the Supreme Court of the United States which obviously run counter to the expressed purposes of Congress fulfilling its responsibility to preserve our Nation. It is my opinion that the bill clearly cures the alleged faults found by the Supreme Court to exist in the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950. It is regretful and alarming that this distinguished committee must devote so much of its time, efforts, and abilities to impress upon a majority of a vagrant Court that the Congress, in expressing the will of the people to preserve our national security, has acted within the commonsense interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I believe the proposed bill is constitutional and should be so held by any person worthy of being a Federal judge. I have had the privilege of reading the statement that Stanley J. Tracy filed with the committee, and I wish except where in direct conflict herewith to be identifield therewith and by this reference adopt the same as my own. I have the temerity, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee, to make one or two suggestions that I believe will fortify the rights of the individuals involved and will tend to strengthen the national security. On page 13, the fifth line, I believe that the disjunctive "or" should be used in lieu and instead of the conjunctive "and." It is conceivable that a saboteur, spy, or others of similar ilk would receive instructions or training without paying dues to any cell or unit wishing to use their disloyal tendencies to further the Communists' insidious program. In reference to the provision at the top of page 19 providing that notice be given the applicant by regular first-class mail, I respectfully suggest that the delivery of mail is today so uncertain and sporadic that such notice should be given either by registered mail or certified mail. On page 19, subparagraph (n), third line, I suggest that the words "have power to" and "and, in his discretion for good cause shown" should be stricken. A citizen charged with disloyalty is entitled to have available such witnesses as will be necessary and desirable to develop all the truth. In a case, now pending on reviews in the courts, a faceless accusor refused for his own reasons to attend depositions or court hearing in the presence of the applicant. It is true that under present directive, the Secretary of Defense could have relieved him if he certified his appearance would be inimical to the national security. This was not done. The witness was referred to by the Defense Department as Witness "X" and refused to attend for his own reasons, unattached to the security of the Nation. He could not be subpenaed because the hearing, as well as the trial in the district court, was in Los Angeles and the witness in New York. All efforts to have this man confront the applicant were refused by the Defense Department, and the applicant to this day does not know the name of his accuser. The district court held there was no evidence to sustain the charge of unworthiness on the part of the applicant to receive the clearance sought. As in the Greene case, the applicant, an American citizen of many years, lost his position and could not find employment elsewhere. If this faceless accuser had been subject to subpena the truth could have been developed and this law abiding citizen restored to his position. The record in this case is replete with similar arbitrary action on the part of those representing the Department of Defense. It is common knowledge that enthusiastic lawyers representing the Government in these cases assume a superior attitude that makes them believe that they have the unrestricted right to determine the case, when their proper function is to develop the truth. I therefore respectfully urge that the power of subpena should be firm and fixed because while the present language vests in the President or his designee for such purposes the discretion to issue process, it is a well-known fact that the very people who violate the spirit of the fifth amendment in prosecuting an applicant are the persons upon whom the President must rely. This has and will continue to work injustices that should no be countenanced in a nation which professes to be run by the rule of the law. It is now nearly 11 years since the Commission on Government Security rendered its report to the President and to the Congress. We recommend and I strongly urge the establishment of a Central Security Office and I have the temerity to suggest that the recommendation of the Commission on Government Security be carefully considered by this distinguished committee and implemented by legislation. I hope and pray that the committee will adopt H.R. 15626 and that consideration be given to the suggestions herein contained. There are certain thoughts that have occurred to me in considering this bill and I would like to express some of them with the hope that they will exercise a catalytic influence upon the committee. Our country is beset by evil influences fully as dangerous as the Communist influence, if, indeed, most of them are not instigated directly or indirectly by agitation by the Communists in the first instance. We Americans seem disposed not to believe that there could be any influence to overthrow our Government, particularly if those advocating the overthrow have the temerity to forewarn us. It comes to mind the warning of the little Austrian paperhanger, who told the world what he was going to do in Mein Kampf, but the English and we paid no attention whatever to it. The results are well known to us all. The Communists have time and again expressed their intention to demoralize our people and obstruct our justice. It is my belief that recent events on the various campuses of our outstanding universities were instigated and initiated with the design on the part of the Communists to accomplish just what has been done. H. Rap Brown and Stokely Carmichael are permitted by the Justice Department to travel all over the world, particularly all over our country, advocating anarchy. This brings me to the point as to whether it would be desirable for the committee to recast definitions in the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 so that there will be included such organizations inimicable with the safety of the Nation such as "black power" and an inquiry made of the Justice Department to ascertain if the Attorney General is not familiar with section 3 of Article III of the Constitution and if so, make further inquiry as to why those irresponsible, and perhaps even worse, individuals who are giving comfort and aid to our enemies are not brought before the bar of justice on the charge of treason. If we are to preserve our Nation, if we are to have domestic tranquility, we can no longer afford to act from fear or emotionalism, but must revive the rule of law under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and see that those who transgress are properly brought before the bar of justice. There is little doubt, in my mind at least, but that the advocacy of civil rights disobedience has permeated the minds of a great many of our people to the extent that they believe that there is such a thing as civil disobedience. Such, of course, is not the case. All disobedience of law at whatever level of Government, is criminal disobedience. Great injustice has been done to a vast segment of our people by those who preach "civil disobedience," because they are not sufficiently able to understand that we are a nation and a government under the rule of law. This emotionalism has been built up into proportions that are startling and frightening and unless our public servants meet the challenge with firmness and dedication to the principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights we will lose those rights for which our forefathers gave their all. Hence, it seems to me, that some thought should be given to classifying those who openly break the law in the same category as Communists, Fabian Socialists, black power advocates, and others who have by their own pronouncements advocated treason and who have given aid to our enemy in so doing. I have heretofore suggested to this distinguished committee a matter that is a disgrace in the time and effort and money that is constantly being spent to try to repair the damage done by the irresponsibility of a majority of our Supreme Court. Since the Constitution expressly lodges in the Congress the sole authority to determine the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and since this distinguished committee has labored so long and faithfully in trying to cure cases that have been handed down by a majority of the Court from time to time in disregard of the expressed intentions of the Congress and hence the people, and since the majority of the Court have proven by their irascible conduct that they have no conception of that which Jefferson called the greatest facet of our form of government under the Constitution, to wit: the division of powers among the three departments of government, it would seem to me that the committee should seriously consider adding to H.R. 15626 a restriction upon the Supreme Court as to its appellate authority and require that no decision signed by less than threefourths of the Court shall be effective or lawful or controlling unless the majority decision has the ratio of signatures above suggested. We have precedence for this ratio by reason of the machinery set up in the Constitution itself for amending the Constitution. We can no longer close our eyes and be complacent about the fact that ideological decisions and predeliction of certain members of the Court have blinded the Court to its responsibility to interpret the law and to interpret the Constitution and Bill of Rights, giving full meaning to the words and provisions thereof as when written. And if I were privileged to write such a provision, I would further provide that no case heretofore handed down by the Court with less signatures than provided herein as being requisite to a valid determination, should constitute a precedent. A law is not self-operating. The climate of a government often influences official acts of the judiciary, as well as administrative bodies. I append hereto a photostatic copy of a document that is inconceivable to me a proposed precedent change in the Department of Defense.1 It is such a change from the concept of an open society as to be unbelievable. It constitutes an invasion of the rights of those engaged in our free enterprise system and, if continued, will cripple industry in protecting our national security. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the privilege of making these comments as an American citizen and as one who has devoted a great many years to the practice of law, who believes that our system of government and of law is the best ever conceived, and who is worried about the complacency of both the Congress and our people over the trends of events. I wish to compliment the committee wholeheartedly and express the hope that the committee and the Congress will pass H.R. 15626, and also express the hope that my feeble efforts in pointing out certain suggestions hereinabove maintained may stimulate some thoughts that will 1 DoD Industrial Security Letter, Feb. 29, 1968. See appendix, part 2, pp. 1807-1813. 94-756-68-pt. 1- -11 |