restore order to our land and assure transgressors of a proper penalty for their transgressions.

Respectfully submitted.

/s/ Loyd Wright LOYD WRIGHT.

Mr. TUCK. Our next witness is Mr. J. Walter Yeagley, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice.

Thank you very much for coming down here.

STATEMENT OF J. WALTER YEAGLEY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. TUCK. What is your position in the Attorney General's Office? Mr. YEAGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am in charge of the Internal Security Division of the Department of Justice.

Mr. TUCK. Do you have the sole responsibility and authority for the administration of that division?

Mr. YEAGLEY. Yes, sir, under the Attorney General.

Mr. TUCK. What actions have you taken against the Communist or Communist-front organizations since the passage of the amendments to the Subversive Activities Control Act signed into law on January 2?

Mr. YEAGLEY. As yet, no further petitions have been filed.

Mr. TUCK. Do you have any explanation to make to this committee why none have been filed?

Mr. YEAGLEY. I can explain what action we have taken.

Of course, the review of these organizations and the FBI reports concerning them have been a matter of regular business in our division over the years.

But last August we started a concentrated program of review of material involving Communist infiltration and domination of front organizations and reports involving Communist Party members.

We stepped up our liaison with the FBI. This continued throughout the fall and the ensuing months, particularly as it appeared that new legislation was going to be passed by the Congress.

Mr. Tuck. How about individuals?

Mr. YEAGLEY. We did the same with respect to individuals. We encountered some particularly difficult problems that have posed a real hurdle in some instances that may be resolved-I am not sure yet.

We have made a report to the Attorney General and furnished him some written material and memoranda involving some cases. He has not as yet completed his review apparently. However, he is familiar with them, and this is the present status of the result of that concentrated review.

Mr. Tuck. Do you have any plans for filing any petitions before the Subversive Activities Control Board any time soon?

Mr. YEAGLEY. This is a decision of the Attorney General. The petitions are all filed in the name of the Attorney General, and it will be up to him to advise us what action he thinks we should take. Mr. Tuck. Do you have no authority in that matter?

Is it entirely in the hands of the Attorney General?

Mr. YEAGLEY. I have no authority to file petitions independently, no. I have authority to advise and consult with him.

Mr. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt at this point? What were your recommendations to the Attorney General as to whether or not he proceed with anything against these people?

Mr. YEAGLEY. I would have to beg off on that. I don't like to beg off in answering questions

Mr. TUCK. I can't hear the witness.

Mr. YEAGLEY. I think I have to beg off on an answer to that question. I don't like to refuse to answer questions of a congressional committee, but when I make recommendations to the Attorney General, I feel he is the one who should release such information or recommendations if he chooses to do so.

I don't think I should say what my position was before he takes a stand himself. I don't think it is fair and I don't think it is good business. I must apologize for not answering any further, but I don't think I should.

Mr. WATSON. You realize the importance of this particular matter because under the legislation this Board is going to go out of existence if no proceedings are filed within 1 year.

I don't want to preempt your questions, Mr. Chairman, but you have it within your power this time to abolish this Board and what we are trying to do, and at least I am concerned with whether you have even recommended any proceedings.

Mr. YEAGLEY. I appreciate your interest. That is why we have stepped up our program and have assigned extra men to review these

cases.

Mr. WATSON. Are you aware that back during proceedings here in hearings some of these people admitted publicly and in written statements that they were Communists?

Mr. YEAGLEY. Yes, I know there have been a good many people over the years who have either admitted or held themselves out to be members of the Communist Party.

Mr. WATSON. Yet you are not at liberty to indicate whether you have recommended proceedings against those individuals?

Mr. YEAGLEY. No, I don't feel I should at this time. I think the Attorney General can. I don't have any objection if he does. Mr. TUCK. Mr. Culver?

Mr. CULVER. Mr. Yeagley, in 1950 when the legislation was enacted by the Congress establishing the Subversive Activities Control Board, it was the combined recommendation to the President, then President Truman, of all United States security divisions uniformly that this legislation would not be useful in the effort understandably to contain the activities of internal subversives in the United States and, on the contrary, would hinder and hamper, rather than help, their efforts and responsibilities in that regard.

On that basis, President Truman vetoed that legislation. The Congress passed the legislation over his veto as you are very much aware. Now, President Truman in his veto message, I think, had some very prophetic observations about the fate and the future of the Subversive Activities Control Board, and it seems to me the past 18 years we have seen the Board unsuccessfully operate and fail to register one Communist and in fact be embroiled in the constitutional and legal thicket which President Truman predicted.

Now, my question to you is: During the past 18 years, has the existence of that Board been of assistance to you?

Has it proven itself to be valuable?

Has it served to strengthen the effectiveness of your own Department in its responsibilities, and very valuable and important and crucial ones they are, in doing what we all seek to do, and that is to defend the national security interests with the maximum recognition of the first amendment values of our society?

Mr. YEAGLEY. Mr. Congressman, it is my personal opinion that the activities carried on and the petitions filed

Mr. TUCK. Would you move the mike closer. I can't hear you.

Mr. YEAGLEY. Mr. Congressman, it is my personal view that it has been useful. We filed, of course, the original petition against the party in 1950. There was over a year of taking evidence, not every day, but most days, and there was a voluminous amount of evidence that was taken in regard to the nature and objectives and purposes of the Communist Party.

I think this in and of itself was very illuminating and very educational to a great many Americans, as compared to information that they might get by other means or other sources about the movement. This was information under oath. It was documentary information. It was as accurate as it could be under conditions of a Board hearing. I think that was useful.

I think the findings of the Board, based on that evidence as to the nature of the Communist Party at that time and its control by the Soviet Union, was useful.

After the Supreme Court's affirmance of the final order in 1961, and before that as a matter of fact, we filed a number of petitions on alleged front organizations.

I think there were 23 in all. Most of those went to hearing. Those organizations for the most part were reasonably large and many of them fairly well-known organizations.

I think the testimony and documents of those hearings were illuminating and I think they shed light on the basic operations and the internal operations of some of those organizations.

That was useful information and that was the type of thing that the American people at that time were entitled to have.

I think the country was under a little more stress and strain from the cold war at that time. We had the attack by the Communists in Korea in 1950, and following the Korean war that disturbed many Americans and cost many American lives, we had the shelling of Matsu and Quemoy Islands and the tension created there by the Communists.

We had almost constant tension arising over the Berlin corridor that many people feared was bound to lead to an early third world

war.

These tensions were serious, and I think it was useful at that time to get factual information out under oath and with documentation as to the nature of the Communist influence here.

Mr. CULVER. Do you think the American people could be aware and sensitive to these activities in the absence of the Subversive Activities Control Board?

Mr. YEAGLEY. Yes. I am just saying to a lesser extent and with fewer facts to fall back on.

Mr. CULVER. What about the disclosure of security information? I recall in the President's veto message this was one of the concerns that intelligence organizations charged with security responsibilities within our Government gave grave concern to, that this legislation within the Department of Defense with regard to designation of defense facilities would force, in order to comply with the legislation, the disclosure and divulgence of sources of intelligence-gathering information which were extremely valuable in order for you to perform properly your responsibilities.

Has that proven to be the case? Has it resulted in a compromise of your security files which we all wish to preserve and maintain?

Mr. YEAGLEY. This is an important problem and it is a practical and realistic problem that we live with in all of our cases, whether it is before the Board or whether they are espionage cases or other cases in the courts.

I am sure it is one the Attorney General is going to have to keep in mind in deciding about these petitions that may be coming up in the future.

If in a given case the FBI or the Government feels that certain informants cannot be disclosed for the purpose of testifying in a given case, in other words, that their continued service as informants is more valuable than bringing up a certain case, this is a difficult decision to be made, but very likely it will be that that particular case will not be filed.

Mr. CULVER. Then in your judgment, the activities and services of the Subversive Activities Control Board in the past 18 years has served to strengthen the national security interests of the United States consistent with the first amendment values?

Mr. YEAGLEY. That is my opinion, and I think beyond that it has been very detrimental to the operations of the Communist Party.

I think it may have been more detrimental to the party than it was helpful to the Government because they were really bothered by the provisions of the act.

They spent a great deal of time and money, not just in court but politically, resisting the provisions of the act and propagandizing against it.

I think they diverted an undue amount of time, attention, and money to fighting this law and conceivably might have been much more effective had they continued on their own road paying little attention to the act.

But this is not what they did. I think it was very detrimental to the operation of the party.

I think I should also observe, although there are many reasons involved as you know, the party membership has fallen drastically all through this period.

Mr. WATSON. Purposefully so. Now their modus operandi is not to enlist members in the party per se, but to have front organizations. Isn't that a basic principle under which they are operating now?

Mr. YEAGLEY. They have always believed in fronts, but I can't say that they purposely reduced the party membership. I am talking in terms of tens of thousands of members. I am talking in terms of 90 percent of the members.

Mr. CULVER. Do you think it could have been a decision on behalf of the party, which I am sure they gave great thought to, whether in terms of political and tactical propaganda it would be well to dramatize the existence of this legislation and suggest the United States society did not represent to itself and the world what it professed to? Mr. YEAGLEY. Yes, I believe that is part of it.

Mr. CULVER. You believe that is part of it?

Mr. YEAGLEY. Yes, I do believe that is part of it.

Mr. WATSON. I yielded to you, but I would like to get back to my line of questioning.

Mr. CULVER. What about the time and money of the Justice Department in terms of the litigation involved in all the constitutional cases and the appeals that have resulted from the Subversive Activities Control Board?

The very existence has cost the taxpayers $5 million in the last 18 years.

This does not take into consideration other than the actual appropriations by the Congress for the Board's existence. When you speak of time and money, with those people like yourself charged with law enforcement responsibilities and particularly security responsibilities, what has been the calculated estimated time and cost of Justice Department legal counsel and FBI efforts directly earmarked to implement and defend the Subversive Activities Control Board legislation?

Could you give us an estimate on that?

Mr. YEAGLEY. I could, but I don't know how well I could do right now because I have not tried to compile such information or such figures.

I can mention a few facts that come to mind that may have a bearing on this, in which you may be interested.

As I recall, the peak personnel ceiling level of the division was roughly 1957, and maybe in 1958 it may have been the same, at which time the budget authorizations for lawyer positions was 102.

I think the lawyer personnel probably was running around 94 at the time, maybe 92. Since that time, we have cut down substantially, so the ceiling now is, I think, around 56.

Mr. Tuck. Do you consider that time and money well spent in fighting communism in this country?

Mr. YEAGLEY. Yes, I certainly do.

Mr. CULVER. Do you think you could fight communism more effectively if those men involved in this particular work were actually engaged directly in the efforts of your Department aimed at this and not involved in the exercise of working around this particular legislation?

Mr. YEAGLEY. As part of your question, I would like to mention that most of our lawyers at that time and even now are not dealing with matters under this act. Most of them at that time were working on Smith Act prosecutions. We also have lawyers working on the Foreign Agents Registration Act and we have the Criminal Section which deals with violations of the Neutrality Act, espionage, trading with the enemy, and things of that type.

So, part of the personnel, whatever the number may be, would be assigned to one of the particular sections that works on these matters.