AN INTERCOLLEGIATE MAGAZINE
of
STUDENT LETTERS

25 ¢
CONTENTS

THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES --
A SYMPOSIUM:

I. PRO = FULTON LEWIS III
IT. CON - DON B. KATES
III. FOUNDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ~ RICK SINGER

IV. THE NATIONAL STUDENT ASSOCIATION AND HUAC -
TIMOTHY JENKINS

V. A LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE DARTMOUTH -
REP. FRANCIS E. WALTER

VI. A REPLY TO THAT LETTER - DAVID WILLIAMS

Volume 1, Number 4 April, 1961

 
 

  

THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES

 

To the Editor:

Any objective analysis of the merits of the House Commit-
tee on Un-American Activities must be based upon a realistic
appraisal of the nature and extent of Communist activities
on American soil, and the threat those activities pose to our
national security. Security experts have appraised the Sovi-
et military threat to our Nation, and have evaluated the
cost of defense at 45 billion dollars per year. President
Kennedy, Governor Rockefeller and others feel it should be
more = just to be sure... President Kennedy is the sixth con-
secutive chief executive to select J. Edgar Hoover as the man
to lead the F.B.I.

Following the 17th National Convention of the Communist
Party, U.S.A. held in New York City, N.Y. on December 10-13,
1959, Mr. Hoover issued the following statement:
"(The) Communist Party, U.S.A. emerged from this conven-
tion more powerful, more unified, and even more of a menace
to our Republic.... [t is apparent that, more than ever be.
fore, each American must maintain vigilant watchfulness to-
ward this Trojan horse in our midst.... The Communists will
endeavor to gain allies whereever they can be found, creating
fronts, launching infiltration programs, participating in all
phases of American life.

What, then, is the nature of this "menace to our Republictt?
If it is a political organization, the Communist Party must
be combatted in a political manner - argued against from the
campaign platform, debated on an ideological basis, and de-
feated at the polls. If, however, it is a subversive force,
it must be fought through legislation and those subversive
activities must be made illegal. The nature of the Communist
Party is something to be decided by the judicial arm of our
government. In Barenblatt v. United States, the Supreme Court
ruled on June 8, 1959:

Yee. This Court in its constitutional adjudications has
consistently refused to view the Communist Party as an ordin-
ary political party, and has upheld federal legislation aimed
at the Communist problem which in a different context would
certainly have raised constitutional issues of the gravest
character

 

Thus, with the extent and nature of the menace defined,
the solution to the problem is prescribed - legislation to
make the subversive activities of the Communist apparatus

  
unlawful. This is the task of the Congress, and the Court
has affirmed and reaffirmed the role of the investigating
committee in the legislative procedure. It was pointed out
in McGrain v. Daughtery:

 

"In actual legislative practice, power to secure needed
information by such means has long been treated as an attri-
bute of the power to legislate."

Woodrow Wilson, a noted student of political science, la-
ter President of the United States, has said - paradoxically
perhaps - that "The informing function of Congress should be
preferred even to its legislative function."

It was with this legislative end in view that the Congress
established the Committee on Un-American Activities back in
1938 (then the Dies Committee.) As noted in a Research Study
by the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Con-
gress, released on December 30, 1960, the Committee has served
its legislative purpose well. The Research Study lists each
of the 129 legislative recommendations of the Committee on Un-
American Activites for the years 1941-1960.

"Actual legislation enacted by Congress has followed 35
of the committee's recommendations. In addition, 52 bills
and one House Resolution relating to the subject matter of
committee recommendations were pending at the close of the
86th Congress. Hight of the bills had been passed by the
House of Representatives, but failed to receive action in the
Senate .#

If the Committee were not serving its legislative function
adequately, there indeed could be serious constitutional ques.
tions as to its existence. Here, again, the Supreme Court
has interceded to determine these questions. In Barenblatt
ve. United States, the Court said: v

"That Congress has wide power to legislate in the field
of Communist activity in this Country, and to conduct appro-
priate investigations in aid thereof, is hardly debatable.

The existence of such power has never been questioned by this
Court, and it is sufficient to say, without particularization,
that Congress has enacted or considered in this field a wide
range of legislative measures, not a few of which have stemmed
from recommendations of the very Committee whose actions have
been drawn in question here."

 

(emphasis added)

 
    

  

Admittedly, the original authorization of the Committee,
Rule XI, is worded in vague terms. Indeed, who can define
what is “un-American? The authorization is vague, however,
only to those outside the legal procedures and is not mis-
leading to those who are within--namely, the Committee, wit-
nesses, Members of Congress, and the Supreme Court.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled with regard to Rule XI as
follows:

"Granting the vagueness of the Rule, we may not read it
in isolation from its long history in the House of Represen-
tatives. Just as legislation is often given meaning by the
gloss of legislative reports, administrative interpretation,
and long usage, so the proper meaning of an authorization to
a congressional committee is not to be derived alone from
its abstract terms wmrelated to the definite content fur-
nished them by the course of congressional actions."

Throughout its brief history, the Communist apparatus on
American soil has chosen as its facadé such appealing causes
as "peace", “integration, "civil liberties*, and "brother-
hood of man’. This indeed, is the prime pattern of subver-
sion--to use and espouse popular "causes" and then to at-
tempt to direct these to serve opposite ends--violence, ha-
tred, and bigotry. Fortunately, the Committee on Un-Ameri-
can Activities has not entered into an analysis of the worth
of these "causes?, but has confined itself to investigating
and interrogating along lines of subversive Communist acti- |
vities. Frank Wilkinson and Carl Braden have both openly
and outwardly campaigned for two such "causes". In July,
1958 both were called to testify before the Committee on Un-
American Activities, and both invoked the First Amendment in
refusing to answer questions concerning their Communist Par-
ty membership and activities. They were cited for contempt
of Congress, convicted and sentenced each to one year in jail.
In upholding the convictions, the Supreme Court ruled in the
case of Wilkinson on February 27, 1961:

 

t...We cannot say that, simply because the petitioner
at the moment may have been engaged in lawful conduct, his
Communist activities in connection therewith could not be
investigated. The subcommittee had reasonable ground to
suppose that the petitioner was an active Communist Party
member, and that as such he possessed information that would
substantially aid it in its legislative investigation."

The purpose of any committee of Congress is to gather
Wm

information with which it can determine legislative needs.
In order that this may be achieved, Congress has prescribed
that investigations be made, hearings be held, and live wit-
nesses’ testimony be recorded under oath. Under almost i-
dentical rules of procedure, Estes Kefauver's Committee in-
terrogated Costello and his group, the Kennedy brothers en-
gaged in length questioning of Jimmy Hoffa about alleged
racketeering, and Charles Van Doren was placed in the Con-
gressional glass booth and asked about quiz shows. Similar.
ly, the Committee on Un-American Activities is compelled, by
a mandate of Congress, to call its witness--in this case
members of the Communist Party--and to interrogate them a-
bout their activities. When the threat from other subver.
sive movements develops, such as that from Fascist and Nazi
organizations, the Committee immediately moves to keep them
under surveillance. When their activities become a realis-
tic threat to national security, and legislation is needed,
the leaders and members of these groups are inevitably called
to testify, and legislation is recommended. Quite obviously,
there is in all of this a process of exposure. The Congress
has called for public hearings, and the witnesses are alive
and have identities. But is this resultant process of expo-
sure to be deemed the primary function? Congressman Francis
Walter, Chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities,
answered this question on March 20, 1961. He stated:

"Rightly considered, the informing process involves ex-
posure--when the truth is concealed. We must not permit the
incident of exposure, necessarily involved in our investiga-
tions for legislative purposes, to be debased by a name-call-
ing which appears to have as its sinister purpose the sup-
pression of understanding, and which is used, I believe, to
erect ideological barriers to the extraction of information.
-eeWe in the Congress do not 'expose for exposure'sake’ in
any greater degree than the Supreme Court ‘decides for deci-
Sion sake? ."

The investigation of Communist activities is neither an
easy nor a pleasant task. It requires much caution, patience,
and exhaustive research, but the resulting legislation is
rewarding. At a time when the Communist enemy is attempting
to use the United States Constitution as a tool with which
it can destroy this Nation, the Congress is determined,
through the Committee on Un-American Activities, to make
that Constitution work--and to employ it at its highest va-
lue in combatting through Law that force which would destroy
it through distortion, misuse, and subversion. Chairman

 
 

   

stated on March 20, 1961:

nWe have been zealous to protect the civil rights of
all persons, and we believe we have succeeded in this res-
pect."

To verify this, I quote the report of a Special Commit-
tee of the American Bar Association drawn up after months of
close examination of the procedure and methods of the Com-
mittee on Un-American Activities. The Special Committee re-
ported, on February 25, 1952:

"We are satisfied that the witnesses called to testify
before the Committee are being treated fairly and properly
in all respects and we also feel satisfied that each witness
is accorded full protection so far as his constitutional or
other legal rights are involved; moreover, the confidential
communications between attorneys and clients have been fully
respected.'

The House Committee on Un-American Activites has won
the respect of many respected citizens. Among those who
have eagerly and actively cooperated and supported the Com- |
mittee within the past five years are: Dr. Daniel A. Poling, |
editor of the Christian Herald; Roman Catholic Bishop Fulton
Je Sheen; Rabbi S. Andhil Fineberg, community-relations con-
sultant of the American Jewish Committee; George Meany, pre-
sident of the AFL-CIO; Albert J. Hayes, president of the In-
ternational Association of Machinists; Gen. Maxwell D. Tay-
lor; Gen. Nathan F. Twining; Gen. Alfred M. Gruenther; Gen.
Matthew B. Ridgeway; Admiral Arleigh A. Burke; Admiral Louis
E. Denfield; Admiral Robert B. Carney; and Admiral Charles
Turner Joy.

But perhaps the finest acknowledgement of the Committee's
worth came on March 1, 1961. For several years some highly
vociferous pressure groups had worked to have the Committee
on Un-American Activities abolished. The show-down came
when Members of the House of Representatives decided to vote
on whether the Committee was or was not to be continued.

The resultant roll call, 412 "ayes to 6 "nays", was the
strongest endorsement the Committee had ever received in its
23 year history.

Thus, the Committee has been established by Congress to
do a job. It has performed, in its legislative pursuit, not
only to the satisfaction of Congress, but to the satisfaction

  
of the Supreme Court as well. Although there are still a
few voices in the wilderness crying abolition’, and still

a handful of die-hards desperately conniving some other man-
euver to curtail its function, the Committee has passed
safely through its hardest hours. The Communist apparatus,
understandably the Committee’s worst enemy, will try anew an
"abolition campaign” and a few well-meaning outsiders will
utter similar slogans, but even though the serious threat

to the Committee's future is passed, it is still wise for
all American citizens to take an active, critical interest
in the Committee's work. Criticism in the past has been
largely responsible for the fact that the Committee has ope-
rated with extreme caution. Continued public interest will
guarantee that caution will continue to be exerted, and that
the Committee's procedures will continue to be just, fair,
and legal. Through the Committee's recommendations, the
Congress of the United States will fight the Communist me-
nace with every Constitutional tool at its disposal. When
Communism is defeated, this Nation shall emerge from battle
with its Constitution intact and uninjured--our greatest wea-
pon preserved to meet its next challenger.

Fulton Lewis III

THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES
To the Editor:

Congress establishes committees to examine and report
on legislation, a purpose much better served by a group of
nine than a House of 435. Congressional committees are lt
ven investigative power enabling them to determine the worth
of a particular piece of legislation, or to investigate a-
reas where legislation might be needed. Thus the purpose of
a Congressional committee is to consider legislation and the
investigative power is only an aid to that objective. In-
deed, the Supreme Court unanimously held in the definitive
case on investigative power (Me Grain v. Daugherty, 1927)
that "The only legitimate object the senate could have in
ordering...investigation was to aid it in legislating....#

Since 1937 the House Ways and Means Committee has had
450 pieces of legislation made into law; HUAC has had two.
Of these two, the first was declared unconstitutional by a
unanimous Supreme Court, the second (Internal Security Act
of 1950) was vetoed by President Truman on the recommenda-

 
   

   

tion of the Departments of Defense, State, and Justice, and
the Central Intelligence Agency. Not only was the bill a
substantial danger to civil liberties, but its provisions
undermined U.S. security and hampered the work of anti-sub-
versive agencies. The President said of HUAC's vaunted bill
to strengthen the U.S. against subversion: "It is inconcei-
vable...(that) Congress could expect the Commander in Chief
of the Armed Forces of the United States to approve such a
flazrant violation of security safeguards."

There are serious objections to HUAC on the grounds of
constitutionality. These rest upon the fact that the Com-
mitteeS initiating resolution, with its vague phrase "Un-
American activities," is so broad that it delineates no fi-
eld of study for the Committee and thus can authorize no in-
vestigation.

HUAC's real objective (insofar as it has any objective
other than publicity) is the punishment of political noncon-
formists by unfavorable publicity. That this is how members
conceive of their function, we may ascertain from reading
their statements. Committee Chairman Velde said: "we feel
that we have a duty...to inform the people who elected us a-
bout subversive activities...." His immediate successor
Francis Walter agrees: "we are required to make the American
people aware of the extent of the infiltration-of Communism
in all phases of our society." Chief.dudge Henry Edgerton's
analysis of a typical hearing shows how the Committee at-
tempts to destroy the reputations of witnesses who come be-
fore it (see dissent, Watkins v. United States, United States

Circuit Court of Appeals).

The causes and people whom HUAC has “exposed are inva-
riably new, unorthodox, and wmpopular. It has at various
times stigmatized as Communistic, advocacy of the New Deal,
world government, and TVA, opposition to the Franco govern-
ment in Spain, to anti-semitism, to book-burning, and to
HUAC itself. These and other perfectly legitimate causes
are branded subversive and their exponents punished by inva-
sion of privacy, constant harassment before the Committee,
and exposure of their unorthodox or unpopular ideas to the
ostracism of the general public. The Committee reports are
mainly lists of "exposed Communists" and it gloats over the
harm done to its victims. A typical report states that:
"Most of the teachers (whom it investigated in 1952) have
been suspended or permanently removed from their positions
(HUAC Annual Report, 1954, po. 14-15, 17)."
Perhaps the most ominous by-product of HUAC (and simi-
lar committees) is the introduction of the informer systen
into American life as a method of insuring orthodoxy of opi-
nion. Thus the Norwalk, Connecticut post of the Veterans of
Foreign Wars disclosed in 1954 it had for several years ac-
ted as a clearinzhouse for information (gathered from local
gossip) about subversives among their fellow-townsmen. The
implications for freedom of belief and speech and for the
cohesiveness of the American commnity when neighbors spy on
each other and political expression is subject to denuncia-
tion are obvious.

A distinctive characteristic of American investigating
committees is the total inaccuracy and unreliability of
their informers. These are normally embittered government,
state or school employees taking the opportunity to retali-
ate secretly on their colleagues or superiors. The Commit-
tees also employ professional informants--self-admitted
turncoats and eae eae (many of them criminals), often fa-
natics of anti-semitic or fascist type. (see Kahn, Albert
&., High Treason, Hour, 1950, pp. 260-266) We need say lit-
tle of Harvey Matusow who repudiated all of his testimony
before Congressional committees and is now serving a term in
Federal penitentiary for perjury. Hlizabeth Bentley's
testimony may be judged from the fact that, even after hav-

ing been coached by the Committee and its investigators be-
fore testifying, her story contained over thirty verifiable
inaccuracies--such as transmitting the date of De day to the
Russians in April or March when it was not decided by General
Eisenhower until June 5.

The most iumediately dangerous results of the Committee's
work concern the morale and efficiency of government workers.
If it is to obtain technological parity or even superiority
over the Soviet Union, the United States must ce and
enlarge its staff of competent scientists. The Committee’s
contribution to this particularly vital section of national
defense is summarized by the standard authority on HUAC,
Professor Robert Carr in the Cornell Studies on Civil Liber-
tles:

"In particular the activity of the House Committee has
obstructed the recruitment of scientists into the public
service. The members of no profession have been harassed with
more regularity or greater injustice....The resulting lack of
enthusiasm among scientists for service in the Federal Gov-
ernment has been a fearful price to pay for the Committee's
bumbling and ineffectual investigations in the field of ato-

 
 

  

mic espionage."

 

Social psychologists report that government workers
feel it no longer wise to discuss controversial questions
with their colleagues. Confidence in superiors and fellow-
workers is completely undermined. jl

This then is HUAC: it has never caught a person con.
victed of espionage, for its mission is to punish people for
their opinions, not to catch spies. It has introduced the
informer system into America. It has created an atmospnere
where men live in fear that their thoughts and speech may
be used to destroy their reputation in the eyes of society.
It has undermined government efficiency and hampered the de-
fense effort. Withal, it has never served any legislative
purpose whatsoever.

Don B. Kates
Reed College Student Government

FOUNDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE

To the Editor:

During the heat of the controversy centered around the
House Committee on Un-American Activities, I have frequently
noticed a tendency to over-exaggerate the Committee's faults
and to undermine its solid foundation.

There are many charges against the committee, so I sup-~
pose a sood one with which to begin is that the committee
often ruins the lives of good, loyal Americans merely by
making them appear. To this, I answer: the mere appearance
of a person before the Committee has nothing to do with lo-
yalty, or the lack of it. It can become so only in the pub.
lic eye, with which the Committee can do little, albeit that
it has been one of the many factors shaping the image and
fear of Communism that now pervades the public. And as far
as this is concerned, I cannot believe any one of us would
say that there is no danger. ‘What is important is the atti-
tude of the public in general toward those who appear befére
the Committee. Perhpas, rather than destroy the Committee,
these movement leaders could attempt to destroy the public
image which links appearance before the Committee with Comm-
nism. They have already gone far, I am sure, and can go
still further.

+

  
fy

We must first realize that former association has noth-
ing to do with present loyalty, and in many cases never did.
However, we must also recognize the fact that former associ-
ation can determine a™security risk", not necessarily be -
cause of inherent treason, but because of external pressures.
I will not attempt to list these pressures, but they include,
and many are rooted in, what David Reisman calls "other-di-
rectedness", the drive to be accepted by one’s fellows.

As we have said, a person might be, through no fault of
his own, a "security risk?. What is interesting here is that
someone must agree with the Committee if this label is to
mean anything. Someone must likely see the serious nature
of the situation and remove this person from his job. Thus

he stigma, as so many people like to call it, is not real-
ized unless others recognize the inherent danger as well.
And even then it is not a stigma; many who are thus branded
will understand why there are singled out. Those who do not
will protest, and it is these with whom we sympathize most
fervently even though we realize the necessity of releasing
then.

Now I would like to tackle what I have been told is the
"Intellectuals' quarrel with the Committee", namely that it
inhibits free speech, or more exactly, inhibits the right
not to speak. To deny this charge would, obviously, be ab-
surd. To support this action is, I believe, very easy, and
very legal.

The basis for Congress* power to compel disclosures by
means of contempt proceedings was spelled out in Anderson v.
Dunn, 1821. It was further supported and extended in McGrain
ve Daugherty, 1927. It has been taken to be an implied pow-
er under a general grant of legislative power, issued May 3,
1798, which was only an extension of the seneral legislative
powers of Congress as granted in the Constitution. So then,
the first point is that all Committees have this power, a
power recognized for over 140 years.

These powers have been tested by the Supreme Court.
This is very significant, for it shows that even the Court,
whose duty it is to protect the minority, believes these pow-
ers to be just to the minority, and indeed to be an intrinsic
part of the efforts of the Congress, guardian of the major.
ity, to legislate properly.

This practice may be legal, and it may even be support.
ed by the Supreme Court, which heaven knows is not always

 
  

 

 

2

right anyway, but is it ethical? Is it what we call demo-

cracy? Let us first ask this question: what is it the wit-

ness may want to conceal? Former ties with Communism? The

name of a friend who was, or is, a Communist, or who ex-

pounds Communist philosophy? Many things, perhaps. But be

hind all of these there is one possibility which few of 1
those who criticize the Committee have seen; perhaps all is

not seen.

This is to say that the witness may be refusing to fur.
nish a name for one reason while the Committee wants it for
another. The Committee, after all, holds almost continuous
hearings on Communist activities. It is conceivable that
they might have just a little more knowledge of the over-all
planning of the organization than does the average witness.
It could very well be that the witness’ friend could be the
head of the Communist Party in New York, and the witness
would never know it. Thus he would hide his friend's name,
never knowing what the Committee was after. A case in point,
though I do not wish to belabor it here, is that of Douglas
Wachter, in the San Francisco riots. For further information
on this, see House Report 2223, especially page 21, or '"Com-
munist Target--Youth",

As the Court said in 1938, in Townsend v. U.S., ™Be-

cause a witness covld not understand the purpose of cross-

examination, he would not be justified in leaving a court-
room.”

I do not believe that the Committee is lily-white. It
can be altered, and to the good. It should make more solid
distinctions between the inherently bad "security risks" and
those who, due to odd circumstances, must be thus classified.
Last, and most important, the Committee should be constantly j
re-evaluated.

I believe that that is the work of the movements which
have sprung up all over the country to abolish the Committee.
Many times we forget that when the Committee says that col-
lege students are being duved when they riot that this is a
distinct possibility. Many times we swing too easily to the
other end of the are simply because we are attacked. I
think if we watch ourselves, we can make valuable comments
on how to improve the Committee and the public imace which
it carries.

Rick Singer
Amherst Collere

  
13
THE NATIONAL STUDENT ASSOCIATION AND HUAC

To the Editor:

The National Student Association's concern over the one-
rating procedures of the House Committee on Un-American Act-
ivities and other similar Congressional investigatory bodies
is not a recent phenomenon. For many years orior to the 1960
National Student Congress delegates to NSA's annual policy-
makine meetins have voted for a resolution which accused the
Committee on Un-American Activities of "...thwart(ing) the
very freedoms which it claims to nreserve--freedom of assem-
bly, of the press, and of speech-~all of which are necessary
in the academic community.

Yor years, the Comittee has continued to intrude upon
the freedom America has traditionally granted to the academic
world. Its investigations of academicians Lloyd Barenblatt
and H. Chandler Davis provided good evidence of the Commit-
tee*s excesses, as pertinent to colleges. Its investigation.
of University of Illinois student Edward Yellin, and his sub-
sequent inability to retain his scholarship despite the Com-
mitteeS failure to prove any of its charges, provided evi-
dence of the Committee's method of “public trial" which has
inevitably proved damaging.

Sienificantly, it was the Committee’s serving of subpoe-
nas to more than 100 public school teachers in San Francisco,
and then leaking the names to the press without benefit of
even the standard hearine which lit the fuse on the bomb
which has now exploded in the Committee's face.

San Francisco students, outraged at the Committee's lack
of respect for the academic profession, planned demonstrations
to meet the Gommittee last spring. The rest is history: The
demonstration, the motion picture, the bitter results.

Students attending the 1960 Congress ‘tstrongly recommen-
ded" that the House Committee:

"1. Have strong indications that any individual whom
it summons be able to contribute significantly to the legiti-
mate functioning of this committee.

2. Allow the accused to face his accuser and be fully in-
formed of the reasons for which he was called to appear before
the committee.

3. Terminate its policy of publishing the lists of those
called to appear before it prior to the time of the hearing.

 
  

 

14

 

4. Restrict itself to its original purpose..., that of
investigation for the purpose of initiating legislation.

We are proud to be associated with the scores of student
groups which have continued the fight against the Committee.

An official of the American Civil Liberties Union recent-
ly noted that "the struggle will be a lone one. I hope we can
count on continued student support." The sit-ins have show
that college students can continue a fight over a long time;
hopefully the effort.to reform the Committee will be carried
to its just conclusion by the nation's students.

Timothy Jenkins
NSA Vice-President for
National Affairs

A LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE DARTMOUTH, Dartmouth College

Dear Sir:

Your recent petition on the subject of this Committee
has been called to my attention. It makes certain sweeping
~ and I would add, absurd ~ generalizations unfavorable to
the work of this Committee, without factual support, which
appears to me typical of the kind of nonsense which certain
pseudo-intellectuals seem to find attractive.

(1) You state that "the Committee's deluge of self-
righteous publicity has done, we feel, deep harm to the cause
for which it is fighting.” To what publicity are you refer.
ring? Who is the author of this publicity? Are you referring
to the type o f publicity which is reflected in your own |
authorship of this petition? :

(2) Continuing - and I assume you are making further
reference to such publicity ~ you add, "It has distorted the
issues and obscured the truth." What issues have been dis.
torted, and what trith has been obscured? Are you again re.
ferring to the type of article which you have caused to be
published in the Dartmouth? I would agree that your publicity

has distorted the issues and that your article has obscured
the truth.

You go on to say,#It has presented a false image of
America to our friends abroad.# What is the false image pre-
sented? Who are the specific friends abroad who have indica.

  
1"

ted to you they have a false image? If you are referring
again to the type of publicity you are purveying in your
petition, I would agree that what you say is creating a
false image to your readers.

(3) You further allege "By its methods of intimidation
and attribution of guilt by association, it has gone beyond
its constitutional and moral justification.¥ What are the
methods of intimidation to which you refer? What do you mean
py "guilt by association?" Whose guilt? What association?
Wili you give us the specific instances to which you refer?
On what basis do you say it has gone beyond its constitutional
and moral justification?

(4) You add,"It has wrecked the lives of individual
Americans, denying to them the traditional protections of the
law." What specific lives has this Committee wrecked? What
traditional protections of the law has it denied?

(5) You conclude that this Committee, "by its methods of
action, has violated those very liberties which it seeks to
protect.” Will you please cite the specific methods of action?
What liberties do we seek to protect and in what instances have
we violated these liberties?

Sincerely yours,
Francis E. Walter, Chairman
Committee on Un-American Activities

THS AUTHOR OF THE PETITION REPLIES

The Honorable Francis #. Walter
House Office Building
Washineton, D.C.

Dear Sir:

You have asked a total of twenty questions in your letter.
I am surprised by many of them, as they relate to facts which
are much more readily available to you than to myself. Fur-
‘thermore, I am sure you have been familiar with the objections
cited for the twelve years which you have been a member of the
Committee. Nevertheless, I shall answer them as best I can.

The petition was general because it was decided that brevity
was a virtue in such a document, and that specific charges could
be better aired in the newspaper here. I do not know if this is

 
  

 

 

16

the approved method. However, to use, as a result, the charges
"absurd", "nonsenee™ and "psuedo-antellectual" is, in my opinion,
going a little bit too far. In the comments of the Committee
concerning the hearings at San Francisco last year, the Swarth-
more Student Council resolution, the Vienna Youth Festival hear-
ings, and the Youth Against the House Un-American Activities
Committee, just to name a few, we keep hearing the same cry of
"dupe" and “phony? There seems to be an unwillingness to be-
lieve that students can intelligently protest without having
been unduly influenced by subversives of some sort.

You first ask about publicity. There are many different
kinds of publicity to which I referred. There are the either
deliberate or misguided distortions exemplified by the movie
"Operation Abolition", which is by now a notorious example.

There is the type of publicity examplified by Donald Jackson's
speech on the floor of the House in 1953 attacking, with no jus-
tification whatsoever, Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam of the Methodist
Church for "serving God on Sunday and the communist front for

the rest of the week". There is the type of publicity seen in

a report with no factual basis whatsoever, naming Dr. Edward U.
Condon, ex-director of the National Bureau of Standards, "one of
the weakest links in our atomic security®. A particularly nefa-
rious type of publicity has been the news leak, which the Commit-
tee has consistetly used, from the Duggan case in 1948, where
allegations were made about a man who had died two days pre~
viously add thus could not reply, to the 1959 California teach-
ers hearings, where over forty teachers’ names were submitted

to the press, along with short biographies, before the hearings
had even begun. There is the type of publicity exemplified by
phony hearings such as the Fishman hearings on foreign propaganda
thich were staged asain and again over the country last year, i
Irving Fishman reaching into his mailbag and exclaiming "foreign
propagandé"in a shocked voice each time. There is, finally,

-the type of publicity for which the Committee reserves its |
“publib™ files, I dé not know if the procedure concerning

your files in 1953 is continued today. Nevertheless, I am

sure you are familiar with the pattern as it existed then. Any-
body could make any allegation about a person and send them to
the public files. The Committee took no responsibility for the
accuracy of the fikes, yet nezlected to mention this if the

files were requested, and further neglected to mention any
denaals of the charges that the accused may have made. They
were then sent out under the Committee letterhead to anyone

who requested them through his Congressman.

I do not know what the Committee's effect has been in Asia,
Africa, or Latin America. However, if it has been as detrimental
to our interests there as it has been in Burope (and there is no

  
Ly

season why it should not be), it has had a harmful effect

indeed. I spent over a year traveling about Europe in 1958

and 1959, and I can vouch for the fact that there has been no

one thing that has aroused more opposition to American policy
there than the actions of the ghree Congressional Committees
whose purpose is root out commnism. I was repeatedly asked,
often vehemently, about my feelings toward such Committees, and
I was snocked to find that I was associated with the ideas, feel-
ings, and prejudices of these Committees. In many minds, “Ameri-
canismt is synonymous with *McCarthyism’. I personally dislike
being associated with such ludicrous investigations as that of
the Moscow Art Exhibit. I personally dislike being associated
with government investigations into the personal and political
beliefs of individuals. I feel that the loss to our prestige
abroad has more than made up for the anti-communist hysteria

in the name of "illumbnation" that has been created here by
Committees such as yours.

I am sure you know what is meant by guilt by association.
I am referring to what happened, forinstance, in your interro-
sation of Bishop Oxnam, who would no sooner deny affiliation
or membership in an organization than your Committee would in-
sert the evidence against that organization into the records
of the hearing. When, in a Committee release last October on
Otto Nathan, you quote George Alpert, President of the Board
of Directors of Brandeis University, as saying "to establish a
Jewish University and to place at its head a man utterly alien
to American principles of democracy, tarred with the Communist
brush, would have condemned the University to impotence from
the start", without making it clear that Alpert was not refer-
ring to Nathan, but to somebody else, I call that suilt by as-
sociation.

You ask further about intimidation. When, after the first
Hiss trial, which ended in a hung jury, the Committee said "a
full investigation should immediately be made of the fitness of
Judge Kaufman to serve on the bench®, and intimated that jurors
in the case would shortly be subpoenad, I call that intimida-
tion. When a witness is endangered of being cited for Contempt
of Congress for claiming his constitutional rights, and is fur-
ther faced with the loss of his job for so claiming, I call
that intimidation. When an attorney for a witness has the Fe-
deral Conspiracy Act read to him aloud in a publichearine, as
happened to Robert W. Kenny, I call that intimidation. When
upwards of 300 students at Dartmouth College will not put them-
selves on record as opposing you Committee for fear of later
interference in their careers, I call that intimidation.

Your public accusations are based almost entirely on the
testimony of paid informers and ex-communists, many of whom

 
 

18

have had a previous record of perjury (it is interesting in
this respect that perjury by naming too many innocent people
as communists is a crime which goes strangely unpunished).
The accused have neither the right of cross-examination of
these witnesses nor the right to call witnesses favorable to
themselves. Often they have no lmowLledge of either their ac-
cuser or the crimes for which they have been accused. At one
point a witness was told "The rights you have are the rights
given you by this Committee. We will determine what rights
you have and what rights you do not have before the Committee

If a witness is willing to cooperate with the committee
regarding his own past activities, but unwilling to implicate
or expose his friends, he faces a high probability of a con-
tempt citation. Since the Committee is no stranger to such
citations (it has sent more to the courts since 1945 than all
other Committees in Congress combined have sent since 1789),
and since most of your recent citations have been for pleas,
such as those of Arthur Miller or Edwin Alexander, designed to
protect associates, most such witnesses prefer the "safem
method of pleading the fifth amendment to all questions per
taining to politics. Two recent examples are Tillman Erb and
John Johnson last year, both of whom pleaded the fifth amend-
ment after you made it clear you would not "bargain" with them
to let them protect ther friends. In effect, they had been
given the choice of implicating their friends, a contempt ci-
tation requiring years of litigation, or being called "fifth
amendment communists".

In the Supreme Court's Barenblatt deaision in 1959, even
the majority stated that "thereis no Congressional power to
expose for the sake of exposure". You yourself have stated
that the Committee's main purpose was "to seek out commun-
ism and subversion as related to individuals. It has enacted
into law only two pieces of legislation.

The liberties which the Committee has violated have been
the basic freedoms upon which our country was founded; the
freedom of speech, of the press, of political belief,and the
right to a fair trial by a jury of peers. Perhaps it was pre-
sumptuous of me to write that your Committee seeks to protect
these freedoms, in view of your closing questions. Neverthe-
less, I feel that you would agree with me that America means
these ideals rather than a mere fight against Communism or a
sterile reiteration of economic philosophies. I feel that the
question of what we are fighting for vastly outweighs the
question ofwhat we are fishting against.

David Williams, Dartmouth College
19

The Albatross, an intercollegiate magazine published
by a volunteer group of Swarthmore students, prints stu-
dentst and professors’ letters addressed to public offi-
cials. Because several thousand students will read every
published letter, and may then write postcards or letters
to the same officials, the magazine is a forceful tool of
student action. Because it prints replies from officials
addressed, the Albatross serves as a bridge between the
academic and the political worlds.

We welcome carbon copies of your letters, on what-
ever subject and from whatever viewpoint. Subscriptions
for six issues, two more this spring and summer and three
next fall, are $1.50 for students and $4.00 for adults.
Single copies sell for 25 ¢. Subscriptions and indi-
vidual copies are available from your college distrib.
utor and from

ALBATROSS

Swarthmore College

Swarthmore, Pennsylvania

We intend this issue to serve as a summary of the ar.
guments for and against the House Committee on Un- Amer.
ican Activities. The question of the Committee has been
prominent for some time. No one will argue that the issue
is dead. We intend this issue, then, as a book of refer.
ence for both sides in future controversy.

The cost of printing this enlarged issue will, howev-
er, mean that the fifth and sixth issues, to be printed
this spring and summer, will be sent only to subscribers.
The obvious remedy is to subscribe...and don't hesitate.

If you already subscribe, we will not be able to
reach you unless you send us your summer address. Please
send us your summer address immediately; and future
Albatrosses will come to your door.

Although the pressures of academic life have forced
us to run this first volume into the summer, we intend
to continue our efforts early next year, and are already
committed to doing so. We have been joined by seven new
distributors this month, at Arizona, Columbia, Fisk,
Michigan, Princeton, Sarah Lawrence, and Western Reserve.
We now have distribution on thirty-one campuses. Stu.
dents at nearby Bryn Mawr and Haverford have indicated
their interest in sharing editorial responsibilities.

Fulton Lewis III is a research analyst with HUAC,
producer and narrator of the film Qperation Abolition.

Don B. Kates is a student at Reed College. Rick Singer

4s a student at Amherst. Timothy Jenkins is National
Affairs Vice-President of the National Student Association.
Rep. Francis E. Walter is the chairman of HUAC. And David
Wi3daams is a student at Dartmouth.

 
The policy and published statements of the Albatross are
independent of any organization, including Swarthmore
College.

Volume 1, Number 4 April, 1961
Editorial Board

Kditor-in-Chief Blake Smith
Managing Editor John Simon
Intercollegiate Editor Harvey Smith
Publicity Editor Paul Booth
Copy Editor Marilyn Tindall
Treasurer Bob Gentike
Secretary Peggy Pickett

Editorial Staff: David Levin, Steve McNees, Mike
Meeropol, Jean Myles, Maggie Osler, Frans van der
Bogert

SRR OIRO Riek oe Ry ok ok le A ek, i Rak ak ine kl ake) ok

Please
Albatross place

Swarthmore College stamp
Swarthmore, Pennsylvania here