* **

draft a letter which was released from Atlantic City on May 26th. It contained this warning to liberals: "To pretend that Communists can work with Progressives is to deceive the public. The Communists are antagonistic to the Progressive cause, and their only purpose in joining such a movement is to disrupt it * * * (They) seek to divide, to confuse, and to create chaos favorable to their ultimate aims of revolution."

Events of the past two decades have proved the truth of this warning. For many years the American people had an indifferent attitude toward the menace of Communism. Perhaps this is partially explained by our tolerant background and free institutions.

This attitude of national indifference was strengthened by extreme reactionaries who made unsupported and false charges of Communism against those who differed with them. Almost every aggressive man in public life has had the charge of "Communist" hurled at him.

Like any cry of "Wolf! Wolf!" repeated too often without basis, it had the effect of disarming the people about the dangers inherent in real Communistic activities. It is a perfect screen for sinister activities. The words "Red-baiter" and "witch hunt" and "Fascist" became the terse, tart accusations in the Communist-fellow-traveler dialectic toward anyone who tried to peer behind the

screen.

PUBLIC ATTITUDE CHANGING

Within the past few months there has been a sudden and dramatic shift in public attitude on this problem. The indifference is gone. Newspapers, periodicals, and influential private citizens from coast to coast have echoed and reechoed the public concern.

To understand the nature of the problem it is necessary to keep two factors in mind. First, Communists and fellow travelers have a fanatical loyalty to the Russian Communist party line and to Russia, no matter what flip-flops in reasoning or position are required. They work for anything that will pave the way for the downfall of democracy. The strategy for success in this country is based on the creation of chaos-class conflict, discontent, depression, or anything else that will form a frame of reference conducive to revolution.

Second, persons who have embraced this new faith do not fight fair, or in the open. They use the same underground, unscrupulous methods employed by Hitler and Goebbels. All totalitarians, whether of right or left, believe that their own ends justify the use of any means. To obtain their objectives, they resort to the "big lie" and the "big smear." They twist the meaning of words from their common usage in truly democratic countries.

Therefore, those who believe in democracy and human rights must be on the alert as never before. The fight against Communism cannot be made by totalitarian methods, because to embrace the doctrine that the end justifies the means inevitably corrupts and undermines those who use it.

The techniques of democracy must and can be used to defeat this menace. The most important is constant vigilance on the part of the voters and the members of every type of organization that's in our society. The spotlight of an aroused public opinion must be focused on their devious activities at all times. There must be no witch hunting but constant exposure. There must be no curtailment of the Bill of Rights nor any effort to curtail free speech, free press, and free assembly. Let the American people know where and how the Communist-fellowtraveler activities are being carried on and they will deal with the problem by democratic means.

Communists are watching and waiting-even hoping-for a severe economic depression in the United States. They believe a serious slump will advance their Pravda, the objective to discredit and overthrow capitalism and democracy. official organ of the Communist Party in Moscow, has predicted a "devastating" capitalistic collapse in America by 1948.

But Communists have not been idle while waiting for economic developments. They have always been noted for aggressive organizational methods. Political campaigns are the starting point for some of the organizers. I know of one small-time party liner who had a part in Congressional campaigns in several states and offered his services as manager for no less than three political candidates. He had no qualms about supporting "reactionary" candidates if that gave him his opportunity to get a foothold.

The CIO Political Action Committee prospered in its early years because it was founded on a sound objective: to inform the voters on public issues and The CIO-PAC failed in the last election wherever the records of candidates.

it allowed its policies to be influenced by Communists and fellow travelers, with the result that in many communities it became the purveyor of the Communist line.

The CIO-PAC has done damage to American politics on at least two counts. It has sponsored the theory that a member of Congress who does not give 100 percent approval to their program should be liquidated and is a fair subject for any sort of a smear campaign. The apparent reasoning behind the theory is that even if this course of action finally results in the election of a candidate who is opposed to everything they purport to stand for, it is better than electing one who exercises independent judgment.

Despite the general failure of the PAC, the effectiveness of aggressive organization methods should not be underestimated. In the Fourth Congressional District in Milwaukee, for example, fellow travelers obtained the Democratic nomination for one of their friends, Edmund V. Bobrowicz, who was barely defeated in the general election, despite a repudiation of his nomination by prominent Democratic leaders.

WHEN THEY CAME OUT OPENLY

In some states, where the election laws permitted it, the Communists placed their organizations behind candidates who ran frankly under the label of the Communist Party. As might be expected, these candidates without camouflage did not fare well. In fact, in several cases there were unexpected results.

In Bridgeport, Connecticut, Miss Josephine Willard ran for state representative on the Communist ticket in the state elections on November 5th. Miss Willard was editor of the union paper, and the publicity director for Local 203 of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America. In the subsequent uprising against Communists in Local 203, the paper was discontinued and Miss Willard lost her job.

I know from first-hand experience that Communist sympathizers have infiltrated into committee staffs on Capitol Hill in Washington, Frequently they have been associated with desirable legislation and worthy objectives, but always ready to further their own cause at the expense of the legislation they were advocating. A few years ago, when I was chairman of the Senate Civil Liberties Committee, I was forced to take measures in an effort to stamp out influences within my own committee staff.

During the late Congress, the staff of a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor was infiltrated by fellow travelers. The staff of the Pepper Subcommittee on Wartime Health and Education was diligent in its efforts to take matters into its own hands, and probably did great harm to the cause of improved health in this country by its reckless activities. I was ap pointed a member of this subcommittee, but I resigned from it later-partially because of the pressure of other duties (the Congressional Reorganization bill was taking much of my time) and partially because I did not want to be associated with a program of a staff in whom I could not have complete confidence. Later, the staff released a report and recommendations on health legislation under highly irregular procedure that prompted severe criticism on the floor of the Senate. The report was a favorable recommendation on a highly controversial national health program. It was released with the implication that it had the approval of the sub and full committees.

Similarly, the Kilgore Subcommittee on War Mobilization (of the Military Affairs Committee) and the Murray Special Committee on Small Business had staffs that many senators believed had been infiltrated by fellow travelers.

WHY THE SENATE WITHHELD FUNDS

This was one of the major reasons that the Senate was reluctant to provide continued funds for their activities. Privately, many Senators were demanding a house cleaning. Proponents carefully promoted national publicity to the effect that Fascist influences were blocking their worth-while objectives, but it availed them nothing. Actually a large majority of the Senate probably favored the ostensible objectives of these committees (the examination of monopolies, bigbusiness control, international cartels, etc.). But the Senate was dubious of having this work done under the auspices of the existing staffs.

Another previous action of the Senate was aimed directly at fellow-traveler infiltrations on congressional-committee staffs. It was the successful effort of Senator Wherry and others to publicize and curtail the use of borrowed “downtown personnel" from the executive departments in staffing committees.

Naturally, there are many legitimate reasons why at times experts from the executive departments should be available for congressional committee use. But, when Senators felt that it had become the means whereby Communist sympathizers assembled their cohorts and placed them in a position to scheme from the inside on legislative activities, without any direct lines of responsibility to either the Senate or to the Government agency on whose pay roll they were carried-then, the Senate curbed the practice.

As a first step, the Senate required all committees to publish regularly in the Congressional Record pertinent information about borrowed personnel. Later, provisions were made requiring committee personnel to be on the congressional pay roll. This provided control of funds and a closer check on personnel.

One of the important ways in which fellow-travelers on committee staffs have carried on their activities is through the illicit use of committee information. In general, committee staffs participate in executive sessions and have access to committee files, which frequently include private documents which the committee has obtained under subpena on recommendation of the staff. Unscrupulous employees can give out this information to friends, as the private spying system against their enemies, as an advice tip-off of committee thinking, or as a means of bringing pressure to bear where it might effect a desired course of action. On several occasions I have had the revealing experience of receiving prompt protests and advice from strange and remote sources the day after I had voiced anti-Communist sentiments or voted contrary to the prevailing Communist Party line in executive sessions that were wholly unreported in the press. Such reac tions could not occur without an effective grapevine.

Even more insidious is the practice of coloring the information that is disseminated so that local organizations, party-line newspapers, periodicals, and circular letters can incite and inspire any desired reaction by high-pressure propaganda techniques. This device is most effective under conditions where the legislation or parliamentary situation is highly complex

Under the Reorganization Act, powers and procedures of committees have been clarified, various records systematized, and lines of authority more firmly established. The reorganized committees will now be in a position to choose their staffs by majority vote and by careful selection they can weed out the Communists

and fellow travelers.

With regard to minimum wage and FEPC legislation, it is my personal conviction that the Communists and fellow travelers who lobbied on these bills preferred to get no bills at all. I learned after the completion of the Senate hearings on the minimum wage bill that hearing schedules had been rigged to the end that testimony from anti-Communist sources on the bill was not taken, or else received merely as a statement for the record rather than as testimony before the committee. Committee employees are well aware that testimony and information can be made to appear either important or unimportant, depending on how it is released or scheduled.

Illustrative of the unscrupulous tactics of Communists or fellow travelers on legislative matters is a personal incident that happened when this legislation was under consideration. A left-wing official of a left-wing union of Milwaukee issued a carefully prepared statement, purportedly on behalf of the Milwaukee County and the state C. I. O. councils, which declared that any "claim" I might have to being a liberal was "blasted" by my record on minimum-wage and FEPC legislation.

Specifically the statement charged: (1) That I had voted to include the farm parity rider on the minimum wage bill, (2) that I had voted against labor because I voted on one amendment to reduce from 65 cents to 60 cents the minimum wage figure carried in the bill, and (3) that I "sat idly by" while the FEPC was filibustered to death.

Charge Number One was an outright falsehood. I had voted against the parity rider on two different occasions when the amendment was submitted. The falsehood apparently was intended to be used as a "whipsaw": first, to inflame labor, and then after denials and publicity, when the truth had partially caught up with the falsehood, to inflame the farmer on the other side of the fence,

Charge Number Two was a skillful distortion of fact. It appeared plausible, if no mention were made of the fact that this was a carefully considered compromise on the part of all the genuine proponents of the bill, in an effort to get a measure passed. The Communists wanted no bill. They wanted only an issue to arouse discontent.

98078-47-57

Charge Number Three was without basis. I had given full support to the FEPC legislation and had even voted against displacing it with other business when a cloture vote failed.

This particular incident backfired in part. The national legislative representative of the C. I. O. repudiated the charges and requested the local affiliates in Milwaukee to publish the facts. However, the Communist-dominated Wis consin C. I. O. News, the official state organ which had splashed the original story on its pages, failed to devote a single line of type in retraction or correction.

CONGRESS TRIES-BUT IN VAIN

The Congress in past years has been pursuing persistent but futile efforts to eliminate disloyal employees from the service. Congress has placed a succession of riders on appropriation bills to bar Communists, all on the mistaken theory that they will graciously identify themselves if asked to do so, or perhaps that they will have a twinge of conscience and refuse to sign a loyalty or no-strike pledge. That is a naive approach.

The difficulties of proving disloyalty charges are great, and the civil rights of employees must be protected from witch hunts. It is clear, however, that the government has not made very serious efforts to investigate questionable employees. In 1945, when the civil service "suitability" investigations were at a peak, only about one person out of every 25 placements was checked. Only 74 persons out of several million placed were declared ineligible on grounds of disloyalty.

In the current fiscal year, the Commission's budget for investigations was cut so drastically that only about 1,500 cases will be investigated. The general need for more investigations is indicated by the size of the so-called bar and flag files of the Commission, which contain names of persons proved or suspected of disloyalty to the government. In Congressional hearings last year it was reported that these files contained more than 100,000 names. No information has been disclosed as to how many of the suspected cases are in the federal service.

It is no help to the federal service that some of the leaders of one of the major unions of federal workers, the United Public Workers of America, a C. I. O. affiliate, is definitely sympathetic to the' Communist party line. Its president, Abraham Flaxer, was one of the three members representing the leftwing viewpoint on the special policy committee of C. I. O. President Murray at the Atlantic City convention last November. This union has frequently vacillated in asserting and then renouncing the right to strike against the gov ernment. The no-strike-against-the-government rider on Congressional appro priation bills was directed at members of this union.

Any discussion of Communism invariably involves organized labor. Fellow travelers have made some of their most successful forays into this segment of society. Often charges of this nature have been made without justification and with the intent to discredit union labor. Yet, to the credit of labor it must be said that many honest and forward-looking labor leaders and unions are themselves endeavoring to expose and destroy this cancerous growth.

Infiltration of organized labor has been a major objective for Communists for several good reasons. First of all, unions are large in membership. If captured, they represent substantial economic and political power. Secondly, Communism has an appeal to persons who are dissatisfied with their existing status. Communism makes glowing promises, and also works the other side of the street. Communism deliberately encourages discontentment.

Trade unions are by no means uniformly infested. The infiltration is spotty, varying widely from union to union and from one locality to another.

POLITICS OR PORK CHOPS

A number of the left-wing unions of the C. I. O. are sympathetic to the Communist party line. The largest of these is the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers. Others are Ben Gold's Fur and Leather Workers (he is an avowed Communist); Michael Quill's Transport Workers; Joe Ryan's International Longshoremen (he is not left enough to suit many of his membership); Abram Flaxer's United Public Workers; Reid Robinson's Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers; the Farm Equipment and Metal Workers; the United Furniture Workers; and the American Communications Association. These, among others, are the C. L. O. unions that are "more interested in politics than in pork chops."

The last national conventions of both the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations recognized the gravity of the situation and went on record in opposition to Communism. The A. F. of L. condemned it as a major threat to freedom. Under threat of resigning his leadership, "Phil" Murray piloted through the C. I. O. convention, unanimously and without debate, a "resent and reject" resolution. Dissatisfied anti-Communists pointed out that Communists had voted for the resolution, against themselves. The avowed Communists who acknowledge their affiliations and are out in the open are not the most serious menace to democracy. It is the fellow travelers who are difficult to classify. There is no litmus-paper test for these people. In any organization it is difficult to know positively which individuals are actually Communists deliberately working under cover, and which individuals are being unwittingly used as window dressing. Actions are more reliable detectors of the real purposes of an organization than verbal protestations or official labels.

The vicious aspect is not that Communists want a drastic change in our political or economic organization. In a free county, Communists, too, are entitled to their opinions. They have the right to try to persuade the majority to adopt their opinions. The vicious aspect is injected with the fanatical doctrine that the end justifies the means; that deceit, disloyalty, trickery, shamanything goes if it promotes Communism.

Suppression is no answer to these tactics. Suppression may involve serious infringements on the civil rights of innocent people. Suppression would only force Communism further under ground and renew the zeal of fellow travelers. The democratic way is to arouse the membership of all organizations to assert the prerogatives of majority rule against Communism. It is a problem that all groups in our society must face.

Liberals must divorce themselves from fellow-traveler elements or they will be discredited and immobilized.

Conservatives cannot afford to be smug with the notion that this is a fight outside of their bailiwick, that any battle on the left wing will redound to their benefit. If our institutions topple from Communist infiltration, they, too, will be ground under the heel of tyranny.

Industry and government have it within their power to minimize the superficial appeal of Communism by improving the status of the underprivileged in this country and by showing the people the relative merits of our system of free enterprise, as against any other.

Above all, the spotlight of publicity must continue to shine on the activities of those who are disloyal to the fundamental liberties and freedoms of the individual citizen which our government was formed to foster and protect.

EXHIBIT No. 13

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

This Constitution of the Communist Party of the U. S. A. was adopted by the Tenth National Convention, May 27-31, 1938, and amended by the Special Convention, November 16-17, 1940. Section 1 of Article V was amended by the National Committee, June 1942, by authority of Article X of this Constitution.

PREAMBLE

The Communist Party of the United States of America is a working class political party carrying forward today the traditions of Jefferson, Paine, Jackson, and Lincoln, and of the Declaration of Independence; it upholds the achievements of democracy, the right of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and defends the United States Constitution against its reactionary enemies who would destroy democracy and all popular liberties; it is devoted to defense of the immediate interests of workers, farmers, and all toilers against capitalist exploitation, and to preparation of the working class for its historic mission to unite and lead the American people to extend these democratic principles to their necessary and logical conclusions:

By establishing common ownership of the national economy, through a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; the abolition of all exploita