I would hope through the work of this committee, educating people to what this thing is, that we would have a relatively small problem. But we really don't know how many there are or may be. Mr. MOULDER. I have one more question, Mr. Chairman. When they make application for a license, are they required to take an oath that they are not a member of the Communist Party or any other organization seeking to overthrow the Government by force or violence? Mr. LEE. No; they do not. They are, of course, subject to a false statement given to a Government agency for which there is a criminal penalty. But we do not have the so-called loyalty oath on our form, as such. When we get information from the other Government agencies that a man is or may be when his license comes up for renewal we send him that specific question-which, of course, is the Borrow case. Mr. MOULDER. However, it is only when it is called to your attention? Mr. LEE. That is correct, sir. Only when it is called to our attention. I might mention on the Borrow case that my counsel, Mr. Holtz, thought that we should put this one statement into the record: that the Borrow case, if it stands up, gives us the implicit authority that your bill would make explicit. The CHAIRMAN. Where in the existing law, is there an express authorization for you to ask the question you did in the Borrow case? I am going to give you a curbstone opinion, and it may or may not be worth anything, but we have seen on so many occasions the court holding that unless it is spelled out specifically, it is nonexistent, on the theory that the Government has no authority, no implied authority, to protect itself. This is a new idea, but nonetheless that is the situation. Mr. HOLTZ. I think it may be quite correct, and we count ourselves fortunate at this time that we have been able in the Court of Appeals stage to impress the court with the argument that we do have the authority to ask this question. You are correct that there is no specific authority to permit us to ask a given question. But our argument has been, and I think it makes a lot of sense logically, that when a person is a licensee or a permittee of the FCC, that we as the licensing authority have the right to ask proper and valid questions, and he, in turn, as a reciprocal duty to the commission, should answer and give us that information, which is pertinent as far as we are concerned. This, again, is the point which will be determined at the Supreme Court level. Mr. SCHERER. Supplementing what our chairman said, in the Green case the Supreme Court indicated that the Government didn't even have any property right in its own secrets or classified information. That is the net result of the Green case. Mr. HOLTZ. The statement that the chairman has made is not in any way to detract from the salutary efforts of this bill. I am sure Mr. Arens will appreciate that. It is only to preserve our position in litigation when it gets to the Supreme Court. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, ever since Cole versus Young, this committee is just the least bit worried about a lot of things that have happened in the Supreme Court. Is there anything else? Mr. ARENS. Nothing further of these gentleman, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SCHERER. I am just happy that the Federal Communications Commission has such able counsel. Mr. HOLTZ. Thank you. Mr. JOHANSEN. I have one question, Mr. Chairman. You speak of reviews of applications when the licensees come up for renewal. Are there many instances in which you are able to be effective in denying a renewal by reason of information regarding Communist Party membership or affiliation? If Mr. LEE. There are relatively few instances where we are able to do much good. If he refuses to answer, we have reason to proceed. he answers and says "Yes" we could proceed with a hearing. If he lies, unless we have witnesses to prove it, we really don't have very much. Mr. JOHANSEN. So you are pretty much at the mercy of the applicant in the situation? Mr. LEE. Certainly there is an overwhelming burden of proof on the Government. Mr. JOHANSEN. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Mr. ARENS. The next witness, if you please, Mr. Chairman, will be Michael Mignon. Please come forward and remain standing while the chairman administers an oath. The CHAIRMAN. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. MIGNON. I do. TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL MIGNON, A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, NEW YORK, N.Y. (APPEARING IN RESPONSE TO A SUBPENA ISSUED BY THE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES) Mr. ARENS. Please identify yourself by name, residence, and occupation. Mr. MIGNON. My name is Michael Mignon. I live in Brooklyn, New York. I work for the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as a representative of that union. Mr. ARENS. Mr. Mignon, you have previously testified before this committee and have recounted to this committee your experiences and activities as a one-time member of the Communist Party; is that correct? Mr. MIGNON. That is correct. Mr. ARENS. I do not intend in this session to interrogate you in detail on that, but I would like to ask you just to state for this record, if you please, the dates of your membership in the Communist Party and just a word about your service. Mr. MIGNON. I was a member of the Communist Party from 1936 to on or about 1940, as I testified previously, sir. Mr. ARENS. Did you, as a member of the Communist Party, know as a member of the Communist Party a person by the name of Philip D. Boothroyd, B-o-o-t-h-r-o-y-d? Mr. MIGNON. Yes, sir. I was introduced to him as a member of the Communist Party on the West Coast in or about 1938. Mr. ARENS. And do you here and now testify that you knew him to a certainty to be then a member of the Communist Party? Mr. MIGNON. To the best of my knowledge; yes, sir. Mr. ARENS. Mr. Mignon, based upon your background and experience, both in the Communist Party and in the communications industry, in the event of armed hostilities, would a member of the Communist Party who had access to communications facilities hesitate to attempt to adversely affect the defensive mechanism known as CONELRAD? Mr. MIGNON. In my opinion they would not hesitate at all because, as members of the Communist Party, as I knew the Communist Party when I was a member thereof, they would be under Communist Party discipline and would obey the orders of the Communist Party. Therefore, if there were a war, or an attack between ourselves and any Communist country, I have no doubt in my mind that a member of the Communist Party would not hesitate, as a matter of fact, he would do all possible, to aid the enemy of our country. Mr. ARENS. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that we could pursue other matters with Mr. Mignon, but they are not germane to the theme we are presently pursuing. I, therefore, suggest that will conclude the staff interrogation of this witness. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you again, Mr. Mignon, for your continued interest in this very thankless job all of us have. You have made a great contribution, you and your great organization. Stick to it. Mr. MIGNON. Mr. Chairman, as I testified previously, it is the belief of my union, the Communications Workers of America, and myself specifically, that there is no room for a member of the Communist Party in the communications industry. That is voice and non-voice. We stand by that statement. Mr. SCHERER. I remember well Mr. Mignon's previous testimony before this committee, which has been extremely helpful. I would suggest, Mr. Arens, that the record at this point at least include a reference to Mr. Mignon's previous testimony1 so it may be referred to. I think it fits in properly with the brief testimony he has given here today. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Mignon. Mr. ARENS. The next witness, if you please, Mr. Chairman, will be Philip D. Boothroyd. Please come forward and remain standing while the chairman administers an oath. The CHAIRMAN. Will you raise your right hand? You do swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. BOOTHROYD. I do. 1 See "Investigation of Communist Penetration of Communications Facilities-Part 1," p. 1410, July 17, 1957. TESTIMONY OF PHILIP D. BOOTHROYD, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, LEONARD B. BOUDIN Mr. ARENS. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and occupation. Mr. BOOTHROYD. My name is Philip D. Boothroyd, and I live in Sparta, New Jersey. Mr. ARENS. And your occupation, please, sir? Mr. BOOTHROYD. I decline to give my occupation. Mr. ARENS. Why? Mr. BOOTHROYD. It is irrelevant to the discussion. Mr. ARENS. We will pursue that in just a moment. Are you represented by counsel here today? Mr. BOOTHROYD. I am. Mr. ARENS. Counsel, will you kindly identify yourself on this record? Mr. BOUDIN. Leonard B. Boudin, 25 Broad Street, New York 4. Mr. ARENS. You are appearing in response to a subpena which was served upon you? Mr. BOOTHROYD. I am. Mr. ARENS. Now, tell the committee your occupation. Mr. BOOTHROYD. I decline to answer on the grounds that it is irrelevant to this question. Mr. ARENS. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest the witness now be ordered and directed to answer that question. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. You are directed to answer the question, although I think it is futile. Every time I see a Communist lawyer coming up here with a witness I know what he is going to answer. Mr. BOUDIN. I think the chairman's remarks are very improper and very unfair. The CHAIRMAN. It is the way I feel and it is the fact. I do not know whether you got out of the Communist Party or not. Mr. BOUDIN. As the chairman undoubtedly knows, I have never been in the Communist Party and I have so stated to the committee. The CHAIRMAN. Yes, I know you stated that. I know all the time you were a professor in the Communist school. Mr. BOUDIN. I think the chairman's remarks are very unfair, very improper, and very unprofessional. The CHAIRMAN. You are entitled to your opinion of me as I am entitled to my opinion of you. Mr. BOUDIN. You are a member of the bar and you have no right to discuss another member of the bar in that way. The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. You are directed to answer the question. Answer the question. Mr. BOOTHROYD. I have been a radio operator in the past. Mr. ARENS. Do you presently hold a radio operator's license? Mr. ARENS. What is the nature of the temporary permit which you hold? Mr. BOOTHROYD. An application which I made for renewal on my expired license. Mr. ARENS. Am I clear and is the record clear that you presently have an application for a license as a radio operator? Mr. BOOTHROYD. Yes, sir. Mr. ARENS. And what type of radio operating equipment do you operate? Mr. BOOTHROYD. I have operated many kinds. Mr. ARENS. Give us the principal kinds, please, sir. Mr. BOOTHROYD. Shipboard and broadcast. Mr. ARENS. And are you presently the holder of some type of a permission or permit by the FCC to operate equipment, radio equipment? Mr. BOOTHROYD. I have a statement which says that I can operate this equipment on displaying of an application for renewal. Mr. ARENS. How long have you had this permit to operate the radios? Mr. BOOTHROYD. For several months. Mr. ARENS. What type of license have you had in the past? Mr. BOOTHROYD. I decline to answer. Mr. ARENS. Why? Mr. BOOTHROYD. I do not believe the committee is pursuing any relevant purpose in asking me. Mr. ARENS. I respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, the witness be ordered and directed to answer that question. The CHAIRMAN. I did not hear the question. Mr. ARENS. The question is what type of radio licenses has he had in the past and he declined to answer it because he said it was, in effect, irrelevant. The CHAIRMAN. These were licenses issued by the United States? Mr. ARENS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You are directed to answer the question. Mr. BOOTHROYD. I didn't hear. The CHAIRMAN. You are directed to answer the question concerning the issuance of licenses, a matter which is of public record. Mr. BOOTHROYD. The license I was issued was a first-class radio telephone, broadcast license. Mr. ARENS. Where did you utilize that license? Where did you work? Mr. BOOTHROYD. In the broadcast industry. Mr. ARENS. Where? Mr. BOOTHROYD. I decline to answer. Mr. ARENS. Why? Mr. BOOTHROYD. I decline to answer because of my rights under the fifth amendment, under which I do not-cannot be required to testify against myself. Mr. ARENS. Do you honestly apprehend that if you told this committee while you are under oath where you were employed to utilize that radio operator's license you would be supplying information that might be used against you in a criminal proceeding? Mr. BOOTHROYD. It is possible. Mr. ARENS. Now, sir, where are you presently employed? Mr. BOOTHROYD. I decline to answer. Mr. ARENS. How long have you been employed at your present employment? Mr. BOOTHROYD. I decline to answer. Mr. ARENS. Are you now a member of the Communist Party? |