Federal administrative agencies, and much of it inexcusable, in my opinion. But at the same time these are continuing agencies that have had increased functions delegated to them by the Congress, and in the administration of those functions they have had to expand-unreasonably so in many cases; but the fact remains that they are continuing agencies with expanding functions. This right of the individual voter to cast his vote under conditions where it will be counted on a comparable basis with every other citizen, is one single function, and it is the deprivation of the right of the individual citizen to be placed on a fair and equitable and comparable basis with every other citizen, to cast his vote untrammeled, and have that vote counted, that I am seeking to prevent. Mr. Chairman, may I just say one word with reference to this other proposed legislation, S. 592 and S. 594, and then I will not impose on you any further. Senator HATCH. It is no imposition; we are awfully glad to have your views, Senator Gillette, and you are touching upon a question that is vital. Senator BUTLER. Don't hurry on our account. Senator GILLETTE. I did want to refer to these for a minute. Senator HATCH. I wanted to say this, that it is my impression, Senator Gillette and this is occasioned by what Senator Butler said about debauchery-that you didn't mean, when you used the term "debauchery," the actual buying of votes, for instance. Of course we have legislation as to that. But you meant the wholesale spending of money in such quantities as to amount to debauchery? Senator GILLETTE. Yes. Senator HATCH. Even though the expenditures were, in themselves, legal? Senator GILLETTE. Yes; and it is not my contention now that the expenditures in the last campaign which I referred to, up to $20,000,000 as reported to us, were not legal under the statute. The best legal minds that we could get reached the conclusion that they were legal; but it seemed to me that it gave such an opportunity for the expenditure of these sums of money to influence the voters, that it gave not only corporations, but individuals, an unfair advantage. Now the other two measures that are before you pertain to a more difficult matter even than this that we have been discussing the use of subversive propaganda, in political campaigns. This committee I mean the committee of which I had the honor to be chairman-called attention to it and we urged that something be done because it reached an all-time high in the last campaign. The use of subversive and prejudicial campaign literature has been common in all campaigns, and any attempt to control it brings you right head-on to the right of the individual to express his opinions, within the limitations of the slander and libel laws. If I think that the candidate for the Presidency is a rat, I have a right to express that, as an American citizen, and the right to do so ought not be interfered with. But there was evidence that to us was incontrovertible, though it could not be documented, that in this last campaign much of the literature that was circulated was financed from abroad for the purpose of creating disunity in the United States. And the question came up, and comes up at the present time, Isn't there some way that we can control that and not interfere with freedom of speech and expression? A suggested method is embodied in these two resolutions. Senator GILLETTE. Yes. S. 594 was written by a group of lawyers who worked on it for months up in New York, and sent it to me for introduction. The other, S. 592, was a suggestion of a member of our committee. The first one approaches it simply as a matter of criminal charge. I want to call attention to the fact that this book that I have brought in here and I am going to leave it with you-is a compilation of that type of literature used in the 1940 campaign, and an astounding percentage of it is anonymous. The difficulty is that the circulators of that type of literature hide behind a coward's cloak of anonymity. There was a definite instance that I will call attention to. One of the Milwaukee papers carried one of the most vicious political advertisements I have ever seen; I don't recall now which party it concerned, and it doesn't make any difference, but we sent an investigator out there to this newspaper. "Yes, we printed that"a political advertisement, no name of an endorser or sponsor, but labeled "political advertisement." "Who ordered it?" There was no record on the books. But after investigation they found that some man came in with his copy and said: "What will it cost to print this?" "Four thousand dollars". "All right"-and he dug down in his pocket and dug up the $4,000 in cash and paid for it, and there is no record as to who it was. So, from the fact that an astounding percentage of this literature was of that type, anonymous, it occurred to us, as the committee at the time, that there might be some advance made or some control reached in that direction, and that if I wanted to say that a candidate was a rat, I should be able to do it but that I should also be willing to sponsor the statement; and that possibly if we could make it a criminal matter if a man printed or circulated this type of literature unless it carried on its face the name of the sponsor, that that would at least require these people to endorse what they are putting out. I just want to call the committee's attention, to show the devious methods they use, to this one on page 5 of this book. Now this is a leaflet that was circulated in the last campaign. [Reading:] BEWARE, AMERICAN JEWRY! A CRISIS CONFRONTS OUR PEOPLE! The champion protector of Israel is threatened by the dark forces of reaction. We must not yield nor lose the gains made possible by the fearless leadership of our defender. We must not permit the election of one who might alter the course set to punish our arch enemy by force of arms. Franklin D. Roosevelt has proved his loyalty and affection for the Jewish people by 1. Earning the Jewish medal. 2. The appointment of Sidney Hillman Prof. Felix Frankfurter Judge Samuel Mandelbaum Vote New Deal. Leo Paslovsky David A. Salmon Now that was circulated with no sponsorship. Tens of thousands of them were circulated in New York. But this letter came to me on November 18, 1940. [Reading:] DEAR SENATOR GILLETTE: On Monday, November 4, the day preceding election day, thousands of campaign leaflets were thrown from the roofs of buildings in the Wall Street area. I am herewith enclosing one of these leaflets and that was one that I just read - As you will see, it was the intention of those responsible to indicate that the Jews were distributing this leaflet and were asking for the reelection of President Roosevelt. I have caused an investigation to be made, and have found that the following persons promoted and financed the distribution of these leaflets: Col. E. N. Sanctuary, of 511 West One Hundred and Thirteenth Street, New York City. This gentleman has for years been engaged in anti-Semitic propaganda. He has distributed the Protocols of Zion, the Talmud Unmasked, and so forth. Dr. Kingsley, of the Van Courtlandt Hotel, Forty-ninth Street and Broadway, New York City. This person has likewise been engaged for years in anti-Semitic propaganda. Dr. Arvid J. Enlind, of 853 Seventh Avenue, New York City. This gentleman is a plastic surgeon, who at one time was confined to jail. He was one of the persons who financed the printing and distribution of the leaflet. Now I am only calling attention to the fact that this, without sponsorship, and ostensibly an appeal to the Jewish people to support Roosevelt, was, in fact, published and disseminated by a group that wanted to arouse anti-Semitic feeling and arouse opposition to Roosevelt, which is a matter of no particular moment to me at this time, as to what its effect was, but there is a concrete instance of the wayand this book is filled with them-that, without the requirement of sponsorship of this type of propaganda, so that you can fix responsibility and hold a man to it, it may have a very serious effect on our unity as a nation. I know it raises the question of the right of free speech. The Institute of Living Law sponsored a forum to discuss those bills, and Mr. Seagle, whom you know as a liberal leader and who was head of the Civil Liberties Union, was present. After the discussion there was quite a definite conclusion reached as to the legality and advisability of this law. I would be glad to leave that discussion with the committee for any value they might consider it to have. Senator HATCH. I rather think it ought to be in the record because if it is just left here we will not see it. Let it be included in the record at this point. (The document referred to is as follows:) The ANNOUNCER. This week the New York University Forum Hour brings you a discussion of hate propagandas and proposed legislation to deal with this problem. This program is presented with the cooperation of the Institute of Living Law of Washington, D. C. And here is Mr. Solomon Portnow, moderator of tonight's discussion. Mr. PORTNOw. Thank you Mr. The use of propaganda pitting race against race, creed against creed, splitting apart the unity of the American people, fanning religious and racial intolerance behind the coward's cloak of anonymity reached a new all-time high in the last national election campaign. I should like to call upon Mr. James E. Curry, representing the Institute of Living Law, to give us some of the startling facts which were recently uncovered by Senator Gillette's Committee on Campaign Expenditures as a background for tonight's discussion. Mr. Curry, will you give us some of these findings? Mr. CURRY. Certainly; and here they are: "Out of all the printed campaign literature received by the Gillette committee relating to the recent elections, one-half was entirely unsigned or only partially identified. One-third was wholly anonymous and this included the most virulent, dishonest, and scurrilous campaign material published.' Mr. PORTNOW. That is certainly food for thought, Mr. Curry. We are fortunate in having with us tonight Mr. James Waterman Wise, research consultant of the Council Against Intolerance. Mr. Wise will you give us your views on this very serious problem? Mr. WISE. Mr. Portnow, it gives me great satisfaction that some Americans are at last wakng up to the dangers of this type of propaganda. We know that our national strength is the strength of Americans of many faiths: Americans whose blood has come from many lands; Americans who are united in loyalty to the democratic way of life. These things we know. What we do not always recognize is that these things are also known to foreign nations contemplating the destruction of the democratic way of life. The Nazis and their allies, for example, when they attack the Jews or the Catholics or any other racial or religious group in this country are not merely attempting to discredit a minority group-they are attempting to confuse and paralyze the Nation as a whole-to confuse us and to paralyze us by fostering racial and religious cleavages that undermine all possibility of national defense. Mr. PORTNOW. Isn't that a bit exaggerated? Mr. WISE. No I am not spinning idle theory. I am repeating what the Nazi theorists themselves write in their instructions to Nazi agents in the United States. They say that in order for their campaign in the United States to attain its goal, the population must be reduced to a mass of mutually suspicious and antagonistic racial and religious groups. There is nothing new or mysterious about this technique. When these agents of dictatorships set race against race and creed against creed, they merely carry out the old military maxim of the Roman legions: Divide and conquer. Gentlemen, we must smash this menace to American democracy before it grows any bigger. What Senator Gillette's committee found should be a warning. We have had enough of idle arm-chair discussion. I propose that we take action now, decisive action, action with the most powerful machinery that we have-the machinery of the Federal Government-and that we put an end to this attack upon our national unity. Mr. PORTNOW. That is indeed a serious situation, Mr. Wise. Mr. Seagle, a staunch supporter of civil liberties, and author of two books on the subject, To the Pure and There Ought To Be a Law, has been persuaded to take part in this discussion. Mr. Seagle has upheld this cause even where he disagreed with the views of those whose right to speak he sought to protect. And I am going to ask Mr. Seagle whether he thinks that it is possible to take any effective legal measures against the Nazi propagandists and their allies without violating constitutional rights and civil liberties. This Friends Mr. SEAGLE. I want to say in the first place that I am entirely in sympathy with the purposes that animate Mr. Wise. The main fight of the friends of civil liberties is the fight against unfair racial and religious discrimination. anonymous propaganda is such discrimination in its most vicious form. of civil liberties must fight and expose it. Besides, it is merely a weapon in the hands of those interests who would destroy all civil liberties and all other attributes of democracy. We are all of us members of minorities; a majority is, after all, only a temporary alliance of minorities. And so if we can do anything effective to protect Catholics, Jews, Mormons, and Protestants, German-Americans of the first and second generation, Italian-Americans, Polish-Americans, and every other minority group, against the flames of prejudice, I am all for doing that. There are many worthwhile organizations which are fighting these prejudices: for instance, the Council against Intolerance which Mr. Wise here so ably represents, and organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Common Council for American Unity. But I don't think that we should lose sight of the dangers that are inherent in any program which calls upon the Government to suppress any kind of opinion, no matter how hateful that opinion may be. In the first place, I think that any such legislation would not achieve its purpose. At most, it would make martyrs out of a few Nazi agents. How can you be sure, Mr. Wise, that legislation designed to protect racial or religious groups against slander will not be used against these very groups, or used to prevent criticism of political and social corruption on the ground that such criticism is a reflection on a candidate's race or religion? Mr. WISE. It seems to me that this attitude of not wanting to take any action because any action carries possible dangers, is typical of the impotence of a purely negative liberalism. That is precisely the sort of thing that made the German Republic incapable of dealing with enemies from within. We too will be going down the Weimar Road that leads to Berchtesgaden and the Brown House in Munich, unless we make up our minds that we are going to take action and not worry forever about hypothetical dangers. No question of civil liberties is involved when individuals who are not speaking from their own consciences spread the paid words of a foreign master. After all, we are operating against a gang that has no scruples and we may find ourselves continuing this discussion some day in a concentration camp. Before that day comes, we should adopt legislation with teeth in it, legislation that will put the purveyers of poisonous propagandas behind the bars. Mr. PORTNOW. How about that, Mr. Seagle? Mr. SEAGLE. I seem to recall that the Weimar Republic put one Adolf Schickelgruber behind the bars and that he used the occasion to wirte a book called "Mein Kampf," which he has since been putting into practice. But, seriously, how can you possibly distinguish in legislation between what is called "poisonous propaganda" and "honest opinion"? Certainly, we have in this country many diverse opinions about the virtues and vices of southerners, Yankees, Negroes, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, atheists, Scandinavians, Mexicans, Orientals, and every other group that helps to make up our Nation. How can you possibly distinguish between honest expression of opinion on these subjects and malevolent attacks upon national unity? Remember that you are proposing to deal with the problem, not with the instruments of science but with the clumsy tools of juries and politically appointed prosecuting attorneys and judges who are not always of the caliber of Holmes or Brandeis or Cardozo. You can't fix a watch with a pickax. To the extent that the campaign against Jews or Catholics or any other groups makes headway in a community, your prosecutors won't prosecute and, if they do, your juries won't convict. You'll get convictions only where these hate propogandas have not made any headway and these convictions won't do much good. Mr. PORTNOW. It looks as though we've reached an impasse; the impasse of a democracy that cannot become strong enough to defend itself without becoming too strong to continue a democracy. I recall a line of Tennyson's that goes: "Freedom free to slay herself, and dying while they shout her name." But I am not ready to call quits. I think that we have here a practical problem of social engineering in trying to deal with the evils that Mr. Wise has pointed out and at the same time avoid the dangers that bother Mr. Seagle. I should like to call on Mr. Curry to hear what he has to say. Mr. Curry is one of the organizers of the Institute of Living Law, which is dedicated to the view that law is a form of social engineering, available for the solution of pressing social problems, and not merely a set of dogmas and precedents. Mr. Curry. Mr. CURRY. I have been very much impressed by the seriousness of the problem that we face in trying to maintain the traditions of American tolerance and democracy against the mounting flood of hate propagandas. I don't think that Mr. Wise has exaggerated the picture in the least. At the same time I agree with Mr. Seagle, that it would be worse than useless to legislate against the expression of these poisonous ideas. The investigations of Senator Gillette's committee show that about half, and the worst half, of this propaganda is anonymous. Most of the remainder of the propaganda is only partially identified, in that the author's name may appear, or at least the name of someone who appears to be the author, but the name of the foreign governments that are responsible for the pamphlet do not appear, and the names of the sponsors and contributors who publish it and circulate it are often concealed. Now, in the face of this concealment, there is very little room for the functioning of the free force of public opinion that Mr. Seagle talked about. And so I think we should be achieving a great deal, perhaps not everything that Mr. Wise hopes for, but I think the major part of his objective, if we could secure legislation requiring complete disclosure |