hesitant to lend my wholehearted support for the establishment of a so-called Commission. But this may be sound and wise. On the other hand, I see no reason at the moment why the work could not be as effectively done by a continuing or standing committee of the Senate and House acting in cooperation one with the other. I do feel that the startling facts which this committee has developed with reference to the use of defamatory and scurrilous literature demands an answer in the form of legislation. Our committee expressed the view and indeed entertained the hope that such tactics were on the decline. We made that statement based on a special study and survey which we conducted of various types of defamatory and scurrilous literature circulated in that campaign. Briefly, we found that in volume it was much less than that which had been brought to the attention of the 1940 committee of which your present chairman, Senator Gillette, was also chairman. As I recall, Senator Gillette in 1940 directed that a particular, concentrated, and studious effort be made to collect and analyze these appeals to bias, prejudice, and emotion, and we sought to carry on the fine example which he set in the subsequent work of our committee. Rather than a decline we have now seen that the resort to this gutter type of political attack increased with appalling and sickening vigor. The time has come for action, not words. This type of back-street trafficking in vile distortions of truth has no place in the American way of life, and has no place in any Federal election let alone an election looking toward the selection of a member of this body. Your recommendation with respect to the fixing of responsibility for expenditures, contributions, and activities directly on the candidate himself is indeed worthy of much consideration and unquestionably is justified by the data which your committee has collected. This may be difficult of accomplishment and since I have not given the subject any considerable thought and study, I believe that prudence would dictate that I refrain from making any more than some general observations thereon. On the whole, such legislation might well be a deterrent to some irresponsible persons who occasionally seek Federal office and who are prone to lay upon the shoulders of others the blame for glaring violations of statutory law as well as basic ethical concepts of good government. However, I am constrained to utter a word of caution. I would suggest that the committee, when it comes to the task of framing such legislation, avoid the doctrine of vicarious liability for the acts of others with whom there is, at most, a very indirect relationship within a party or committee. There are times, as we all know, when rival candidates or parties are prone to attribute to the opposition direct responsibility for vices for which there can be only a tenuous basis in fact. In short, the periphery of liability should be determined at a definite point within the party or committee framework. The suggestion for the prohibition against the use of any and all composite pictures and related media of misrepresentation is both timely and necessary. The recent Maryland election is proof positive for such a proposal. While it isn't necessary to belabor this point, which has already been made in pressing and telling fashion by this committee, I do want to say that the thinking public of America would unquestionably hail such an amendment as a step in the right direction. We must make every effort to protect our valued freedom of the press and freedom of speech, but certainly freedom cannot be confused with "license" to commit fraud and to tear down the public welfare by such means. Your point 5 which pertains to revision upward or elimination of limitations upon candidates' expenditures is also one to which we devoted our attention in the 1944 committee. A similar recommendation was made and I believe that you will find in our committee report the unanimous recommendation for the elimination of ceilings on individual candidate's expenditures. I again reiterate the views which I expressed there. There may be much merit to the proposition that the limitations should not be done away with entirely, but rather revised to reflect present-day realities, but, again, this is a matter of statistics and is one on which this committee has unquestionably collected much valuable data which shall serve as a guide toward influencing the committee in the correct solution of the problem presented by the present unrealistic limitations. The suggestions with respect to the requirement that all contributions and expenditures made on behalf of a candidate be reported by the candidate personally either to the Clerk of the House or the Secretary of the Senate or both on revised forms designed to assure uniform reporting and a concomitant recommendation that the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate be enjoined to inspect, analyze, and report thereon is an excellent and worthy recom HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS ON S. Res. 187 A RESOLUTION TO INVESTIGATE SENATOR JOSEPH R. TUTED AGAINST HIM 23092 PART 1 SEPTEMBER 28, 1951, MAY 12, 13, 14, 15, AND 16, 1952 Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules and Administration UNITED STATES WASHINGTON: 1952 COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION CARL HAYDEN, Arizona, Chairman THEODORE FRANCIS GREEN, Rhode Island HENRY CABOT LODGE, JR., Massachusetts GUY M. GILLETTE, Iowa WILLIAM BENTON, Connecticut EARLE C. CLEMENTS, Kentucky THOMAS C. HENNINGS, JR., Missouri WILLIAM E. JENNER, Indiana ROBERT C. HENDRICKSON, New Jersey EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois |