Mr. BALDWIN. I do not. Mr. BROWN. Could you advise us whether or not he is on your pay roll in any way? Mr. BALDWIN. I can say he is not on our pay roll. I think I know all the people on our pay roll. Mr. BROWN. Has he received any expense money in any way from either of your committees? Mr. BALDWIN. Not to my knowledge. I will have to look that up. I will be glad to do that and inform the committee. METHODS USED IN OBTAINING CONTRIBUTIONS Mr. BROWN. Do you know the methods used by the local committees in obtaining contributions to the National Citizens' Political Action Committee or the C. I. O. Political Action Committee? Mr. BALDWIN. I know the method used in the present dollar campaign. Mr. BROWN. Could you give us a picture on that? Mr. BALDWIN. Well, the local union members have been asked to contribute a dollar each. We understand 50 cents of that is to be used locally and 50 cents is to be sent to the national office. The determination of what is done with that 50 cents locally is in the hands of the local people. Mr. BROWN. And no reports are made to you? Mr. BALDWIN. No reports are made to us on the use of those funds, because that is up to them. They are not under our supervision. These organizations all function in a democratic manner. It depends on what determination they want to make as to the use of those funds. Mr. BROWN. Are any pressure methods used in any way to influence contributions which you know of? Mr. BALDWIN. No. We simply ask them to contribute. We, as a matter of fact, have told our people not to use any force in that matter. We want them to be entirely voluntary funds raised in the campaign. Mr. BROWN. What percentage of the funds collected are retained; have you any idea? Mr. BALDWIN. No; we have not; because that drive starts next week. Mr. BROWN. Of course, in the case of your C. I. O. Political Action Committee, a great deal of the money was contributed by labor unions to the committee. Mr. BALDWIN. Six hundred thousand; practically the entire amount given us. Practically all of that came from the trade unions that made them-$671,214.11. CONTRIBUTION BY AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA Mr. BROWN. I would like to direct this question to you, Mr. Hillman: Besides being the chairman of the National Citizens' Political Action Committee, and chairman of the C. I. O. Political Action Committee and chairman of the American Labor Party in New York, you are also head of the Amalgamated Mr. HILLMAN. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. Mr. BROWN. How is that? Mr. HILLMAN. President of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. Mr. BROWN. And that organization made a contribution of how much? Mr. HILLMAN. Of $100,000. Mr. BROWN. $100,000 to the C. I. O. Political Action Committee? Mr. HILLMAN. To the C. I. O. Political Action Committee. Mr. BROWN. Which you, of course, stated in your statement was formed as a political organization? Mr. HILLMAN. No. I said the C. I. O. Political Action Committee, which coordinates the political and educational activities of the C. I. O. organization- Mr. BROWN. Well, it is a political organization; is that not true? Mr. HILLMAN. In the sense of political activities carried on by the labor organizations. HATCH ACT SECTION 13 (A) Mr. BROWN. And you have been very careful to obey the law? Mr. BROWN. What about section 13 (a) of the Hatch Act? Have you read it? Mr. HILLMAN. May counsel answer the legal questions? Mr. BROWN. I would like you to answer it, please. Have you read it? Mr. HILLMAN. Of course we acted on the advice of counsel, and of course counsel should answer that question. Mr. BROWN. Oh, I do not agree to that. You can certainly answer me as to whether you have read that section of the law. Counsel ought not to have to answer that. Mr. HILLMAN. I have read it and we were advised by our counsel Mr. BROWN. What has been that advice of your counsel? Mr. HILLMAN. That we are within the law-perfectly legal. Mr. BROWN. Under that 13 (a) paragraph? Mr. HILLMAN. I could not say, you know, about 13 (a). Mr. Abt is counsel of our organization, and, of course, before any action was taken, he gave us his legal advice. Mr. BROWN. Well, let me read section 13 (a) to you: It is hereby declared to be a pernicious political activity and it shall hereafter be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to make contributions in an aggregate amount in excess of $5,000 during any calendar year, or in connection with any campaign for nomination or election on behalf of any candidate for an elective Federal office, including the office of President of the United States and Vice Presidential electors or (2) on behalf of any committee or other organization engaged in furthering, advancing, or advocating the nomination or electionnomination, now of any candidate for any such office or the success of any national politica party. This subsection shall not apply to contributions made to or by a State or local committee, or other State or local organizations. (b) For the purposes of this section, the term "person" includes any individual, partnership, committee, association, corporation, or any other organization or group of persons. Mr. HILLMAN. Of course, we have been guided by the legal advice of counsel and, of course, our counsel is here to give you his explanation. Mr. BROWN. But it is your position that the $100,000 contributed by your labor organization Mr. HILLMAN. Oh, yes. Mr. BROWN. To the C. I. O. Political Action Committee Mr. HILLMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. BROWN. Which you here designate as a "political organization" Mr. HILLMAN. I have not Mr. BROWN. Is not in violation of the law? Mr. HILLMAN. I have not designated it that. Mr. BROWN. Oh, yes; here is your statement, where you did so designate it for us. Mr. HILLMAN. Yes-for the political and educational activities of labor organizations. Labor organizations have carried on activities in that line since the very beginning of labor organizations. But, pardon me; I want to answer and I am asking that the counsel explain to you. After all, I am a layman Mr. BROWN. Of course, but let us understand each other, before you have your counsel answer. Just to fix the fact that you did designate the C. I. O. Political Action Committee as a "political organization," in speaking of it here time after time you call it a "political organization" and you say, for instance, and I quote your words, Mr. Hillman, "I know of no other political organization which has so consistently conducted its affairs in the light of day or so fully cooperated in furnishing appropriate agencies of the Government information, than this organization." You therefore call this a "political organization." You say so here in the second paragraph, and you say it in the third, and all the way through you denominate this as a "political organization." Mr. HILLMAN. You desire information, and counsel is ready to answer you. Mr. BROWN. I am asking you, now-do you, or do you not, say this is a "political organization"? Mr. HILLMAN. I am saying to you that on advice of counsel the Amalgamated made this contribution. We were advised that that is a legal contribution. Mr. BROWN. Well, we will leave that for a minute. Mr. HILLMAN. Very well, if you leave that, what is the question? Mr. BROWN. The question is, Do you consider the C. I. O. Political Action Committee a political organization? Mr. HILLMAN. Not in the sense of a political organization purely for the activities of electing candidates. Mr. BROWN. Purely or impurely, either one; do you or do you not consider it a political organization? Mr. HILLMAN. An educational organization in the field of politics. Mr. BROWN. In other words, you want to educate them to vote the way they ought to vote? Mr. HILLMAN. Educate them as to the issues that are at stake. Mr. BROWN. In your judgement you are a political organization. Then you tell me that you are not. One time you are and the next time you are not. Which time are you a political organization? Mr. HILLMAN. This is getting quite amusing. Mr. BROWN. It is not only amusing, but very peculiar. Mr. HILLMAN. That is right. You have asked me a question about this organization making a contribution, and I say to you that we have legal advice, and counsel advises that it is legal. Why not get the counsel to answer it and argue it out with him on the question of law? Mr. BROWN. If the contribution was not made to a political organization, there would not be any argument, and I am trying to find out whether you now call yourself a political organization. Mr. HILLMAN. I would like for counsel to answer you. Mr. ABT. May I answer that? Mr. BROWN. I suppose that you may. Mr. ABT. In the first place, I would like to call your attention to the fact that the term "political organization" is not used in section 13 of the Hatch Act at all, so I think that your debate with Mr. Hillman was not quite apropos of the point here. What the Hatch Act says is that no contributions in excess of $5,000 in any calendar year, or in connection with any campaign, shall be made to a committee engaged in furthering, advancing, or advocating the success of a candidate. That is the language of the Hatch Act, as I recall it. Is that correct? Mr. BROWN. You have done that by contributing money. Mr. ABT. May I finish? You are referring, as I gathered from your questions of Mr. Hillman, to the contribution of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of $100,000 to the C. I. O. Political Action Committee. That contribution was made to the C. I. O. Political Action Committee in October of 1943. At the time that contribution was made to the C. I. O. Political Action Committee, the C. I. O. Political Action Committee was not engaged in furthering, advancing, or advocating the candidacy of anybody. As a matter of fact, there were no candidates for Federal office at the time that contribution was made. The Attorney General, wrote a letter to Congressman Howard Smith in April of this year in response to his request for an opinion. He wrote that letter after a full investigation of all our books and records made in February and March of this year. At the time that investigation was made, the $100,000 contribution to which you refer had already been made. The Attorney General found and stated in his letter to Congressman Smith that there had been no violation of any Federal law, and I assume that one of the grounds for that opinion was the point that I have just made to you; that is, at the time the $100,000 contribution was made the C. I. Ö. Political Action Committee was not, in the language of the Hatch Act, engaged in advocating, advancing, or furthering the candidacy of anybody. Mr. BROWN. Have you finished? Mr. ABT. There are a number of other grounds and reasons why that contribution is not a violation of the Hatch Act. If you want me to, I will go into the others, but I think that ground is sufficient. Mr. BROWN. But of course this $100,000 went into the C. I. O. Political Action Committee fund and was held there and kept there, and after the Attorney General made his ruling, which in no way men tioned this particular section of the Hatch Act, you took money out of that very same fund and sent it to certain candidates for Congress, and otherwise spent money contributed, directly for campaign purposes. Mr. ABT. Oh, yes. Mr. BROWN. You still contend that is not a violation of this section? Mr. ABT. All that we have before us is the language of the Hatch Act. Mr. BROWN. I know it. Mr. ABT. The Hatch Act prohibits contributions in excess of $5,000 to a committee engaged in certain activities. Mr. BROWN. Yes. Mr. ABT. Obviously, the crime must be committed at the time the contribution is made. Something that committee may do in the future cannot make an act retroactively criminal that was not criminal at the time that it was done. At the time that contribuion was made the C. I. O. Political Action Committee, and the public records will so show, was not engaged in advocating or furthering anybody's candidacy. Therefore, at the time that contribution was made it was not made to a committee, according to the language of the Hatch Act, engaged in furthering the candidacy of any candidate. So at the time the contribution was made it was not made in violation of that provision. The fact that the committee subsequently undertakes to further or advance the candidacy of a particular candidate obviously cannot make illegal an act that was legal at the time it was done. Mr. BROWN. If your argument is sound and you can convince a jury or a court of that, it will be all right, but that decision will have to remain for the future. Now, at the time you organized you said it was for certain political purposes. You have put out literature long before the nomination and election of candidate Mr. ABR. Sir? Mr. BROWN. Your literature in place after place asks for the nomination and election of certain candidates. Mr. ABT. Of a particular candidate? Mr. BROWN. It does not have to be a particular candidate. You fix yourselves then as a political organization. You were a political organization at the time you were formed; you were a political organization in my opinion, and in the opinion of most people, at the time the contribution was made. Of course, in my opinion, you are absolutely in violation of the Corrupt Practices Art. Mr. ABT. Are we talking about the Corrupt Practices Act or the Hatch Act? Mr. BROWN. One or the other; probably both. Mr. ABT. Let me suggest this to you: The Baltimore Sun, I understand Mr. BROWN. I do not know anything about it. Mr. ABT. May I finish my statement? Mr. BROWN. Yes. Mr. ABT. The Baltimore Sun recently came out with an editorial advocating and endorsing the election of Mr. Dewey as President of . the United States. Unquestionably, it is advocating and furthering and advancing the candidacy of a candidate. The Baltimore Sun, like |