Dr. WITHERS. Yes.

Senator DONNELL. And you moved from St. Louis to New York? Dr. WITHERS. That is correct.

Senator DONNELL. And you-are a graduate of Columbia University? Dr. WITHERS. That is right.

Senator DONNELL. And what was your next step in your educational work, Doctor?

Dr. WITHERS. Then I began teaching. I taught at Lehigh University, and at New York University, and subsequently at the Teachers College, and also Columbia University, and then transferred from there to Queens College. At the present time I am again teaching at Columbia University.

Senator DONNELL. Doctor, you are appearing here for two organizations, I understood you to say?

Dr. WITHERS. Yes. I regret to say I did not make that clear.

The Liberal Party wishes to endorse this statement. They have no statement of their own, but they are in full sympathy with the statement as prepared for the Union for Democratic Action.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you describe the Liberal Party?

THE LIBERAL PARTY OF NEW YORK

Dr. WITHERS. The Liberal Party is perhaps the newest party in the State of New York. It now, in my opinion, holds the balance of power in the State of New York. It has had in various elections from one hundred and fifty to three hundred thousand votes. It in general is a new third party which seeks to support liberal principles. Senator DONNELL. When was it formed?

Dr. WITHERS. Well, it was formed a year ago. Our second convention was just held this month.

Senator DONNELL. It issued a platform; did it?

Dr. WITHERS. Well, I am a member of the national legislative committee of the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party has discussed the health-insurance question for some time through the national legislative committee, and this committee authorized me to represent the party at these hearings.

Senator DONNELL. Yes.

Then you say that it, that is to say the Liberal Party, is in thorough harmony with the statement presented by you in behalf of the Union for Democratic Action?

Dr. WITHERS. Yes. At least with the principles involved.

Senator DONNELL. Yes.

What is the Union for Democratic Action?

THE UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION

Dr. WITHERS. Well, the Union for Democratic Action is a liberal group which is interested in such public questions as these and is attempting to develop real democracy in government.

Senator DONNELL. When was it formed?

Dr. WITHERS. Well, several years ago. I do not know the exact time of its formation, but I am now a member of the board of the Union for Democratic Action, the national board.

Senator DONNELL. Is there a man by the name of Lewis Corey connected with the organization?

Dr. WITHERS. No, sir. Not that I know of.
Senator DONNELL. Did you ever hear of him?

Dr. WITHERS. Yes, sir.

Senator DONNELL. He was then head of the research council of that organization at one time; was he not?

Dr. WITHERS. I do not know whether he held that specific title. I do know he did assist in the research of the organization at one time. Senator DONNELL. He is no longer connected with it?

Dr. WITHERS. No longer connected with the organization.

Senator DONNELL. Do you know whether or not his name was actually Lewis Corey or Louis Fraina?

Dr. WITHERS. His real name was Louis Fraina, but I know a whole lot about Corey. I knew him way, way back.

Senator DONNELL. Yes.

Now, that organization was under consideration by the committee of the House of Representatives on subversive activities aimed at destroying our representative form of government, was it not?

Dr. WITHERS. I do not know that it was.

Senator DONNELL. In the Seventy-seventh Congress, second session. You do not know about that?

Dr. WITHERS. I did not follow any such thing.

Senator DONNELL. I call your attention at this time to Report No. 2277, which was committed on June 25, 1942, to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed, and in that connection, I call your attention to the fact that this special report of the committee described in some detail the Union for Democratic Action, and I shall file in a moment with the committee the copy of that report.

I note among other things the reference to a 32-page document published by the Union for Democratic Action in collaboration with the New Republic. Are you familiar with that document?

Dr. WITHERS. No, sir.

Senator DONNELL. You are not.

I observe this language, also, at page 5 of that report:

The extraordinary attack upon Congress made by the document of the Union for Democratic Action becomes understandable when the identities of those who make up the union are exposed.

This vituperative and scurrilous document was presumably the work of the research council of the Union for Democratic Action. The union's research council is headed by Lewis Corey, described in the union's literature as its research director. Who is Lewis Corey?

In the first place

continues the document:

Lewis Corey is not the real name of the man who bears the title of research director of the Union for Democratic Action. For many years, the man who now calls himself Lewis Corey was known in the international Communist world as Louis Fraina.

And then continuing further on the same page, the document reads: Better than anyone else, Louis Fraina fits the characterization of the "original Communist in the Western Hemisphere."

And a little further, on the next page:

Louis Fraina was the first Communist editor in the United States.

And later:

Louis Fraina served on the executive committee of the Communist International. His Communist activities extended to many countries. For a period

of time, he was stationed in Berlin. Lenin commissioned Fraina to go to Mexico to organize a Communist revolution.

In 1932, after Fraina had already assumed the name of Corey, he participated in the election campaign on behalf of the Communist Party's candidates, William Z. Foster and James W. Ford.

Is he connected in any way whatsoever with the union at this time? Dr. WITHERS. No, sir.

May I clarify that point?

Senator DONNELL. Yes; I would like to have you do so.

Dr. WITHERS. I would hate to refer to myself, but I am generally known in New York as one of the most violent anti-Communists in the United States. I am a member of the board of the Union for Democratic Action largely because that organization is now quite anticommunistic. I would not remain on the board 1 second if I felt that the policies of the organization were procommunistic.

Mr. Corey was at the time that he collaborated with the Union for Democratic Action anti-Communist. He had been thrown out of the Communist Party. He was persona non grata with the Communist Party.

It is not correct to assume that at the time he did work for the Union for Democratic Action that he was communistic at all. He was very definitely anticommunistic, and is now, but his connection with the Union for Democratic Action was never such as to determine its policies, and his connections have been severed now for at least, I am sure, 5 years, and the whole policy of the Union for Democratic Action is decidedly anticommunistic.

Senator DONNELL. Doctor, this document from which I have been reading was filed in 1942, and among other things, says:

Inasmuch as Fraina has now entered the American "parliamentary campaign" of 1942 as the research director of the Union for Democratic Action, it is enlightening to have his own words describing the purpose of such campaigns. Do you think that is an incorrect statement, that as late as 1942 he was research director of the Union for Democratic Action?

Dr. WITHERS. I do not think he was, and in addition to that I do not think he was communistic at that time.

Senator DONNELL. Do you disagree with the view that he was the first Communist editor in the United States, as expressed in this publication?

Dr. WITHERS. I am sure he was not the first Communist editor in the United States. I am sure there were other Communist editors. Mr. Jerome, I think, antedated Mr. Corey as a Communist editor. Senator DONNELL. Is J. B. S. Hardman connected with your organization?

Dr. WITHERS. Not that I know of.

Senator DONNELL. He was at one time?

Dr. WITHERS. I think he was at one time.

Senator DONNELL. His real name is Jacob Salutzky?

Dr. WITHERS. I do not know very much about his name.

Senator DONNELL. And he was once nationally prominent leader of the Communist Party of the United States. That is true, is it not? Dr. WITHERS. I am not sure if that is true.

Senator DONNELL. Is Thomas R. Amlie still director of the Washington Bureau of the Union for Democratic Action?

Dr. WITHERS. No; he is not.

Senator DONNELL. He is no longer with the bureau?

Dr. WITHERS. No.

Senator DONNELL. I will file with the reporter for the records of this committee, this report No. 2227.

(The report referred to is as follows:)

[H. Rept. No. 2277, 77th Cong., 2d sess.]

SPECIAL REPORT ON SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES AIMED AT DESTROYING OUR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT

SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES AIMED AT DESTROYING OUR REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF

GOVERNMENT

THE ISSUE

Over a large part of the world of today, democracy has been long dead. Political processes which once assured the common man some degree of genuine participation in the decisions of his government have been superseded by a form of rule which we known as the totalitarian state. The essence of totalitarianism is the destruction of the parliamentary of legislative branch of government. The counterpart of this destruction of the parliamentary institutions of democracy is the concentration of all power, irresponsible power, in the hands of the totalitarian dictator. In some countries, as in Hitler's Reich, the old forms of paliamental government have been retained while the reality has been utterly effaced. The Reichstag has been degraded to an assembly of puppets who are called together at irregular intervals to scream "Ja" at the Fuehrer's bidding. No greater fallacy could obsess the mind of man than to assume that such a procedure with its outward show of absolute unity represents ultimate strength. In the totalitarian-ruled lands where democracy is dead, the undying issue confronting men is the restoration of freedom. In America, the issue confronting us is not the restoration but the preservation of the political institutions of freemen. This issue compels us to take cognizance of a widespread moveinent to discredit the legislative branch of our Government. The issue simply stated is whether the Congress of the United States shall be the reality or the relic of American democracy.

THE FORM OF THE ATTACK

The effort to obliterate the Congress of the United States as a coequal and independent branch of our Government does not, as a rule, take the form of a bold and direct assault. We seldom hear a demand that the powers with which Congress is vested by the Constitution be transferred in toto to the executive branch of our Government, and that Congress be adjourned in perpetuity. The creeping totalitarianism by which we are menaced proceeds with subtler methods. The senior United States Senator from Wyoming has called attention to the work of men who "in the guise of criticizing individual Members of Congress are actually engaged in the effort to undermine the institution itself." Many of the efforts to purge individual Members of Congress are based upon an assumption which reflects discredit upon the entire legislative branch of Government. That assumption consists of the view that the sole remaining function of Congress is to ratify by unanimous vote whatever wish is born anywhere at any time in the whole vast structure of the executive branch of Government down to the last whim of any and every administrative official.

Henry Luce's Time magazine has been drawn sucker-fashion into this movement to alter our form of government by attacking its legislative branch. Time's part in the attack takes a generalized form which is clearly directed against Congress as an institution. Time's issue of May 25, 1942, gives a two-page spread to the attack made upon Congress by the Union for Democratic Action (with which this report is principally concerned), and then Time adds its own indictment in the following words:

"Few men nowadays challenge the assertion that for leadership the people now listen to the Government's executives, take counsel from the Nation's press (whether or not they agree with it), get their debates and oratory from radio forums-but they watched Congress mainly for laughs."

It is one thing to indict individual Members of Congress for their votes and opinions with which one is in disagreement; it is an entirely different matter to scoff at the institution of Congress.

A more direct attack upon the Congress of the United States is found in a recently published and widely discussed book, The Managerial Revolution, in which the author describes the manifestations of congressional independence as "the petty tyrannies of an already close-to-powerless old man." The author, Prof. James Burnham, declares that "the localization of sovereignty in parliament is ended save for a lingering remnant in England (where it may not last the next few months), in the United States, and certain of the lesser nations." Expounding his theory of the new seciety of the managerial revolution, Professor Burnham observes:

"In the new form of society, sovereignty is localized in administrative bureaus, They proclaim the rules, make the laws, issue the decrees. The shift from parliament to the bureaus occurs on a world scale. Viewed on a world scale, the battle is already over. ** * * The process is, naturally, not yet completed in the United States. Congress is not yet the same as Hitler's Reichstag and Stalin's Soviet Congress. But it has gone much further than Congress itself, would be willing to realize."

Each of the foregoing citations-one from a United States Senator, one from a weekly magazine, and one from a professor of philosophy-serves to indicate a movement in the United States. If this movement ever reaches its fulfillment in the nazification of the American Government, we shall find ourselves bearing a striking resemblance to the hateful thing against which we are now mobilizing our total resources.

IDEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND OF THE ATTACK

From the evidence which this report sets forth in later sections, it will be clear that the spearhead of the attack upon Congress as an institution stems from a group of men who have had long training and experience in the ideology of Karl Marx. It is pertinent, therefore, to draw attention to the official declarations of the Marxist movement which deal with the subject of the legislative or parliamentary branch of government.

The Theses and Statutes of the Third (Communist) International, a document accepted as the basis of the program of the Communist Party of America, contains the following statement:

"Therefore the deep hatred against all parliaments in the revolutionary proletariat is perfectly justified."

The same official document includes the following:

"Communism repudiates parliamentarism as the form of the future; its aim is to destroy parliamentarism."

It is true that Communists engage in political campaigns for the ostensible purpose of electing their friends and members to legislative bodies, but the official view of the Communist International on this matter is set forth in the following language:

"The Communist Party enters such institutions not for the purpose of organization work, but in order to blow up the whole bourgeois machinery and the parliament itself from within."

Communist literature is filled with declarations concerning parliamentary institutions similar to the foregoing citations. Further examples would be mere repetition. The Communist position sums up to the following: Discredit parliamentary institutions in every way possible, penetrate them for destructive purposes wherever possible, and wait for the emergency when they may be destroyed altogether.

The current campaign against Congress, engineered by the Union for Democratic Action and its agents such as Lewis Corey, fits perfectly into the Marxist pattern reflected in the foregoing quotations.

SOURCES OF THE ATTACK ON CONGRESS

Attention has already been called to Henry Luce's Time magazine and its scoffing at the legislative branch of our Government. It is not alleged that Luce is a Marxist or a conscious collaborator with the Marxist-inspired movement to discredit Congress. On the other hand, it is clear that Luce's magazine has of late contributed much to the effort to undermine popular confidence in one of the essential branches of our American form of government.

Our investigation has shown that a steady barrage against Congress comes from Marshall Field's PM (sometimes described as the uptown edition of the Daily. Worker); from the New Republic, one of whose editors, Malcolm Cowley, was recently forced out of an $8,000 Government job by the exposure of his