There was another case of an offensive motion picture the complaint regarding which was based on the fact that it was sacrilegious. It undoubtedly was, but the courts found that in this country we do not have ecclesiastical courts and in going back over decisions regarding sacrilege, that most of them dealt with invasions of church property. Perhaps if this case had been brought under the dictionary definition that it was offensive to chastity or decency, the court might have taken a different view.

We feel sure that so far as the public is concerned, the proceedings of this committee will give courage to their members to rise in protest against these practices and to do their part in trying to put a stop to them. We now have committees going to local newsstands and protesting books and magazines there on display. We shall be happy to call attention through our publications to the proper sources to which to make complaints regarding any of this literature that may fall into anyone's hands.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE L. WARFEL, PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SPECIAL DELIVERY MESSENGERS

Chairman Granahan and members of the committee. For the record, my name is George L. Warfel, president of the National Association of Special Delivery Messengers, our membership being comprised of special delivery messengers in the postal field service.

At our national convention held in Kansas City, Mo., last August, the delegates unanimously voted to support the efforts of Postmaster General Summerfield to prevent use of the mails for distribution of indecent and pornographic material.

We feel that the wide distribution of such material and its ready availability, especially to the youth of our country, constitutes a threat to the very foundations of our Nation. Therefore, our membership will support local campaigns organized to prevent the distribution and availability of such trash and filth.

STATEMENT OF JEROME J. KEATING, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS

The National Association of Letter Carriers is highly appreciative of the opportunity to make a statement on this most important subject that is now before this committee.

As employees of the Post Office Department, we are very proud of the work we do delivering mail to the people of the United States. We regard our position as one of great trust and responsibility. Responsible, dependable people have always been selected to carry important communications and valuable objects. We take pride in this work.

The members of our organization are considerably distressed to see the mail service being degraded by the type of mail that is being sent through the postal service by purveyors of pornographic literature. We highly commend this committee for holding hearings on this important subject and we commend the Postmaster General of the United States for carrying on a vigorous campaign to get this type of mail eliminated from the mails.

This type of literature has a very bad effect on the young and, of course, it is to the young people that this mail is being directed. It is generally sent without being ordered and we pledge our organization to assist you in doing anything what we can to help eliminate this insidious, vicious activity.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. In the future, if anyone here would like to have a statement in the record, we would be very happy if you would contact my office or the staff within the next few days before our hearings are printed. All the hearings that have been held to date will be printed in the very near future and that will be the first section of our printed hearings.

Mr. Wallhauser?

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Madam Chairman, at the personal request of Rev. Paul J. Hayes, assistant director of the Newark Archdiocesan

Office for Decent Literature and Decent Motion Pictures, in Newark, N.J., I would like to read his statement.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. No objection.

Mr. WALLHAUSER (reading):

We are grateful to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service of the House of Representatives for the invitation to submit a statement relative to the traffic in obscenity and pornography which is being carried on by means of the U.S. mails. At the outset, we should like to commend the Post Office Department for untiring efforts to stamp out this type of traffic in the mails. In spite of their efforts printed obscenity and pornography continues to be found in the mailboxes of countless American citizens-even juveniles who never took any steps to order such material. It is being sent into their homes uninvited. It has been estimated that 50 million direct mail advertisements for pornography go into homes annually. In addition to this, there are innumerable advertisements through magazines inviting customers to send for films or printed matter through the mail. One typical advertisement for movies appeared in a magazine entitled "Sizzle," volume 1, No. 1, on page 40: "Start building your collection of movies now. These exclusive films will make you the envy of all your friends. Lucious stripteasers and beautiful Hollywood pinup models will taunt and tease you. Some will disrobe before your very eyes. Others will caper in scanty costume." The reader is invited to send for such movies through the U.S. mails. Juveniles, particularly boys, are often the target of indecent photographs, printed matter and movies. These juveniles may have sent for a stamped catalog, model airplanes or photography equipment from a legitimate mail-order house. The mail-order house then sells mailing lists to others and before long an innocent boy begins receiving advertising matter, unsolicited, for pornography. At other times, such unsolicited material appears in a household with the simple address "occupant."

It has been reported that Gen. Mark Clark, who heads the Citadel, complained to the Post Office Department in Washington that every cadet at the Citadel had received such objectionable ads in the mail. In addition to the type of material being sent through the mails as what might be termed material for recreation and diversion, there is a growing tendency to use the mails for socalled marital, medical, or sex instruction material. This type of material is also being sent unsolicited to more and more wholesome families who resent having this sent to their homes by the public mails and do not hesitate to say that they are embarrassed to receive some of this material. One such type of material, together with a letter received at our office, is hereby submitted to the committee.

How is it that the type of material about which we have been speaking continues to flood the mailboxes from coast to coast in spite of the best efforts of the Post Office Department? It would seem that there are two particular reasons. (1) That this is a big financial business and the individuals and companies involved in it are little concerned with moral harm done as long as their profits continue, and (2) the ultraliberal decisions of the courts relative to obscenity and pornography in recent years. It would seem that individuals and families who continue to receive such objectionable material uninvited into their homes through the mails, should have a hearing. The courts and so many liberal elements constantly proclaim the rights of minorities to free speech and freedom of the written word. We must never forget that majorities, too, have rights. One of these rights is the protection of the sanctuary of the home from reception of obscene and pornographic material.

We should suggest the following:

1. That the legislators investigate the problem of the sale of mailing lists to firms who are using names of innocent people for selling printed filth.

2. That the legislators investigate prudence and feasibility of more stringent penalties for violation of the existing laws.

3. That the legislators look into the growing traffic in material claiming to be medical or scientific.

4. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined the test for obscenity as being "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest." A large segment of the public considers the material about which we have been speaking as obscene. They represent contemporary community standards. Individual judges sitting in cases relative to obscenity and pornography in the

mails seem not to have considered the material obscene. Application of existing laws together with any future legislation should perhaps take more account of the norm given in the Roth v. United States case relative to the judgment of obscenity.

There is a need for further legislation to face this increasing problem of the use of the mails for pornography and obscenity. The legislation should be aimed at taking into account and coping with past decisions of the various courts which have been so liberal. The U.S. Post Office is to be commended for their past efforts and encouraged for the future.

Madam Chairman, I also would like to submit without reading, with permission by you and the committee, a statement by Mr. Allen C. Bradley, of the Advocate, which is the official publication of the Archdiocese of Newark, N.J., and the diocese of Paterson, Most Reverend Thomas A. Boland, S.T.D., Archbishop of Newark, and the Most Reverend James McNulty, Archbishop of Paterson, who are in charge of the Archdiocese.

I appreciate the opportunity to insert these statements in the record. Mrs. GRANAHAN. Without objection, they will be made a part of the record.

(The documents referred to follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALLEN C. BRADLEY, OF THE ADVOCATE, OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF NEWARK, N.J.

Pornography and obscene literature is often directed at young people. Testimony before one investigating committee pointed out that a certain distributor of this filth used a high school graduating class mailing list to peddle his merchandise. The entire situation of pornography and obscene literature is a degrading influence and is striking at the moral foundation of our youth. Records prove that it is one of the principal causes of the sex murder and other crimes against sex.

The above, in part, could lead to a breakdown in the moral virtue of our country, resulting in a society that is weak, with little or no will and a complete lack of respect for authority, leaving us very susceptible to any enemy. I would like to interject a few observations, at this point, which leave me wondering as to just how much influence the Communist Party played in the publication and distribution of this type of literature. If this observation is true, are they now directing the avalanche of foul matter that is going through the mails? The very thought of using the U.S. mails to open the door for conquest is indeed frightful.

The possibility of Communist influence was brought out in testimony just last year before a New York joint legislative committee. The possible connection was again referred to in the "Foner" hearings of 1956 before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee.

Used by a revolutionary organization in 1919, "Rules for Bringing About Revolution" state in part: "Corrupt the young, get them away from religion, get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, destroy their ruggedness." The rules go on to state "Get control of all means of publicity and thereby get peoples' minds off their Government by focusing their attention upon athletics, sexy books and plays, and other trivialities." New World News reported this in an article in the February issue of 1946.

The report of the Select Committee on Current Pornographic Material during the 82d Congress referred to War Horror Comics as likely the subversive efforts of Communists.

In conclusion let me say, that I think the Post Office Department is doing everything possible under present law. Perhaps these laws should also be backed by internal security laws. We ban material that is harmful to the body from going through the mails. Why not that which is harmful to the mind?

I would also urge the public to cooperate more fully in furnishing their public officials and in particular the postal authorities with the much needed information and evidence. The close alliance of an aroused public could put an end to the dealers in smut and perversion.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I just want to comment on one point there and I think this is very, very important, that is the matter of these mailing lists and how they are compiled and how they are sold, because these young people who may send for some stamps if they are stamp collectors, or any one of many legitimate items, should not have their name peddled to somebody that is in this business. I think that this is a legitimate field for us to go into and I hope that we can go into this during our next series of hearings.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Yes, I have had that thought, too. There seems to be a spread of this mailing of these obscene letters and I am certainly sure that a lot of these reputable concerns are not aware that their lists are placed in the hands of these dealers in smut. These mailing lists are sold, as I understand, to brokerage houses and then these peddlers of filth buy the lists from those brokerage houses.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. I think that we have been alerted to the problem and I am certain that with the capable leadership under our chairman, we will pursue it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would not have any objection to my little 8year-old son sending in for stamps for a stamp collection book, but if I am going to have to worry about his name getting on somebody's list, then I am going to see that he does not send in for anything, and certainly the legitimate people, if we arouse the public, might consider that and they might take steps to see that their lists do not get into the wrong hands.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Thank you.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Wallhauser.

The subcommittee will now adjourn, subject to the call of the Chair. I want to thank you again for coming, not only those that testified, but those that gave encouragement by their presence.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would like the record to show that we are very pleased with the way our esteemed chairman has conducted this series of hearings and has arranged for these good people to come here and testify.

It has been a real pleasure for me, representing the minority, to participate.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. May I say, Madam Chairman, that I concur with my distinguished colleague from Nebraska and that we recognize that this is a bipartisan effort and we are very thankful to you for your chairmanship.

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Wallhauser.

Before we adjourn this hearing I would like to state that the subcommittee will release a report in the near future which will include a suggested program of action to be followed at the national, State, and local levels.

Community support must be mobilized behind our efforts to safeguard the youth of our land from the dealers of smut and filth. I am glad to see that since our Subcomimttee on Postal Operations began public hearings on this subject on April 23 there has been a public awakening to the seriousness of this problem.

The hearing is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.)

APPENDIX

LOYOLA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW SYMPOSIUM ON THE CASE FOR GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL OF OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS (THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1959)

STATEMENT BY PROFESSOR JOHN CORNELIUS HAYES

Your excellencies, very reverend president, ladies and gentlemen: The title of our symposium is not so pat in its application to this evening's session as it was to the afternoon's session. Because we are not trying tonight to determine what the civil law ought to be-we'are concerned solely with determining as accurately as possible what it is. Nor are we trying to establish that the law, as it is, is for governmental control of obscene publications-rather we want to evaluate the extent to which the civil law, as it is, implements the case for such governmental control or thwarts it.

In making that evaluation, the most basic legal problem encountered at the very outset is the Federal constitutionality of such governmental controls. To this problem, the U.S. Supreme Court first gave some explicit answers in June of 1957, when it decided two cases which it had consolidated for oral argument and for decision. One of those cases (Roth v. United States) litigated the Federal constitutionality of a Federal obscenity statute imposing criminal liability for the knowing deposit of obscene material in the mails. The other case (Alberts v. California) litigated the Federal constitutionality of a California criminal statute imposing criminal liability for selling or keeping for sale and for advertising, obscene material. Hence, the one decision settles the Federal constitutionality of both Federal and State criminal statutes imposing criminal liability for offenses involving traffic in obscene publications or in advertisements therefor.

Except for Mr. Mollen, who will be dealing primarily with a third case which he will describe to you in due course, all of the speakers this evening will be in some sense "taking off" from this Roth-Alberts decision. It is essential, therefore, that you have the decision reported to you and in detail, and it is economical for one person to do it at the outset. So I shall do this basic piece of exposition, with any subsequent speaker invited, of course, to disagree and to present his own construct of the decision-for such is the practice of law. From that you will infer, correctly, that these papers were individually prepared without collaboration, so that areas of disagreement or of inconsistency may well appear. Part of the evening's function is to locate such areas for subse

quent resolution, if possible.

In the Roth case, then, Mr. Roth was indicted by a Federal grand jury on 26 counts which charged him with the knowing deposit in the mails of certain publications declared by Congress to be nonmailable—namely, obscene advertising circulars and an obscene book-all in violation of a Federal obscenity statute prohibiting the knowing deposit for mailing of (among other things) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, or other publication of an indecent character. The defendant was tried by a jury in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York and convicted on 4 of the 26 counts. appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second District, which confirmed his conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court then granted his petition for writ of certiorari and brought the case up for final review.

He

In the Alberts case, Mr. Alberts was conducting in the Los Angeles area a purely mail-order business of selling books, which books he advertised solely by mailed circulars. A complaint was filed against Alberts charging him under the California Penal Code with the misdemeanor of willfully and lewdly keeping for sale certain obscene books, and of writing and publishing an obscene advertisement of those books. Alberts waived a jury and was convicted in a

119