At any rate, this "police intimidation" became a big side issue in connection with, and a vital part of, this overall controversy. Clearly, immobilization of the police was the objective. Police Chief Emery is a former U.S. Marine officer, is a highly competent man, and commands a magnificent police department under some very difficult circumstances of which the people of Madison are, in the main, oblivious. Many problems are imposed upon the police and on the city of Madison, as a consequence of the peculiar sociological outlook which exists on and about the campus. I have, of course, no authority to speak for the police nor for Chief Emery, but I am sure that if this subcommittee wished to speak to him that my observation would be substantiated. As a working newsman, I know that the police do find in Madison and elsewhere that where there exists this type of agnostic philosophy that has no love of God, or says it doesn't, and has no particular pride in that which we call God and country, or patriotism, there is a libertine philosophy that is more than just ideological or political. It shows itself in myriad other ways: "sifting and winnowing" whether this or that may be moral or normal in human relationships. It seems to be a way to flagrantly demonstrate against the entire moral code within the Judaic-Christian tradition. It seems to hold that virtually everything in this established sociological sphere just has to go. This application of sifting and winnowing seems to urge the convenient inquiry, "How do we know what is true? How do we know what is right? Isn't morality relative?" With this attitude toward established morals, and ethics and law and order, it is inevitable that a police department, or a police officer, or a "digging" reporter, is something of a remaining vestige of an archaic and imperialistic American system, as these people portray it.

These people seek at every turn to derogate and discredit and intimidate not only the press, not only professors who are not of liberal orientation and persuasion, not only normal students, but they certainly seek to discredit the police department, on which they impose many, many problems as the defender of public law and morality and order and tranquillity.

This is not impertinent. These things which we are discussing are just not all neatly pigeonholed. They are a part of a total pattern. They are a part of a way of life for these people with the nonconformist, revolutionary outlook. These people can act like devils.

Mr. LITTMAN. I understand. But, Mr. Siegrist, do you wish to add some information on Philip Cheatham Davis?

Mr. SIEGRIST. Shortly before March 7 Dennis and Eisenscher found a moment when they were anxious to get press. The reason was that they were bringing Philip Cheatham Davis to Madison. It was obvious that they wanted all of the favorable coverage that they, in their limited way, could get for Davis. It was assumed that he was a "big gun," and that he was going to come in and really tell the "truth" about the DuBois Clubs and thereby counter that which they said was discredited as the propaganda of J. Edgar Hoover and Bob Siegrist. Dennis had complained that because of the disclosures of Hoover and Siegrist, he was having recruiting difficulties. Consequently, his club, which should have had 75 or 80 paid members, had only 25 or 30. Dennis and Eisenscher, in other words, were having a tough time because of full disclosure.

Mr. LITTMAN. You may continue.

In advance of the Davis arrival, the local media were advised. The local papers, and the Cardinal, obediently carried the announcement in a very straight manner. But, unlike the local papers, I, as a reporter, noted that, actually, there seemed to be a lot of holes in the background of Davis as given to the press. That is, for a young man who, obviously, was so important to the DuBois Clubs of which he was national chairman, and particularly under the local circumstances, it was curious that there wasn't more detail. Consequently, I decided to get those details-which I did, quickly, through contacts in California and in Georgia. High on the list of those details was the Davis police record in both States.

On the afternoon of March 9, on Madison radio station WISM, on one of those programs on which listeners telephone in with questions a program called, I believe, "Party Line"-the announcer who was conducting the program seemed to be quite sympathetic, and the calls seemed to be quite sympathetic for quite awhile. (Some wag who was listening with us suggested that the program's title, that day, was rather apropos.) Davis, with Eisenscher beside him, adding comments against J. Edgar Hoover and Bob Siegrist, seemed to be making pretty good propaganda hay until some listener called in and asked Davis whether, if drafted, he'd "fight" in Vietnam? Davis said that he would not. He struggled, in customary DuBois Clubber fashion, to justify and dignify his answer with semantics. But it seemed to be a losing struggle. By that time, his audience was lost to him. Even the announcer seemed to end his attitude of what had appeared to be sympathy.

The program ended, a few minutes later, with a series of openly hostile calls culminated by one from an obviously irate older man who told Davis to go back where he came from. He charged that he couldn't see any difference between communism in Russia or in Cuba and the kind of "socialism" to which Davis claimed he advocated. In fact, this very angry man suggested that Davis and the other persons whom the man charged with coming to the Madison campus and stirring up trouble which served communism should leave the United States and live in the Communist country of their choice. It was, for Davis and Eisenscher, a very bad ending to their first effort to use the local media to make propaganda hay.

The next day, March 10, a press conference was scheduled for Davis in the Memorial Union. It was poorly attended. Al Davis of my staff was there. He arrived early. He was the first to arrive. Dennis gave him a friendly greeting. That attitude turned, immediately, to one of concern, when, in response to Dennis' question as to whom he represented, Al Davis told him, "Bob Siegrist."

He

Dennis, in his obvious concern, immediately reported this to Philip Davis. As the news conference progressed, Al Davis asked Philip Davis, again, "Even if drafted, would you fight in Vietnam?" Philip Davis tried, at first, to hedge. Al Davis did not let him hedge. reminded him of what he had said, the day before, on WISM. Davis then admitted that he would not fight, even if drafted, against communism in Vietnam. Thus, in short, ended, quite badly, the second effort, by the DuBois Club national chairman, to overcome the results of Bob Siegrist's full disclosure regarding the DuBois Club and its leaders in Madison.

But I had another surprise for him. In addition to reporting these facts in my broadcast of March 10 (which I offer in evidence) I included in my broadcast of March 11 the Philip Davis police record in California and in Georgia.

Mr. LITTMAN. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that at an appropriate point, the conclusion of Mr. Siegrist's testimony, the several papers in the witness' hand be marked as one exhibit and that they be printed in the appendix-assuming, of course, sir, that each is accepted by the chairman as an exhibit.

Senator DoDD. So be it.

Mr. SIEGRIST. About an hour and a half after my March 11th broadcast was heard on WKOW, Madison, Davis, with Dennis beside him, went on the Papa Hambone show on the Capital Times' radio station, WIBA. I had been told that, in February, Papa Hambone had also introduced Richard Criley on that program. I, personally, did not hear it. It is significant, at least, to mention this: Criley was brought to the campus, as a speaker, on February 11. His subject was billed as, "Jerris Leonard and the Smear Tactics of HUAC." I assigned an engineer to make a tape recording of that speech. I offer it, now, in evidence. In short, and significantly, Criley had been brought in from Chicago to join the forces of discreditation against Siegrist and Leonard, with an assault on the House Committee on Un-American Activities thrown in. Criley was billed as the chairman. of the Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights. I offer in evidence a photocopy of my broadcast of February 11, in which I noted that, under oath, as an identified Communist, Criley refused to address himself even to the letterhead of that committee as he repeatedly took the fifth amendment on the grounds of possible selfincrimination. Yet, typically, Criley did appear on the Madison campus, on February 11th, as chairman of the Chicago Committee To Defend the Bill of Rights, and as an associate of Frank Wilkinson, of whom, of course, this subcommittee is fully cognizant.

Note that, on page 2, this February 11th broadcast calls attention. to the February 11th Cardinal's announcement that the Criley talk would be sponsored by the Socialist Club and by the Contemporary Affairs Committee. (Actually, it was the Contemporary Affairs Forum, of which, as I have testified, Arnold Lockshin is chairman.) As I have testified, Prof. Maurice Zeitlin is the faculty adviser for the Socialist Club.

This page 2 of that February 11th broadcast also notes that Frank Wilkinson was billed by the Cardinal announcement as "Chairman of the 'National Committee To Abolish HUAC,'" and that, as I put it: "Frank Wilkinson is something of a perennial favorite with the leftoriented faculty and student elements on both the Madison and the Milwaukee campuses of the University of Wisconsin."

Page 3 notes that Professor Zeitlin, that night, was to participate in a panel discussion "*** on * **Viet Nam," and that, on February 9th, Zeitlin's "windup speech" on the Capitol steps "was the loudest, the roughest, and the most emotional of all of the speeches delivered at the rally."

Page 4 notes that the Worker of December 8th carried a page-one story about "Nine peace organizations and other groups" that were urging "President Johnson to declare an immediate cease fire on the

part of American forces in South Viet Nam, followed by their earliest possible withdrawal."

The Worker story listed "the Socialist Party" among these, and added that "Activities will include demonstrations in cities across the U.S., visits to Congressmen, and letter-writing campaigns."

Page 5 of my February 11th broadcast notes that the Cardinal of December 12th announced that Professor Zeitlin had formed a faculty committee, which, 117 professors strong, had signed a request to President Johnson "urging an end to the War in Viet Nam."

I have here the Daily Cardinal of February 12, 1965. Note that its front page carries a report on Criley's speech.

I have here also the Daily Cardinal of February 27, 1965. Note the editorial page, almost the lower half of which is devoted to a signed article by Richard Criley, entitled, "Those Who Disagree Are Dupes."

Returning to the February 12th Cardinal, note that the bannerheadlined prime story on page 1 carries a report on a campus "debate" on Vietnam in which Prof. Maurice Zeitlin and Graduate Student Donald Bluestone represented the opposition to U.S. policy. Note, too, the picture which includes both men. Also note that this story is followed by a report on the then-forthcoming "silent vigil" on the State Capitol grounds "to protest the United States bombing of North Viet Nam" on February 13 and 14. Note that the story carries the byline, Sue Reeve. She proved to be one of the "regulars" among the left-wing picket cult. She was in the forefront of the initial demonstrators at the Capitol steps on February 9.

Here is a copy of the front page of the Wisconsin State Journal of Wednesday, February 10, 1965. It shows a picture of a portion of the crowd which, on the 9th, gathered at the Capitol steps to hear U.S. Vietnamese policy condemned and criticized.

Sue Reeve has been identified to me as the little girl in the center of the front line in this picture on the Wisconsin State Journal front page; the girl with the straight hair and horn-rimmed glasses, carrying the sign, "Cease Bombing Immediately." The young man to her left, wearing the Russian-type hat, and glasses, holding the sign, "Cessation of Bombings," is Michael Eisenscher. The little girl between them with the straight black hair proved to be another "regular" in such demonstrations. I do not know her name. The latest picture of a demonstration in which, to the best of my knowledge, this same girl showed, was a week ago Saturday, when this Committee To End the War in Viet Nam turned out, at Capitol Square, to picket the Armed Forces Day Parade. I also saw this unidentified girl board the chartered bus for the April 17th March on Washington.

This picture which I am told, again, shows Sue Reeve boarding that same bus-in this one, as you see, she was carrying a large banner proclaiming, "You're the Yo Yo on McNamara's String." Sue Reeve is from Perkasie, Pa. She is an example of a student who was permitted to write an "objective" report on a left-wing demonstration, then participate in that, and subsequent demonstrations-rather than "cover" them in the capacity of an "objective" reporter. This is, then, a good commentary on that which the University of Wisconsin has permitted to be accepted as the Cardinal's "objective" reporting.

Nor is it insignificant to note the great number of bylines by "John Gruber, managing editor," which, predominantly, almost exclusively, were used in his reports on left-wing actions and activities. My files contain a tape-recording of the 55-minute interview which, on March 11, Papa Hambone gave to Philip Davis and to Eugene Dennis, Jr. In view of that inquiry from my attorney regarding the earlier ad lib criticism which Hambone had reportedly offered against Bob Siegrist and the Allen-Bradley Co., I considered it significant that, in this interview, Hambone, personally, avoided the use of my name or that of my sponsors.

As the recording shows, his first question to Davis was one in which he snidely referred to the exposition, that night (obviously on my broadcast) of Davis' "criminal record." It was, therefore, clear that Davis and Dennis were clearly shaken by my exposure of that record. The recording also shows the Hambone remark was followed by laughter, but, more significantly, the Davis admission that what I said was true. Then, of course, Davis attempted to explain away that arrest record by alibiing that one had to understand the circumstances; that he had been a "civil rights worker in Georgia,' and that, as I recall it, all a person has to do in Georgia as a civil rights worker in Georgia is walk down the street and he is arrested for disorderly conduct.

Well, I submit that the arrest record of Philip Davis, as I have it, and as I reported its highlights, disproves that as the shallow and insulting propaganda that it was. For, as is documented, Philip Davis' arrest record in Georgia included, for example, his being charged with standing in front of the civil defense headquarters at Albany, Ga., and throwing bottles at police cars and condemning the American civil defense system, and so forth, which hardly was a civil rights matter. Nor did Davis address himself to his record in California where, as one of the members of the Ad Hoc Committee Against Discrimination, he and others had been arrested in picketing action against the parking lot and loading zone of the Oakland Tribune trucks.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Counsel, Davis left town, I understand, for Chicago. All efforts to intimidate Siegrist and to make him stop working and talking, had failed. So, the next thing that happened in this connection showed itself on March 15, 1965. The Wisconsin State Journal and the Capital Times, both operated by Madison Newspapers, Inc., carried an intriguing and significant advertisement. Now, again I do not wish to even imply that I criticize these newspapers for their right to take any kind of advertising. I do not criticize them. I defend that right. I do not imply, wish to imply, that the fact that they take any particular advertising for anything means that they share the viewpoint.

Mr. LITTMAN. Let me ask this question because I think it is a followup to the tactics that you have described. The Worker advertised, did it not, in the Capital Times and in the Wisconsin State Journal March 15, 1965. Is that the ad you have in your hand? Mr. SIEGRIST. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LITTMAN. And the students, as we read, were baited, would that be an expression, correct expression, Mr. Siegrist, with the "Judge for Yourself" line as to whether or not certain speakers had