Senator EASTLAND. Wait just a minute, now. I do not like those side remarks. I told him you did not have to answer the question.

Mr. ARENS. We will rephrase the question. The members of the American Communications Association do not have access to the intelligence reports which disclose who are and who are not Communists in the American Communications Association, isn't that correct?. Mr. SELLY. I guess it is correct. I would assume it.

Mr. ARENS Well, then, how is it that the American Communications Association members are going to throw the Communists out if they do not know who they are?

Mr. SELLY. I don't know if they are going to throw the Communists out. That is something they will decide. I won't decide it. And I don't think you will decide it. At least, I hope not.

Mr. ARENS. Don't you think the Communists ought to be thrown out?

Mr. SELLY. I think the membership has the right to elect whoever they want to lead them.

Mr. ARENS. Don't you think in that process they ought to be informed who are the Communists?

Mr. SELLY. And to determine their own policies.

Senator EASTLAND. Proceed.

Were you ever an official of the CIO?

Mr. SELLY. I don't think I was an official. I was a member of the executive board of the CIO by virtue of my office as president of an affiliated union.

Senator EASTLAND. When did you lose that?

Mr. SELLY. We were expelled from CIO in-I can't remember the date exactly-1950.

Mr. ARENS. The spring of 1950?

Mr. SELLY. The spring of 1950.

Senator EASTLAND. Did the CIO set up a rival union?

Mr. SELLY. Well, that question can't be answered categorically. Not on the occasion of our expulsion. There was a union which after we were expelled claimed jurisdiction in our field, and did attempt to raid us.

The bills confer on the Government the right to investigate unions. The private affairs of unions, their meetings, policy discussions, collective bargaining strategy, strike tactics, inner union politics, all these would become legitimate fields for investigation and snooping by agents of the SACB or the Attorney General. Employers would use labor spies for the purpose of reporting and snooping and claim justification for the activities under this legislation. The Attorney General, the SACB and this committee could engage in endless fishing expeditions into its affairs and embarrass, harass, and weaken a militant union.

Senator EASTLAND. You say this committee could do what?

Mr. SELLY. The Attorney General, the SACB, and this committee, this is in the event of passage of one of these bills, could engage in endless fishing expeditions into its affairs.

Senator EASTLAND. Which provision of the bills do you have reference to that will give this committee that power?

Mr. SELLY. This committee apparently has the power to conduct hearings on legislation, and it was our opinion it would also have the power to conduct investigations if the bills became law.

Senator EASTLAND. Of course. But does a bill confer some special power on the committee? Are you speaking generally now or are you speaking of a particular provision in the bill?

Mr. SELLY. The bill sets up such loose definitions, definitions susceptible of use by malicious, self-interested persons, as to make it possible

Senator EASTLAND. What section are you talking about?

Mr. SELLY. I will have to go through all three bills.

To answer your question, I want to read from an article which appeared in the Nation of November 20, 1953.

Senator EASTLAND. Does it give the particular section?

Mr. SELLY. That is right. That is why I am reading from it, because it is a legal analysis of the language of the bill.

The title of the article is "H-Bomb for Unions, the Butler Bill," by Laurent B. Frantz.

Coming to the question of language, and why I say the language is loosely drawn, here is what the lawyer said about it:

What test is proposed for identifying Communist domination in unions? Then he quotes from the bill:

"Whenever it is charged that any 'labor organization' * * * is substantially directed, dominated, or controlled by any individual or individuals (whether officers of such labor organization or not) ***”

Now addressing himself to that language, he says:

Let it be noted at the outset that the persons whose influence is relied on to show "Communist domination" need not have any defined or objectively verifiable authority. Their control need not be complete, only "substantial." Thus, the decision may rest on a mere hunch as to how much some persons have been influenced by others. In any such speculative and intuitive judgment, the controlling factor is likely to be the prejudices of the fact finders-in this case the members of the Subversive Activities Control Board.

By the use of this language, moreover, unions are virtually required to judge all proposals put before them, not on their merits but on their sponsorship. Acceptance of any proposal which turned out to be of a Communist origin-even though the union was unaware of this fact and even though the proposal was quite unobjectionable on its own merits-might lay the union open to a charge of being "substantially directed, dominated, or controlled" by a Communist minority within the organization.

He then goes on to the next language which he considers susceptible of abuse, because it is loosely drawn.

Senator EASTLAND. The question was, What section conferred particular power on this committee? You charged that this committee could go on an endless fishing expedition because of certain provisions in the bill.

Mr. SELLY. The committee can go on fishing expeditions without the bill.

Senator EASTLAND. Certainly. Of course we can.

Mr. SELLY. But it is given a field for it, in our opinion, by virtue of the language of the particular bills.

Senator EASTLAND. That the committee is?

Mr. SELLY. Pardon me?

Senator EASTLAND. That that language in the bill gives this committee some special power?

Mr. SELLY. No, it isn't the language of the bill that gives you the special power; it is the powers of Congress.

Mr. ARENS. I wonder if he could help us by suggesting language that would drive the Communists out of the labor organizations. Assuming that this language might be subject to some criticism, tell us what language you would suggest to put into this legislation so that we could preclude Communists from being in control of labor organi

zations.

Mr. SELLY. No, I can't. Are you interested in the rest of this analysis?

Senator EASTLAND. If you would point to some language, as you have stated there, in the bill that gives some special power to this committee. That is what you stated in your statement. I just wanted you to verify that statement.

Mr. SELLY. That isn't what I said in the statement. You are straining it in that. Here is what the statement said:

The Attorney General, the SACB, and this committee could engage in endless fishing expeditions into the affairs of the union and embarrass, weaken, a militant union.

Senator EASTLAND. You are not referring to the bill, then, when you go into that?

Mr. SELLY. Yes, I am referring to the bill because the committee, having these powers to investigate a union, could, by virtue of the provisions of this bill-and it is in our opinion improper, broad, generalized language-harass, embarrass, and weaken a militant union. I am telling you what that language is.

Senator EASTLAND. An investigation by a congressional committee of the union that we thought was Communist-controlled, would that be improper? Would that be an improper exercise of congressional power?

Mr. SELLY. I don't know.

Senator EASTLAND. What?

Mr. SELLEY. I don't know the answer to that.
Senator EASTLAND. You do not know?

Mr. SELLY. No; I don't know.

Senator EASTLAND. Well, you evidently thought it was.

Mr. SELLY. I think it is an improper exercise of congressional power if you utilize the provisions of any bill to deprive workers of their democratic right to determine their own policies and elect their own officers. I think that would be an improper power under any bill.

Senator EASTLAND. Regardless of what the officers were engaged in? Whether conspiracy against

Mr. SELLY. Regardless of what you thought the officers were engaged in.

Senator EASTLAND. Answer my question.

Mr. SELLY. Look, I'll answer it in my language.

Senator EASTLAND. No, you are not because I have not gotten through with my question. If you are going to testify you are going to act right. Do you hear that?

Mr. SELLY. I understand it, and I have rights, too.
Senator EASTLAND. You are going to act right.
And we are not going to take any abuse off you.
as a tough guy, a bad guy.

Do you hear that.
You appear here

Mr. SELLY. I am not a tough guy, and I am not going to take any abuse from this committee that I don't have to take.

Senator EASTLAND. You are going to answer questions and you are going to answer them right.

Mr. SELLY. I will answer them in my language.

Senator EASTLAND. What was the question?

(The pending question was read by the reporter as follows: "Senator EASTLAND. Regardless of what the officers were engaged in, whether conspiracy against- -")

Senator EASTLAND. The United States or not?

The question was: Would workers have a right to promote a union, to promote and elect officers who were engaged in a conspiracy to destroy the United States?

Mr. SELLY. In the absence of any judicial determination of an illegal act, I would rely on the judgment of the workers and not on any investigating committee to determine what policy should be.

Senator EASTLAND. Suppose there had been a determination, then, by a judicial body set up under the laws of the United States that they were Communists? Then would they have such a right?

Mr. SELLY. If the law limited their right, it would limit their rights. I would think it would be improper. I think it is unconstitutional.

Senator EASTLAND. You think it would be improper?

Mr. SELLY. I don't say it can't be passed. I am afraid it can. Senator EASTLAND. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the rights of workers, whether it can be passed or not.

Mr. SELLY. And my answer is that I would rely on the rights of the workers, on their democratic rights and on their judgment to determine their policies and their leadership, and I would not substitute that for anybody else's judgment.

Senator EASTLAND. You think, then, that if there had been a judicial determination that the officers of the union were engaged in conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States and were members of the Communist Party that the workers would still have the democratic right to select them to lead them?

Mr. SELLY. Obviously they have their right. Equally obviously, they wouldn't exercise it under those circumstances.

Senator EASTLAND. Do you think they should have that right?

Mr. SELLY. I think they should have the legal right to vote for whoever they please, yes; unequivocally.

Senator EASTLAND. You may proceed with Mr. Selly, Mr. Arens, and I will be back in about 20 or 25 minutes.

Mr. ARENS. Where are we, Mr. Selly?

Mr. SELLY. Incidentally, if the committee is interested in this analysis, which goes to the specific language of the bill, I would be glad to put it into the record.

Mr. ARENS. Will you kindly proceed now, Mr. Selly?

Mr. SELLY. The third objection we have to all 3 bills: all 3 bills seek to limit the right of the union to adopt collective-bargaining policies of its own and to exercise the right to strike against intolerable working conditions.

Employers who have urged adoption of these laws have engaged in much loose talk about "political strikes," "sabotage" and "espionage," and have sought to create the impression that the American tradeunion movement is honeycombed with saboteurs and spies.

The truth of the matter is, of course, quite different. We do not hesitate to match the patriotism of our members against the patriotism of any other group in this country. We do not know of a single authenticated instance in the recent history of the United States in which an American union called a political strike. We defy anyone to present evidence of a single instance of espionage in the United States connected even remotely with the operations of a trade union. We do not know of a single instance of political sabotage in the United States encouraged, sponsored, or supported by any trade union. The very fact that such false charges must be relied upon to justify the bills is, in itself, the best argument possible to establish that the bills are unnecessary.

So long as a union commits no illegal acts it has the right to adopt such collective-bargaining policies and to engage in such strike activities as its members may wish. In the absence of a violation of law it cannot be prohibited from engaging in strikes because some employer or Government official may charge that the strike is a "political strike" or that the collective-bargaining activities are "Communist activities."

In this connection, one of the most dangerous aspects of the present legislation may be considered. These bills may be invoked at any time and a finding that the union has violated the law may be based on current activities or on activities engaged in many years ago. Such laws may be invoked without notice in the midst of collectivebargaining activities. Even in the midst of a strike they may be used, as indeed they are intended to be used, as an employer weapon in the economic struggle against unions.

4. All three bills offer no adequate check on arbitrary and capricious official action.

Under the Butler bill the arbitrary action of a single individual, the Attorney General, responding to the charge of an employer or informer or a disgruntled union member, is enough to destroy any trade union since the mere filing of a complaint results in the automatic loss of bargaining rights.

This particular section of the law reduces to such an absurdity the American concept, fundamental American concept of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, under this section you are proven guilty until proven innocent. It is like Alice in Wonderland where they say "Cut off their heads" or "Lynch them until you find out who they are.

No single individual, no matter who he is should have such power of life or death over a trade union. The elimination of this provision from the bill cannot remove this objectionable feature for, in any event, a small group of men, whether it be the Subversive Activities Control Board or a new Government agency, would have the power to destroy a trade union by making a finding that it comes within the provisions of the bill.

Judicial review of such findings is completely inadequate in any practical sense. Such review takes months, and sometimes years, so that no effective judicial action is possible until the damage has been completed.

5. All three bills set up standards of permissible conduct which are highly improper.