p. 50). It ignores the very substantial and rigidly applied security measures which are now in force over military production or so-called sensitive activities. House Joint Resolution 527 ignores these things because its real aim is not to prevent possible sabotage and espionage, but to regiment American workers. By giving the Executive-presumably the Attorney General-broad and totally undefined powers to punish at will any and all workers in American industry on suspicion of subversion, it creates the most dangerous threat to the economic security and political freedom of American workers ever proposed in the history of the Nation.

What the real goals of House Joint Resolution 527 may be are sharply suggested by the report of an earlier committee of the Senate. Reported the Senate Committee on Labor and Education in 1938 (Violations of Free Speech and Rights of Labor, Rept. No. 46, pt. 3, pp. 9–10):

"The chief reasons advanced by employers and detective agency officials for the use of labor spies were: (1) Protecting industry against radicalism and communism; (2) preventing sabotage (closely linked to the first); (3) detecting graft; (4) improving efficiency in methods and workers; merging into (5) improving relations between employers and workers, or 'human engineering.' These legitimate' reasons for the employment of labor spies were strenuously advanced by officials of the detective agencies and, with diminished enthusiasm, by representatives of industry. These 'reasons' were of so little merit that after examination by the committee they were repudiated by the same officials who advanced them. They are, however, interesting to examine for the light they shed on the actual motive.

"No employer seriously defended his use of labor spies by the well-worn excuse of a crusade against radicalism and sabotage. The Pinkerton and Burns officials, on the other hand, regarded ferreting out radicals as their private and real endeavor. The committee's attention was particularly drawn to the manner in which industrial or labor work was recorded on the journals of the Pinkerton's National Detective Agency. Entry after entry in their books designating the purpose of the case read: 'Investigation of radical conditions,' often coupled with 'investigation of theft, sabotage, and irregularities,' followed by the designation of the operative and the rate of pay.

"On preliminary examination the Pinkerton officials steadfastly maintained that these entries meant what they said-investigations of theft and sabotage, usually linked by them with radicalism. It was not until the committee laid bare the whole story of industrial espionage that the general manager of the Pinkerton agency reluctantly admitted that the entries actually concealed spying on union organizations:

"Senator LA FOLLETE. NOW, Mr. Rossetter, isn't it true that the description in the Pinkerton journal of sabotage, theft, and irregularities often actually covers up investigation to be made of union activities? ***

"Mr. ROSSETTER. Well, if you take that as a sample, I will have to say "Yes" to it, ***?

"This admission was confirmed by L. L. Letteer, formerly assistant superintendent of the Atlanta, Ga., office of the agency.

"Senator LA FOLLETTE. And what was the usual practice when you mentioned industrial espionage on the ledger sheet? What was the usual practice?

“‘Mr. LETTEER. That would usually be written up as possible radical activities. "Senator LA FOLLETTE. Even though the organization was being attempted by a so-called, or as you have described it, a bona fide labor organization? 'Mr. LETTEER. That is right.

46

"Senator LA FOLLETTE. So that really was a cover, wasn't it?

"Mr. LETTEER. Well, it was used as a convenient title for most any form of labor investigation.'

An analysis of the provisions of House Joint Resolution 527 shows it to be the perfect instrument for doing the job which the Pinkertons failed to accomplish 20 years ago.

To begin with, its provisions can be made applicable at the whim of the executive, as is clearly indicated by the decree powers given under section 3 (a) of the bill. These include the right to apply the drastic provisions of the act under such vague conditions as "subversive activity, disturbance, or threatened disturbance of international relations."

(When in past centuries have no threats of "disturbance in international relations" existed?)

These powers are to be exercised over defense facilities designated at the will of the Secretary of Defense under the Internal Security Act of 1950 (sec. 3 (d)).

A rumor, a piece of malicious gossip, the false report of a labor spy, the ill will of the employer arising out of collective-bargaining disagreements, an opposition political opinion, or the remote shadow of some long-forgotten guilt by association-could serve under this act to bring economic disaster to a worker and his family.

Any chance word or act reported or distorted to the authorities would serve to bring permanent unemployment. The more active workers who provide shop leadership for unions would be specially victimized by these inquisitorial procedures. For all workers this act would bring intimidation and terror.

As the National Industrial Conference Board advised its big-business members in its confidential report No. 60, page 5:

"A real foreign agent doesn't advertise the fact. If you have one, he is probably one of the best workers on your force. * * *

"But even if you don't have a trained saboteur in hire, industrial security can pay off in peacetime. It can help you rid your plant of agitators who create labor unrest, who promote excessive grievances, slowdowns, and strikes, and encourage worker antipathy toward management."

In other words, according to this authoritative employer source, an industrialsecurity program pays off in the taming or breaking of unions.

House Joint Resolution 527 is crystallization of the National Industrial Conference Board's proposals. It would put the Government of the United States in the union-smashing business.

Are members of our union incorrect in thinking that House Joint Resolutions 527 and 528 are aimed deliberately to produce unions run by and for the employers rather than the workers they are presumed to serve?

Is not the formula of these bills the exact formula by which the powerful organizations of German labor were coordinated after 1932 into the labor front of Robert Ley and Adolf Hitler? Under that labor front, unions were continued * * *. Just a few details were changed ***. Unions which were critical of Nazi policies were dissolved and their properties taken over. Workers were free to elect their own officials, provided, of course, that their names had first been approved by the Nazis and the employer. And any worker who voiced a political doubt or became a security risk by reason of past political association, race, religion, or antipathy toward management was quickly discharged and placed behind the barbed wire of a concentration camp.

In what essential does this legislation differ from the labor policies of the Hitler regime? What essential liberties would it leave American workers above and beyond the slavery suffered by German workers under the Nazis? This grim prospect cannot be hidden by any amendments to House Joint Resolution 527 or 528 aimed to eliminate their cruder aspects or to conceal more cleverly the traps for all labor now openly displayed in their provisions. By necessity, if you give any Government board power to outlaw a union because of the political ideas or association of its members or officers, you are wiping out the most basic protection to the welfare and the living conditions of workers everywhere. By necessity, if you give Government boards the right to punish workers on the shadow of a suspicion, freedom from fear has been ended for all Americans.

The effect of this legislation would be disastrous not only to labor but to the very fabric of Americanism itself. It is a gun leveled straight at the heart of American democracy. How can freedom live in this country if workers lose the right to assemble peaceably in organizations of their own choosing to petition for redress of grievances? How can constitutional rights live for workers who are to be placed under the shadow of constant surveillance and drastic penalties applied by employers and Government agencies?

Some years ago the late Philip Murray, president of CIO, branded the TaftHartley Act as a step in the direction of fascism. More recently, John L. Lewis termed the same legislation "the first ugly, savage thrust of fascism in America." These bills are no step or thrust toward fascism. They are the very essence of fascist machinery itself. They propose pure, simple, and undiluted economic, social, and political dictatorship from which 60 million Americans could disentangle themselves only at the end of a long and tragic period of social turmoil.

In 1952, an administration was elected to office pledged to "fair reforms" of the Taft-Hartley Act. Is this crushingly destructive and repressive legislation to be the delivery on those promises of fair play for labor made by Republican candidates in 1952?

Throughout the Nation, I can tell you, workers and their families and their communities are worried and concerned these days. Unemployment is mounting. Inventories are still piled high. Sales of goods show no sign of an upturn. There is fear and resentment. Let me urge you to heed these things, gentlemen, and to turn your attention to the dangers the American people really face in this year 1954.

Perhaps American workers are not specialists in the intricacy of labor legislation or the complexity of abstract political theories. But they are deeply alive and sensitive to their welfare and their dignity as human beings, and profoundly democratic in their response to the issues of American life.

For a while the purposes of this legislation may be covered by hysteria-it may be packaged away in layers of demagogy. It may be tinseled and goldbricked by all the devices of hucksterism. But I testify without hesitation that working men and women in this country will surely understand what it means for them.

They will see in this legislation an effort to take from them the wages, the security, and the rights which they won only because they had powerful unions independent of control either by employers or Government officials. It will be a sign to them that those who now hold political and economic power do not dare to trust the democratic wisdom and votes of the millions of the American people. House Joint Resolutions 527 and 528 insult every wage and salary earner in the Nation. Such insults will be neither misunderstood nor ignored.

These bill would declare to the world that American workers can be kept from espionage, sabotage, and violent attempts to overthrow our Government only by a system of repression which would jettison every right and liberty of the Nation's Constitution.

Let me urge you gentlemen to establish once and for all the right of American workers to build and run unions of their own--to elect their leaders without interference or any system of licensing by a Government board. In these days of giant corporations and mass industries that right is the key to all democratic rights for the bulk of the American people. Once you take away from a worker the right to choose a union-to choose his associates-to elect men to office on the basis of his own judgment-you have robbed him of the whole body of his democratic rights. You have in fact doomed him to a condition of involuntary servitude. You have brought fear, suspicion, and resentment into every minute of his life. You have reduced him to industrial serfdom-and I declare that whoever seeks to do that to American workers will learn the impact of their true power.

As the late Allan S. Haywood of CIO said in describing legislation much less drastic than these proposals:

"Once the gate is open to Government proscribing of unions, the temptation will be open to use any device to destroy any union with whose objectives the administration in power may not happen to agree."

Resistance to that legislative "temptation" is called for. Only through such resistance can the right of the average American be protected. Only by it can the basic rights of the Constitution itself be upheld.

toward a solution of These measures, and

We urge that the attention of the Congress be directed the real problems faced by the American people at home. not the creation of a Nazi-style labor front with day-by-day terror for American workers, are the path for the strengthening of American democracy.

What is needed is a reassertion through the Congress of freedom of speech and expression, freedom of every person to worship God in his own way, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

These are the elements for the real strengthening of American democracy and American security.

We ask your rejection of House Joint Resolutions 528 and 527 and like legislation which would put this Nation on the road of fascism which other nations have followed to disaster. We ask your support to constructive measures needed by the workers and people of America.

Mr. GRAHAM. The committee stands adjourned until next Wednesday at 9:30 a. m.

(Whereupon, at 12:32 p. m. the committee adjourned, to reconvene on Wednesday, June 30, 1954, at 9:30 a. m.)

INTERNAL SECURITY LEGISLATION

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1954

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 1 OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D. C. Subcommittee No. 1 met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a. m., 346, House Office Building, Hon. Louis E. Graham, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.

in room

Present: Representatives Graham, Thompson, Hyde, Celler, and Walter.

Also present: Walter M. Besterman, legislative assistant; William R. Foley, committee counsel; William P. Shattuck, assistant committee counsel.

Mr. GRAHAM. The committee will be in order.

We arranged that Mr. Nixon shall come first. He has half an hour. Mr. Nixon, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL NIXON, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO, AND MACHINE WORKERS, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. NIXON. Mr. Chairman, I was interrupted with the termination of the hearing on Wednesday, and I had completed not quite 4 pages of my statement. That occurred because I think I was the first witness to talk about this subject.

Mr. GRAHAM. You may proceed until you are through.

Mr. NIXON. I had not completed my summary description of the legislation, although I had discussed the first bill, House Joint Resolution 528, and started to discuss the second bill, which has to do with screening. I want to make this point with regard to the screening bill. In some way the problems of this legislation and the opposition to it are made clear by a series of questions that I think should be very seriously raised before this committee. One applies to the question of when shall this provision for screening be put into effect.

The language of the bill says it will be put into effect "whenever there is a threatened subversive activity or disturbance or threatened disturbance of international relations."

I ask the question, What does that mean? Certainly doesn't that mean the present time? I asked the question, Has there been any time in the last 20 years in which this definition could not be said to be applicable? In other words, the provisions of the bill provide for this whole procedure of screening to be put into effect virtually at the complete discretion, without limit, on the part of the President.