Then on April 30th of 1956, having demolished the legislative power of the States in the field of subversion by its decision in the Nelson case, and having crippled the power of the municipalities to rid themselves of subversive employees by its decision in the Slochower case, the Supreme Court completed the circle by dealing a devastating blow to the efforts of the executive branch of the Federal Government in this field in the case of the Communist Party v. The Subversive Activities Control Board. Let us, for a minute, analyze the sig nificance of that situation. Six years earlier, after years of serious analysis and study, Congress had codified existing legislation bearing on subversion and passed the Internal Security Act of 1950 by an overwhelming majority which reflected the will of the people of the United States. One of the most elementary aspects of that act was that if organizations are shown by the evidence to be subversive, they must register and come under the sanctions of the law. Shortly after the enactment of the Internal Security Act the Communist Party refused to register. The Communist Party is the very prototype of existing subversive organizations in the United States, and it should be obvious to the most unsophisticated and to the most unobserving that the Communist Party is in fact a subversive organization. In hearings before the Subversive Activities Control Board, which took years, the Justice Department put into the record tons of evidence to legally prove this patent conclusion. Then the Supreme Court ruled that, because the Communists charged that testimony of three of the hundreds of sources of evidence were tainted, the case must go back for reassessment.

What a spectacle we must appear to the world. Every peasant in China, every worker in Singapore, every farmer in Europe knows that the Communist Party seeks to overthrow not only the United States Government but every remaining free government of the world. The executive branch of our own Government has spent 6 years proving these very obvious conclusions, and then the Supreme Court tells them they have to send it back to the starting place on a purely procedural point, but with perhaps 2 years or more of further delay involved. What a travesty. What must this do to our prestige abroad? This presents us before the bar of world opinion as a Nation of credulous fools. living in a dream-world of unreality. Obviously, observers in other countries must think, these Americans are people who can be putty in the hands of the Communists.

Well, those decisions of the Supreme Court were a year ago. This year the Court made a lot more law.

I have been talking about what the Court did last year in the field of communism and subversion. Before we look at the Court's major decision in that field this year, let's consider for a moment the Court's decision this spring changing the established law of wills and trusteeships. Here is a description of the will of Stephen Girard, as contained in the opinion of Judge Lefever of the Philadelphia Orphans Court.

"The will of Stephen Girard has become a legend in Pennsylvania and in the United States. The number of times Girard's will and Girard College are referred to in the books is legion. The will is mentioned in every leading treatise on trusts. Girard's will and the basic decision sustaining it are cited as illustrative of the doctrine of charitable trusts in America. The principle therein established, that a testator may dispose of his private property for the benefit of any class he may select, is firmly imbedded in the laws of this country."

Girard died in 1831. He left most of his estate to a perpetual trust, which was directed to set up and maintain a school for poor, white, orphan boys between the ages of 6 and 10. The "mayor, aldermen, and city of Philadelphia" were named as trustees. Since 1870, the will have been administered by the board of directors of city trusts. The orphans' institution created by the will "was never administered by the city in its governmental or sovereign capacity. It was administered originally by the mayor, aldermen and councils, and subsequently by an independent agency created by the legislature solely in the capacity of a fiduciary or trustee, governed, bound, and limited by the directions and provisions of Girard's will."

The will contained a protective clause, asserting that most of the estate would be forfeited to the United States, if its moneys were used by the city of Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in any other way than Girard has specified. Recently, an attempt was made to require the orphange to accept Negroes. The Pennsylvania courts held that this was impossible, since Girard had expressly stated that his money was to be used only for poor white orphan boys. Attorneys for the Negros asked the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. Attorneys for the trust opposed the writ.

There was no argument whatever on the merits of this case. Nevertheless, the Court took jurisdiction on the merits and in a five and half line per curiam opinion reversed the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Attorneys for the trust tiled a learned and lengthy brief asking for reconsideration and an opportunity to be heard on the merits. Here are some passages for that brief.

“Appellee bas”în effect been silenced before it could utter a word or submit an argument in defense of the conclusion reached by the judges of the supreme court of Pennsylvania and of one of the Commonwealth's finest lower courts. "The State courts decided the matter only after all sides of the question had been presented in full. This Court has reversed the judgment of the highest court of Pennsylvania, without permitting it to be defended, on issues which, it is submitted, are of the utmost significance. Appellee cannot find a single precedent for soch a result.

~Art-life believes that in the history of this Court it is the first party to have had its case reversed without a hearing on the basis of a new approach to fundamental constitutional law.

-If it is a denial of equal protection of the laws for a trustee to refuse to make available to a Negro the property in trust for whites, it is just as much a denial of eral protection of the laws for the same trustee to refuse to make available to a Methodist property in trust for Catholics. If 2 Negro boys have standing to we in order to claim the facilities of a trust for white boys, then 2 Methodist boys have standing to sue to claim the facilities of a trust for Catholic boys, or 2 Datles have standing to recover the proceeds of a trust for Jews."

In the face of all this, the Supreme Court of the United States curtly refused the annetes plea to be heard. The decision stands. As I have indicated, it may se the trustees to turn Girard's money over to the United States and hence destroy this century old orphanage. Trustees of similar institutions throughout the country are in a state of apprehension as a result of this decision.

Why did the members of the United States Supreme Court refuse even a hearthis all-important matter? Were they afraid of the facts it might develop? Dd they know in their own hearts that they could not defend their own original delson, in the face of argument by competent attorneys?

Let as now consider what the Court has done to make things easier for the 11. Last year, in the United States, there was a major crime committed ery 12.3 seconds. Every 4.1 minutes there was a murder, a manslaughter, a tape, or an assault to kill. Every 26 minutes there was a rape.

J Eigar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, has stated "at there were an estimated 2,563,150 major crimes committed in 1956, which s an increase of 300,700 over 1955. According to Mr. Hoover, last year was ft rear in our history in which crimes climbed over the 21% million ། དང མི Since 1850, crimes have increased almost four times as fast as the tre of the men who contributed to this sickening total is a resident of the Inent of Columbia, named Andrew R. Mallory. On April 7, 1954, he raped # deface lane woman who was trying to do the family washing in the cellar *ber avartment house. Mallory was convicted. His conviction was upheld the court of appeals.

The wonviction was reversed and remanded by the United States Supreme 12 is an unanimous opinion written by Mr. Justice Frankfurter, which eferred tenderly to this rapist as a "19-year-old lad." The Court did not find innocent. It did not suggest there was any doubt about his guilt. The Gert simply made a new rule, an arbitrary and technical rule, denying w the right to question a suspect before arraignment; and because the police gestioned Mallory-incidentally, they got a confession from him—the e Court ordered him granted a new trial. Remember, there was no terion of "third degree" here. Nobody even so much as charged the police * ! ceering rough with this self-confessed rapist. The Court was not, in fact, *enng Mallory's rights: it was demonstrating its power to discipline the f what the Court appeared to feel was not sufficiently technical comve with the spirit of the new rules the Court had made earlier in the

1

Malory walked out of a jail a free man, who may commit yet another yet another cellar if it suits his fancy. The Court had ordered a new at the Court must have known, as United States Attorney Gasch pointed *issing the case, that the wording of the Supreme Court's opinion practically impossible to prepare the case for retrial with any reason~ of conviction.

The freeing of Mallory was not the only result of the Court's action. The Washington Evening Star quoted Assistant Attorney General Warren Olney, Chief of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, as having stated that the Mallory decision "clearly demonstrates that a great many very serious crimes will go unpunished *** not because the truth cannot be ascertained, but because of the procedures that have to be followed to develop the facts." According to the Star, "Mr. Olney said the Court is supposed to have its judgment rest on the best truth it can get but the Court will not listen to the truth for reasons that having nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the defendant.'"

Mr. President, let me read those words again. The Supreme Court of the United States, the top of the whole Federal judicial structure, a coordinate part of our three-part constitutional government, "will not listen to the truth."

I continue to quote the Evening Star: ""This opinion,' (Mr. Olney) said, 'says in so many words that police can't question a suspect after his arrest. The place where the impact of this decision will be greatest is in the gangster crimes. It is the real hardened professional criminals who will take advantage of this. The housewife who shoots her husband usually confesses to the first person who comes along. This decision won't affect her.

"But when dealing with criminal groups, police will be unable to question the hirelings who are caught first about the higher-ups they want to reach.'" That is what the head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division said, according to the Star. And the same newspaper continued:

"A proponent of the decision analyzed it this way:

"Police can question people if they want to be questioned as long as they are free agents. A suspect can be brought to headquarters and questioned as long as he is free to walk out at any time. But as soon as he is under arrest, it is "unreasonable delay" in arraigning him if police use any time to make a case against him.'"

Note that this analysis of the decision is given by someone described as “a proponent." What does it mean?

It means that a suspect cannot be questioned before his arrest unless he agrees, and if he is arrested he cannot be questioned afterward.

I continue to quote the Star: "Chief Murray cited the rape murder of an 8 year-old northeast girl where 30 detectives have been at work rounding up possible suspects. Over 1,000 people have been questioned in the crime.

"What good will it do to bring in a good suspect, question him and get a confession if this decision stands?' he asked. This decision says he must be arraigned immediately and not questioned after we arrest him.'”

How many more 8-year-old girls will be raped in 1957 because the United States Supreme Court was so zealous a protector of Andrew Mallory's rights as an individual? How much faster will the crime rate in the whole United States increase this year, because "the Court will not listen to the truth?”

That is what attorneys for the Girard trust were also saying, was it not, that the Court "would not listen to the truth?"

Now let's get back to the matter of the Court's decisions this year in Communist cases. Let's see what the so-called Warren Court has done to confuse, disarm and paralyze the people in their fight to defend themselves against the world Communist conspiracy.

Let's look at the decision in the Jencks case. Clinton Jencks was a Communist official of the Communist-dominated mine, mill, and smelter workers, who was convicted of falsely swearing on a Taft-Hartley affidavit that he was not a member of the party. For years, top Communist attorneys strained every norve on his behalf, under the leadership of Nathan Witt, who had himself been a key figure of the Red underground in America's Government. One of the witnesses against Jencks was Harvey Matusow, who had sworn he knew Jencks as a Communist. When Matusow made his famous "recantation," in which he called himself a liar for having testified that certain Communists were Communists, the Subcommittee on Internal Security made a thorough investigation of the whole matter. We learned that the so-called recantation had actually been cooked up by Red Attorneys Witt and John T. McTernan before Matusow knew about it himself. We learned that Matusow, in a private, tape-recorded conversation with his Communist publisher, Albert Kahn, had said this about Jencks: *** it made him no less a Communist because he put a piece of paper down and said I'm no longer a member. As far as I was concerned, Jeucks was still under Communist Party discipline." Nevertheless, a month later Matusow made his affidavit of recantation.

Jencks' conviction was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In his trial. it had been shown that some of the witnesses against him were Government undercover men, who reported to the FBI on Communist activities. Counsel for Jencks asked that the FBI be requested to produce confidential reports of these agents so the Court could examine them to see if they might be useful to the defense in cross-examining the witnesses. The trial judge denied this request and the court of appeals upheld the judge. But the Supreme Court went even further than Jencks' attorneys themselves had gone in their Test. The Court, through Justice Brennan, said in effect Jencks could paw through the FBI files to his own satisfaction, without any interference from a jndze. Here are Judge Brennan's words:

"The practice of producing Government documents to the trial judge for *is determination of relevancy and materiality without hearing the accused, is disapproved. Relevancy and materiality for the purposes of production and Inspection, with a view to use on cross-examination, are established when the reports are shown to relate to the testimony."

Mr. President, what else is the Court saying there, if it is not saying this: -We can trust Communists. We can trust criminals. But we cannot trust the trial judges of our own Federal bench?"

Every Senator knows the dismay this ruling caused to the whole investigating - ned prosecuting apparatus of the Federal Government. Every Senator knows that the Attorney General had to come before us immediately, asking for legisation to keep traitorous and criminal hands out of FBI files. Incidentally, that egislation is held up today because the ADA lobby is trying to get it amended that instead of protecting the FBI files, it will become legislative authority for opening them up to any defendant.

Now, let us consider the case of the 14 California Communists, otherwise known as Yates et al. v. U. S.

Theta Yates, William Schneiderman, Al Richmond, Philip Connelly, and the rest of the 14 are leaders of the California Communist Party. They were conated of violating the Smith Antisedition Act by conspiring "(1) to advocate and teach the duty and necessity of overthrowing the Government of the United Nats by force and violence, and (2) to organize, as the Communist Party of * United States, a society of persons who so advocate and teach, all with the Litent of causing the overthrow of the Government by force and violence as di y as circumstances would permit."

The Court majority, through Justice Harlan, substituted itself for the jury adoplered 5 of the defendants acquitted on the facts; and decreed new trials for the 9 others. Justices Black and Douglas said they should all go free. Here **at the defendants themselves said about the decision, as reported by the Dy Worker for June 18, 1957:

This decision is the beginning of the end of the Smith Act."

G Americans agree with this conclusion. For Justice Harlan's opinion Lings. It accepted the Communist theory of a statute of limitations, I will explain in a moment. And it accepted the Communist theory of tract violence," which might well have been proclaimed by Lewis Carroll, E-1 Queen.

7mmunists said that "organize" means "to establish, found or bring **tence." They said that their party was organized in 1945, the deasts were not indicted until 1951, and the 3-year statute of limitations had run. The Government charged that organize meant "the recruiting w members, forming of new units, regrouping or expansion of existing asses" etc. Justice Harlan, with a majority of the Court, held that the List version was correct.

arve, the "organizing" clause of the Smith Act is destroyed by this

how about the new doctrine of "abstract" violence? The Harlan opinion ***** the reader here, with layer upon layer of soft, cobwebby words. When Orers are brushed aside, this appears to be the meaning of the Court.

perfectly legal to advocate and teach and conspire with others for the of the Government of the United States by force and violence, so long te ef you does a violent act and the future date of the revolution is not v thas remains "indefinite." And it is all right to seek to incite others cecile violence against the Government, as long as you don't succeed in ing them to do anything violent. In other words, only successful revolua can be punished.

25-57-2

Justice Clark, in his dissent from the Jencks decision, made this comment: "I agree with the court of appeals, the district court, and the jury that the evidence showed guilt beyond a reasonable doubt * * *. In any event, this Court should not acquit anyone here. In its long history, I find no case in which an acquittal has been ordered by this Court solely on the facts. It is somewhat late to start in now usurping the functions of the jury."

In the Watkins case, the Court struck a devastating blow at the power of Congress to inform itself.

Mr. President, in 1933 the Federal Government employed about half a million persons. The annual budget totaled about $4 billion. And there were 96 Senators who were Members of this body.

In 1957, the Federal Government employs about 2 million persons. The annual budget totals about 70 billion. But there are still only 96 Senators.

The Federal Establishment has engulfed the Congress, to the mortal danger of our Government's constitutional balance. Congress, today, appropriates only about 1 percent of total appropriations for its own purposes. The other 99 percent goes elsewhere.

It is physically impossible today for Members of Congress to keep currently informed about the other branches of Government. To preserve the constitutional balance, to turn back the tide of engulfment, Congress has resorted more and more to the use of investigating committees, staffed by professional personnel. Investigating committees also are used more and more to study facts as a basis for legislative activity.

But in the Watkins case, the Supreme Court has dealt this committee function a body blow by making it possible for reluctant witnesses to stop an investigation in its tracks.

Watkins appeared as a witness before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. The committee was investigating Communist infiltration in labor unions. Two persons had stated under oath that Watkins, a labor union official, had helped to recruit them into the Communist Party.

Watkins denied that he had ever been “a card-carrying member of the Communist Party." He acknowledged, however, that he "freely cooperated" with the party. He identified some persons as Communists. But he refused to give identifications, either positive or negative, regarding certain others. He did not plead the fifth amendment as a basis for this refusal. He simply challenged the committee's jurisdiction, saying: "I refuse to answer certain questions that I believe are outside the proper scope of your activity." As a result of this refusal he was found guilty of contempt of Congress. The full bench of the court of appeals affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court set it aside, in an opinion written by the Chief Justice.

The Chief Justice in his opinion attempted to justify the new judge-made law enunciated there with an important misstatement of fact. Purporting to give a review of the congressional investigating function, he said: "In the decade following World War II, there appeared a new kind of congressional inquiry unknown in prior periods of American history. Principally this was the result of the various investigations into the threat of subversion of the United States Government, but other subjects of congressional interest also contributed to the changed scene. This new phase of legislative inquiry involves a broad-scale intrusion into the lives and affairs of private citizens."

This is a false statement. The entire Franklin Roosevelt era was awash with investigations constituting intrusion into the lives and affairs of private citizens.

There was an investigation in which bankers and businessmen were required to tell how much they had paid in personal income taxes, in the course of which, a circus midget was bounced onto the lap of the late J. P. Morgan.

There was an investigation which made the most searching personal inquiries into American industries, under the pretext that it was examining the munitions traffic. The counsel in this instance was a young man named Alger Hiss, who nosed his way among America's industrial secrets as an agent for the Soviet underground.

There was a ruthlessly brutal investigation by the LaFollette Civil Liberties Committee, which made a mockery of justice in its effort to discredit American employers as a class. Counsel for this body was John Abt, who with Hiss, Lee Pressman, Nathan Witt, and others, had helped establish the original Communist underground in our Government. Senator LaFollette himself disowned this committee staff because it was under Communist domination.