TRANSCRIPTION: Part 2 of 3
EDITORS NOTE: This transcription has been reviewed and edited to capture and match sentence structures to the best of our ability. Please check the actual audio before quoting passages.
Fulton Lewis III 00:01
In order to completely appraise the situation, we must recognize and realize that events since the end of World War Two have been quite drastically different from those prior to World War Two. Whereas before the communist international apparatus was small and ineffective, after World War Two, it began to grow and importance, and also began to grow as a threat to the security of the free world. To the point where today there is healthy debate in this country as to whether the Soviet Union is a wee bit stronger than the United States and its military capacity, or whether it’s a wee bit weaker than the United States. But it is fairly well conceded that the Soviet Union and its international communist apparatus does pose a serious threat to our security at this time.
Fulton Lewis III 00:52
What then, would be the role and purpose of a communist operation on American soil in this country today? The purpose and function is no longer now a function of hood, of hoodlums trying, trying to storm the Capitol in Washington, trying to seize a military coup d’etat in our nation’s capital. The communists operation now in the post World War Two period becomes a more sophisticated operation; an operation which employs men of the caliber of Alger Hiss to perform the insidious operation, which the communists desire to have fulfill.
Fulton Lewis III 01:41
Hoodlums and troops you can always defend yourselves from by calling out the militia, by calling in the police department, and by putting down the revolution. All of the police departments in the world and all of the armies in the world would be completely valueless. in combating one Alger Hiss. For this reason, the Congress of the United States, in a realistic sense, maintained and continued the Committee on Un-American Activities to try to devise a set of sophisticated laws; laws, which would meet the approval of the members of the House and then the Senate and then the president; laws which eventually would also get the okay constitutionally; get the okay from the Supreme Court. What kind of an organization is this Communist Party? It is insinuated that it is some sort of a political organization, that it is an economic study club of sorts, a group of people with beards that sit around and study Karl Marx, that it is a type of religion. That it is a group which has ideas which differ from our ideas. If this is true, if this is the extent of the Communist operation in this country, the debate ends here with my concession, because the First Amendment of the Constitution defends any ideas, however repugnant they might be, and defends anybody’s thoughts and anybody’s right to associate and speak their politics or their religious beliefs or their economic beliefs.
Fulton Lewis III 03:33
We are not afraid and we should never be afraid of pitting our capitalistic beliefs against communistic beliefs, of running our candidates against Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, of defeating communists in debate and discussion about religion or economic system. I am confident that not only the people in the United States, but the people in Eastern Germany and the people in Hungary and the people in the Soviet Union itself, and China, if they had a chance to vote, would also agree with us that communism would lose in any contest of ideas with the free ideas which we espouse. So the first test that we must place if we are going to justify any action or any governmental inquiry, and particularly any laws, is to find out what kind of an organization the Communist Party is. This is not a job for a Harvard professor to do, however well intentioned he might be. It’s a little bit more serious than this. It’s a job for the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of Barenblatt versus the United States, June 8, 1959, the Supreme Court really for the first time had an opportunity to investigate and to decide for itself once and for all and to express its opinions on the true nature of the Communist operation in the United States. Lloyd Barenblatt was a professor at Vassar University. He had been identified on a number of occasions as being a member of the Communist Party. He was called to Washington and asked point blank, “Are you now this instant a member of the Communist Party?” to which he replied, “I refuse to answer that question, not on the Fifth Amendment, but on the First Amendment of the Constitution. You’re asking me about my beliefs, my associations, you’re asking me questions about my ideas, things that are protected by the First Amendment.” The Supreme Court then had to go in and decide whether this is a question of ideas or whether, as it is contended by the Committee on Un-American Activities by the Attorney General, whether this is a question about activity, about activity in behalf of the Soviet Union, about activity to bring about the overthrow of our government by force and violence and to establish and to impose a Soviet regime in this country. The court, by a narrow majority a five to four decision, the court had this to say concerning the Barenblatt case. “This court in its constitutional adjudications has consistently refused to view the Communist Party as an ordinary political party, and has upheld federal legislation aimed at the communist problem, which in a different context, would certainly have raised constitutional issues of the gravest character. It has been a further finding of this Supreme Court and an extension of its finding in the Barenblatt case that led just two years ago, or a year and a half ago, to the Supreme Court’s upholding the constitutionality of other laws, which Congress had passed, and the president had signed: the Smith Act; the hideous Internal Security Act of 1950; the Communist Control Act of 1954, and other acts aimed at controlling, not ideas and beliefs, but aimed at controlling activity of Communist Party members in this country.
Fulton Lewis III 07:13
What sort of activity are communists engaged in? About the best example, I think, of the type of activity which communists are engaged in in this country today — although granted, they are a numerically small organization, somewhere between 17 and 25,000 members — the type of activity I think is best typified through information gathered by the FBI and released by the Federal Communications Commission heard in testimony before the Committee on American Un-Activities two or three years ago. Testimony regarding members of the Communist Party who were employed in radio facilities in this country. No not as commentators, not with different accents, telling their ideas, but over 250 members of the Communist Party employed in Connelrad alert stations as engineers, as technicians, people who are there not just to get good radio experience so they can replace Jack Parr someday, maybe; people not there just to study the field of radio, but, as it was developed in this testimony, particularly by the FCC officials, a handful, 250 members, of the Communist Party strategic, strategically placed at radio stations throughout the country — all of which are part of the Connelrad alert system part of our national defense system in time of enemy missile attack — the FCC official pointed out that simply by leaving a radio station’s transmitter on in time of an attack and not turning it off, as the Connelrad system demands, that the tower itself without transmitting any messages, just the beam itself, could be used as a homing device by some enemy-sent missile, and the missile could be homed in right on the tower, or right on the city in which the tower stood. It was a feeling of the FCC that they would like to have the legal power to withhold FCC licenses from members of the Communist Party. They did not have that legal power. The Committee on Un-American Activities met and recommended to Congress that they have that legal power. Now the House now voted on it and the Senate is in the process of deciding whether they should or should not.
Fulton Lewis III 09:56
The function of any Congressional committee, and Congressional committees have some judicial powers, namely the power to use subpoenas, the power to compel testimony, the power to investigate, all of which has been upheld by the courts, but upheld only if these Congressional investigating committees use these judicial powers for legislative purposes. In other words, if this committee was not fulfilling a legislative function, if it was not performing its legislative service to our nation, it would truth and in fact, be an unconstitutional committee and it would have been abolished long before now by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has done just the opposite. It has actually complimented the committee on its legislative performance in the Barenblatt case, in the Watkins case, and the Wilkinson case, in the case of Carl Braden, and all of these cases, the legislative function of the committee was challenged by the witnesses, and in each case, the Supreme Court not only upheld but in several of the cases complimented the committee on its legislative performance. That legislative performance has not been one piece of legislation. The record shows that the committee and its 25-year history, oractually in 23 years, 1940 to 1963, had made a series of 129 legislative recommendations. Of these, some 50 have been enacted by Congress and are now on the books as law. And an additional 63 bills in one House resolution are now under consideration by the Senate after having been passed by the House of Representatives.
Fulton Lewis III 11:42
The question then is what kind of laws does this committee pass? What kind of laws, what type of legislation is it interested in? Legislation which is trying to read your mail; legislation which is trying to put ideas into your mind or keep bad ideas out of your mind; legislation aimed at stifling free speech or free association? Here’s a sampling of some of the types of laws that have been recommended by the committee just in the past 10 years. Laws legislation regarding membership and, and conspiracies to abet foreign directed organizations seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by force or violence. I point out to you that nobody, and no group domestic or international has a right to overthrow our government by force and by violence. This is prohibited in the Constitution of the United States. You can overthrow our government only by winning a majority of votes, not by taking up guns and not by imposing your way against the will of the people. So the committee recommended laws dealing with this. Another problem that the committee has recommended legislation on is the refusal of foreign countries to accept people that we have deported to them. Time and time again, we have accepted an immigrant from the Soviet Union, let us say, and it is turned out upon his arrival and once he is here on American soil, that the person turns out to be a communist agent or an espionage agent, a person who we wish to send back to the Soviet Union. When we, in order to send back a person, you have to get an admission or traveling papers from the port of entry, in this case, being Moscow that this person exists, and that he came from there, and Moscow refuses to even acknowledge the letters. And so we have been stuck with over 100 of these people that have come here in the past 15 years as espionage agents who are now free to roam around in our society, and we are not free to protect ourselves from them. The committee thinks that we should have some power to do something with these deportees who no country will accept, man without a country. Cancellation of passports which had been obtained through fraud, employment of members of Communist or communist front organizations in defense facilities or government service. Hardly a denial of free speech, hardly reading your mail. Restriction of tax exemption of communist organizations and fund organizations posing as educational or charitable institutions. Detention of undeportable alien communists and extension of the statute of limitations and espionage cases, one of the reasons that Alger Hiss was never sent to jail for espionage. He was convicted of perjury when he said, “No, I’ve never committed an act of espionage.” They prove that he was lying when he said that, but they couldn’t convict him of espionage because there was only a short statute of limitations which had already run out. Statute of limitations should be extended to committee [indiscernable]. Mandatory continuance of study of laws relating to espionage, sabotage and protection of internal security. Penalties for espionage in peacetime as well as wartime, another reason why Alger Hiss was never even indicted on an espionage charges because our old fashioned laws said that you can only commit espionage during a period of war and not during a period of peace. Authorizing in appropriate cases immunity from prosecution for witnesses before Congressional committees to facilitate obtaining of information otherwise denied by Fifth Amendment plea. Registration of persons who have received training and espionage counter espionage or sabotage tactics of a foreign government increase the penalties for submissions for seditious conspiracy. These are laws I point out to you which are security laws, which are laws protecting this country and protecting us from an organization which seeks to use force and violence, and which is acting as an arm of a, of an international organization which seeks to use force and violence. And we are simply creating laws to protect ourselves from the event of force and violence tomorrow, today, or at some time in the future.
Fulton Lewis III 16:14
The question, of course, is what is un-American? This has been raised many times. There is no definition of what is un-American. Each of us if we were asked to list all those things, which we consider to be un-American would select varying things just as we were asked to define what is American, we would select varying ideas and varying qualities.
Fulton Lewis III 16:45
There are certain things which I think all of us can agree are un-American. One thing which most certainly is un-American, because it is un-Constitutional, and there is no provision for it in the Constitution, is overthrowing our government through the use of force and violence. This, and this is a very clear cut answer and a very straight-forward answer, this is something which is obviously against the concept of our republic. This is something which is obviously un-American, although I grant the term is vague, and probably should be changed. There is an issue of civil liberties involved. The constitutional amendments, the Bill of Rights specify that these rights, free speech, press, and so forth, are not only to be given to us, there to be, to be given to all persons, no matter how despicable the individual might be. Actually, I believe that the Committee on Un-American Activities has perhaps the cleanest and best record insofar as defending civil liberties of witnesses of any committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate of the United States. I say that for this reason. This committee was the first committee to ever limit itself insofar as its rules and procedure or concern, by issuing a specific set of rules of procedure to govern its behavior and the behavior of witnesses at all hearings without exception. They spell out the fact that witness has right to legal counsel, the witness has a right to an executive hearing if he so desires an executive hearing. That the committee has a right to do this, committee has the right to do that, and spells out in specific terms so that there won’t be variance from one hearing to another so that we can analyze this committee’s procedures and methods and either agree with them or disagree with them knowing that the methods don’t change and the procedures don’t change. I pointed out that witnesses have the right to legal counsel. This is something which the committee insists upon before it hears testimony from a witness. An important aspect is that, and this is not really the responsibility or should not be to the credit of this committee but to the late Speaker of the House of Representatives Sam Rayburn, is the fact that the House of Representatives all of its hearings, have gotten away from the circus attitude which I feel fairly much typifies Senate hearings of late. A circus attitude which is spurred on by the presence of television cameras there. Sam Rayburn back five, five and a half, six years ago, became so nauseated and looking at Senate hearings, where you have a show put on because the television cameras were there. I remember myself seeing a budding young attorney and his brother questioning a noted labor leader for three days, getting such responsive answers as “I take the fifth, the fifth, the fifth.” For three days he took the fifth. It worked apparently, for the budding young attorney and his brother. But Sam Rayburn felt, and I think responsibly felt that this sort of behavior should not go on in Congressional hearings, legislative hearings, and he banned live television from all house hearings. He also set up a system, which is still in effect, which all House hear, committees still use in their hearings, that a witness need not have his picture taken without his consent during testimony, that there will be no live radio coverage of these hearings without the consent of the witnesses, that there’ll be certain limitations put on the press, that no witness’s name will be released prior to his being called to testify unless it is released by him, and certain other rules of procedure and criteria for rules and for, for the behavior of the committee, which I think have added to the protection of civil liberties, particularly of the witnesses involved.
Fulton Lewis III 21:08
In addition to that, and this is a very important point, and I think perhaps one of the most responsible points, in one of the areas in which the committee has excelled particularly of late. There has always been this problem of who do you subpoena. The committee has sat down and has done so under Chairman Walters direction about four or five years ago, has set down a set of principles and rules which will govern the use of the committee’s subpoena. Before John Doe can be subpoenaed tomorrow to appear before the Committee on Un-American Activities, he must first have been identified under oath by two persons who themselves were members of the Communist Party, who have attended cell meetings of the Communist Party with John Smith and who have testified under oath with the same pain of perjury if they lie that John Doe will face if he lies. I’ve testified as to time, place and location of their knowledge that he is a member of the Communist Party. In addition, one of these testimonies has to be in a public session so the John Doe could actually be there and be present, and hear and read or subsequently read what the testimony about him has been. These are our steps. The last and I think perhaps the clincher of them all is fact that no other committee and no other organization or individual in the history of our country has ever been subjected to more Supreme Court review than the Committee on Un-American Activities. The Supreme Court, which as a conservative I am not particularly happy with, which Professor Zinn, if anyone in the room should be happy with the Supreme Court, it is Professor Zinn. And the Supreme Court has never ruled that this committee should be discontinued. It has never challenged the constitutionality of this committee. It has reviewed all of the committee’s procedures. Every, every possible aspect has been challenged and tested three or four times, and the most the Supreme Court has ever done, to give an example is the Watkins case in 1957, was to say, particularly in that case, “You’re not explaining the pertinency of the questions enough to uphold, for us to uphold this contempt citation. We’re going to let Watkins go and you better start explaining the pertinency of questions more in the future.” This type of criticism the Supreme Court has given to the committee’s activities but I’d point out to you that the committee for the past five years has had all of its contempt cases upheld by the Supreme Court of the country.
Fulton Lewis III 23:50
There’s an issue of the First Amendment, which I think is a fairly obvious issue. People have a right to their ideas, a right to free speech, but they don’t have a right…free speech is limited in many ways. I can’t stand up here and libel. I can’t stand up here in slander. I can’t stand up here and give a speech which will incite others to riot. I am forbidden to conspire with others to commit a crime even though I can, the part of the conspiracy is speech. And it’s a common sense law that there is a common sense limitation on freedom of speech, that no person or group of persons should be allowed to conspire to overthrow our government by force and violence, just as other forms of conspiracy are outlawed. In conclusion, the problem basically boils down to this: we have a problem of trying to cope with a very sophisticated fifth column operation on American soil during a period of great crisis, during a period when the balance of power is so shaky. Where all one power needs or what all the Soviet power needs is enough assurance that it will win in a first strike attack, and that there will be no second strike back. No retaliation. In a period when the balance of power is so shaky, we need sophisticated laws in this country to try to protect ourselves and to try to make ourselves strong from the Trojan horse, sophisticated Trojan horse operations of International Communism. I think that we should have learned from shameful incidents of our past history some things, unfortunately, not that we should be doing but things that we should not be doing. Strangely enough, many of these lessons come from persons who are most in groups which are most critical of the Committee on Un-American Activities and its operations. The beloved American Civil Liberties Union, which is now in the film business with “Operation Correction” as a critic of the Committee on Un-American Activities. You would think that the American Civil Liberties Union, the great self-proclaimed champion of civil liberties, would itself be in a position to offer some positive suggestions and through its actions offer some positive examples of what we should be doing to protect ourselves from communism. In truth, it is done just the opposite.
Fulton Lewis III 26:19
Back in 1941, the American Civil Liberties Union Board of Directors woke up one morning and to their great shock they found on their board of directors none other than Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, who even then was a fairly loud mouth hobbyist communist, and two other persons that they suspected of being communist, but they weren’t sure. What sort of action would you imagine the American Civil Liberties Union would take to defend itself from communist subversion? It was simple. The non-Communist or non-suspected members of the Board of Directors held an emergency meeting the next night, late at night. Did not even notify Elizabeth Gurley Flynn or the two others that they were holding the meeting and held the meeting in which they expelled Elizabeth Gurley Flynn and the two others from the board of directors. Notice without a hearing, without any evidence, without any accusers, more or less, your right to cross examine your accuser, without any of the civil liberties which they now profess other groups should be using and protecting themselves from communist subversion. To me, it’s like a marriage counselor that goes home at night and beats his wife. The American Civil Liberties Union to be doing this.
Fulton Lewis III 27:37
There was one other serious blot on our record. It’s a blot which occurred during World War Two at a time when we did not have any laws on our books, sophisticated laws to handle a new type of subversion. The Franklin Roosevelt administration became very upset, particularly at the prodding of the Attorney General for the state of California, a man by the name of Earl Warren. And they came up with a solution to what they suspected then was a gigantic subversion in our midst, that we must defend ourselves from. They set up an organization called the War Relocation Authority. This organization, in a hysteric effort to defend our country from subversion, headed by Milton Eisenhower, who was also of late than a critic of the Committee on Un-American Activities, handled the problem of subversion by putting 120,000 American-born citizens who happen to be of Japanese ancestry, putting them in concentration camps, and confiscating their property for the remainder of the war. This action by the president and by Earl Warren, by Milton Eisenhower, was upheld by a bare majority of the Supreme Court, a majority headed by none other than Justice Hugo Black, and Justice Douglas. I agree wholeheartedly with J. Edgar Hoover when he called us one of the blackest days in American history and a gross violation of civil liberties. And what he pointed out that they did not catch subversives that it was a hysteric action. From these things, we should have learned today that we need laws, that we need defense, that the last minute hysteric action is not the type to take. But the long range planning, the planning today for events which could and possibly will happen tomorrow, that this is the type of response that we must make in this cold war crisis. There are many brilliant minds in this audience. There are many, many brilliant minds throughout this country who unfortunately have dedicated 99% of their time in writing clever talks on why committees of Congress, and this committee in particular, should be abolished. I invite you and I invite these other minds, which could be of great service positively to our society today, to take a brief respite from writing the critical, negative articles and speeches, and to devote this intellectual effort to try to help Congress, and particularly this committee, in the writing of sophisticated legislation, laws which can be enforced easily, laws which can be upheld by the Supreme Court, laws which will meet the satisfaction of the non-force and violence element in our society. And then and only then, when we can all rest assured that the security of our country is safe and well protected. Then, and only then, all of us can join together and abolish the Committee on Un-American Activities. Thank you. [Applause]
James Hund 31:08
We’ll now have the short rebuttal speeches, the first one by Mr. Lewis.
Fulton Lewis III 31:14
I feel in a way as if I have debated two persons here tonight. I have several remarks in rebuttal to Professor Zinn, but also I have some in response, since I was mentioned as narrator of this film, I have several in response to Mrs. Perkins who gave her talk right after the film was shown.
Fulton Lewis III 31:39
I’ve already explained and rebuttal to Professor Zinn’s statements. I’ve already explained that, for the sake of convenience, that I’m willing to abolish the Committee on Un-American Activities prior to 1950. I’m somewhat amazed and perplexed, but gratified insofar as my time is concerned, that there were only three criticisms which he has of the committee after 1950. And so perhaps if we can answer those we can solve his dilemma.
Fulton Lewis III 32:11
First of all, first of all, Professor Zinn believes or has been told that the committee employs paid informants and sends people to jail for disagreeing with the committee. This is pretty much of a distortion of the truth, although these statements if taken individually, are partially true. The committee does pay its informants, but it pays them exactly the same amount as its uninformants. In other words, Jimmy Hoffa gets a per diem rate, I believe, of $11 for the days that he was saying “The fifth, the fifth, the fifth.” Just as all of the attorney, or the then Robert Kennedy’s friends were getting their $11 a day and 10 cents a mile from where they came for being informants. When Herbert Philbrick testifies before the Committee on Un-American Activities, he gets $11 a day plus 10 cents a mile back and forth from where he came. When Archie Brown testified or did not testify before the committee, he got $11 a day plus 10 cents a mile from where he came. So yes, they are paid informants. But I think perhaps the tone and Professor Zinn’s mind was maybe to mislead you a little bit, that they were paid a little bit more than $11 per day. It sends people to jail for disagreeing with it. No, not really. A contempt citation is not a citation by this committee alone. It’s a citation which is voted upon by all of the members of Congress of the House of Representatives. I would point out that even the critics of the committee, Jimmy Roosevelt, only on one occasion has ever voted not to cite someone for contempt that the committee has recommended, recommended a contempt citation be made for. So it is not the committee that sends people to jail for disagreeing with it. The person comes up and is asked a question by this committee. He is perfectly free to give any answer he so chooses. If he in a legal proceeding, does not wish to answer questions, and feels that he has a constitutional grounds for refusing the answer, then he can answer, he can refuse and cite the constitutional grounds. If it is a feeling of the committee and the Justice Department, because it’s immediately turned over to the Justice Department that this person has not cited a legitimate grounds for refusal to answer, then the person is cited for contempt, and then it goes to the Supreme Court of the United States. And if he is still found, if it is found by the Supreme Court, that the person has invoked a false constitutional privilege or had no right to invoke it, now he goes to jail. It’s a little bit different from “the committee sending people to jail whom disagrees with it.” Or people who disagree with a committee going to jail. No, this is an action which is taken by Congress, by the Justice Department, and which goes through the courts and the highest court of our land. I think we can skip skip over Ginger Rogers and Gary Cooper.
Fulton Lewis III 35:25
1950, the committee finally gave birth to a piece of legislation, which is a monster. I think I’ve already pointed out that this monster was passed by Congress, was made a piece of legislation, and just recently was upheld by Professor Zinn’s beloved Supreme Court. So apparently, there’s a difference of opinion somewhere about the definition of a monster. June 1959 the committee subpoena is 110 teachers. Then the committee left San Francisco, but before it left, it made sure files were turned over to the state superintendent to the Attorney General. And then when they didn’t want them, over to the county officials, and it turned out that they didn’t want them, or they weren’t up much value. This again, I feel was a little bit misleading to you. First of all, there were 101 teachers that were subpoenaed. The Attorney General of the state of California Stanley Mosk, asked the committee not to come, not to hold its hearings. Why? Because it felt that, I believe it’s the Feinberg law, or that might be the law in New York, but there’s a similar law in California which requires, or which forbids members of the Communist Party from being employed as public school teachers. That this law, the constitutionality was still was still being challenged in the California Courts. At that time, you might remember the United States Congress was contemplating a federal aid to education bill. For those great advocates of that bill, I might point out to you that if you ever do get federal aid education, there will be a provision on there, recommended by the Committee on Un-American Activities, that this money should not be given, it should not be given to schools which employ Communist Party members as teachers. But the Attorney General for the state of California felt that the committee would not get a fair sampling because the law had not been enforced, because it was still being tested in California Courts. If it came out, I believe it was in June of 1959, so the committee did not come out. Then the Attorney General and the superintendent of the state asked the committee for its files. The committee handed over not private files, but public files, files which were already on public record, which the superintendent said that wasn’t of much value to them because this is going to be a legal proceeding and they will need live witnesses. But it was of some value in finding out what live witnesses they should call. It then went down to the county level and the county level asked for these files. The committee sent them copies of the public files and they were used to some degree in prosecuting these teachers. Again, it’s not the sinister Committee which is responsible now for the fact that 72 of these teachers have lost their jobs. It is, if there’s anyone’s fault, it’s the people of the state of California, who passed the law, California State Legislature, the people themselves for joining the Communist Party. And the responsibility, at least of the courts of California, not the Committee on Un-American Activities. The committee’s personnel, I think that this is an unnecessary and a fairly low attack. I’m sure that this professor from Harvard, who has done such an outstanding study on the committee, does not find J. Parnell Thomas to be Harvard material, that he might be guilty of patting his office payroll. But if this is to reflect on the entire Committee on Un-American Activities, then I would hope that in his rebuttal Professor Zinn will tell us a few words about Adam Clayton Powell, and what he is doing on what I’m sure the professor [applause]…about the other members of that committee, the House Education and Labor Committee, who must also thereby be guilty of ignorance and totalitarian frame of mind.
Fulton Lewis III 39:38
The personnel, the alcoholism of Max Vedic and other persons, I think we can also let go by. These people were FBI informants. Their testimony has to be given under oath and if they are found guilty of perjury, they should be sent to jail just as somebody who is a non informant is found guilty. Alger Hiss is found guilty of perjury, he should go to jail.
Fulton Lewis III 40:07
The final thing on this is the poisonous fallout as a result of the Committee’s work. People are looking for communists in textbooks, that creates an atmosphere which incites murders is occurred out in the Berkeley campus. I don’t think that this is the work of the Committee on Un-American Activities. I don’t think that this is an atmosphere which has been spurned on by them. This is a very crucial period. It’s a period in which all of us are nervous. It’s a period in which all of us are uncertain. We don’t know how many missiles there are in Cuba. We either believe President Kennedy in the Defense Department or Senator Keating, but even the idea that they might be there scares us. We don’t know, unfortunately, as was fairly easy to find out in 1941 with Nazis because they were armbands, we don’t know who the communists are, because unfortunately, they don’t walk around carrying hammers and sickles, or wearing communist armbands. They’re a little bit more clever than that. I think Americans have a temperament which is not being spurred on by a Committee on Un-American Activities, but as being spurned on by the climax of an international crisis. I think if there’s anybody to blame, there really is no one except communism itself, which is caused this climax in the crisis.
Fulton Lewis III 41:39
Concerning very briefly, and I’ll go real quick here. Concerning the statement by Mrs. Perkins, following the film “Operation Abolition,” there are a few things that I would like to clear up. She mentioned the fact that the American Civil Liberties Union has put out a film entitled “operation correction” which tells a different story. It does, indeed. It tells a different story. The American Civil Liberties Union has taken the same film and has put a new narration to it. In the course of this narration, never once does it mention the word communist. The basic intention of us and our film is that this was a communist-led riot. We show Archie Brown, Merle Brodsky, Vernon Brown, Douglas Walker and other persons who are members of the Communist Party in their roles as inciters and leaders of demonstrations and riots inside city hall. If somebody wants to say that Archie Brown and Douglas Walker and Vernon Brown are boy scouts, then the riot was led by Boy Scouts. If they want to say they’re, they’re secret members of the DAR in disguise, then it was led by the DAR. [Laughter] The American Civil Liberties Union has told a different story. It has simply omitted the word communist from a communist-led riot. Charges were dismissed against 67 of the witnesses right away, Mrs. Perkins tells us. This is true. But I think it’s also only fair that we point out why they were dismissed right away, and what was the feeling of the judge in dismissing them right away. In dismissing these charges Judge Albert Axelrod, I have the full decision here if you’d like to read it, because I’d like to read it. Judge Axelrod…Well if you’ll bear with me for one second.
