A138 French, British, and Dutch out of south~ eastern Asia, and to cut us off from our sup- plies of rubber and tin. Can we afford to jet these resources fall one by one into hostile hands? Can we finally defend our own shores with the enemy in possession of these essentials of modern war? Nor do I believe that the Communists would wait long after our withdrawal to at- tempt the conquest of Japan itself. Why should they if we showed that we had neither the power nor the disposition to prevent ag- gression in Korea? And how could we ex- pect to have any friends or allies in Europe if we follow such a course? If we demon- strate to the world that we either will not or cannot resist the aggression that we said we would resist in Korea, how can the people of Western Europe, including the people of Britain, be expected to rely to any degree upon our assurance that we will help them resist aggression in Europe? And if they cannot expect a fulfillment of that pledge, is it not to their own selfish advantage to join with the Russians and avoid the horrors of another occupation and another “lberation?” If you lived in Belgium, or France, or Western Germany, would you line up with a world force which had demonstrated its in- ability or its unwillingness to give protec- tion to others who faced the same aggressive forces which threatened your independent existence, or would you follow the lead of Poland, Hungary, and the other satellites? And when the inevitable consequences of Korean withdrawal have run their course in Europe and Asia, are we not certain to find ourselves defending our homes and our in- stitutions on American soil, and will there not be more American boys (and women and children too) who will suffer and die from such a war than would be endangered were we to stand firm in the distant parts of the globe? I make no claim to be a military strategist, but I think it is clear that one of the great deterrents to Russian movement in the west at this time is the existence of a powerful American force in the Far Kast. If Russia can clear her eastern frontier from the threat of effective American retaliation, she will certainly be more likely to march in the Middle East or in Europe, I know it is argued that we cannot afford to wear ourselves out with a series of fruit- less engagements the world over. I recognize the force of this argument, but what course is likely to encourage new and additional outbreaks like the one in Korea? Is not American withdrawal the most certain guar- arty that there will be more and even stronger thrusts of this kind into the free world? As I see it, the answer is not torun, The answer is not appeasement. The answer is not isolationism. The answer is to accept the responsibility of world leadership, but let us become leaders not simply carriers of all burdens. Let us seek the assistance of those we lead rather than attempting to pro- vide all of the manpower and the money for the defense of the entire world. Let us enlist Japanese to help us fight in the com- mon cause in Asia and Germans for a similar purpose in Europe. I am, of course, talking about enlisting these men in the United States Army. I am not talking about any kind of deal with the German or Japanese Governments. We could strengthen our situation in Korea almost overnight if we would enlist Japanese troops, and there is no doubt but that there are millions in both Germany and Japan who would like the food, clothing, and pay of the American Army. We could build a sufficiently hard core of military resistance in Europe to encourage the free nations of that continent to make a serious effort at self-defense if we would en- lst 25 or 30 divisions of Germans. The sit- uation is not hopeless. It simply requires that we take some practical and common- sense steps; that we forget some of the tra- ditions of the military, especially their in- sistence on taking none but perfect physical specimens of American manhood in our Armed Forces. It requires that we recognize that we cannot be strong militarily unless we remain strong economically and that our economy is certain to crash if we cut our- selves off from contact with the rest of the world. Possibly I should put it another way. We cannot afford to attempt to buy a few weeks or months of respite from the conflict at the expense of committing ourselves to policies that are certain to be ever so much more costly in blood and treasure in the years to come. I know that our people generally have not recognized the similarity between the present situation and the conditions which existed during the dark days of the American Revolution. You will, however, recall that @ very substanttal part of the population then sought to have Washington abandon the fight and to stop further unnecessary loss of life. If the American people decide they cannot stand the sacrifices that resistance to com- munism impose upon us, then I think that we would do well to prepare ourselves for the inevitable destruction of our own institu- tions and the substitution of a communistic economy and a totalitarian government. I will not, however, believe that our people are incapable of understanding the issues in- volved or of meeting them courageously and intelligently when they understand them. I think that the great failure of the hour has been the failure of our Government to make our position clear to our people. I know that we failed in securing such an understanding after World War I and that our people swung to the isolationist viewpoint just as they are swinging today. I know that that failure led to World War II just as a similar course today will lead to world war III. I can only hope that this time our people will more quickly grasp the vision of Wood- row Wilson than they did last time. I am sure that in the long run they will swing back and that they will repudiate the leader- ship of Senator Tarr and of ex-President Hoover just as they repudiated the leader- ship of Henry Cabot Lodge and Warren Harding as soon as they understood the ulti- Mate issues involved. I have written you at great length because I admire and respect your own opinions and also because I recognize that your letter does generally reflect a growing feeling among our people. I hope you will understand that I do not mean to put the question on a per- sonal basis at all, nor do I question the sincerity or patriotism of anyone. On the contrary, I realize that none of us can claim to be able to foretell the future and that my position is based entirely on what I believe to be the long-time interest of America and of the world. If I am wrong in projecting the history of the past into the probable events of the future then undoubtedly we should give grave consideration to the sug- gestion tat we might gain a present advan- tage by complete retreat from our effort to organize world sentiment and action against aggression. I don’t question the sincerity of those who counsel immediate and complete withdrawal from Korea, but I think that only by discussing these great problems can the American people (and the American Con- gress) hope to arrive at a clear understanding of the issues involved and at a sound answer to these issues. Let me thank you for your letter which has helped me to more clearly understand our common problems an@ for your interest in the affairs of our country. With all good wishes, I am, Your friend, W. R. Poaar, Congressman, Eleventh Texas District. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Presentation of Medals of Honor EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FRANK E. SMITH OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, January 12, 1951 Mr. SMITH of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week the Army of the United States paid the high- est tribute the American people can give to their military heroes. Five ground force soldiers, all either killed or miss- ing in action in Korea, were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for their valor far above and beyond the call of duty. Under unanimous consent, I ask that the account of the presentation of the Meda} of Honor by President Truman, as reported for the New York Times by An- thony Leviero, be printed in the Appen- dix of the Recorp: PRESIDENT CONFERS FIVE MEDALS oF Honor— RELATIVES OF HEROES OF Korea RECEIVE HicHEST AWARD IN WASHINGTON CEREMONY (By Anthony Leyviero) WasHINcTON, January 9.—Relatives of five heroes of the Korean battlefields received the highest honor of the United States to- day from President Truman. Pride and sorrow created an atmosphere of pathos as the Congressional Medal of Honor was conferred for the first time in this war. The heroes could not be there in the Prest- dent’s press conference room in the old State Department Building. Two of them were dead and three were missing. Their wives and mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters rose for them. The relatives struggled as hard to smile as they did to hold the tears back. They man- aged the smiles, but the tears flowed. All five men were ground fighters, ‘the men who win the wars,” President Truman said. The citations of their deeds reflected the bitter nature of the fighting against great odds. The general had fought like a buck private—a brave buck private-—to set an ex- ample. The GI's had displayed leadership qualities worthy of generals. All five had made the purest kind of sacrifice for their comrades and for a cause. PRIVATE AND GENERAL Pfc. Melvin L. Brown, of Mahaffey, Pa., slashing the heads of North Koreans with an intrenching shovel, the way the citation told it, was doing essentially the same kind of deed as Maj. Gen. William F. Dean. Private Brown held off the enemy while his platoon took an important plot of ter- rain known as hill 755. He was perched atop a 60-foot wall firing away with his rifie. When he was wounded and his ammunition gone comrades below the wall tossed him grenades. When he had used these he drew out the shovel and cleaved the heads of 10 or 12 of the enemy as they mounted the wall. General Dean’s story is now well known. Trying to hold the key city of Taejon with a hopelessly small force, he fought tanks with grenades and inspired his men. That was early in the war when his troops had little combat experience. The citation told all that he had done for his men and added that apparently he felt it necessary to sustain the courage and res- olution of his troops by examples of excessive gallantry committed always at the threat- ened portions of his front lines. Both Private Brown and the general are listed as missing,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD BERGEANT AND LIEUTENANT 1 was the same with the other three. Be- fore a burst of enemy fire killed him, Sgt, (1st Ol.) Charles W. Turner, of Boston, cov- ered the withdrawal of his platoon and thus enabled it to counterattack and rout the encmy. He did this by opening fire with an exposed turret machine gun of a tank. His accurate fire showed up targets for the tank’s T5-millimeter guns, and his action caused the destruction of seven enemy machine- gun nests, First Lt. Frederick F. Henry, of Clinton, Okla., saw his platoon disorganized by a heavy fanatical attack. He lett his foxhole to rally his men and reform a defense line. Soon his men were delivering a devastating re. Though wounded, he ordered his own wounded men evacuated, took their weapons, ordered his platoon to withdraw and estab- lished himself as a one-man defensive posi- tion. As the citation said, ‘When last seen he was single-handedly firing all available weapons so effectively that he caused an estimated 50 cnemy casualties.” He is listed missing Master Sgt Travis E Watkins, of Glade- water, Tex., organized a perimeter defense when 30 of his men were attacked by an overwhlming force He ran from foxhole to foxhole, giving encouragement and direc- tions. When they ran short of ammunition he killed five enemy soldiers, dashed 50 yards beyond the perimeter and brought back thelr ammunition and weapons. Paralyzed from the waist down, he ordered his men to withdraw, refused all food so they could have it, refused evacuation, for he considered himself in a hopeless condition that would burden them He cheerfully “wished them luck" and his “aggressive leadership and intrepid actions” caused the destruction of nearly 500 of the enemy. When General Dean's name was called, bis family rose, Mrs. Dean calmly came forward for the medal inscribed “Valor.” Anybody who knew General Dean immediately recog- nized his young living image in the West Point cadet in the front row, William F. Dean, Jr., his red hair as prominent as the shiny brass buttons of his uniform, He was with his grandmother, Mrs. Charles W. Dean, and his sister, Mrs. Robert C. Williams, both of Berkeley, Calif. “I can't say this gives me pleasure because you'd rather have General Dean alive than to have this medal," said the President, his voice trailing off into a murmer that got lost in the grind of motion-picture cameras. Tech, Sgt. Christopher C Henry, wounded in Korea and lying on a stretcher, was among the relatives us his sister-in-law, Mrs. Lavon P. Henry went forward to receive Lieutenant Henry’s medal. He had been flown here from Japan for the ceremony. Private Brown's elderly father, Edward D. Brown, stepped up to hear the amazing story of his fight with the shovel, which Mr, Tru- man said was & “wonderful citation.” Ser- geant Watkins’ widow, a pretty girl of 22, smiled bravely for a moment then wept as she received his medal but in a moment she was helping Mrs. Hazel O. Turner to a chair, Mrs, Turner was the mother of Sergeant Turner. When he had presented all the medals and before he went around shaking hands with the relatives of the heroes Mr. Truman paid them a final honor. He said: “At this point I want to pay tribute to the ground soldiers, the men who hold the ground and who fight from the trenches and from machine-gun nests, and who receive the first treatment which you have heard outlined in these citations, They are not the glamour boys of the services, but they are the men. who win the wars and who make it pos- sible for us to have freedom in this great Nation of ours.” To Prevent Creeping Socialism the People Should Have the Right To Vote on Val- ley Authorities Before They Are Estab- lished EXTENSION OF REMARKS Or HON. GORDON L. McDONOUGH OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, January 12, 1951 Mr. McDONOUGH. Mr. Speaker, the United States is in danger today, in dan- ger more serious than ever faced before. The uverage American citizen is aghast at the array of problems paraded before him on every hand, each vital to his inde- pendence and future welfare, each far reaching in effect. Decisions must b2 made by the citizen or for him through elected and appointed officials, and they are decisions which will be felt by the inhabitants of this land far beyond the life span of those who today are re- sponsible for them. On the international front our Nation has become involved in war in Korea. American casualties are measured in the thousands. We as a people are dedi- cated to the defense of our Nation against Communist aggression. We have been dedicated by the New Deal-Fair Deal internationalists to the defense of the world against Communist aggression for the protection of the democracies. But we hear the term, “democracy,” loosely tossed around with regard to our allies, though many of these allies are already dedicated to the principles of socialism, different only in degree from communism with its attendant regimen- tation and dictatorial control—in effect governments which destroy independ- ence and freedom of the individual in but a Iesser degree than communism. Americans are bewildered as they rec- ognize some of the contradictory and grotesque facets of our international pol- icy, but as long as the New Deal, through President Truman and Secretary of State Dean Acheson, contro] the foreign poli- cies of the Nation little can be done to improve our position internationally. All criticism of foreign policy or sug- gested changes for future policy are skill- fully warded off by tirades of name-call- ing in an attempt to brand all dissenters as isolationists. No American today believes he can live within the borders of his own Nation se- cure and with no concern for the rest of the world. But an informed American believes that cooperation among nations calls for just that—cooperation of all in- volved——not for the depletion of Amert- can wealth and resources and American liberty and freedom merely for the bene- fit of other nations who refuse or fa‘l to fulfill their obligations in the interna- tional cooperative partnership. Through the Truman-Acheson admin- istration we pour tax money overseas in the hope that it will buy a nebulous de- fense in Europe against Communist ag- gression, tax money which is earned by the sweat and labor of Americans and A139 which today represents a sacrifice and lowered standard of living for every American family. And at the same time, the nations of Western Europe which have pledged cooperation with us only take limited and inadequate measures to bolster their own defense. If the only dangcr to America came from without, serious though these threats be, we could hope for their even- tual solution or resolution if we felt se- cure within our borders from threats to enslave our people and destroy the free- dom upon which our Nation was founded and which we further guaranteed in the Bill of Rights within our Constitution. But we are not secure within the boundaries of the United States, in fact have not been secure since the inception of the Rooscvelt New Deal and its pres- ent counterpart, the Truman Fair Deal. Creeping socialism is abroad stalking through the Nation, threatening the se- curity and liberty of every home. The men who are insidiously boring away to establish it sit in high places in the Gov- ernment. They are New Deal-Fair Deal appointees, They hold positions which can further their plans blueprinted to establish a socialistic state in America, a system of government control, Federal bureaucracy capable of regimenting the lives of every citizen from the cradle to the grave. Under the lying cover of promises of security and stabilized, con- trolled economy, Americans are being lured into a state of hypnotic acceptance of the welfare stale. They are being en- ticed to sell their birthright for a mess of socialistic pottage that will, if accepted, place the shackles of collectivist society upon America. Only an alert, informed, active public can combat this danger at home. Every plan for extension of government con- trol must be examined not only for what it purports to accomplish but for the actual motivation behind it. No major change in our form of gov- ernment should be allowed by default. Any issue that will affect and change our form of government should be submitted to the people for their direct vote. Today the socialistic planners are at work to accomplish one of the most im- portant steps in their over-all plan for the socialization of America—Federal control of public utilities. To accom- plish this they are working first for the establishment of the Columbia Valley Authority of the northwest, and then for additional valley authorities. Some idea of the actual scope of a val- ley authority such as CVA and the social- istic planning behind it is contained in the following article which appeared in a recent issue of the Reader's Digest by Leslie A. Miller, former Democratic Gov- ernor of the State of Wyoming: How many people bother to read on when they see a headline about CVA? What's CVA? Oh, that means Columbia Valley Au- thority. Uncle Sam wants to build a lot of big dams to give the people in the Pacific Northwest cheap electricity. Well, what does tt all mean to me? The CVA means plenty to you. It is just one more step in an ambitious plan to so- clalize the electric-power industry as a big stride toward socialism. And while the Government may dig the dirt out of some
A140 distant State, it will dig the billions the project will cost out of everybody’s pocket, including yours. The Columbia Valley Authority, cover- ing Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and parts of Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, and Utah, fg just one of nine huge power authorities into which Washington is planning to divide the entire country. These authorities will embrace hundreds of huge power dams built and operated by the Government. They will produce all the hydroelectric power in the Nation and will sell it to no private electric distributors—only to Government- owned or State-ownéd utilities. The Presi- dent, in May 1950, declared that “these ben- efits must not be diverted to private profits.” Holding in its hands the power by which almost all industry operates, the Federal Government will be able to dominate the industrial life of the Nation. Soctalist plan- nere inside the Government admit, private- ly, that they look upon the socialization of electric power as the key to socialization of the United States. The unsuspecting American imagines we are safe from socialism because he knows the people will never vote for it. But socialism can be put over by a small minority. And the struggle now going on in the valley of the Columbia River is a good example of how it can be done. Up in the northwest corner of the Nation are seven States, all or part of which make up an integrated economic region dominated by the Columbia River and its tributaries. Along these rivers 180 dams have already been built. Of these, 86 are hydroelectric power dams, 32 are irrigation dams, and 12 are multipurpose—for irrigation, power, flood control. Some were built by private com- panies, some by municipally owned utility systems, some by the Federal Government. All have been hooked up by high-voltage transmission lines to form one giant power pool. The States, cities, private companies, and Federal Government have joined in a voluntary arrangement under which power can be shifted from one locality to another to meet varying seasonal needs. This region has the Nation’s most bountiful supply of electricity and the lowest rates—half the na- tional average. It is handled by a body rep- resenting all the partners in the pool—the private companies, States, cities, and Uncle 8am Now let us see how a small group of men, inserting themselves in strategic positions in the Washington bureaus, have set out to grab the whole Columbia River power net- work for the Federal Government. The Gov- ernment built and operates the dam at Bonneville, and it is through this that it finds itself in the present Columbia River power pool. The Government also has con- trol over the Nation's navigable rivers, and the management of irrigation and power schemes heads up in the Reclamation Bu- reau in the Department of the Interior. If, therefore, a Socialist intriguer wanted a Nnger in this great power pie, the thing to do would be to get into the Reclamation Bureau. This is what an old-time Socialist did. He is Stephen Raushenbush, who has spent years promoting Government ownership of power. He believes the first decisive step toward socialism is the public ownership of all utilities. He has written that the social- izing program should begin with local and State ownership, then power authority, then complete nationalization. The program could be eased along gradually by a small group in the right positions. He wrote: “One good man with his eyes, wits, and ears about him inside a department * * * can do more to perfect the technique of con- trol of industry than a hundred men out- side.” In 1941 Raushenbush turned up as the chief economist and planner of the power division of the Interlor Department, And he was not alone. There were two other good men—Dr. Car] D, Thompson and Dr. Paul J. Raver, Dr. Thompson, once research di- rector of the Socialist Party, has written that when the Government owns electric power this will mean control of transportation and industrial production. Dr. Thompson was consultant to the Bonneville Power Admin- istration from 1938 to 1947. Dr. Raver, also a Socialist, has been Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration since 1939. So we find these three men neatly placed in strategic spots for promoting thelr So- cialist dream. When Raushenbush left the Department in 1947, the Secretary of the In- terior told him: “We have relied heavily on you.” Theat marks the degree of his influ- ence, Dr. Raver represents the Government in the Columbia power pool. But he does not like the way that pool works. He declares he wishes to revitalize the power program in the Northwest. By this he means pulling together all of the public ownership forces of the region around an agreed program of public ownership and acquisition of private utilities. He has refused to let private com~ panies have long-term contracts for any part of the power produced by Bonneville dams. The proposed Columbia Valley Authority will supersede the present power pool. It will be a monopolistic Government corpora- tion, run by three men answerable only to the President. It will have autocratic power over the rivers and the power generated in them. It will control all natural resources, including land, forests, soil conservation, irrigation and water rights. The three directors of this proposed CVA could spend money as they saw fit. They could buy and sell real estate and private utilities. They could regulate mining, lum- bering, and fishing. They would be author- ized to determine the size of farms and to dictate farm practices through their control of irrigation water. They oould establish any business they might think desirable by calling it a “demonstration” operation, Their mission would be to plan the economic life of the whole region—‘to establish a bal- anced and stable economic development.” Add to these powers the Federal Govern- ment’s control of credit through its numer- ous lending agencies, and you will realize what the word “Authority” means. These planners have a theory that our division tnto States is unnatural. They be~ lieve the country should be divided into “economic regions.” Dr, Arthur Morgan, who built TVA and was its first Chairman, wrote to the Senate Commerce Committee, saying that while he was chairman of TVA his colleagues were talking about the “Au- thority” gradually taking over the functions now being exercised by the States, towns, and counties, and that they had the dream that this might go on gradually as the “functions of the local authorities withered away.” Thus you behold the revolution that creeps over the land. But those managing it never disclose their intentions. They advertise, instead, the rich fruits they will bestow. Opposition to CVA in the Pacific North- west remains obdurate and up to now has been able to hold the Federal Government planners off. More than 200 organizations have protested, including irrigation districts, citizens’ committees, Grange units, the Farm Bureau Federation, organized cattlemen, miners, lumbermen, and businessmen. The legislatures of Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and Wyoming have protested it. The governors of Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming have spoken against it, along with most of the Senators and Congressmen from that region. The opposition would be even more intense if more people understood this important fact: Under CVA, irrigation would of necessity have to take a back seat to power APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD production, and private ownership of water rights, so precious in the west, would go by the boards. In Seattle, Mayor William F. Devin, who is also head of the municipally owned power system, says: “This is not a fight between public and private power. This is a case of the Federal Government using phony gifts of our own taxes as bribes to rob us of our basic rights. * * * We are capable of developing our own economy. I say let us develop the Columbia River as our own re- sponsibility.” This is precisely what the Federal Govern- ment does not wish that valley, or any other valley, to do. Once the Columbia River area is made over in the Socialist pattern, it would be followed by the Missouri Valley Authority and then the others, to blanket the Nation. Governor Langlie, of Washington, says: “The issue here is whether the people are to man-~- age their own affairs or have them entrusted to three men appointed in Washington, D. C., and given almost unlimited power. What would be left of our State and local govern- ment when such an agency gets into full swing?” The CVA project has been stalled for the moment. But it will be resumed in the next Congress. We must not forget that what is planned for the Columbia River Valley is planned ultimately for the entire Nation. Mr. Speaker, recognizing the danger to the Nation resulting from establish- ment of valley authorities without due deliberation and examination, I believe that such projects should be created only after the people in the areas directly af- fected have expressed a desire for the establishment of such authority by vote in a free election, and I have introduced a bill for this purpose. The hold- ing of plebiscites in the areas where a valley authority is to be established will permit frank and open discussion of the effects of such an authority upon the people and the extent of the socialization which would grow from it. In April of 1950, a convention of 400 delegates representing the Utility Work- ers Union of America—ClO—condemned by unanimous vote the creeping paraly- sis of nationalization of the industry, and in their resolution added: Control of the electric industry is the key to control of the major industries of the Nu- tion. The Government is already in the utility business to quite an extent and, un- less we are on our guard, will soon own most of it. This will be the first step down the socialistic highway. Then transportation, communication, steel, and the rest will follow to put an end to our American way of life. I am certain that if the people of the Nation are given the opportunity to use the ballot in a direct election before establishment of additional valley au- thorities is allowed, they will vote against any further encroachment of the Federal Government which would de- stroy freedom and extend socialism in our Nation. The following is the bill which I have introduced to provide for a plebiscite before establishment of addi- tional valley authorities: A bill to prohibit the establishment of a valley authority in any State that would be substantially affected thereby until the people of the affected areas of such State have voted affirmatively for such valley authority Be tt enacted, etc., That no law establish- ing a valley authority (similar to the Tennes- see Valley Authority) shall become effective within a State which in the judgment of the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Governor or legislature any part of such State would be substantially affected by such law, if such law were to become effective within such State, until a certificate from the Governor of such State has been filed with the Senate (or with the Secretary of the Senate if the Senate is not in session) and with the House of Representatives (or with the Clerk of the House of Represent- atives if the House of Representatives is not in session) stating (1) that an election has been held pursuant to the election laws of such State in those congressional districts which would be substantially affected by such law, if such law were to become effec- tive within such State, and (2) that a ma- jority of persons voting in such election have voted affirmatively to have such law become effective within such State. Review Wire-Tap Ban EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KENNETH B. KEATING OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, January 12, 1951 Mr, KEATING. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include editorials from the Decatur (Ill.) Herald and the Washington Post dealing with the necessity for recanvassing our aiti- tude banning the use of evidence ob- tained through wire tapping in the ap- prehension of spies, traitors, enemy agents, and others disloyal to our country: Review Wire-Tap BAN Heightened concern over the national se- curity may lead, it now appears, to a review of the use of wire taps as a means of gather- ing evidence against spies, traitors, and saboteurs. Representative KennrxTH B. KeaT- ina, of New York, made the first step when he introduced a bill to permit Federal Bu- reau of Investigation agents to obtain Federal court orders for wire tapping, if national security appears involved. Some modification of the doctrine which bans the use of wire tap evidence clearly is needed. Representative Kxavina calls the rule absurd, and it certainly proved so re- cently when Judith Coplon’s conviction for plotting to spy on this country for Russia was overruled on grounds that part of the evi- dence against her was gained by wire tapping. The proposed change now becomes a matter of practical necessity. As the law stands, it permits spies to conduct their nefarious pro- fession over American telephones. Govern- ment agents may suspect the tenor of the conversation, but are not authorized to listen in. Permission to tap wires should be doled out sparingly, surely, for the private rights of the citizen must be guarded. The author of the bill, however, has provided against a possible of too free a use of the privilege when he asks that FBI men and military intelli- gence agents secure court permission before using the tapping system. Fact is, the average citizen conducts busi- ness over the telephone of less importance than is ordinarily believed. If his conversa~ tion was really im t, he would protest more vigorously than he does the party-line systems in use in all rural areas and in many city systems. Leaatizep Wimax TArPina Readers of this newspaper will know that it has long believed that wire tapping in any form is abhorrent to American principles of privacy of the individual. The country is now faced, however, with a sinister threat to its security. In the perpetual struggle to maintain a balance between civil liberties and measures to safeguard national security it may be necessary to yield somewhat on civil Mberties in order to prevent the loss of both liberty and security. It is in this con- text that we believe that the bills to legalize wire tapping by law-enforcement officers under certain specified conditions should be considered. Wire tapping where now carried on by Fed- eral officials is patently against the law. The Federal Communications Act forbids the in- terception and divulgence of wire communi- cations, and the Supreme Court has said plainly that this means divulgence even to another person in a law-enforcement agency. Present use of wire tapping by the FBI—a practice reportedly confined to espionage and kidnaping cases—rests on a flimsy, and in our view entirely unsupportable, authorization by the Attorney General. At the same time there can be no question that wire tapping is going on. It is engaged in not only by Federal authorities, as brought to light in the Coplon case, but also promis~ cuously by “private eyes” and others. Dis- closures before the Senate District Committee last summer showed that Police Lt. Joseph Shimon, acting in a private capacity, inter- cepted telephone conversations on a broad scale in connection with the Howard Hughes hearings. There are continuing allegations that wires of various governmental officials are tapped, and no one knows, in truth, how extensively wire tapping is carried on. Thus, as a factual matter, the practice has outrun the law, and there seems to be no disposition on the part of Federal author- ities to crack down, whatever the law says. The danger in this situation is that the con- tinuing evasion of the law tends to bring dtsrespect for all law and increase the num- ber of violations. The reason that this has happened, in our opinion, is a deep-seated feeling among law-enforcement officials and the public generally that wire tapping may be necessary to protect the national security or to save lives. In the wake of the Canadian spy trials, the Fuchs disclosures, and other evidences of conspiracy, anyone who would forbid law-enforcement officers the use of means necessary to arrest the conspiracy would take upon himself a terrible respon- sibility. Hence, it seems to us, the best chance of preventing wire tapping from becoming a monster, is to channelize it into cases in which it is clearly necessary, and to provide stiff penalties for its unauthorized use. That 1s what the Neely bill attempts to do as re- spects Washington. It would permit wire tapping by District law enforcement officers only on specific authorization by a Federal judge, obtained in much the same manner that a search warrant is now obtained. The bill would require law officers to state under oath that a crime involving the safety of human life had been or was about to be committed, that wire tapping would lead to essential evidence, and that no other means were readily available. It is explicit in pro- hibiting wire tapping under any other cir- cumstances. This version is a distinct improvement over the original Neely bill, which did not restrict the categories of crime in which wire tapping would be permitted. That of course, would have been more than the camel's nose in the tent; it would have been the whole camel. It would have put any Federal judge applying the regulation under an impossible burden. The inescapable fact about wire tapping is that all telephone con- versations involve two persons, and there is no way to limit the interception to the words of the person being sought. For this reason it seems to us imperative that any legalization of wire tapping by A141 Federal officers be also confined to cases af- fecting national security or human life, and that a Federal judge authorize it only after rigorous conditions have been met. There is justification, we believe, for such a law on @ national scale along the Hnes of the Keating bill introduced in the last Congress. This sort of law, coupled with severe penal- ties for violation, could help protect the na- tional security and at the same time remove fears that telephones were being tapped in- Giscriminately. The limitations on wire tap- ping, however, must be narrow and precise, and any law which did not contain careful safeguards could result in incalculable harm, What’s the Matter With Senator Taft? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. A. S. J. CARNAHAN OF MISSOURI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, January 12, 1951 Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, under permission to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include herewith an editorial which appeared in the St. Louis Post- Dispatch on January 7, 1951: Wat's tHe Matrrr Wit Senator Tart? (“The President simply usurped authority, in violation of the laws and the Constitution, when he sent troops to Korea to carry out the resolution of the United Nations in an unde- clared war.” Robert A. Tart, in the Senate, January 6.) Is it Senator Tart’s purpose to outdo Sen- ator McCarrmy in irresponsibility? It be- gins to look that way. Alnvost every state- ment the Ohio Republican makes these days is more dangerous than the one before. Consider only the most recent of the GOP leader's utterances. On December 29, Senator Tarr said in an address in Cincinnati: “I have no great con- fidence in the judgment of the top military.” Yet it was not enough for him to attempt to undermine popular trust in men of the character of Defense Secretary Marshall, General Bradley as chairman of the Joint Chiets of Staff, and the latter's associates, General Collins, General Vandenberg, and Admiral Sherman. Senator Tarr then went on to quote the top military os follows: “They doubted if we could hold out in Ko- rea or the Philippines. Now they have 250,- 000 Americans spread out across Korea and they think they can defend indefinitely against 2,000,000 Chinese.” Thus, the Ohio Senator made no allowances for any of the problems involved in the supremely difficult Korean choice last June. Thus, he quoted for the benefit of our op- ponents on the field of battle information which he himself said he received in secret from high military leaders. Inevitably, Senator Tarr was questioned by reporters about this amazing statement. Thereupon he amended It to say that he did not mean to include in his vote of no con- fidence the command in the field. Pre- sumably this revision was to exempt General MacArthur from his black appraisal of the competence of the Nation’s top defense com- mand. That did not lessen the seriousness of what Senator Tarr had said. Actually, it made his egregious error only worse. For now he said in effect that General Mac~- arthur was trustworthy and able, but that his assignment was hobbled {f not made im- ble by General Bradley and other shapers of over-all military policy. ‘The man who is often called Mr. Repubil- can did not wait long before announcing