The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1950-09-08
Rep. CelIer d., N.Y.

I naturally hesitate to run against the cur
rent | fear me this bill will pass with pre-
penetrating vote nonetheless those who diff
Ter with the proponents of the bill should
have the right to have their day in court, and
l am exercising that right now.
-" In fighting communism | do not want
to surrender to the concepts of communism.
l do not want to surrender to the Communist
technique, and l do not want to surrender to
the Communist methods.
The Wood bill would not: l. Stop commun-
ism. They would go under Their party
would take new form; 2. will not help catch
spies and saboteurs; 3. will not protect in
ternal security; 4. it will punish men for
their thoughts; 5. it will punish men for ex-
pressing ideas.
We are mature men and women and must
ec+ out CT maturity. We are the ones who
face the challenges; on us, the Members of
Congress, is placed trust-a grave trust
not to give way to fear, to hysteria-not to
run amok when faced with the problems of
our age We must set our faces like flint
against this erosive subversion of our hard
won liberties .
Let it not be said of this Eighty-first Con
gress, Liberty, what crimes committed
IN your name?
Just exactly what do we gain with this leg
slation? There is not one provision aimed
against sabotage or espionage activities WHICH
concern directly the internal security of the
United States. Ny substitute, HR 1902, does
that. The Wood bill is aimed solely at the
dissemination of unorthodox ideas-but ideas
which have made very little impact in the
country as a whole. The American ideal is
strong enough to meet in open competition
with this totalitarian ideololgy. The effect
of the bill would prevent exactly that kind
of open competition, and would drive the
Communists underground. The only spec
tacle that would ensue would be that of the
United States hunting phantoms. =.
Boiling the Wood bill before us down to
its essence, find that are legisIating
not against communism, but against the
Bill of Rights. Assuming for moment
that it is wise-and | for one make no
such admission-to legislate against ideas
rather than actions, let examine the
bill to how effective it can be.
The bill provides for THOUGHT CON
troll. Take page 80 and see the crieteria
that govern the Subversive Activities Board
to determine whether or not an organization
is a COmmunist-front or a Communication
organization One of the criteria is as follows:
The board must consider the extent to
which its views and policies do not deviate
from those of such foreign government or
foreign organizations
Suppose | am member of a perfectly in
nocuous organization that believes in the Gov
enant on human rights; that believes in the
advocacy of the covenant on genocde; that
believes in the justice of opposition to the use
Of the atomic bomb; that is opposed to our
foreign policy Korea or Formosa 1t may
ust happen that the Government Of Russia or
johnnie organizations have views which CO.
dc 1yif tbo viov1 IF hot
'ation. What may happen? You give the
power to this Subversive Activities Board to
ieclare that organization a Communications
That is a fine kettle of fish.
HE RESULT is THOUGHT CONTROL.
,ou brighten, you cow the people of the ma
ion. You thereby restrain expression. You
obble discussion. The dissidents, those who
night be unpopular because they disagree, are
randed traitors, spies and Communists