not only because it was unfair and irrelevant, but because it was factually misleading.

I pointed out that Whittaker Chambers had gone

Senator WELKER. Your objection should have been the conclusion of the witness. She could not give a conclusion as to how he went from

Mr. RAHILL. I think you misunderstood. The point is that the interrogator had the order reversed. Whittaker Chambers went from communism to Quakerism and the question was How do you explain his going from Quakerism to communism?

I questioned the fact upon which the question was based and I was told that the interrogator had just read the Saturday Evening Post and therefore he was sure of his facts.

I explained to him that regretfully I had just laid down the 799 pages of Mr. Chambers' book and I would call him in the morning and give him the page citation which either suggested the Saturday Evening Post had been in error or that he had misread it.

He withdrew the question and the next morning I was able to send him the citation. It seemed to me that question was hardly a proper question to ask an intended citizen to reveal whether her attachment is to the principles of our form of Government.

Senator WELKER. I think you were absolutely right. I am convinced being the able defense attorney that you are, that I am going to have a tough time I follow your testimony in

Mr. RAHILL. Don't forget we are not opposed to legislation. We favor Senator McCarran's bill without the exceptions.

Senator WELKER. Yes, as long as it does away with wiretapping. Mr. RAHILL. We think it is extremely important both for our own welfare at home and for the respect we are held in abroad that we not win at unlawful behavior. We are not proud of the prohibition era though Friends look with favor on abstinence and we think this violation of the law-enforcement officers is a corrosive vicious onslaught on the morale of our people.

Senator WELKER. How would it be a violation of the law if it passed by virtue of the consent of the American people?

Mr. RAHILL. I was speaking not of the future but of the present where 605 of the Communications Act is interpreted by the Federal Communications Commission and in the opinion of many, including myself, by the Supreme Court, to make it unlawful to merely listen and also unlawful to disclose.

Senator WELKER. I think you are right.

Mr. RAHILL. And that the violation of the law of our land day in and day out, 60,000 times by experts like Mr. Mellin, I suggest is not sound or healthy.

Senator WELKER. By two presidential directives, as I understand it, President Roosevelt, President Truman, and perhaps President Eisenhower.

Mr. RAHILL. That is what the Attorney General said that it started in 1941 under the enormous pressure of wartime which you will understand as I do, leads us to do things that we know in our hearts are not sound and not wise for the long run and the thing that I regret is that that practice which we resorted to at the height of the war has not long since been stopped.

Senator WELKER. Off the record.

(Discussion was continued off the record.)

Mr. RAHILL. I agree as to what we seek today. We might differ. I have a young brother, a favorite of mine, who lies buried in the Province of Alsace-Lorraine under a monument subscribed to by 11 million citizens of that Province to the "Americans Who Gave Their Lives for the Liberty of France.”

He was a company commander at 20 when he fell. My other brother at the moment is a captain of a destroyer off in Indochina and the last letter I had said he was a sharp tip on the lance of our defense policy.

I was a conscientious objector to military service and served in China 4 years and my brothers and I have agreed each of us is doing what is right for him and we do it with all our hearts. My own conviction from 4 years in China and India is that the threat to this country from within is less grave than the threat to this country from our own inability to know the world in which we live and in which we seek to assert leadership. The peasants of China and the peasants of India are very hungry for a kind of leadership we could give and are not at present giving in their opinion and I think that that is the gravest threat to our security that exists.

Senator WELKER. I am not going to argue with you about China and what happened in China because I have some observations on that, too. I just want to make this one observation with respect to your brother serving on a destroyer near Indochina.

If he knew in his own heart that you were responsible for killing a bill that would permit the chief law-enforcement agent of this country to catch a man from going in and blowing up the plant that would supply him with ammunition to fight the battle that he took an oath to fight, then I wonder what he would think in his heart.

Mr. RAHILL. I can tell you.

Senator WELKER. He took an oath just like you did, you know.

Mr. RAHILL. If my brother had been here or were here I expect he would testify in very different fashion from the way in which I am testifying. He would assert his right to say what he thinks just as I do. You and the other Members of Congress are under the burden of passing the kind of legislation which in your judgment, not mine and not my brother's, will do the best job of making this Nation secure. I am here today on behalf of the Friends Committee on National Legislation only to suggest a point of view that we hope you will be aware of.

We realize it is a minority point of view and we hope that it may have more validity than the number who adhere to it because it is based on not just our experience but on our religious beliefs and our efforts to live according to the sermon on the Mount and the life of Jesus Christ.

Senator WELKER. I have already heretofore paid my respect to your great religious body. I want to say to you that I have examined hundreds and hundreds of witnesses since I have been in the Senate32 years. I have never enjoyed more the examination of any other witness than you because you have been profound, sincere, and I know you have made a great study. We may differ as reasonable minds will always differ but I certainly respect you and I commend you very highly, sir.

Mr. RAHILL. It has been a pleasure to me, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. RAHILL, ESQ., ON BEHALF OF THE FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is William A. Rahill. I am a practicing attorney in Philadelphia, and am here on behalf of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, 104 C Street, NE., Washington 2, D. C. I am a member of the executive committee of that body.

The Friends Committee on National Legislation seeks to give expression to the concerns of individual Friends, to carry out their religious beliefs in the field of legislation, and to increase the awareness of the members of the Society of Friends to the problems which confront our lawmakers, to the end that Friends may participate more actively in the framing of sound national policies. Because of our beliefs, we can hardly remain silent at a time when individual liberties are often under attack. We are opposed to all totalitarian ideologies. Lord Acton wrote, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Even the most democratic governments may sometimes be tempted to use totalitarian methods, always, we know, in the name of self-preservation and security. A free people must be continually on the alert to see that the means employed to preserve their government are compatible with the ends that government was framed to serve.

The Friends Committee on National Legislation said, in a statement on legislative policy adopted January 8, 1953, "We condemn treason or spying or any disloyal act. At the same time we highly value free thought, free speech, and free association. These are essential to the elimination of error or wavering loyalty. Government can deal with sabotage, espionage, and subversion, and judge the competence of persons in Government service, without infringing upon these basic rights."

Since Mr.

We are opposed to wiretapping of any sort and for any reason. Marconi and Mr. Bell placed at our disposal those marvelous means for rapid communication, the telegraph and the telephone, they have had an important impact on our American society. We are opposed to any action by the Congress which would tend to curtail or limit the use of these media of expression between individuals, and between individuals and other groups, as a vehicle for the free expression of thoughts and ideas, and opinions.

Our country was founded on the proposition that truth will win out in the market place of ideas, if the opportunity is available for the free exchange of views. We believe that the free dissemination of ideas and the exchange of honest differences of opinion increase the vitality of a democracy. We wish to avoid any step which would increase the fear and timidity that already lead some, and perhaps even some Members of Congress, to speak guardedly on the telephone.

In addition to the value to our democratic society of the free exercise of the right to communicate between man and man without fear, and the right of an individual himself to be free of fear in expressing his views one to another, there is the consideration of the policeman, who himself is a human being of worth and dignity. We are concerned about the effect on him of having to eavesdrop on his fellow man.

There is the story of the police inspector in another country who, when asked why it was that he was torturing his prisoner in the shade, said, "And would you have me move about in the sun to gather evidence on such a day, when I can torture my prisoner in the shade?" If the use of wiretaps becomes an accepted method of police detection, it will not take long for the morale and the effectiveness of our police agencies to deteriorate. A good police force learns to develop evidence by moving about in the sun. If wiretapping becomes an accepted police device, flat feet will not be the distress of policemen, but secretary's spread and buzzing in the ears. Seriously, we believe that in a very short time our police agencies, in morale and effectiveness, will be gravely impaired by their participation in a practice that is so repugnant to the American tradition. We agree with the Attorney General in that part of his testimony before your subcommitee last month where he said that if he were permitted to utilize in criminal proceedings against alleged spies and saboteurs, evidence obtained by wiretapping, it would simplify his job of securing the Nation. But by the same reasoning, so would the thumbscrew and the rack make possible the detection of these people. There are certain things that we in a democracy do not do even to protect ourselves.

There's one further aspect that deserves mention. We believe that in the long run the security of our country depends in a large measure upon the degree to which we can win the minds and hearts of men and women in far-off places.

In that struggle for the minds and hearts of men, we are judged primarily by the fidelity with which we act in accordance with our professed ideals. Our task is not easy. We must first feel a concern for our fellow men less fortunate than we, and then by our actions we must communicate to them our genuine desire to help them help themselves.

In the long run, no threat to our security is more grave than the possibility that we may lose touch with events and facts in distant lands. Each step by which we show that we have lost faith with the long accepted values for our individual liberties is a step away from winning the minds and hearts of those people. Any measure by Government which insists upon undue conformity, discourages controversy and dissent, may seem, at the moment, to promote our security, but in the long run is far more certain to weaken it.

Our genuine safety as a nation rests upon the respect and confidence of people around the world, and the vigor and vitality or our democracy at home, rather than upon piling up massive armaments and an obsession with military secrecy and with internal security.

It is always more pleasant to be for something rather than just against something, and so I suggest that you approve Senate bill 3229, introduced by Senator McCarran, provided certain sections are deleted as follows: On page 2, delete lines 7 and 8 (the except clause), and on page 2 delete lines 11 through 24. Delete page 3 entirely (lines 1 through 24), and on page 4 delete lines 1 through 3. On page 5, a period after "distress," and the balance deleted.

The bill as amended in this fashion would make it a crime punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment of not more than 10 years or both, without authorization from the sender and recipient of any wire communication by common carrier, either willfully to intercept or attempt to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, such wire communication. That, gentlemen, might be a very salutary statute, and I mean that, not more.

Thank you very much for your courtesy to me and to the Friends committee. Senator WELKER. Due to the fact that we have a lady here who lives at Suffield, Conn., Miss Mineola Miller, of Connecticut, who comes here and asks to be heard in open hearing today, even though I am a little bit weary and I am sure the audience is, we are going to listen to Miss Miller now.

Miss Miller, I know you have been very courageous to wait while we have been here. I have a committee meeting starting in another room at 2:30 but if we can get through in 5 or 7 or 8 minutes, I assure you I will not bore you with questions like I have the other able witnesses and I am sure you are able.

Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF MISS MINEOLA MILLER

Miss MILLER. I am Mineola Miller. I live in Suffield, Conn. I am a farmer and I have farmed in both Massachusetts and Connecticut.

My address down here is Belleview Hotel. I might be here a few days more.

Senator WELKER. Just make yourself at ease.

Miss MILLER. I think most of the ground that could be covered has been covered already and I would not try to rehearse any of it or repeat any of it. I think there is one thing that may be has not been of very great external danger and I believe it a danger that is not touched on which I think is important. I believe we are in a position appreciated entirely. I have spent a good deal of time reading the raw press reports that come in from the foreign countries, the Associated Press news features which are supposed to be reliable and also in reading the broadcasts from foreign countries, the Communists and also the non-Communist broadcasts.

On May 5, I read from a broadcast from Formosa that intelligence agents had given the word that a Chinese general had been dispatched from Peking to-I cannot remember now-I have it written down here, one of the cities in lower China, to organize forces they believed to attack either Thailand or Burma, that 500 young Communisttrained Chinese, Chinese Communist trained Burmese youths had just been sent back into Burma to support the Communist cause from a school on the border in Yuma Province in China on the border of Burma.

It seems to me that we are in very serious danger of suffering the same kind of reverses we did when Japan sailed down through the Pacific into east Asia.

I think we should not be talking about making wiretapping legal now, certainly. I think we should leave the law as it is until we can, I mean there is not any law really now. I think it is not necessary to use wiretapping as evidence in court to convict somebody. I think that what is necessary is to be able for the Army and all the Armed Forces to be able to discover anything at all which might assault our country and I think that is most important right now.

I think wiretapping should be outlawed. I agree with the previous speaker here. I never heard such a splendid argument in my life and I have heard several but I think that, I do not see how we can outlaw wiretapping now because I think we are in a state of war and do not realize it. I do not think that we should under any circumstances leave the authority for wiretapping in the hands of the Attorney General. Regardless of any person human nature is human nature and in the long run it runs true to form.

Senator WELKER. You believe in leaving it to judges?

Miss MILLER. I do not believe in leaving it to anyone. I think it should be left to the Armed Forces.

Senator WELKER. They are human.

Miss MILLER. Yes; but this is a time of war. I think it is bad enough to leave it as it is now and I think as we get straightened out and know whether we are going to own America or be transplanted to China and the Russians will take over our country that we should use every means we now have to protect ourselves.

Senator WELKER. I am certain you and I agree that it would be a wonderful world if we did not have any laws at all, only the law of God.

Miss MILLER. If people could abide by any of them it would be wonderful.

Senator WELKER. Miss Miller, it has been an honor and privilege to have had you here. I certainly appreciate your statement and the committee will try to arrive at some conclusion.

Thank you.

Miss MILLER. I just believe that that situation protects us now and that we can make a law when it is time to make a law and when are not in the predicament that we are in now.

Senator WELKER. I am unable to see how that would hurt, the predicament we are in at this minute. I can only see that it might be some advantage. While we may not like wiretapping, we do not want to wait and make a law after the house is burned down.

Mr. COLLINS. In as much as this concludes our public hearings on the wiretapping bill, the subcommittee has received a request to incorporate a number of statements into the record, from the Congress of