are Communist dominated and controlled or anything of that sort. We have not set out to discover whether that is true, but from the superficial knowledge that inevitably comes to such a committee as ours, we are very much of the opinion that it would be decidedly unfair to draw an inference that these educational institutions are dominated by, controlled by, or badly infiltrated by Communists or the Communist Party. The only point that we have been seeking to make and that we shall continue to try to make is that there are some individual Communists who have succeeded in gaining places on the faculties of some of these institutions. It has been the purpose of the committee to search out those people for the purpose of gathering facts that will enable us to better recommend to the entire Congress remedial legislation that will, in the long run, help these institutions to detect and then rid themselves of such influences. Unfortunately the university and the other schools do not possess the power of subpena; they cannot place witnesses under oath and subject them to pains and penalties if they should refuse to answer questions honestly and truthfully. Where the committee comes in is that it is in a position to do that and to lay out before the institutions of learning facts that we develop in these hearings. From there on out it is up to those institutions to do whatever, in their judgment, is wise and proper. We have made no effort to dictate to any of these schools, nor will we, as to what they should do following the hearings that we may hold. In this instance, of course, the committee is intensely gratified to know that the heads of the various institutions in the State have been alert to the problems our hearings have developed and have taken swift, prompt, and I think, effective action The people who appeared before us will unquestionably be given a further opportunity by those schools to do that which they did not do before, that is, state their own case, their own side, fully and freely. If in the proceedings that these schools carry forward any contradictory matter should develop, that is, contradictory to the facts developed by our committee, we may, as we have done before, find it expedient to have those same witnesses before us again in the hope that they may then cooperate with us. I have made this statement because sometimes the erroneous impression gets abroad that the committee is attempting to do some of the harsh things the witnesses were accusing us of yesterday. We have no such intention, and we shall not do the things that they have charged us with. Now, Mr. Tavenner, do you have a witness? Mr. TAVENNER. I would like to call as the first witness Mr. John C. Houston. Will you come forward, please. Mr. CLARDY. Are you Mr. Houston? Mr. HOUSTON. I am, sir. Mr. CLARDY. Will you hold up your right hand? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. LEONARD. My name is Archie G. Leonard at 910 Pontiac State Bank Building, Pontiac, Mich. Mr. CLARDY. I think the Chair is moved to remark, as he did yesterday, on behalf of the entire committee, that the committee does not want anyone to draw any inference whatsoever about any attorney that may appear on behalf of any of witnesses called before us. We recognize the fact that as attorneys you and I, since all but one of our members are attorneys, are charged with a public responsibility and that you are here in behalf of your client in response to that. We do not want anyone to draw any inferences whatsoever about the fact that you have chosen to represent the gentlemen you do represent. Are you ready, Mr. Tavenner? Mr. TAVENNER. Yes, sir. Mr. CLARDY. Off the record, please. Mr. CLARDY. I should have inquired of the witness, although it is really his responsibility, but if you have any objection to being televised, the instructions will be given to keep the camera off of you. Do I understand correctly, you do object? Mr. LEONARD. I do, sir. Mr. CLARDY. I don't think I need repeat what I have said. Are we ready? Mr. TAVENNER. Yes, sir. Mr. CLARDY. Proceed. Mr. TAVENNER. What is your name, please, sir? TESTIMONY OF JOHN C. HOUSTON, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, ARCHIE G. LEONARD Mr. HOUSTON. John Houston. Mr. TAVENNER. Will you please state your age, residence, and occupation? Mr. HOUSTON. I think I am 28, but I would have to figure it out. That is a guess. I live in Pontiac, Mich., and I am an attorney by profession. Mr. TAVENNER. Where were you born? Mr. HOUSTON. Dearborn, Mich. Mr. TAVENNER. What is your birthday? Mr. HOUSTON. June 6, 1925. Mr. TAVENNER. How long have you been engaged in the practice of law? Mr. HOUSTON. Oh, approximately 21⁄2 years. Mr. TAVENNER. Where did you receive your legal education? Mr. HOUSTON. The University of Michigan. Mr. TAVENNER. When did you enter the university? Mr. HOUSTON. I believe it was in the fall of 1944. Mr. TAVENNER. You took your academic training at the University of Michigan, also? Mr. HOUSTON. Yes; I received my bachelor's degree at the university and also my law degree there. Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, what record of employment you have had other than the practice of your profession? Mr. HOUSTON. For what period of time? Mr. TAVENNER. Beginning in 1940-1944, say. 48801-54-pt. 7- 4 Mr. HOUSTON. Well, I don't know. You might consider this parttime employment. When I attended the university I lived in a cooperative house there. We did all our own cooking, floor sweeping, house management, and so forth and so on. I helped pay my expenses at the university. Mr. CLARDY. You are talking about the period of time when you were in school? Mr. HOUSTON. Yes. Mr. CLARDY. You are making it sound like my own biography. Mr. HOUSTON. Well, there are a good many of us who have to work to get our way through school. Mr. CLARDY. Not a bad way to do it, either. Mr. HOUSTON. No; I think it helps the educational process. Aside from that and since I have been practicing, I don't think there is anything except I dropped out of school for a year in 1947 when I wasn't too sure what I wanted to do with my future. I wanted to have a chance to think about it pretty thoroughly and make up my mind. I worked as a camera salesman most of that period and I learned a bit about photography, learned that I would rather be my own boss than have somebody ordering me around, and that helped me make up my mind after I did. I went back to school and finished Mr. TAVENNER. Was that employment in Michigan? Mr. HOUSTON. No, that was in New York City. Mr. TAVENNER. How long did you live in New York City? Mr. HOUSTON. Oh, roughly about a year. Mr. TAVENNER. At what address did you live when in New York City? Mr. HOUSTON. Oh, Lord, I couldn't tell you. We lived in three or four places. Housing was scarce, and it was pretty miserable, what there was of it, and we jumped around from pillar to post. Í lived for a while on Manhattan Island itself. I think it was on 74th Street West. I lived for a while somewhere up in the Bronx; lived for a while in Brooklyn, near good old Prospect Park. That is about all I can think of. Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Houston, were you present during the course of the hearing in Detroit on Friday of last week when Mrs. Bereniece Baldwin testified? Mr. HOUSTON. No, sir, I was not. Mr. TAVENNER. During the course of her testimony she advised the committee that she was the dues secretary of the Communist Party for the State of Michigan; that during that period of time she was employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and made reports to it of the knowledge which came to her in the performance of her duties as dues secretary of the Communist Party. She described her official connections with an organization known as the Ralph Neafus Club of the Communist Party at the University of Michigan. She advised the committee that she had written a letter in October of 1947 to Mr. Ed Shaffer concerning the dues, and that another person, not you, replied to that letter. The person was William T. Carter. Then at a later date Betty Houston succeeded Carter in that capacity. She also testified that it came to her attention as dues secretary of the Communist Party that your membership in the Neafus Club of the Communist Party was transferred to New York City in 1947 but that the transfer had been canceled. I do not propose to ask you any question relating to her testimony regarding your wife. My questions will be addressed only as to her testimony regarding you. If her testimony is correct, it would indicate that you were in 1947 a member of the Neafus Club of the Communist Party of the University of Michigan. If that be true, you have very definite knowledge of the operations of that club and its activity. Now, will you tell the committee, please, whether or not you were a member of the Neafus Club of the Communist Party at the University of Michigan? Mr. HOUSTON. No, sir; I don't think it is any of your business. I shall decline to answer that and any similar questions, and if I may, I would like to state my grounds. First, I consider any such question to be a violation-I would like to say this first: my answer is not only that I will refuse to answer the question, I will decline to answer that question. It is also and because of my constitutional rights, but it is also because I feel that this committee has no right to even ask such a question. I don't feel they have the right for these rea sons Mr. CLARDY. May I interrupt you at that point so we can cover this as we go along? Mr. HOUSTON. Yes, sir, certainly. Mr. CLARDY. I think I should tell you since you are also a member of the bar of the State of Michigan, that that question has been raised continually, repeatedly, and that it has been unanimously rejected, not only by the committee, but whenever any test has been made of it. I don't want to argue it with you; I am merely stating it as we go along, so you may proceed with your next point. Mr. HOUSTON. Well, of course the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the question. I rather feel when they do, they will come out with the right decision. Mr. CLARDY. You are in error there. The Court has ruled on it, but it undoubtedly has not been called to your attention and you do not know. Mr. HOUSTON. I am well aware of the decisions in that matter. However, let me discuss my grounds. I don't think we have to discuss the Supreme Court too much here. Mr. CLARDY. Proceed. Mr. HOUSTON. First, I consider this question and the asking thereof to be a violation of article I, section 9, clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States, which says that no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed, and the Supreme Court of the United States has said in United States Reports 303-328, U. S. v. Lovett-an act recommended by this committee, incidentally-this clearly accomplishes the punishment of named individuals without judicial trial. When our Constitution and Bill of Rights was written, our ancestors had ample reason to know that legislative trials and punishments were too dangerous to liberty of free men they envisaged. Secondly, I consider the asking of such a question a violation of the basic principles of the separation of powers between the executive, the legislative, and the judicial functions. This committee, in my opinion, is usurping the functions of all three when it acts as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner and as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison said in the Federalist papers, and wisely so, the concentration of legislative, judicial, and executive functions in a single body is precisely the definition of tyranny. Thirdly, I consider asking this question a violation of the first amendment which says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, and as the Supreme Court of the United States has said in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett (319 U. S. 624), if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or for citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. Fourthly, I consider the asking of this question a violation of my right of privacy against unreasonable search and seizure under the fourth amendment which says the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. And as Justice Brandeis has said in Homestead v. United States Mr. SCHERER. No warrants are issued in this case; no papers sought to be seized. Mr. HOUSTON. This, I would say, if you want to discuss the matter, is a pretty broad Mr. CLARDY. No, we don't want to discuss it. You hasten along and state your reasons. We have heard them all many times before, as you undoubtedly know. Go ahead. Mr. SCHERER. I am surprised at them, though, coming from a lawyer. That is what surprises me. Mr. CLARDY. No, I don't think you are really surprised. Mr. SCHERER. No, not considering his background as we know it. Mr. CLARDY. Go ahead, witness. Mr. HOUSTON. I don't know whether I got the citation of this case in or not, 277 U. S. 438, Justice Brandeis said, and I quote, The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellects. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure, and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred as against the Government the right to be let alone, the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of an individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the fourth amendment. Fifthly Mr. CLARDY. May I interrupt. How many more pages of that do you have? Mr. HOUSTON. Oh. I am more than half done. Mr. CLARDY. You may proceed. Mr. HOUSTON. Fifthly, I consider the asking of this question a violation of the due process provisions of the fifth amendment which says that no person shall be held to answer for capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on the presentment or indictment of a grand jury. |