Mr. TOLAN. Thank you very much. We know the position now of Mr. Hoover.

Is there anyone here who is in a hurry to get away?

Mr. CONNOLLY. I have to leave, and I have a statement which I would like to read.

Mr. TOLAN. How long is it?

Mr. CONNOLLY. It is not too long; it covers the subject.

Mr. TOLAN. Can you state the substance of it without reading it and file the balance of it?

Mr. CONNOLLY. That would be pretty difficult. I think I can read it quite rapidly.

Mr. TOLAN. The only thing about it is the full subcommittee is not here. They will all have to read it when it is in printed form.

STATEMENT OF EUGENE CONNOLLY, CHAIRMAN OF THE AMERICAN
LABOR PARTY OF NEW YORK COUNTY

Mr. CONNOLLY. My name is Eugene Connolly, and I am chairman of the American Labor Party of New York County. Shall I proceed, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. TOLAN. Yes. The only thing is, if it is possible, and mind you, I am not cutting you off at all, don't you see?

Mr. CONNALLY. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOLAN. If you can hit the high spots it would be well, because this record will be examined by the subcommittee carefully; but do the best you can.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I will try to read just as rapidly as possible.

For reasons indissolubly connected with its very nature, wire tapping has been for many years a favorite weapon used against high public officials, leading political figures, and people active in the work of their political party. This is because wire tapping is the most scientific kind of eavesdropping and snooping yet devised. Those who seek any kind of ammunition to further a political campaign are well served by wire tapping because it makes available to them every word spoken and every though uttered by its victim. It is the most efficient weapon of the political blackmailer because it is the most secret. The victim does not know that what he is saying to his wife, his family, and his most intimate friends is being overheard by a person to whose political advantage it is to discredit the victim.

It is for this reason that Justice Brandeis, in the Olmstead case, called wire tapping unconstitutional. It was for this reason that he characterized other illegal methods of obtaining evidence as "puny instruments of oppression" when compared with wire tapping. It was for this reason that Congress, until now, has refused to permit any Federal detective agency to engage in this practice. It was for this reason that for the past 6 years Congress has treated wire tapping as a felony. It was for this reason that the Supreme Court has refused not only to allow the use of wire-tapped conversations as evidence, but has gone so far as to refuse to admit other evidence gained from clues overheard by means of wire tapping.

In all other types of investigation which historically have been permitted by Congress to be used by Federal police, the police are enabled to gain only information relevant to the commission of a

crime. Whether the Federal police proceed by the interrogation of persons or by grand jury hearings or even by direct examination in the course of a criminal trial, only information actually relating to the commission of a specific crime is permissible. The suspect need never, under the American Constitution, answer questions not relevant to this inquiry. It is the duty of American judges to warn witnesses, when their lawyers fail to do so, not to answer irrelevant questions. Thus the suspect can never be compelled to divulge all the details of his personal, professional, and social life. But when the police are empowered to proceed by wire tapping to investigate any crime, they gather information not only about the specific crime they are supposed to be investigating but about the victim's entire life. Thus, any wire-tapping proposal is a proposal to give the police not an additional kind of investigating power, but a completely new type of power. It is a power which Congress has never before thought it advisable to entrust to any administration for it gives the police the power not merely to investigate a crime but to lay bare a man's entire life in its most intimate aspects.

In the entire history of the United States, no police agency has ever been entrusted by Congress with investigating powers which were broader than Congress' own. It has always been desirable for Congress, as the National Legislature, to be entrusted with broader powers of investigation than that given to any executive department. The Supreme Court has, time and again, upheld Congress' power to investigate because the power to investigate was a necessary adjunct of Congress' power to legislate. It is obvious Congress could not adequately pass laws unless it knew exactly what evils existed, but how they could best be ended and how proposed legislation would work. Yet Congress has never once stooped to wire tapping, although its investigations have been made difficult by contumacious witnesses, destruction of evidence, and so forth.

For other reasons as well, Congress has been a suitable repository of the widest possible investigatorial powers. Congress is never the Congress of one political party. It is always, at the least, bipartisan. Moreover, Congress is always directly responsible to the people. If it should abuse its investigatorial power, the people could defeat the persons responsible, just as they could for an abuse of the law-making power. Yet, despite all these reasons which are true in the case of Congress but which are not true in the case of a Federal investigatorial agency, it has never, in the entire history of Congress, once been suggested that Congress should be given the power it is now proposed be given to the Federal police.

Aside from the damage to its dignity and self-respect, Congress could not use wire tapping without violating Justice Holmes' warning that Congress cannot "go on a fishing expedition." The Constitution imposes limits on even Congress' power to investigate. Congressional investigators can never compel a person to answer a question not relevant to a proper inquiry. A witness can never be in contempt of a congressional committee for refusing to answer a question relating to anything other than its proper investigation. A witness' personal life cannot be bared. His thoughts remain his

own.

But by means of wire tapping, the Federal police go far beyond the limits imposed by the law and the Constitution on Congress. Since the wire tapper cannot tell in advance what his victims will say, the wire tapper must listen to every irrelevant word, to every discussion the victim holds with every other person-all in the hope of finding some word by which the victim will incriminate himself.

Let it not be thought that wire tapping, the most repulsive kind of snooping, can be made safe or proper by writing in extra sections in a statute which permits wire tapping, any more than the third degree can be made proper. Wire tapping can never be limited to a search for evidence. The wire tapper gathers first and foremost, not evidence, but potential blackmail material. The wire tapper always gathers information which can injure his victim even though the victim has committed no crime.

First, wire tapping as a weapon against opposition political parties, and this is what we are particularly concerned with.

For the reasons discussed above, the most recent and the most continuing use of wire tapping has been against political personages and their parties. Although condemned by press and public alike, wire tapping against political parties has increased year by year because the tapper has thus been enabled to gain information about the personal life of his victim. By the aid of wire tapping political debates need not be confined to the merits of political issues. Whispering campaigns and back-fence gossip mongering can take its place with more deadly effect against its victim. Unfortunately, this type of byproduct of political activity has been on the increase in recent years. Wire tapping has had its share in that growth. In 1940 the situation grew so bad that it became a public scandal in at least one State. Senator Green, of Rhode Island, thereupon introduced into the last session of the Senate, Senate Resolution No. 224, to authorize a senatorial investigation of wire tapping in this connection. The Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, having jurisdiction over bills relating to wire tapping, unanimously recommended the passage of this resolution. This committee coupled its recommendation with a report which exposed the full significance of the danger to political parties and American institutions created by wire tapping.

The Senate unanimously adopted the resolution and an investigation has been begun by a Senate investigating committee, headed by Senator Stewart. Although its work is not yet complete, enough has been exposed both by this committee and by the press acting on its own initiative to indicate that wire tapping has already contaminated the wholesomeness of American political life. The following examples will indicate the extent to which wire tapping has been used as an incident to political warfare:

In the State of Rhode Island the telephones of Mayor McCoy, of Pawtucket, and the telephones of State Attorney General Jackvony were tapped. The wire tapping was done under the direction of the highest public official of the State, Governor Vanderbilt. See New York Times of April 10, 1940; see also Hearings of Stewart Committee, volume 1.

In Philadelphia telephones of leaders of the Democratic Party were tapped by their political opponents. See Philadelphia Record,

March 1, 1940; Philadelphia Enquirer, March 2, 1940; also Hearings of Stewart Committee, volume I.

See Wash

In Colorado the Governor of the State was the victim of wire tapping, according to United States Senator Johnson. ington Post, March 17, 1940.

In California in February 1940, a microphone was discovered in the hotel bedroom of the speaker of the State assembly. This microphone was connected by wires to a dictagraph or recording device on another floor. Thus, every word spoken by Speaker Garland was overheard by his political opponents. In this particular case the apparatus used to eavesdrop had been purchased by the confidential aide to the Governor of the State. See San Francisco Examiner, March 6 and 8, 1940.

In New York the State adjutant of the American Legion charged that the wires of his organization had been tapped. This he alleged was due to a campaign which the American Legion was carrying on against a minor public official. See New York Times, February 19, 1938.

In every one of these instances-and the others which may be undiscovered the tapping took place in spite of the fact that it was a felony to tap wires. Since 1934, section 605 of the Federal Communications Act has made it a crime to tap wires and the act provides harsh penalties for a violation.

The fact that so many cases of tapping took place against political parties, despite the fact that Congress had made it a crime, proves two things. First, even where wire tapping is completely outlawed, it continues to be used with frequency. To legalize it under "safeguards," therefore, does not mean restriction of wire tapping; it means the opening of the door to universal wire tapping. Second, these latest instances of wire tapping show that wire tapping can be of use to any persons who are bent on securing or retaining political power. The politician who wishes to win office through gossip columns and whispering campaigns, or by giving out biographical snoops on his opponents, finds wire tapping a most necessary instrument.

H. R. 3099, the bill to legalize wire tapping, proposed to give the Executive the power to tap wires through the agency of the Federal police. This bill must be discussed, therefore, as a proposal to give every administration in office a new power directly usable against the opposing political parties. It must be studied, not in terms of the present administration and present officials, but in terms of all administrations and all officials who may have power while this bill is in effect. Whatever reference is made to current administration actions or current laws is not meant to suggest that this administration, more than any other, should not be entrusted with the power to wire tap. Such references are meant only to illustrate the things usually true under any administration which makes it dangerous to give wiretapping power to any political party which happens to be in office.

Wire tapping is indeed a tempting weapon to use in election campaigns. By its use, the administration in power could easily find material which could be used in whispering campaigns. Information could be passed on to journalists with an "inside track" to be used to discredit or besmirch the political parties in opposition. Pressure could be brought to bear on important individuals to influence their

stand. The leading members of the opposition parties could be smeared and their party disgraced.

Perhaps even more important, advance information could be gained on the attitude and plans of the party in opposition to the administration. By the aid of the dictograph and the wire tap, every step in the deliberations of the high-strategy committees of political parties could be overheard. It is not fantastic to envision that the administration could learn the substance and perhaps even wording of campaign speeches to be delivered by the leaders of the other parties even before they were made to the public.

Second, governmental wire tapping against political parties.

It is not sufficient to rely on the good faith of this and succeeding administrations as a bar to the use of wire tapping for political purposes. Men of otherwise the highest political integrity, such as Governor Vanderbilt of Rhode Island have found the wire tap too tempting a device to overlook in the course of their political battles.

The safest rule, therefore, is the rule followed by courts in dealing with private trustees in the performance of their trust duties. The courts have required as the wisest rule that not only should the trustee refrain from doing wrong to the trust; they require that the trustee shall refrain from placing himself in a posiion where he might possibly be tempted to do wrong. So it should be with any administration. It ought not to be exposed to the temptation to use wire tapping to perpetuate itself in office.

A. Tapping for any limited purpose could always include political wire tapping.

Suppose that any administration is given the power to tap wires of persons suspected of crime. In every election campaign there are charges, usually by both sides, that the laws regulating political activity have been violated. There are numerous laws which any political party can be charged with violating. Almost any political party at any time can be suspected of violating these laws-especially where the suspicion gives the administration the power to tap wires.

For example, the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 (Public Law No. 506, 68th Cong.) requires that every political party shall keep certain records of its contributions received and its expenditures. Section 309 of this law forbids a candidate for the office of United States Senator to spend more than $25,000 in his campaign and forbids a candidate for Representative to spend more than $5,000. Section 310 of the same law makes it a crime for any candidate to attempt to obtain support by promising to procure jobs for anyone. Section 311 makes it unlawful for a candidate to bribe anyone to vote in any way. Violation of any of these laws is a felony.

There are many other felonies growing out of political activities. For example:

The Federal law makes solicitation by anyone of a Government employee for a subscription for a political purpose in a Federal building a felony punishable by fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 3 years, or both, and it has been held in court decisions that a subscription requested by letter when the letter is addressed to a Federal employee at a Federal building is the same as a solicitation within the building. (Report of Special Committee to Investigate Campaign Expenditures, 1938, Rept. No. 1, 76th Cong., 1st sess., at p. 19.)

The Hatch Act (Public Law No. 252, 1939, as amended by Public Law No. 753, 1940) has added a new host of crimes arising out of polit