various F. B. I. agents and that he was a special agent in charge of the Bureau of Investigation and that is just one position removed from Edgar J. Hoover. He also testified that he had left the F. B. I. to become superintendent of investigations for a large industrial corporation. The CHAIRMAN. I don't want to be discourteous to you but we have some carry-over witnesses to be heard this morning. We understood you only wanted 5 minutes. We are not trying Mr. Hoover. Mr. Hoover is not on trial. The thing before this committee right now is whether or not a committee should grant the request of the Department of Justice for what that Department tells the committee is essential legislation to assist them in preventing espionage and “fifth column" activities in this country during the national-defense program. That is the thing that is before the committee right now. Mr. LAMB. And the relevancy of this particular angle that I have submitted is that Mr. Hoover formerly and for many years has been one of the most strenuous opponents of wire tapping. The CHAIRMAN. This committee is probably as familiar with Mr. Hoover's attitude, and probably much more so than you are. It was this committee right here which set up his agency and pushed the boat off and started the F. B. I. I knew Mr. Hoover when he was a clerk in the Department. We followed the matter down through and I think the committee has kept in pretty close touch with the things that you are now discussing. Mr. LAMB. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. So suppose you get down to what we want to know about this bill. Mr. LAMB. Yes, sir; I would be very glad to do that. I think it would be surplusage for me to add any of these remarks of Mr. Hoover's to the record. The CHAIRMAN. They are all in the record. Mr. LAMB. I am sure they are. The point I am simply making is that while Mr. Hoover formerly claimed it was highly unethical to tap wires, we still think it is unethical and should be prevented in the future. Mr. MICHENER. Of course the Supreme Court has reversed its decisions several times within the last year. Would you insist that the Supreme Court continue to enunciate the same philosophies down through the years or would you want them to suit their decisions to modern conditions? Mr. LAMB. Well, we are very hopeful that the committee, having before it as it has, the grand history of the wire-tapping string of cases, where the practice has been to condemn in the heartiest terms the practice as a contemptible and despicable practice, and we still feel it is and whether it is now or 2 years ago, or 2 years from now, we still feel that it is an invasion of the most fundamental rights of protection against invasion of privacy and we look to the Government as an example. Mr. MICHENER. I know you do but assuming you were in our position on this committee. Mr. LAMB. Yes. Mr. MICHENER. And the Attorney General of the United States and the Department of Justice, whose duty it is to protect this country in this hour of emergency, came before this committee and said, "we cannot do the job which we are presumed to do for our country without this law." Now, what would you do? Mr. LAMB. Well, I am a neighbor of yours and I am very glad to defend our good institutions in Michigan and Ohio as keenly as you are. I feel that your duty as a Congressman and as a member of this committee, with all the experience that we have and knowing the evils of wire tapping, we cannot say there is any such thing as good wire tapping anymore than there is good third-degree methods. I think it is subject to abuse. Mr. MICHENER. I am not arguing with you. I am not arguing for wire tapping. My question was concrete-you are a lawyer? Mr. LAMB. Yes. Mr. MICHENER. You can answer my question. Mr. LAMB. Yes, and my concrete answer is that on no occasion can the committee or Congress create such a thing as a good wire tapping bill. Mr. ROBSION. Of course, Mr. Michener's question is directed to the question as to whether or not this is necessary now for national defense. Mr. LAMB. Yes. Mr. ROBSION. Now, in your opinion is wire tapping necessary to enable us or give us a better opportunity to uncover these "fifth columnists" who are engaging in espionage and sabotage? Would that help the situation? Mr. LAMB. I think that Congressman Michener suggested that my answer should be a concrete answer. I would like to make it as short as possible and the answer is "No." The F. B. I. claimed and certainly did make an excellent record in the kidnaping cases. They apprehended the kidnapers and prosecuted successfully many other crimes but they did that without a wire tapping bill. If wire tapping has been necessary it certainly isn't indicated by the history of the F. B. I. in apprehending criminals. My feeling is that it just isn't possible to draft a wire tapping bill that wouldn't be abused and be the subject of much dirty business. It is violative of every American principle that we know. Mr. ROBSION. It has been suggested here if we put a law on the book giving the F. B. I. and others the right to wire tap, these criminals won't use the wires anymore. In that event you would have all the bad features of wire tapping and no good results. What we are looking for is beneficial results. Mr. LAMB. I don't like wire tapping, even a Congressman's wire. Mr. MICHENER. I don't like it, either; but if the Government can save the Nation at this time by tapping my wire, I am very happy to forego the rights which I have in ordinary times. Mr. LAMB. Yes; and you and I, Mr. Congressman, probably don't have anything over our wires that are suspect or improper. But just because of the mere fact that you and I aren't subject to third-degree methods, that doesn't justify the third degree. Mr. ROBSION. I would like you to address yourself to the proposition as to how this is going to get more information or uncover more criminals than without it. Mr. LAMB. Yes, sir. I say that it will not. I say that it will simply allow illegality, improper conduct on the part of the people to whom we look as the most law-abiding people in the country, our own Government people, and that to allow an illegal search and seizure of person's homes or invasion of his privacy does the exact opposite of what you and I and all Americans are interested in, and that is to allow both the preservation of our liberties and also the preservation of our insti tutions. Now, I think that if this committee will compare this with a thirddegree method-we know none of us are likely to be subject to third degrees, but we know that it isn't possible to say that the police shall use the third-degree method only in certain cases and only with certain restrictions. Such a thing is, it is in itself evil, just as the courts have repeatedly said. Now, for the purpose of expediting the matter, I would like to and will be glad to bring this matter to a hasty conclusion. I would like to conclude by referring you gentlemen to the dissent of Justice Brandeis in the Olmstead case (277 U. S. 439, p. 485), which, of course, like so many of Justice Holmes' ideas, have now become the more or less sacred beliefs of the prevailing sentiment of the country and of the Supreme Court. The CHAIRMAN. I think we have that in the record two or three times. Mr. LAMB. But I would like to put it in. It is only two or three sentences. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. LAMB (reading): Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that Government officials shall be subject to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizens in a Government of laws. The existence of the Government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the laws scrupulously. Our Government is the omnipresent teacher for good or for ill; it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy to declare in the administration of the criminal law that the end justifies the means The CHAIRMAN. We have that in the record several times, Mr. Lamb. Mr. LAMB. Very well; but in urging the committe to veto any proposal for wire tapping, I commend to it the language of this great Justice Holmes. Mr. ROBSION. If this Congress should pass a measure authorizing wire tapping, then that language would no longer apply-it wouldn't be a crime-there wouldn't be any crime in tapping wires, would there? If Congress disregards all history and the courts and the wide experience of both our administrative agencies and our private lives; if we passed a law and made it legal to tap wires, it would no longer be a crime. Mr. LAMB. Obviously; but we don't want to make something criminal which isn't a crime. In other words, the evil is going to be cured by making a law. It is going to be exaggerated. I urge very much that this committe veto and turn down any such suggestion for wire tapping. Mr. MICHENER. To identify you when this hearing is printed, we will be asked by the full committee just who you are and how you came to be here and whom you represent. Now, you say you are a member of this juridical association. Mr. LAMB. National Juridical Association. Mr. MICHENER. And just what is that? What are its functions? Mr. LAMB. It is a judicial group of lawyers who prepare and publish the International Juridical Bulletin. We have a circulation, I think, of 13 and 14 hundred now going to leading lawyers. Mr. MICHENER. Is it in any way connected with the American Bar Association? Mr. LAMB. No. Mr. MICHENER. With the Lawyers' Guild? Mr. LAMB. Are you asking if I am? Mr. MICHENER. No; this association. Mr. LAMB. No; this association is not. I am identified with the National Lawyers' Guild and also I am a member of the American Bar Association and other bar groups. Mr. MICHENER. Now, are you engaged in the general practice of law? Mr. LAMB. Yes. Mr. MICHENER. What is the name of your firm? Mr. LAMB. My name is Edward Lamb. I practice alone and have other lawyers working for me. Mr. MICHENER. Do you represent any civil organizations or industrial organizations or associations? Mr. LAMB. Yes. Mr. MICHENER. Or manufacturers' organizations? Mr. LAMB. Yes; without speaking at all for my clients, I would like to say that I have primarily a labor practice. I represent most of the C. I. O. unions in the State of Ohio or at least around Ohio, and many A. F. of L. unions. I think I have represented over 70 American Federation of Labor unions. Mr. MICHENER. You specialize in that type of practice? Mr. ROBSION. You say your organization is an international organization. Do you extend to all countries of the world? Mr. LAMB. No. Mr. ROBSION. I mean is your organization made up of a world-wide membership? Mr. LAMB. No; but we have in comparing laws of various countries been called upon to send our publications throughout the world. Mr. ROBSION. You call yourself international? Mr. LAMB. That is right, a very good name. Mr. ROBSION. Is your organization international in character? Mr. LAMB. No, no; it is a group of American lawyers but we have studied the laws of all countries. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Lamb. Mr. ROBSION. Might I suggest that the chairman indicate to these witnesses what we are trying to get and that they direct their testimony to an elucidation of those points? The CHAIRMAN. Will you come forward, Mr. Fraenkel? STATEMENT OF OSMOND FRAENKEL Mr. FRAENKEL. My home address is 76 Beaver Street, New York. I represent here the American Civil Liberties Union, a corporation having an office at 170 Fifth Avenue, in the city of New York. The American Civil Liberties Union is a Nation-wide organization which concerns itself with the protection of the civil liberties of all groups and classes of people, and it has done so for the past 20 years, interesting itself in proposed legislation and in legal proceedings. It is interested in this bill here under consideration because it believes that the subject matter of this bill is one of the fundamental civil-liberties matters. We have observed in the course of our short existence that which our founding fathers learned from the experience of the generations preceding in England, and what everybody has observed during the last few years, that tyranny is always accompanied by a misuse of the criminal law and that it is therefore of the utmost importance for the protection of all citizens, that there be certain safeguards in the fundamental law against invasion of their rights by government. We know full well that governments grow on the power that is given to them; that they feel at various times that more power is needed by them in order to accomplish the purposes of government. Now, sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong, but because of the human element involved it was found at the beginning of our history important to lay down certain principles of protection against what I call the four cardinal misuses of governmental power in relation to the criminal law, because the Government proceeds by espionage and censorship, discrimination, and persecution, and in protection for those we have our various constitutional safeguards, safeguarding the right of privacy and the right of freedom of opinion and the right of freedom of equality and the essentials of due process. Now, at the very threshold and underlying the whole structure of liberty is this question of espionage. It is not merely a handmaiden of tyranny but the begetter of tyranny. I may call your attention to a few remarks that I overheard on the radio one day last summer, when I happened to be traveling through New England. A high-school girl was discoursing on some forum, the nature of which I never learned, and she was saying what she considered to be the greatest glory of our country, and she said it is this: That you can say what you like without being afraid that somebody is listening and reporting on what you are saying. And I thought-I don't know who she was, I don't even know where she was-I thought there was expressed one of the most profound truths about the nature of our Government and its institutions and I reflected how in other countries freedom had been lost because that basic truth had been disregarded, because the moment espionage becomes a permissible way of government, as soon as people are allowed to listen in on other people's conversations, whether they be officials of the Government or private citizens, doesn't make any difference-in fact it is somewhat worse if they are officials of the Government. Mr. BARNES. Right there, if I may interrupt you. What about the reverse of your statement? That is if there are seditious and espionage groups with the express purpose and thought in mind of overthrow and eventually do away with our form of government and our rights and liberties that we now have in this country. What do you say to that? Mr. FRAENKEL. Anybody who conspires to overthrow the Government is subject to punishment under the laws of long standing. The |