feeling of a few people that perhaps the exigencies of a necessary defense were sufficient to suspend, if not destroy altogether, the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments as they are sought to be de stroyed or suspended right now by this very legislation.

Mr. ROBSION. Was that a case in reference to wire tapping or something else?

Mr. KAPELSOHN. Well, that was a case in reference to the right of privacy and protection of individuals against unreasonable search and seizure which is exactly the problem that this subcommittee has before it today.

Mr. ROBSION. What is the date of that opinion?

Mr. KAPELSOHN. 1866; I would like to read in conclusion, this short excerpt from that opinion.

Mr. ROBSION. Not the 200 pages.

Mr. KAPELSOHN. No, no.

Mr. MICHENER. The Supreme Court had that decision before it in the Olmstead case.

Mr. KAPELSOHN. I heard your discussion of the Olmstead case before, Congressman, and I disagree with that. In the Olmstead opinion there is not a single word justifying wire tapping, not one. The Olmstead case did not hold that wire tapping was legal. In the Olmstead case the majority of the judges with the greatest of regret, expressed in their opinion that they were unable to take action under the particular facts there, not because it was legal but because there was no formula for their action at that time under those circumstances. And if you want me to explain the Olmstead case at length and you will give me another half or three quarters of an hour I will be glad to go into it.

Mr. ROBSION. Don't do that.

Mr. MICHENER. Oh, don't do that.

Mr. ROBSION. If this bill ever gets to the floor of the House there will be 435 Members who will want to talk about it for an hour in order to present their case for or against it and now you are not satisfied to have an hour here.

Mr. KAPELSOHN. No, that is simply if the Congressman wants me to explain the Olmstead case.

The CHAIRMAN. No.

Mr. KAPELSOHN. Because the time then will be short.

Mr. ROBSION. I would like to hear some of the other witnesses. Mr. KAPELSOHN. So if you will just let me read to you the short portion of ex parte Mulligan.

The CHAIRMAN. Put it in the record, at this point in your testimony. You have been here now for practically an hour.

Mr. KAPELSOHN. I had not realized the time was so long.

The CHAIRMAN. We will give you permission to insert that portion of the opinion in the record.

Mr. KAPELSOHN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for the time you have given me and I will say before I go if there are any more questions which the subcommittee members would like to ask me I shall be glad to answer them.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't think so.

Our next witness is Congressman Coffee.

1

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. COFFEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. COFFEE. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, to one who has just heard of the Hobbs bill and the Walter bill, to make it lawful to tap wires, several thoughts occur, first: This is a departure from anything Congress has ever done on the subject. It has legislated on the subject of wire tapping but always in the other direction, always in the form of forbidding wire tapping and never in the form of authorizing it.

Second, it is one of those things that aroused the people's hostility and general ire.

That kind of snooping is not merely distasteful to the American people. It permits wire tappers to sneak into the personal affairs of the people and the distaste of the American people would turn into a raging hostility were it to be exercised generally, no matter by how laudable an organization.

Third, it is dangerous for everybody to give the idea currency that only liberals and even radicals object to such bills. Give the businessmen time to see what is involved in this bill and they will realize that they may become the first victims. Wire tapping can be used against J. P. Morgan Co. just as well as against the A. F. of L. It can be used against the New York Stock Exchange just as much as against the C. I. O.

It can be used against the United States Steel Corporation or against Henry Ford just as much as against a cooperative store, a Rochdale enterprise or a Y. M. C. A.

Fourth, take some examples. Suppose the Government tries to catch some person it deems a thief in connection with national defense, but who is employed at a big company or lives in the Y. M. C. A.

The Government taps the telephone wire running from those buildings because this gentleman sometimes uses that telephone.

Now, think of the many other people who also use that wire and whose conversations and personal business will always be spied out by the Government agents while waiting for the telephone call of the man they suspect.

Fifth, no stronger language could be used against wire tapping than is to be found in the expressions of such revered and noble judges as Justice Brandeis and Justice Holmes.

Reference has been made to that by numerous witnesses before your committee and it would be repetitive if I attempted to dilate upon those opinions now.

Sixth, we want to save democratic institutions, not to sacrifice them. We don't want to adopt Nazi or Fascist methods of operating a secret police surveillance over our citizens, regardless of whether they have committed a crime or not.

That is no way to combat fascism.

To get together the facts and material on such points as these will necessarily take some time. I know there are many Members of Congress who would like to appear before this committee and object to these measures that are now contemplated.

Some of them are now in the process of preparing statements in opposition to the bills. I hope the committee will not be precipitate

in reporting to the full committee on these measures until adequate opportunity has been afforded our colleagues to appear before the subcommittee, inasmuch as it means we are gambling with our democratic rights, to say the least.

We should stop and look and listen before acting. How can we do so except by putting in testimony before congressional committees and having time for the purpose? It seems to me, gentlemen, that this is one of the most serious proposals suggested for many years so far as our personal liberties are concerned.

The defense of the democratic process and of civil liberties, it would seem to me, is one of the most vital functions of the Congress. If we remove the Bill of Rights or even a portion of the Bill of Rights just to that extent, just that much and to that extent we are weakening the morale of the American people in contemplating a defense against a foreign foe.

It seems to me that if we undermine the zeal or enthusiasm of the American people for the democracy which they may and possibly, will be called upon to defend, then just to that extent we are undermining our national defense.

It seems to me that you could conjure up a case against a person under suspicion, and in this case it would be a Federal agency, it may be the F. B. I. or the District Committee. You go before a local Federal judge, as in the Walter bill, or merely get a certificate from the head of the department conducting the investigation, as in the Hobbs bill, and get a right to tap the telephone wire of someone suspected, as the lawyers call it, of whom there is probable cause to suspect, is engaged in subversive activities affecting national defense. Now, we tap this telephone of the particular gentleman who is suspected of undermining our national defense, but we are not alone in investigating him when we tap the telephone. We are investigating the other person with whom the suspected person is conversing.

What safeguards are we enshrouding about the innocent party who may be engaged in an innocent conversation with the suspected person? The F. B. I. has thus been put in the position of the Dies committee or any other agency of finding out about the personal, confidential, private affairs of a person against whom not an iota of suspicion has been raised. In other words, we are putting a cloud over the privacy and confidential business and professional relationships of every man and woman in America, and if that is the democratic process guaranteed by the Constitution, it is beyond my comprehension how anyone can arrive at that conclusion.

That is the one thing that distinguishes America from the countries of Europe, particularly from the dictator-controlled countries. Here we guarantee the privacy of the individual against encroachment at the hands of the secret police. Now, if we are going to give to the F. B. I. the powers of the secret police just to that extent we are building up fascism in the United States and we are making everyone subject to the whims or caprices or particular viewpoint of those who may have control of the F. B. I.

Recently, in the city of Washington, the F. B. I. representatives called upon women who were members of the League of Women Shoppers, an organization founded upon the principles of the protection of democratic process and civil rights. These young F. B. I. representatives questioned these distinguished women who belonged to the

League of Women Shoppers in the National Capital, some of whom are among the most brilliant and intellectual in the United States. These F. B. I. representatives said to some of these women:

"Do you belong to this League of Women Shoppers"? "Yes.” "Well, don't you know that is a Communist organization"? "No, we don't." "Well, it is and I am here to check up on all of your subversive activities."

That was done by the F. B. I. in the city of Washington, D. C., and if that is the kind of mental viewpoint which is entertained by some of the heads of the F. B. I., God help us if we give them the power of snooping through the means of telephone tapping in the United States.

If Mr. Hoover, who happens temporarily to be the head of the F. B. I., does not entertain any great respect for people of liberal persuasion, he may fall into that category of those groups who look upon anyone who has what we call a liberal viewpoint as ipso facto a Communist.

There are many people in the United States who feel that if you are not a conservative in your views you must necessarily therefore be a Communist.

Any of those of us Members of Congress who happen to be more or less progressive in view have had laid against us in every campaign the charge that because we don't follow the conservative party line we must therefore inevitably follow the Communist Party line. Some of these ultraconservative gentlemen who are in charge of snooping and detective organizations never seem to be able to draw a line of distinction between liberals and radicals. That is what I am worried about in this bill. Why is it that every labor organization in the United States is on record as opposed to these measures? They suspect that while the original purposes of the bill may be legitimate and laudable, the actual use which will be made of the great power that we propose to give to these investigative agencies, will be highly detrimental to the continued existence of labor unions in the United States-not only labor unions but any organization that is founded for the purpose of increasing the privileges for the less favored of our population, any organization which is out fronting for purposes of peace, opposing the administration's H. R. 1776, opposed to all-out aid to Britain, or opposed to any viewpoint entertained currently by the administration or the group who may be in power. That is the danger. I have heard suggestions made even in the Dies Committee that those of us who may have had views differing with the administration with reference to H. R. 1776 are suspects.

Many columnists are writing in the newspapers today that those who take that view are "little Americans." They even go so far as Jay Franklin who says in his column they must be called "traitors to the United States."

Dorothy Thompson has said on the public platform that Members of Congress who are not enthused for the President's bill may properly be investigated by the F. B. I. as either innocent or active agents of the Nazi or Communist form of government.

Now, if we get that type of person in control of the investigative agencies, where are they going to stop upon this privilege that we propose to give them in the matter of telephone wire tapping?

One more observation and I will conclude, gentlemen.

It is against the principle that I am directing my remarks, against the principle involved in enacting such a measure.

Mr. ROBSION. I would like to ask the Congressman whether or not he feels this bill would be helpful in apprehending criminals?

Mr. COFFEE. I agree with Mr. Hoover when he said it would be downright detrimental to the apprehension of criminals. That was Mr. Hoover's viewpoint in 1940 before he changed his viewpoint in 1941. I agree with Mr. Hoover's former views, not with his current views in that regard, and I can see very well the wisdom of his former attitude when he said that the effect of it would be detrimental to the proper pursuance of attack upon our national defense.

I can see ramifications which would make it very dangerous to the presentation of a case in a court of record where the rules of evidence would obtain, to permit hearsay testimony of the kind that would be obtained through telephone wire tapping.

Thank you, gentlemen.

STATEMENT OF HELEN C. LINGENFELTER

The CHAIRMAN. Miss Lingenfelter, will you state your name and address for the record?

Miss LINGENFELTER. Helen C. Lingenfelter and my address is 1540 Thirty-fourth Street, NW., Washington, D. C.

The CHAIRMAN. And whom do you represent?

Miss LINGENFELTER. The Descendants of the American Revolution.
The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. ROBSION. May I ask a question before the lady starts?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. ROBSION. When was your organization started?

Miss LINGENFELTER. It has been in existence about 3 years. Its membership is exclusively of persons who are descended from men who fought in the American Revolution.

Mr. BARNES. Is it similar to the D. A. R.?

Miss LINGENFELTER. Its membership requirement is exactly the same. The point of view is sometimes dissimilar.

Mr. ROBSION. How many members does your organization have? Miss LINGENFELTER. Approximately 1,000, I believe, and there are organizations in approximately seven or eight cities.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you hold any office in the organization?

Miss LINGENFELTER. Yes; I am national legislative chairman of the organization.

The CHAIRMAN. And that is why you are interested in this particular bill?

Miss LINGENFELTER. Yes; we are particularly interested in legislation affecting civil liberties.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Miss LINGENFELTER. The Descendants of the American Revolution is a patriotic organization, the purpose of which is to preserve today the principles of democracy for which our forefathers fought in 1776. One of these principles, set forth in the Bill of Rights, is that of freedom of speech. In these days of universal use of the telephone, telegraph, radio, and so forth, freedom of speech is dependent upon privacy of speech. H. R. 2266 or any other bill that would legalize

1