I read these affidavits, a great many of them, and they are in the Congressional Record now, some of them quite long.

These people were taken to a room in the Federal Building; there wasn't a single one of them that was allowed to communicate home, but after they had gone, their wives, and others interested, notified an attorney and got an attorney, and he sought to have an interview with the clients, but was unable to get an interview except in the presence, I think, of the F. B. I. men.

He had no opportunity to talk with them alone, had no opportunity to get any confidential information from them or give them any confidential advice. It was a barbarous treatment, it seems to me.

I didn't care whether they were Communists, or what they were, there was no reason why anybody should be treated, it seemed to me, the way they were treated.

They were allowed, I think, together as they came together in the anteroom before they went into the court at 3 or 4 or 5 o'clock in the afternoon before the judge, and I think they had 5 minutes with their attorney, but they were all together, and of course any lawyer would know that the attorney had no opportunity whatever to inquire into the case.

They were taken in before the judge and their bonds were fixed in an amount where nearly all of them—and I am not sure but what this applies to all-were unable to give the bonds, and they were then turned over to the United States Marshal and taken out to some prison where they were kept in jail for some time.

Now, Attorney General Jackson, who was then in office, after I had investigated these affidavits I communicated with him and told him that in my judgment the treatment of these people was inhuman, the methods used were un-American, and that it was a denial of the constitutional rights that every citizen had, regardless of what the charge was, and that there was no cause for the treatment that those people had been accorded.

Afterwards the Attorney General, then Mr. Jackson, dismissed all those indictments.

Senator O'MAHONEY. The investigation which you criticize was not undertaken under the Attorney Generalship of Mr. Jackson?

Senator NORRIS. Oh, no, the Attorney General had nothing to do with the investigation I was making.

Senator O'MAHONEY. No, you misunderstand me. The investigation by the F. B. I., the investigation to which you objected and which you criticized on the floor, and which you are now criticizing here, was made by the F. B. I. before Mr. Jackson became Attorney General, was it not?

Senator NORRIS. I think so, but I am not sure about that. I think that all occurred under the Attorney Generalship of Mr. Murphy. I would have taken it up with Mr. Murphy if he had been Attorney General when I found it out, just the same.

I suppose that it was because of the letter I wrote-which I think is in the record-to Attorney General Jackson, wherein I asked him to make an investigation of the methods and the procedure that had taken place, which caused him to appoint a young attorney to do that, a very bright young man, I can't give his name now; but he came to see me before he went up to Detroit to investigate. I saw him again

after he had made that investigation, and there never was any dispute about these affidavits, so far as I could find out, as to their veracity.

I was myself delighted with the Attorney General when he dismissed those prosecutions.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Do you know the names of the F. B. I. agents who made the arrests in Detroit?

Senator NORRIS. I am not sure whether that is in the record or not; at least I don't remember them now, and I don't remember the other men's names.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Was there ever any investigation, so far as you know, of the manner in which they conducted their search and seizure?

Senator NORRIS. The F. B. I. men who made the arrests?

Senator O'MAHONEY. Yes.

Senator NORRIS. Not that I know of.

The thing that disappointed me very greatly about Attorney General Jackson's handling of it was that he didn't take the action that I thought he ought to take in condemning the method that was being used by the F. B. I., all of which was under his department, as I thought he ought to have done. I thought it deserved condemnation, and I think so yet. It was a violation of the human rights that everybody here is entitled to in the United States, or ought to be, and they ought to be protected.

Now, these men and there was one woman, I think-I talked with quite a number of them personally, and I talked with the man that was selected as their attorney under the circumstances that I have narrated. There was no indication, in looking at them, there was nothing to indicate that they were desperate characters or that there was anything wrong with them.

I mentioned that one doctor. Now, the others made just as respectable a showing as he did. He wasn't a Communist. I didn't talk with any of the Communists, I never saw them.

Senator HUGHES. Were they charged, Senator, with being Communists?

Senator NORRIS. No.

Senator HUGHES. What was the charge?

Senator NORRIS. The charge was, as I understand it, the indictment was because they violated the law in inducing people to enlist to go to Spain and fight on the Loyalists' side.

Senator O'MAHONEY. This is the statute under which the indictment, the dismissal of which Mr. Wallach complains about, was brought. It is section 22 of title 18, United States Code; it is section 10 of the Criminal Code.

Whoever, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, enlists or enters himself or hires or retains another person to enlist or enter himself, or to go beyond the limits or jurisdiction of the United States with intent to be enlisted or entered in the service of any foreign prince, state, colony, district or people, as a soldier or as a marine or seaman on board of any vessel of war, letter of marque or privateer, shall be fined not more than $1,000 and imprisoned not more than three years, provided that this section shall not apply to citizens or subjects of any country engaged in war with a country with which the United States is at war, unless such citizen or subject of such foreign country shall hire or solicit the citizen of the United States to enlist or go beyond the jurisdiction of the United States with intent to enlist or enter the service of a foreign country. Enlistments under this proviso shall be under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War.

Now, under that section, of course, the son of Mr. Wallach was himself violating the law. He committed the same violation which was alleged against the persons who were indicted in Detroit.

Mr. WALLACH. I have been confronted with that situation from the very beginning, but my answer to that, Senator, has been this: When the Government departments knowingly permitted a condition under which men could recruit and enlist, then I say that the youth of our country, misguided though it may be, were left without the protection of their Government.

Senator NORRIS. Well, that would apply also to every one of those people that was arrested in Detroit. I don't think they were charged with enlisting themselves, like Mr. Wallach's son could have been, but they were charged with procuring enlistments. They were guilty of violation of the same law, to be sure, except that one was charged directly and the other was charged with procuring enlistments.

Mr. WALLACH. As I understand, they had this doctor pass on the physical condition of the applicants who were to be taken to Spain. Remember, they were outlaying money for their passage to Spain, and they wanted healthy specimens.

Senator NORRIS. You mean this doctor that I have been speaking of?

Mr. WALLACH. So I understand.

Senator NORRIS. That may all be true, but there was nothing in any of the affidavits that I read, as I remember now, that charged that. He wasn't the only doctor, there was another doctor that was so charged.

Senator O'MAHONEY. May I suggest, Senator, that actually the question upon which the Judiciary Committee shall pass is not whether or not the agents of the F. B. I. conducted an investigation in an improper manner, nor is it whether or not the doctor and the others were guilty of any crime; the only question that is presented here is whether or not the Attorney General acted in a wise and sensible manner in abandoning certain indictments.

In the release which Mr. Wallach has presented to this committee, the Attorney General explained why, in his opinion, it was better as a matter of public policy to abandon these prosecutions.

It is quite evident that he felt that to conduct these prosecutions at that time, in the state of feeling that then existed, would result in more harm than good to the public.

The feeling was, as you explained, Mr. Wallach, was the feeling of your son, that many people were enlisting to go abroad in the belief that they were waging a battle in defense of human rights. That was your son's motive.

Mr. WALLACH. That was the feeling in 1936, 1937, and 1938, but it could not have been the attitude in 1940. By that time we knew it was a fiasco, we knew the truth, we here knew the truth by then. People in the United States were no longer fooled.

Senator O'MAHONEY. But Senator Norris is telling us about the case of a doctor who was apparently acting in the same good faith

as your son.

Senator NORRIS. I was impressed all the way through with that in these affidavits, that these people were acting, I thought, in perfectly good faith, but outside of that, Senator, I don't agree with Mr. Wallach when he says we now know what the truth is. I think we now

60020-41--3

know probably more of the truth, and yet it has led me more firmly to the belief that the Loyalists were probably right.

Now I know our country was divided between them, and I didn't have the definite idea-a lot of Senators signed a statement, and I was asked to sign a statement to send over to Spain, encouraging these Loyalists to go ahead-my inclination would have been to have signed it, but I felt I didn't know enough about the facts to take a side, either side, on the question, and I refused to sign it.

Mr. WALLACH. But, Senator, even in connection with that phase, there is this issue: You undoubtedly might feel you were in favor of the Loyalists' side, but if you knew that these American volunteers were going there and were not being accepted into the Loyalist Army, but were staying there as an independent group, without authority except that which they created themselves, without law except that which they created themselves, would you be in favor of having American boys, or your son, go there?

Senator NORRIS. Why, of course not, but I don't agree to that statement now. It may be true, however, but I haven't had any evidence that convinces me that that statement is true, and you can go out over this country now, and find millions of people who have studied the Spanish Revolution over there against Franco, who are convinced now that Franco was wrong all the time, and that if they had to do it over again they would do a lot more to help the Loyalists than they did before.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Well, of course, it is not the jurisdiction of this committee to enter into that question.

Senator HUGHES. We have our own individual views about it-I have mine, very decidedly.

Senator NORRIS. What little I know about it, and what I have read about it, leads me to the Loyalists' side of that question.

Senator O'MAHONEY. That is neither here nor there so far as this committee is concerned.

Senator NORRIS. I don't think so, either, Senator.

I would like to say that if I had been the Attorney General, with what I know about it, I would have dismissed those cases before the Attorney General dismissed them. I thought they ought to have been dismissed.

After all, it is a technical violation of statutory law. If a man believed that the Loyalists were right, and was enthusiastic about it, and he enlisted or got somebody to enlist and go over there and fight, he was doing what he believed to be work in a great cause; and the other side probably did the same.

Mr. WALLACH. Isn't there a distinction between that and having a group who are professionally raising funds and enlisting, by the hundreds and thousands, boys to take them over there and pay their way over?

Senator NORRIS. I don't know. You are assuming a lot of things that I don't believe could be established.

Senator O'MAHONEY. May I suggest, Senator and Mr. Wallach, without in the slightest degree attempting to cut anybody short, that this is argument now, and I think we have got the facts, and the

full committee will have to pass upon whatever question is raised here. I really doubt if anything is to be gained by argument.

Senator NORRIS. I will say that I was disappointed in the Attorney General not condemning the method that had been employed in that Detroit case.

Outside of that, I have no fault to find with him, but I was disappointed. However, he dismissed the case, and from what I know about it, I commend him for it.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Senator Danaher desires to ask a question of the witness.

Senator DANAHER. You know that the inquiry before us is whether or not the Senate shall advise and consent to the appointment of the nominee?

Mr. WALLACH. That is right, I said that in my opening remarks. Senator DANAHER. And confining the matter, then, in this way, with the exception of the subject matter which you have brought before us, you know of no other ground upon which you would base opposition to the confirmation, do you?

Mr. WALLACH. I frankly stated in the early part of my testimony that I have nothing against the man as an individual or as an official, except this condition with which I am confronted.

Senator DANAHER. Now you know, do you not, that under section 310 of title 5, that the Attorney General of the United States is empowered to conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and the like?

Mr. WALLACH. As an attorney, I assume that is part of the statute, and I say yes.

Senator DANAHER. So that the question before us turns simply upon whether or not the Attorney General, pursuant to the authority conferred upon him by law, abused his discretion in terminating the proceedings in Detroit?

Mr. WALLACH. Without fully acquainting himself with the public injury that did result in the death of 7 boys, when he issued the public statement ending the grand jury investigation in New York, and dismissing these indictments.

Senator DANAHER. But the question, after all, turns on whether or not he did abuse his discretion, isn't that so?

Mr. WALLACH. Yes.

Senator DANAHER. So that whatever evidence you offer before the committee in that particular bears solely upon that question? Mr. WALLACH. Only upon that question.

Senator DANAHER. Thank you very much.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Are there any other witnesses?

Senator NORRIS. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I have not read these letters that Mr. Wallach has introduced, and which have been put into the record, and I don't know what they state.

I want to state that I have great sympathy, from what little I heard from Mr. Wallach, for the death of his son over there, but I felt that I couldn't sit here and I probably wouldn't have stayed if I had known what the evidence was going to be-and hear, knowing what