That these interruptions were distressingly frequent and very often on entirely extraneous matters and certainly
not designed to elicit the truth;
That his interruptions were so frequent and often so violent that orderly
presentation of a witness' testimony was
That the committee, by a majority,
finally passed a rule that a witness be
permitted lo finish his presentation before being questioned or cross-i|motioned, after which cross-examination
could take place without limit, and lhat
Mr. Hays angrily remarked that he
would pay no attention to any such rule
and would interrupt whenever he
pleased, which lie continued to do;
That his continued interruptions were
frequently intemperate, both in tone
and in substance, and in purposeful disregard of parliamentary procedure- and
the rules of the House of Representatives;
That he repeatedly at the hearings
vilified the staff and accused it of having prejudged the complaints against
That he repeatedly at the hearings
vilified fellow Congressmen on the committee and questioned their good faith.
He publicly accused me of lying anil of
being a coward and accused Congressman Coodwin of duplicity and cowardice. In one instance, when I refused lo
lose my temper at his insolence, he
said: "I thought they bail more guts
That he went out of his way to cast
aspersions on the character and record
of a Catholic nun. lhe daughter of Senator McCarran;
That he repeatedly vilified and openly insulted witnesses appearing before
That he referred in scurrilous terms
lo witnesses who had been heard, using
such expressions as suggesting that the
committee should have a psychiatrist
present; referring to witnesses as "crackpots," asserting that they had been
"dredged up" by the staff—(and. remember, eminent professors were among
the witnesses); or
That at the last hearing Mr. Hays
interrupted the questioning of the first
foundation witness by the associate
counsel with an insult to counsel calculated to disturb tin' proceedings ami in
make it clear lhat he would not permit
any orderly cross-examination.
I am quite satisfied to have the substance of the report stand upon its own
merits. I am chiefly concerned that a
newspaper like yours, having a wide
and important circulation, should falsely
present it to the public as intrinsically
unfair because of the claim that the
foundation point of view was not considered.
The foundations concerned with the
investigation were given the right to,
and did, file lengthy written statements,
which were added to the record without
any deletion whatsoever. In these statements they had the opportunity to pre-
-ent whatever points of view and fac-
lual material they cared to. Their slale-
ments were carefully read and carefully
FOUNDATIONS SPARED EMBARRASSMENT
All that lhe foundations missed was
the opportunity to be embarrassed
through cross-examination. Certainly.
thanks to the wide coverage given In
their answers by your newspaper and
others, they did not miss the opportun-
ity eef presenting iheir "case" to the
public. In fail, their "testimony" re-
ceived much more altention in your
paper than any of the so-called critical
testimony. Mthough they have in fad
had a fair hearing, I regretted deeply
thai the bearings had to be closed.
I did not join in the decision pre-
e ipileilely but only after long and cd1
ful thought and after Congress^
Wolcott and Goodwin both bad la*1
the position that Mr. Havs' COM
made it certain that continued pu"
hearings would be destructive of ™
dignity of the Congressional commit^
Your frequently expressed concc-
wilh the conduct of Congressional in<?
tigalions does nol carry much i""1
lion in the face of your failure to pf
test against Mr. Hays' unconscioiwl
conduct and in the light of your fail1'
lo inform the public lhat Mr. H*f
actions effectively prevented the &
tinuance of orderly hearings.
Washington, Dec. 28. 1954
Excerpts from Rep. Reeceys supple*11^
statement to the majority report were r
lislu-il in the lanuary Facts Fori M J
together with excerpts from the majoritjw
minority reports. Additional remarks of nf
Hays and Reece were published in 'he '
vember 1954 issue.
The Communist Worker. Sunday, December 26, 1954
On the Reece Committee Report
/>y Bernard Iturton
If there is any member of the U. S.
Congress who knows better than tee believe that foundations bearing the names
of Rockefeller, Ford, anil Carnegie have
promoted "socialism," that man is Rep.
I!. Carroll Reece (R-Tenn.). Yd
Reece headed the House Special Com-
mittee l" Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations, which issued a report last week
asserting just thai plus a charge of promoting "subversion."
The response of most of the country
amounted to lagging the report as some
sort of throwback to Stone Age mentality. Rut if R. Carroll Reece is a caveman, it is only in a political sense. For
Reece is an educated man, with some
claim to scholarship, according to his
biography in the Congressional Directory.
Once Reece even came up from Tennessee I" assume lhe posl as director ol
the School eef Business \dmini-lration
eef New York University. He has been
educated in a number of universities,
including NYC and the University of
London, and in addition to being a
lawyer with a degree of Doctor of Caws,
is also an economist with a claim to
standing in scholarly circles. He is a
member of the American Economic
Association, the American Statistical
Association and the American Academy
of Political Science.
So it should be clear thai though
there may be madness in lhe ttf
which Recce sigm'el ascribing I'1'.'
tion of "subversion" and "colic l|Nl
lee the big money foundations and i0'
,V. Y. Times. Nl Y. Ilerald-Tribli'"-'
Washington Post and Times-ller"''*
is nol a badness withoul method'
method is one which apes Mi'".
and goes him one better. The goal
intimidate and silence any p<''"""
group which dissents from the doi"'
policy of the National Associati"!
the Manufacturers, and from lhe f0^
policy of the War-Now mob.
Some say that one of Reece'
peeves was that
lhe headlines wh
: his commit"'1 j
carrying on its probe last June;
other bearing was the Army-Met-"
fracas. Recce's committee final')
the headlines with ils reporl lasl I
but it must be said thai there wa"
aiderable justification for hi~ "'I"'
feeling thai his hearings rated top
It is doubtful thai even the U
Senator from Wisconsin ever co'1<lj
inquisitions which were so c'
staged to serve reaction, so bi&*1
the charges that were solemnly ,
„„j „„, i :„._ .i i ti.o of
Wh °f s<
v *e m,
and entered into the record. The p[\ [ax,,.
was so raw that they were co""
over the continued protests of l[,
Democratic members, Gracie Pfe'j u
of Idaho, and Wayne L. Hays. "'
I- ! *0li1'
'ro1 of 0„
FACTS FORUM NEWS, Febrtit
, I Pacts f