answers, too, have that all-familiar ring. Everyone wants to prepare them for citizenship, and whenever they are prepared for citizenship we will turn them loose. But the more they get into the preparation, the more they get interested in preparing themselves, and when this administration, whatever it was for the last 25 years, goes out of office, they are less prepared than they were before.

In other words, for 50 years we have built up an Indian Bureau and forgot all about the Indians. Now it is costing the Government about $100 million a year.

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. MALONE] continued—and I particularly wish to call to the attention of my colleagues on the floor of the Senate the fact that we are not dealing with a small thing:

For 50 years we have built up an Indian Bureau and forgot all about the Indians.

Now it is costing the Government about $100 million a year. Fifteen years ago it was $10 million.

In other words, during the last 15 years the cost of the Indian Bureau has risen from $10 million a year to $100 million a year.

from Nevada said on that occasion is, in my opinion, correct:

I do know a lot of Indians and on the average they are as intelligent as anyone else, but after you browbeat them on a reservation from the time they can understand what you are doing until they are 25 years old they lose all hope.

I introduced a bill on two different occasions and I intend to introduce it again before the end of the session-that would simply make the Indians people, just like the Irish. There would not be any difference at all.

Mr. KERR. Mr. President, will the Senator from North Dakota yield to me? Mr. LANGER. I yield.

Mr. KERR. Would the distinguished Senator from North Dakota do what he could to prevent that occurrence?

Mr. LANGER. I beg the Senator's pardon; I did not quite understand him. Mr. KERR. Would the Senator from North Dakota do what he could, personally, to prevent that occurrence?

Mr. LANGER. I am quoting the Senator from Nevada [Mr. MALONE].

Mr. KERR. I understand, but I am

The Indians are not as well off or as near citizenship, most of them, as they were 15 years ago.

Mr. President, I may say that one reason why I became so vitally interested was that I asked the chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service about this matter. I discovered that when John Collier became Commissioner of the Indian Bureau, under President Roosevelt, there were 230,000 Indians enrolled. Mr. Collier wanted to build up a large agency or organization, so he looked around to find a great many more Indians. Believe it or not, Mr. President, he discovered a sufficient number of other Indians to make a total of 400,000. Where did he get them? Mr. President, he included college graduates of Harvard, Yale, and Columbia. He found more than 2,000 Indians in New York City. He found several thousand more Indians in St. Paul, Minn. He went all over the United States and increased the number of Indian enrolled with the Indian Bureau from 230,000 to 400,000.

Then some members of the Senate committee commenced to question. We said, "Surely in 120 years some of these Indians must have become sufficiently educated to be removed from the rolls."

Mr. Collier's first assistant, William A. Zimmerman, testified that, in his opinion, 10 tribes at that moment were ready to be taken off the rolls of the Indian Bureau and were capable of handling their own property.

I was not satisfied with that. I visited the Navaho Indians and spent a week there at my own expense. Then I went to California and investigated the situation among the Indians of the Martinez-Torres Tribe, at Palm Springsone of the most pathetic tribes in America.

Mr. President, I now read from page 27 of the transcript, where we find further the remarks remarks of the Senator from Nevada [Mr. MALONE], when he interrogated Mr. Emmons. What the Senator

North Dakota.

Mr. LANGER. At the present time I have no opinion on these matters. I am dealing solely and exclusively with the statements made at the hearing by the Senator from Washington [Mr. JACKSON], the Senator from Utah [Mr. WATKINS], and the Senator from Nevada [Mr. MALONE).

As I have said, personally I have no interest in the nomination of Mr. Emmons, so far as he personally is concerned. After the hearing on Tuesday, it is very likely that I shall vote in favor of confirmation of his nomination; it is just as likely that I shall do that, as it is that I shall vote against the confirmation of his nomination. My interest in this matter is purely regarding the procedural one of having notice given.

Mr. KERR. I have no knowledge of any difference or if there is any but the Senator from North Dakota spoke of the differences between the Indians and the Irish people, and just in case of the possibility that the Senator was correct, I was seeking to enlist his support in maintaining the differences, if they exist.

Mr. LANGER. Let me say that I believe the Indians are just as competent to manage their own affairs as is the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma or the Senator from North Dakota or any other Member of the Senate.

Mr. KERR. I should like entirely to agree with the Senator from North Dakota not only that some Indians and some Irish are just as capable but that I think all of them are as capable as I and I want to extend the application to any other Senator

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I do not yield further at this time; I wish to complete what I had begun to say. Mr. KERR. Very well.

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada further said-and I wish to have the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma listen to this very carefully:

We had one (Indian) from Kansas, Vice President Curtis, a fellow good enough to be

Vice President of the United States, but the Indian Bureau settled his estate. They did not think he knew enough to do it.

Any time you are one-sixty-fourth Indian, you are still an Indian and you are still subject to regulation.

Mr. President, I submit that Vice President Curtis, of the United States, had just as much ability as does any Member of the Senate.

Let me state, in that connection, that I understand that the distinguished senior Senator from Nebraska [Mr. BUTLER is partly a Cherokee Indian, himself. Certainly he would not want someone from the Indian Bureau to settle his estate, after he dies. Mr. BUTLER of Nebraska. I would not.

Of course

Mr. LANGER. Yet under the Indian Bureau regulations, that is the situation. Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Senator from North Dakota yield to me? Mr. LANGER. I yield.

Mr. CASE. The illustration the Senator from North Dakota has given reminds me of the experience of Sam Charger, a very outstanding member of the Sioux Tribe, on the Cheyenne River Reservation, in South Dakota. For approximately 20 years he was employed as a farmer, and in that capacity he had the responsibility of recommending to the Indian Office, from time to time, that other Indians be issued patents in fee on land. Sam Charger had that responsibility. He was a very able man. He made those recommendations to the Indian Bureau for approximately 20 years. But after he retired, and when he wanted a patent for a piece of land for himself, he could not obtain it, because the Indian Bureau decided that he was not com

petent to manage his own affairs, although for over 20 years he had managed the affairs of other Indians for the Indian Bureau.

Mr. LANGER. I thank the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further excerpts from the remarks of the Senator from Nevada [Mr. MALONE] at the hearing may be printed at this point in the RECORD, as a part of my remarks.

There being no objection, the excerpts were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Senator MALONE. I have listened attentively, and I am perfectly satisfied with the answers given to Senator WATKINS, but the answers, too, have that all-familiar ring. Every one wants to prepare them for citizenship, and whenever they are prepared for citizenship we will turn them loose. But the more they get into the preparation, the more they get interested in preparing them; and when this administration, whatever it was for the last 25 years, goes out of office, they are less prepared than they were before.

In other words, for 50 years we have built up an Indian Bureau and forgot all about the Indians. Now it is costing the Government about $100 million a year. Fifteen years ago it was $10 million. The Indians are not as well off or as near citizenship, most of them, as they were 15 years ago.

I do know a lot of Indians, and on the average they are as intelligent as anyone else, but after you browbeat them on a reservation from the time they can understand what you are doing until they are 25 years old, they lose all hope.

I introduced a bill on two different occasions and I intend to introduce it again before the end of the session, that would simply make the Indians people, just like the Irish. There would not be any difference at all.

I would hate to have the Indian Bureau go through with their attitude toward the Irish race and put all of them on a reservation that they did not consider were able to take care of themselves.

Senator JACKSON. Following the Irish theme, are you going to divide them, north and south?

Senator MALONE. When you free the Indians, the Indian Bureau runs out of a job. Mr. EMMONS. That is right.

Senator MALONE. Not the top. They know they are going to lose their jobs anyway when the administration changes. But the first and second and third layers in there have never been reconciled to the idea that an Indian could ever get loose. You do not know now perhaps maybe you do that they never turn loose of an Indian voluntarily. We had one from Kansas, Vice President Curtis, a fellow good enough to be Vice President of the United States, but the Indian Bureau settled his estate. They did not. think he knew enough to do it.

Any time you are one sixty-fourth of an Indian, you are still an Indian and you are still subject to regulation.

I am not thinking of the men and women 35 or 40 years old. You are not going to help anybody after they are that old. They are ingrained and browbeaten to the point they are not going to come back. I am thinking of these kids 5 or 6 years old, playing with the white boys and girls; and when they are 7, 8, or 9 years old, somebody points a finger at them and tells them they are an Indian, and that is the beginning of the end.

You are not going to do any good, in my humble opinion, in the Indian Bureau in job training, as such, if you turn them loose and let them go to the schools and let them go to high school with the white folks.

I made a commencement address at Vernon, Nev., where there were about 8 or 10 Indian boys and girls graduating from that high school, the finest people you ever saw. They have been allowing them to go to the high school there. It is nice to have all these good feelings, and then let this first, second, and third layer of your Bureau up there prevail on you, when you get there, that these people, if they get out, somebody is going to take their property away from them and we cannot afford to do that.

Senator JACKSON. Will the Senator yield at that point for a question?

Senator MALONE. I want to finish that one statement.

They took my property away from me 3 or 4 times, but they did not put me on a reservation, so I do not think that is any reason for not turning them loose.

Senator JACKSON. I want to say in the State of Washington we do not have any Indian schools. They all go to our public schools. They are no problem. I think that is a good thing wherever you can do it.

There are some areas where there are so many Indians so far away that you have only Indian children to go to school, and, of course, you have to have an Indian school. But we have had no trouble in the State of Washington, and they have been absorbed right into our public school system. It has worked out very well.

Senator MALONE. Of course, that is true. My point is this: Do not congregate them in a reservation and hope to bring them out of this thing. If we owe them any more than the reservation, have hearings and give them that, and if we owe them anything else, give it to them. As long as we keep the Japanese, Chinese, Indians, or Irish, or anybody else, congregated together, and they talk their own language, and you teach them what they call folklore, or whatever it is, to

make blankets or to make something else for which there is no market, they never can have a standard of living.

I just wanted to bring to your attention that everybody talks as you have, general statements, and they you get under the spell of "this great race of people who must not be turned loose until every one of them has a college education."

The way to get a man to take care of himself is to turn him loose and let him take care of himself. I do not think you are going anywhere until you do.

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, for the fourth or fifth time, I desire to reiterate my statement that I have no interest in this matter. Yet I find, in the Washington Post of July 23, in big headlines, "LANGER Lied, Emmons Declares." Under that headline, the news item reads:

SANTA FE, N. MEX., July 22.-Charges raised yesterday in the Senate by Senator WILLIAM LANGER, Republican, North Dakota, are "the most astounding lies I have ever heard," Glenn L. Emmons, Indian Commissioner nominee, said today.

"I expected that Senator LANGER Would continue in his view of untruths"

Mr. President, I repeat, I have never met this man in my life. There would There would be no reason for my attacking him personally; and I am not doing so. The news item reads, further:

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from California.

The motion was agreed to, and the Senate resumed the consideration of legislative business.

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, we have already had a unanimous-consent request for a morning hour, under the usual limitation of remarks to 2 minutes, which was agreed to. But I thought, for the benefit of Senators, I would like to outline the general program for the next few days, as the situation now shapes up. Today, previous to taking up the conference report on the independent offices appropriation bill there are several bills to be considered. The first is Calendar No. 613, House bill 4152; then Calendar No. 583, House bill 2828, Calendar 622, Senate Joint Resolution 34, and Calendar No. 612, House bill 157.

On tomorrow, we propose to have a call of the calendar from the beginning, to be followed by the taking up of the customs simplification bill, the agricultural surplus relief bill, and thenMr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi

The article then continues:

"It is significant," Emmons told the Santa Fe New Mexican, "that the Senator appended the phrase 'or didn't.' That will leave him something to hide behind when the charges are refuted."

Mr. President, what are we to think of a man nominated to a position which involves the handling of several billions of dollars' worth of property who, when a Senator, in the fulfillment of his sworn duty, rises on the floor of the Senate to say that in his opinion there should be a hearing on the nomination, since the appointee had been nominated in the morning and the nomination was reported in the afternoon, immediately attacks the Senator? I say a man who would do that would very likely make similar charges against any other Senator who might happen to disagree with him, and would charge him with uttering untruths; or he might even attack similarly the President of the United States who appointed him.

I bring the matter to the attention of the Senate, and in doing so, I am glad to know that there is to be a hearing. I desire to thank the distinguished Senator from Nebraska for granting the hearing. I think it was the right thing to do. I hope the witnesses whom I have enumerated in my former statements on the floor will be summoned. I repeat, unless it is shown that there is something in the nominee's character which would render him unfit for the position of Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the senior Senator from North Dakota intends to vote for the confirmation of his nomination.

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I move that the Senate resume the consideration of legislative business.

point?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I understand that two bills were reported from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry regarding surpluses. Does the Senator plan to take up both of those bills?

Mr. KNOWLAND. No. I did not see the second one. One has been reported. I always want to have the report available to Senators before calling up a bill. If the report on the second bill is available, and is ready tomorrow, it might be taken up, conditions permitting.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Does the Senator from California have information as to which of the two bills was reported?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I believe it was the emergency bill, which would limit the amount for overseas relief, recommended by the President, and would put a time limit of March 15 next year on it. I believe that is the measure which has been reported.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. The Senator is correct. That is the one which was reported. We are hoping to be able to report the other bill this afternoon.

Mr. KNOWLAND. In addition to that, I had planned to call up the District of Columbia appropriation bill tomorrow. The distinguished Senator from South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON] indicated that he might have to be away tomorrow, and that he had an amendment to propose to it. I am waiting the arrival of the senior Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] in the Chamber, and I then intend to address an inquiry to him and to other Senators. Under the rule, appropriation bills normally have to lie over for 3 days, but since we have given advance notice, and since the report has been printed and is available, I should like, when the senior Senator from Illinois arrives, to make a unani

mous-consent request that the rule be waived, in order that the Senate may take up the bill either late this afternoon-if that meets with the wishes of the Senator from South Carolina, otherwise, on tomorrow-so we can move that bill out of the way and clear up our work for next week.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield.

I

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. should like to say that the consideration of my amendments will not require more than 5 or 10 minutes, unless there be discussion in opposition to them.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I do not wish to

make the unanimous-consent request until the senior Senator from Illinois is present in the Chamber.

I should also like to invite the atten

tion of Senators to the fact that, on the Executive Calendar, there are two treaties, on both of which the reports are available to each Senator, and may now be obtained. One of them has been available for some time, and the other is now available. I hope we may take up those treaties tomorrow, if we are able to dispose of the other business early enough. If not, I hope to take them up on Monday. One of the treaties involves a convention for the preservation of the halibut fishery and the other is a protocol to prolong the international agreement regarding the regulation and marketing of sugar.

On Monday, I propose to move to take up Calendar 632, Senate bill 1917, the emergency refugee bill; and I hope that by that time the conference report on the Continental Shelf bill will be available to the Senate for consideration.

Today, after concluding consideration of the bills I have mentioned, to reiterate, I shall then move to take up the conference report on the independent offices appropriation bill. I hope that by tomorrow at the latest, and possibly today, but more likely tomorrow, the Appropriations Committee will be able to report not only the mutual aid appropriation bill but also the remaining appropriation bills which are before the committee. One is the legislative bill, the other is a supplemental bill. If those are reported, I would then hope that the legislative bill might be taken up on Tuesday next, and, on Wednesday, we might take up the mutual aid appropriation bill, in order to clear the decks for adjournment by, I hope, midnight next Friday.

Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. MCCARRAN. I think the Senator from California mentioned Calendar No. 612, House bill 157, to provide that the tax on admissions shall not apply to moving-picture admissions.

Mr. KNOWLAND. That is correct. Mr. MCCARRAN. Would it be convenient to allow that bill to go over until Monday?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I may say to the I may say to the distinguished Senator from Nevada, I have given notice now for several days regarding that bill. I should like to

take it up today, because of the very heavy schedule we have for next week.

Mr. MCCARRAN. I have offered an amendment, which was ordered to be amendment, which was ordered to be printed and to lie on the table, and I have printed and to lie on the table, and I have certain data I should like to present with reference to the amendment.

Mr. KNOWLAND. My plan had been to take up that bill as the last of the bills to be considered before we reach the conference report on the independent offices appropriation bill. If it would not If it would not inconvenience the distinguished Senator from Nevada too much, I may say that if we are going to try to work toward the target date for adjournment, we should clear the decks this week as much as possible. Pursuant to the suggestion of the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], I Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], I intend this evening, when we complete our work, to move a recess until 10 o'clock be able to recess at an early hour totomorrow morning, hoping that we may

morrow afternoon.

Mr. MCCARRAN. It would accommodate the Senator from Nevada if Calendar 612, House bill 157, could be taken up late this afternoon, if possible.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I shall try to accommodate the Senator, and will do so as far as possible.

Mr. MCCARRAN. I thank the Senator.

CHANGE OF DATE OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENT WORK ON MINING

CLAIMS-CORRECTION

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield to the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. CASE. In view of the fact that the distinguished acting majority leader has announced that the calendar will be called tomorrow, I wonder whether it would be in order to ask unanimous consent to have the RECORD Show the passage of Senate bill 2320. I understand it was actually passed on the last call of the calendar on July 18. Senate bill 2320 proposes to change the annual date for completing assessment work on mining claims from July 1 to October 1. I endeavored to look it up in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD following the last call of the calendar. Nothing appeared in the RECORD, though my clerk advises me that the Journal shows that the bill was passed. The bill no longer appears on the calendar. I should like to enter a request, either that the bill may be restored quest, either that the bill may be restored to the calendar, so that it may be passed,

or

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will advise the Senator from South Dakota that the Journal shows that the bill was passed.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I think it is largely a matter of correcting the permanent RECORD, Since the Journal shows that the bill was passed. Apparently the omission was through an inadvertence in the printing of the RECORD, rather than in a failure to pass the bill..

Mr. CASE. I should like the RECORD to show at this point, as it will, in view of the statement by the Chair, that the bill passed the Senate.

The Senator from South Dakota was very much interested in the bill. I was

endeavoring to keep track of it for the benefit of one or more of my constituents who wanted me to send them copies of the RECORD showing consideration of the bill. I have been unable to do so. But with the statement of the Presiding Officer that the bill was passed, the Senator from South Dakota assumes that he may now so advise his constituents.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will advise the Senator from South Dakota that the Chair has before him the House Calendar, which, on page 91, refers to Senate bill 2320, as follows:

Mining claims, annual assessment, change of date. Reported in Senate July 15, 1953; Interior and Insular Affairs; Report No. 585. Passed Senate July 18, 1953. Referred to Interior and Insular Affairs July 20, 1953.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I ask that the permanent RECORD may be corrected by the Senate Journal. to show the passage of the bill as shown

The PRESIDING OFFICER. correction will be made.

The

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC. The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following communication and letters, which were referred as indicated: ESTIMATES

OF

APPROPRIATION-EMERGENCY MIGRATION PROGRAM (S. Doc. No. 67)

A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting estimates of appropriation, for the fiscal year 1954, in the amount of $4,465,000 to carry out the emergency migration program covered by either S. 1917 or H. R. 6397, bills now pending before the Congress (with an accompanying paper); to the Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed.

REPORT OF SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ON CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS

A letter from the Deputy Secretary of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report, as of the close of the 82d Congress, listing all authorized military, naval, and air-force public works projects for the completion of which adequate funds have not been appropriated (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Armed Services. REPORT ON SANTA MARIA PROJECT, CALIFORNIA

A letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on the Santa Maria Project, California (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS Petitions, etc., were laid before the Senate, and referred as indicated:

By the VICE PRESIDENT:

A resolution adopted by the Sovereignty Preservation Council of Delaware, relating to individual rights under the treatymaking power; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Three resolutions adopted by the Western States Land Commissioners Association, at Jackson, Wyo., relating to land grant colleges, the Taylor Grazing Act, and expeditious action on the lieu land selections (with an accompanying paper); to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

IMMUNITY UNDER FIFTH AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION-REPORT AND RESOLUTION OF NEW YORK BAR ASSOCIATION

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in

the RECORD and appropriately referred, a report and resolution of the committee on civil rights of the New York Bar Association which was adopted unanimously by the association at its meeting of June 27.

The report and resolution deal with the constitutional privilege against selfincrimination guaranteed by the fifth amendment. Although the Senate has acted upon one phase of this matter, I feel that we must continue to study this problem. I want to commend the New York Bar Association for its pledge to educate the public on the importance of this great constitutional guaranty, and at the same time to discourage the improper use of the privilege against selfincrimination.

There being no objection, the report and resolution were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: REPORT OF NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELFINCRIMINATION

**

Today the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution which provides that "no person * shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" has become a familiar headline in the daily press.

The long procession of witnesses in the ever-expanding investigations of subversion and crime by congressional and State bodies, who intone with deadly monotony "I stand on the fifth amendment," or "I decline to answer on the ground that it may incriminate me" has brought the constitutional privilege into popular disfavor and has caused even thoughtful citizens to question whether there is continued need for its preservation.

In addition to the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution, 46 States have incorporated this basic safeguard into their constitutions and the two remaining States, New Jersey and Iowa, protect the privilege by judicial decision.

The organized bar which is and should be the continuing champion of the rights and liberties of our people, generally believes that the constitutional protection against self-incrimination is a vital safeguard to freedom which has not lost its usefulness with the passage of time or possible abuse. Believing also that lack of understanding as to the extent and meaning of the constitutional protection may lead to abuse, we think it important to review and clarify its history, purposes, and the policy it represents.

The protection against self-incrimination embodied in the fifth amendment of our Constitution has an ancient history, developing from the 16th century Court of Star Chamber in England where a victim was interrogated in order to draw charges against him. The Star Chamber Court was denounced in 1637 in the famous Lilburn trial when Lilburn refused to take the oath and testify. Thereafter, in 1641, England abolished the Star Chamber proceedings and the privilege against self-incrimination became a right gradually recognized by the common law courts in England.

Although in the United States there were no similar conditions leading to the adoption of the privilege against self-incrimination in the English common law, in response to overwhelming popular demand the privilege against self-incrimination was written into the Bill of Rights of our Constitution proposed at the 1st session of the American Congress on September 25, 1789.

In 1807, the privilege was upheld by Chief Justice Marshall of the United States Supreme Court at the trial of Aaron Burr for treason, and the great Chief Justice said:

"It is the province of the court to judge whether any direct answer to the question which may be proposed will furnish evidence against the witness. If such answer may disclose a fact which forms a necessary and essential link in the chain of testimony, which would be sufficient to convict him of any crime, he is not bound to answer it so as to furnish matter for that conviction. In such a case, the witness must himself judge what his answer will be: and if he says on oath that he cannot answer without accusing himself, he cannot be compelled to answer."

In providing that no person shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself, the witness has the option to refuse to testify either in a judicial trial or before an official governmental body. However this does not prohibit a congressional committee from inquiring.

A witness may not avoid disclosing facts involving disgrace (rather than criminality). The privilege against self-incrimination does not exist unless claimed, and there must be a real basis for the claim. The privilege is personal to the witness, who may not refuse to answer on the ground that the answer would incriminate someone else.

Under certain circumstances the privilege does not come into being: (1) where testimony relates to a crime for which the witness is immune from prosecution, as where the statute of limitations has barred prosecution, (2) where immunity has been accorded the witness, and (3) where the witness testifies without claim of privilege, thereby waiving his constitutional right.

Under our system of law, no man is guilty until proved to be so by competent evidence. No man, it is felt under a humane

system of justice, need aid in his own conviction. The burden is on the prosecution both to establish guilt and obtain the evidence necessary for that purpose. It may well be that some guilty persons escape or the claim of privilege requires greater effort on the part of the prosecution. The same might be said with equal accuracy about many other procedural safeguards which we regard as among the most precious. We do not here pass on the problem of legislative encroachment on executive powers or judicial functions, despite the facts that the courts have consistently dismissed Congressional contempt citations based on the witnesses' proper claim of fifth amendment privilege.

Nor do we here consider the vital problem of the individual called upon to testify before a Federal body on matters which may incriminate him under State law, or one whose fate is precisely the opposite. In neither case, under general law, does the witness receive any constitutional protection, although under our Federal system, we have not only separate but dual jurisdictions, each operating in the same physical territory. As was observed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit:

"It appears as futile *** to expect an individual to feel that his constitutional privilege has been safeguarded because the penitentiary into which his answer may land him is under the supervision of the State instead of the Federal Government."

Nor do we deal here with the very vital question of whether a congressional or State legislative committee should be permitted to grant immunity to a witness whose information the committee deems vital to its inquiry, but which is withheld through the witness' claim of the privilege. The danger of carelessness or abuse of this power by indiscriminate grants of immunity may present a far greater threat to the orderly administration

of criminal justice than the possible abuse of the privilege by some individual.

1. Marcello v. United States (196 F. 2d 437, 442 (5th Cir. 1952)).

CONCLUSION

Your committee recommends the following resolution for adoption by the New York State Bar Association:

"Resolved by the New York State Bar Association as follows, That the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination tinues to be a vital safeguard of individual freedom and the bar should educate the public as to its importance and discourage both those who would restrict its application and those who would abuse it by asserting it improperly; and be it further

"Resolved, That the New York State Bar Association urges Congress to make a study of the whole problem of the privilege against self-incrimination and the corresponding immunity statutes with a view to recommending to Congress a comprehensive program of legislation which would preserve and effectuate the principle of individual freedom as guaranteed by the privilege against self-incrimination, on the one hand, and the needs of society for the discovery and punishment of crime and subversion on the other."

Respectfully submitted.

Louis Waldman, Chairman; Samuel C.
Duberstein, Daniel J. Dugan, Joseph
P. Fogarty, Arthur K. Garfinkel, Eugene
C. Gerhart, William J. Mackay, Clif-
ford B. Marshall, George McKinley,
Arnold T. Olena, Charles B. Seton,
Whitney North Seymour, Florence P.
Shientag, Myron Sulzberger, Jr.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES The following reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. AIKEN, from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry:

S. 2249. A bill to authorize the Commodity Credit Corporation to make agricultural commodities owned by it available to the President for the purpose of enabling the President to assist in meeting famine or other urgent relief requirements in countries friendly to the United States; with amendments (Rept. No. 631).

By Mr. MILLIKIN, from the Committee on Finance:

H. R. 5877. A bill to amend certain administrative provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 and related laws, and for other purposes; with amendments (Rept. No. 632);

H. R. 3884. A bill to extend the authority of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to establish and continue offices in the Republic of the Philippines; without amendment (Rept. No. 637);

H. R. 5303. A bill to amend sections 1606 and 1607 of the Internal Revenue Code in order to permit unemployment insurance coverage under State unemployment compensation laws for seamen employed on certain vessels operated by the United States; without amendment (Rept. No. 633);

H. R. 5636. A bill to amend veterans' regulations to establish for persons who served in the Armed Forces during World War II a further presumption of service connection for tuberculosis other than pulmonary; without amendment (Rept. No. 634);

H. J. Res. 293. Joint resolution to permit articles imported from foreign countries for the purpose of exhibition at the Washington State Third International Trade Fair, Seattle, Wash., to be admitted without payment of tariff, and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No. 635); and

H. R. 5148. A bill to continue until the close of June 30, 1954, the suspension of duties and import taxes on metal scrap, and

for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. No. 636).

By Mr. BUTLER of Nebraska, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs: S. J. Res. 98. Joint resolution authorizing and directing the Secretary of the Interior to liquidate the Puerto Rico Reconstruction Administration; with amendments (Rept. No. 639).

By Mr. CARLSON, from the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service:

S. 2348. A bill to repeal the act entitled "An act to authorize the Director of the Census to collect and publish statistics of redcedar shingles"; without amendment (Rept. No. 640).

By Mr. POTTER, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce:

S. 2408. A bill to amend the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, to provide a national defense reserve of tankers and to promote the construction of new tankers, and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No. 641).

FRED P. HINES-REPORT OF A
COMMITTEE

Mr. LANGER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 152) for the relief of Fred P. Hines, together with the message from the President of the United States, returning the bill without his approval, reported the bill with the recommendation that it do pass, the objections of the President notwithstanding, and submitted a report (No. 638) thereon.

ENROLLED BILL PRESENTED

The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, July 24, 1953, he presented to the President of the United States the enrolled bill (S. 2078) to provide for the orderly transaction of the public business in the event of the death, incapacity, or separation from office of a disbursing officer of the military department.

BILLS INTRODUCED

Bills were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows:

By Mr. KILGORE:

S. 2465. A bill for the relief of Lydia Wickenfeld Butz; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HUNT:

S. 2466. A bill to preserve the eligibility of certain veterans to dental outpatient care and dental appliances; to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

(See the remarks of Mr. HUNT when he introduced the above bill, which appear under a separate heading.)

By Mr. THYE:

S. 2467. A bill to confer jurisdiction on the States of California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin, with respect to criminal offenses and civil causes of action committed or arising on Indian reservations within such States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

Mr. WELKER. Mr. President, acting in behalf of the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. BRIDGES], who has been injured and is not able to be present, I introduce a bill and ask that it be appropriately referred.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be received and appropriately referred.

By Mr. WELKER (for Mr. BRIDGES): S. 2468. A bill to authorize the President to appoint to the grade of general in the Army of the United States those officers who,

in grade of lieutenant general, during World War II commanded the Army ground forces, commanded an army, or commanded Army forces which included a field army and supporting units, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mr. MALONE:

S. 2469. A bill for the relief of Francisco Vasquez-Dopazo (Frank Vasquez); to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. SALTONSTALL (by request): S. 2470. A bill to authorize the transfer to the Government of Japan of certain military equipment, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.

(See the remarks of Mr. SALTONSTALL when he introduced the above bill, which appear under a separate heading.)

By Mr. KENNEDY:

S. 2471. A bill to amend the act of June 30, 1936 (the Walsh-Healey Act); to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

(See the remarks of Mr. KENNEDY When he introduced the above bill, which appear under a separate heading.)

By Mr. MALONE:

S. 2472. A bill for the relief of the city of Las Vegas, Nev.; to the Committee on Government Operations.

By Mr. KNOWLAND (for himself, Mr.
TAFT, Mr. BUSH, Mr. POTTER, and Mr.
FERGUSON):

S. 2473. A bill to provide for payments by the Federal Government to States or local taxing units adversely affected by Federal acquisition, ownership, or use of defense production facilities, to provide for the taxation of certain Federal properties, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Government Operations.

By Mr. LEHMAN (for himself and Mr.
IVES):

S. 2474. A bill to authorize the coinage of 50-cent pieces to commemorate the tercentennial of the foundation of the city of New York; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

By Mr. SCHOEPPEL (for himself, Mr.
ANDERSON, Mr. CLEMENTS, Mr. EAST-
LAND, Mr. HOEY, Mr. JOHNSTON of
South Carolina, Mr. MUNDT, Mr.
AIKEN, Mr. THYE, Mr. WELKER, and
Mr. YOUNG):

S. 2475. A bill to authorize the President to use agricultural commodities to improve the foreign relations of the United States and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

(See the remarks of Mr. SCHOEPPEL When he introduced the above bill, which appear under a separate heading.)

By Mr. DIRKSEN:

S. 2476. A bill to establish a postal ratemaking procedure in the Post Office Department; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. DIRKSEN (for himself, Mr.
HENDRICKSON, Mr. IVES, and Mr.
SMITH of New Jersey):

S. 2477. A bill to amend the Trading With the Enemy Act, as amended, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

(See the remarks of Mr. DIRKSEN when he introduced the above bill, which appear under a separate heading.)

DENTAL OUTPATIENT CARE AND DENTAL APPLIANCES FOR CERTAIN VETERANS

Mr. HUNT. Mr. President, I introduce for appropriate reference a bill designed to preserve the eligibility of certain veterans to dental outpatient care and dental appliances.

Unfortunately, an amendment to the appropriation bill for independent executive departments on the floor of the House, modified slightly in the Senate by Senate amendments which did not prevail in conference, deprives some 300,000 veterans from receiving dental care to which they are entitled under previous legislation. These 300,000 veterans have individually been advised that their dental work was the function and duty of the Veterans' Administration and when and if moneys were available the work would proceed.

To my way of thinking, we have reneged on our obligations to these veterans. My bill is for the purpose of carrying out the promises made to these veterans by previous authorizations on the part of the Congress.

I, too, believe in economy, but do not think we should accomplish economy by failing to live up to commitments made to and received in good faith by veterans.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be received and appropriately referred.

The bill (S. 2466) to preserve the eligibility of certain veterans to dental outpatient care and dental appliances, introduced by Mr. HUNT, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

TRANSFER OF CERTAIN MILITARY EQUIPMENT TO JAPAN

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I introduce for appropriate reference a bill recommended by the Department of Defense to authorize the transfer to the Government of Japan of certain military equipment, and for other purposes.

I ask that the accompanying letter of transmittal explaining the purpose of the bill be printed in the RECORD immediately following the listing of the bill.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, the letter will be printed in the RECORD.

The bill (S. 2470) to authorize the transfer to the Government of Japan of certain military equipment, and for other purposes, introduced by Mr. SALTONSTALL, by request, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

The letter accompanying Senate bill 2470 is as follows:

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Washington, July 16, 1953. Hon. LEVERETT SALTONSTALL,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: There is forwarded herewith a draft of legislation "to authorize the transfer to the Government of Japan certain military equipment, and for other purposes."

This proposal is a part of the Department of Defense legislative program for 1953, and the Bureau of the Budget has advised that it has no objection to the submission of the proposal for the consideration of the Congress. The Department of Defense recommends that it be enacted by the Congress.

PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

This proposal is designed to provide statutory authority for the transfer to the Government of Japan, without reimbursement, of United States military equipment