THE MYTH OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP91-00965R000100200005-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 28, 2014
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: August 20, 1958
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/28: CIA-RDP91-00965R000100200005-6
. "L" ?.# " I %LA:V:7:- S": C-- ?
_ A7448, CONGKE IONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX
?
practically put the various State labor
relations boards and agencies out of busi-
ness. It would have compelled an over-
burdened National/ Labor Relations
Board to take on more cases and thus
further backlog a caseload which has not
been current for years.
The Kennedy-Ives ? bill did nothing
about organizational or racketeer picket-
ing even when such picketing was con-
trary to the wishes of the collective bar-
gaining unit concerned.
The Kennedy-Ives bill did not tighten
up the inadequate secondary boycott pro-
visions of existing law.
The Kennedy-Ives bill did nothing to
ban the expenditure of union funds for
partisan political purposes.
The Kennedy-Ives bill would have
narrowed the- definition of supervisors
contained in existing law and thus force
foremen into the same Union-shop con-
tract .as the employees they are supposed
to supervise.
Section 607 of the Kennedy-Ives bill
could. have been so construed as to make
it a crime for an employer -to give his'
employees a raise in pay or other bene-
fits When such action coincided with
union attempts to organize his em-
ployees.
The reporting and disclosure features
of the Kennedy-Ives bill were wholly
inadequate as a means of getting im-
proyTer leadership and dominated stew-
ards off the backs of the working men
and women of America. The bill re-
quired that improper conduct be reported
to the Secretary of Labor and then be
disclosed to public view. It did not bring
the power of Government action against
proven improper union leadership.
The Kennedy-Ives bill did not make
It mandatory that the union member be
allowed to see the financial and other
records of hi S union. All he could have
was the information which his union of-
ficers reported to the Secretary of Labor
and even that might be in such abbre-
viated form. as the Secretary thought
adequate.
The 'McClellan Rackets Investigating
Committee?and I have never liked the
committee's name because I think it is
unfair to good unionism?recommended
that there be imposed -on union officials
the same responsibilities in regard to
union funds and property as as now
generally imposed on the officials of
banks and other institutiow which act as
repositories and administrators of trust
funds.
?The Kennedy-Ives bill did not impose
fiduciary responsibilities on union of-
ficials. in regard to the funds and the
property Of. their membership. The
Kennedy-Ives bill did not empower
union Members to go into State and
Federal' courts to sue for violations of
trust by union officials charged with the
care, custody, and prudent use of union
funds and property. ? ? ,
The Kennedy-Ives bill should have
been thoroughly studied in the House
Committee on Education and Labor be-
fore being voted upon by the House.
This important legislation never should
have come up under suspension of the
rules of the House. It deserved defeat.
The Myth of Executive Privilege
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. JOHN E. MOSS
OF CALIFORNIA
IN 111.k. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, August 19, 1958
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Speaker, the Presi-
dent has signed into law, H. R. 2767
which was passed without a dissenting
vote by both Houses of Congress. The
new law prevents the misuse of a 169-
year-old statute which has been twisted,
in recent years, into a claim of authority
to refuse the public the facts about the
day-to-day operation of the Federal
Government.
In signing the legislation, however, the
President issued the following statement:
In its consideration of this legislation
the Congress has recognized that the deci-
sionmaking and investigative processes
must be protected. It is also clear from the
legislative history of the bill that it is not
intended to, and indeed could not, alter the
existing power of the head of an executive
department to keep appropriate information
or papers confidential in the public interest.
This power in the executive branch is in-
herent under the Constitution.
The President, in his statement on H.
R.'2767, brought in an entirely unrelated
issue?an issue which Attorney General
William P. Rogers attempted to insert
during both House and Senate consider-
ation of the bill. The so-called "execu-
tive privilege" to keep information
confidential "in the public interest" is
not mentioned, in any way, in IL. R.
2767. The President, in claiming that H.
R. 2767 does not affect "executive priv-
ilege"?a valid claim since the legisla-
tion has absolutely nothing to do with
that particular issue?is asserting that
such a privilege does, in fact, exist. The
President even asserts that this power of
secrecy is "inherent under the Constitu-
tion" and seeps down to the Executive
Departments. If any Constitutional
"privilege': exists to'keep secret the facts
of government, it is certainly granted
only to the President himself and cer-
tainly not to his appointees, heading of-
fices which are not even mentioned in
the Constitution.
A complete analysis of the absurdity
and the dangers of this Government-
wide claim of "executive privilege" has
been made by Dr. Harold L. Cross, who
is the Nation's leading expert on the
freedom of information problem. His
analysis, printed in the August issue of
the Bulletin of The- American Society of
Newspaper Editors, effectively explodes
the myth of executive privilege.
The analysis follows:
, THE MYTH OF "EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE"
(By Harold L. Cross, fol counsel for ASNE)
As Congressman GEORGE MEAGER, Republi-
can, of Michigan, pointed out recently, "It is
difficult to prove that a nonexistent thing
does not exist."1 That to which he referred
and of which I write is the "nonexistent,
Imaginary, so-called executive privilege"1 of
Footnotes at end of speech.
August 20
the nature, dimensions, and pretentious
rhetoric in which it is currently advanced.
No ,such privilege is expressed in the
Constitution or in any act of Congress or in
any court decision. It is not (as some news-
papermen, incautiously accepting executive
officials'?asseverations, are so prone to chorus)
an established or well-settled principle. It
has been repeatedly challenged, denied, re-
pudiated, or refused acceptance in the Con-,
gress and in numerous court decisions, and,
in addition, by lawyers whose (professional
competence is equal to, and whose objectivity
is not less than, that of Attorneys General
and by other persons whose views are en-
titled to at least equal respect.
BUREAUCRACY?SERVANT OR MASTER?
Congressman MEAGER said: "I wonder if the
American people and their elected Repre-
sentatives in Congress appreciate the signifi-
cance ,,,of this latest pronouncement of the
executive branch of the Government (refer-
ring to a statement k by Attorney General
Rogers to the Senate Subcommittee on Con-
stitutional Rights). If this is sound consti-
tutional doctrine, then it is permissible,
without amending the Constitution, for the
huge executive bureaucracy we have built up
to become the master, not the- servant, of the
people."
I wonder if editors and their representa-
tives in Washington appreciate that "if this
is sound constitutional doctrine" the right
of the people, the Congress, and the courts
to know 4, a nonexistent thing whenever
those in 'the executive branch or exercising
executive functions in the so-called inde-
pendent regulatory agencies created by,,,,the
Congress to choose to assert this executive
privilege and that freedom of information,
despite anything the Congress or the Federal
judiciary can do about it, thus hangs on
absolute, unfettered,-judicially unreviewable
executive official grace, courtesy, indulgence,
or discretion.,
QUOTING NIXON AS REPRESENTATIVE
Flajipily, the existence of such a privi-
lege is not sound constitutional doctrine;
not yet at least. It is instead a mere unre-
solved claim by those officials to an unre-
stricted right of privacy.' It is as wide open
as all outdoors.
Among those in Congress who have re-
pudiated it is one but a heartbeat from the
Presidency. ? Said Representative RICHARD M.
NIXON:'
"I am now going to address myself to a
second issue which is very important. The
point has been made that the President of
the United States has issued an order that
none of this information can be released and
that therefore the Congress has no right.to
question the judgement of the President.
say that that proposition cannot stand
from a constitutional standpoint or on the
basis of the merits for this very good reason.
That would mean that the President could
have arbitrarily issued an Executive order in
the Meyers case, the Teapot Dome case, or in
any other case denying the Congress infor-
mation it needed to conduct an investigation
of the executive department and the Con-
gress would have no right to question his
decision."
NO LIMIT TO POSSIBILITIES
Among the court decisions in which its ac-
ceptance was refused is one by a Federal cir-
cuit court of appeals." Quoting some gentle-
men who were conspicuously present when
the Constitution was adopted, the opinion
said:
"Moreover, we regard the recognition of
such a sweeping privilege against any dis-
closure of the internal operation of the ex-
ecutive departments of the Government as
contrary to a sound public policy. * ? * It
Is but a small step to assert a" privilege
against any disclosure of records merely be-
,
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/28: CIA-RDP91-00965R000100200005-6
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/28 : CIA-RDP91-0096&R000100200005-6
-
1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX
cause they Might prove embarrassing to
Government officers. Indeed it requires no
great flight of imagination to realize that if
the Government's contentions in these cases
were affirmed the privilege against disclosure
might gradually be enlarged by executive
determination until;'as is the case in some
nations today, it embraced the whole range
of governmental activities."
MENACE NEEDS TO BE SCOTCHED
Among the numerous others who have re-
pudiated it is Dean Wigmore in his monu-
mental work on evidence.' Said he:
"But the solemn invocation in the prece-
dents above chronicled, of a supposed in-
herent secrecy in-all official acts and records,
has commonly been only a canting appeal to
fiction. It seems to lend itself naturally to
mere sham and evasion. * * * But the vast
? extension, in modern times,, of administra-
tive laws regulating. the affairs of the In-
dividual citizen, is presenting a large scope
for this nlairn of privilege. The possibilities
of such abuse are plainly latent in this sup-
posed privilege. * * ? The menace which
this supposed privilege implies to individual
liberty and .private right will justify us in
repudiating it before it is solidly entrenched
In precedent."
As a barricade of secrecy against the peo-
ple there are no Federal judicial precedents
for the privilege. _ In the single reported
appellate court decision on citizens' inspec-
tion of Federal nonjudicial records the privi-
lege was not asserted or, asserted, was ig-
nored, while the court referred to the invoked
"inalienable right of every citizen to be in-
formed." 8 When the issue is presented for
determination consideration must be given
to the reach of the first, fifth, and ninth
amendments.
THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Editors will recall what has happened to
that long-assefted absolute discretion of the
executive _branch of the Government on the
Issuance and revocation of passports which,
unlike executive privilege did have some
vestige of support in an act of Congress and
Presidential regulations in an area of foreign
affairs supposedly singularly committed to
the Executive. In the passport cases the
Government at long last conceded that the
people's right to travel has a fifth- amend-
ment aspect.? I refer, of course, to the lib-
erty-due process provisions of the amend-
ment, not to the currently familiar protec-
tion against self-incrimination.
Thanks to this fresh emphasis on liberty
and due process, and to the Supreme Court's
reminder that there is such a thing as the
first amendment, the people's right to know
acquires constitutional aspects which have
been neglected too long. After all, the peo-
ple's right to know can hardly be inferior
to their right to travel.
-COURT DECISIONS CITED
As a clamp upoti the Congress the claim
of executive privilege is bare of Federal ju-
dicial precedent, though the respected high
courts of California, Massachusetts, and New
York have rendered decisions adverse to the
claim.10 in one of these, the decision most
nearly on the precise point, the Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts, passing
upon the refusal of an official in the execu-
tive branch to produce a record thereof de-
manded by the Bay' State senate and deal-
ing with the express declaration on separa-
tion of powers in the bill of rights in that
State's constitution, squareli, rejected the
/doctrinaire interpretation of separation of
powers relied upon to support the executive
privilege claim of the Federal executive
branch. The court's unanimous opinion
cited, among others, three decisions of the
United States Supreme Court.
Footnotes at end of speech.
FROM BURR'S TIME TO THIS
As to the claim as against the -judiciary,
the Federal courts from Marbury v. Madi-
son,? and United States v. Aaron Burr22 in.
the early 1800's to Reynolds v. United
States" in the 1950's have forthrightly as-
serted and, as occasion arose, exercised the
judiciary's power to determine the merit of
a claim of privilege against disclosing evi-
dence relevant to issues in pending litiga-
tion. That "involves a justiciable question
traditionally within the competence of the
courts"14 and, as the Supreme Court has
said, "Judicial control over the evidence in
*a case cannot be abdicated to the caprice of
executive officers." 11 In recent cases Federal
courts, disregarding claims of this privilege,
have directed production of records by ex-
ecutive departments not only in litigation
involving the Government but also in that
between private citizens." 16
"LITTLE PRESIDENTS" APPEAR
Editors will understand that the issue
does not involve the right (as distinguished
from the privilege) of the Government to
Oithhold records and information which
actually are lawfully secret, confidential, or
Otherwise not subject to compulsory dis-
closure pursuant to valid past or future acts
of the Congress or, to controlling judicial
decisions concerning evidentiary or testi-
monial privileges. Space does not permit, nor
;the occasion can for, stating the particulars
of such records and information ranging
from certain military secrets and identity of
confidential insformants to income-tax re-
turns, crop reports, and many others.
Nor in its current dimensions does the
claim of privilege primarily involve the ex-
tent of any possible presidential immunity
from the enforcement of legal process which,
aside from the holding that the President is
subject to the subpena power Of the courts?'
also remains unresolved. The ,privilege is
claimed by and in behalf of a host of Federal
officeholders to whom no such immunity ex-
tends; and, naturally, it has sired little
presidents who have ventured to assert presi-
dential authority in respect of matters which,
for all that appears, the President himself
was quite unaware. Other officials, it should
be noted, forthrightly disclaim any such
power,
The claim has been advanced recently in
three documents. The first of them, un-
signed, undated, transmitted by Attorney
General Rogers to the House Government
Information Subcommittee, and " consisting
of 102 pages (which seems a lot for a privi-
lege said to be well settled) is captioned: "Is
a Congressidfial Committee Entitled to De-
mand and Receive Information and Papers
From the President and the Heads of ,De-
\ partments Which They Deein Confidential
in the Public Interest?" 18 ? - ?
4 QUESTION KEEPS BOBBING UP
At long last, page 86, this pops out: "None
of the foregoing cases involved?the refusal
by a head of a department to obey a call for
papers or information. There has been no
Supreme Court decision dealing squarely with
that question." At intervals in later pages
. the question keeps bobbing up: "How is the
Supreme Court likely to decide the issue con-
cerning the withholding of confidential
papers by the executive branch from Con-
gress and its committee?" Naturally, the
author knows the answer but, alas, agree-
ment thereon falls far short of unanimity.
The second paper, the pronouncement re-
pudiated by Congressman MEADER, is the
March.6, 1958, statement of Attorney Gen-
eral?Rogers,to the Senate Subcommittee on
Constitutional Rights. After referring to
certain principles said to have been estab-
lished by unilateral action of President
Washington's Cabinet, President Tyler and
other persons and quoting from opinions by
,,?
A
official 'predecessors, newspaper edii
and court decisions he seems to co:
have a bearing, Mr. Rogers comes up al
29 with.this:
'"To conclude that a constitutional
lege exists in the President and in thos
ing in his behalf and pursuant to his
tion to withhold documents and inforn
as against a-congressional demand fo:
duction or testimony does not wholl:
pose of the problem. A further qu
arises.' Is the Epcutive or the Congr
determine whether the privilege is a
pirately asserted in a given case. Th
no judicial precedent governing this
The last sentence is correct. His pr
."To conclude" is equally bare of jt:
precedent. He says further: "As a nil
matter only the Persident can make tl
termination as to disclosure." There
judicial precedent for that one either.'
about a determination by the Federal
ciary in a government by law?
REVERTING TO WCARTHY HEARING:
The third paper is the "Memorandt
Attorney General Brownell which f
panied thejamous Army-McCarthy hi
letter of May 17, 1954, from President
hower to Secretary of Defense Wilson
emergency which certainly, was sudde
may have been dire. (It may be
noting here as nevg that Mr. Rogers a
6 of his statement says "that this lett
poses no barrier to the disclosure c
official action." There may be som
awareness of this in the executive
and administrative agencies.) The '
lege" is stated in the "Memorandu:
follows: 19
"American history abounds in count:
lustrations of the refusal, on ?coast(
the President and heads of departme
furnish papers to Congress or its comn
for reasons of public policy.
"Nor are the instances lacking whe
aid of the court was sought in vain
tam n information or papers from the
of departments. Courts have uniforml
that the President and heads of depart
have an uncontrolled discretion to wil
information and papers in the publ
terest; 'they will 'not interfere with t
ercise of that discretion, and that Cc
has not the power, as one of the threi
branches of the Government, to stibjc
executive branch to its will any mor
the executive branch may impose i
restrained will upon the Congress."
' COLD STARES WERE EFFECTIVE
The first paragraph is substantial
rect. It may be noted, however, ti
number of instances of refusals by h
departments that stuck are not
countless; that there have been a
of instances in which department
brought before'Congress by request'
pena, spoke at first of this so-calle
liege and then; facing cold stares, v
ing they'd ne'er consent? consente?
quite often the reasons for refusi
actually,well-settled rules of law raft
mere subjective' public policy; and th
'of Members of Congress Who have
gated. the executive bfanch from
aster that befell General St. Clair
disaster that befell Pearl Hatt
later?have scoffed at and repudia
constitutional basis for such refuc
that the instances of congressional
in which information and papers lit
? furnished by the President and depa
heads are region?)
The second paragraph is remarkab
Mr. Brownell, though impliedly dis?
a power whereunder the executive
may impose its unrestrained will ti
Congress, was actually claiming
power. His statement would be ev
?
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/28: CIA-RDP91-00965R000100200005-6
i0
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/28: CIA-RDP91-00965R000100200005-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX August 20
cable if It were Correct, which it
." No cases are cited therefor either
statement or An the document from
he lifted it. There are no such cases.
heer assertion, as shown above, as far
rights of Congress and the people
,ncerned; and, so far as withholding
the courts is concerned, it is at direct
ce with pertinent court holdings.
ass of Attorneys General are not law.=
IT'S A ROYAL PREROGATIVE
executive branch as of now has no
ipecially privileged right of privacy as
t the people, their Congress or their
. The claim to one harks back to
prerogative 28 and is made in a land,
there is reason to believe, the people
lone something more than merely to
e their kings. If such a privilege ought
st, let it be sought forthrightly by
iment of the Constitution or in legis-
by the Congress inasmuch as "The
srs of this Nation Cntrusted the law-
g powers to Congress alone in both
md bad times. It would do no good
all the historical _events, the fears of
and the hopes of freedom that lay be-
their choice.", Any such privilege
. depend by law on the nature and cir-
inces of the record, paper, or informa-
-"volved and not upon the status (as
in the executive branch or exercising
ive functions) or the will or the dis-
i or the caprice of the official happen-
have custody. No such servant of the
should be judge in his own cause....
gGRESSIONAL RECORD, House, March 10,
age 3286.
d., page 3286.
d.. page 3281.
5'ale Law Journal 477 (Bishop, 1957) .
VGRESSIONAL RECORD, House, April 22,
lige 4783.
molds v. U. S. (192.F. 2d, 987 (3d Cir.
; reversed on other grounds, U. S. V.
Ids (345 U. S. 1, 73 S. Ct. 528, 97 L. Ed.
A.L. R. 2d 382 (1953)). See note 15.
I Wigmore on Evidence, 3d ed., secs.
1279; also earlier sections.
ited States ex. rel. Stowell v. Deming
19 F. 2d 697 (App. D. C. 1927) ).
tkwell Kent and Walter Briehl cases,
States Supreme Court, June 16, 1958;
a not available to writer on June 21,
nion of the Justices. 328 Mass.
N. E. 2d 179 (1951), and eases crted.
r. (u. S.) 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803).
irr's Trial, 182,2 ibid. 535.
ttions in note 6.
folds v. U. S., cited in note 6.
`. v. Reynolds, cited in note 6.
ris v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (21 F. R. D.
57) ); Snyder v. U. S. (20 F. R D. 7
,.? 66 Yale Law Journal 477 (Bishop,
11 Cornell Law Quarterly 737 (Sum-
i6); 59 Yale Law Journal 1451 (Berg-
Krash, 1950). See also court papers
ay V. U. S., U. S. D. C. Dist. Col., Civil
STo. 4422-50, where "privilege" claim
tary of Army was overruled. In some
ases cited the claim of privilege' ).ivasN
a 5 U. S. C. 22 which the Attorney
has claimed to be "a legislative ex..
and recognition" of the constitu-
executive privilege."
'8 Trial, cited in Note 12;
document also appears in 10 Federal
nal 103 (Wolkinson, 1949). Its au.
)r was connected with the Depart-
Justice. From material in it much
ney General Brownell's "Memoran-
ted in Note 19 was "lifted" almost
word.
RS from Federal Agencies to Ques.
t submitted by The Special Subcom-
n Government Information of the
se on Government Operations, pp.
546-552; appears also in records of Army-
McCarthy Senate Hearings and as an Attor-
ney General Opinion.
22 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, House, March 10,
1958, pp. 3280-3286 (Meader) ; 39 Georgetown
Law Journal 563 (Collins, 1951); 40 Harvard
Law Review 153 (Landis, 1926) ; Committee
on Government Operations, The Right to
Congress to Obtain Information from the
Executive and from Other Agencies of the
Federal Government, April 27, 1956; Special
Subcommittee On Legislative Oversight of the
House Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, tteamorandum of Law, Staff Re-
port, October 17, 1957.
2166 Yale Law Journal 477 (Bishop, 1957).
See also matter cited in Note 20.
22 Cross, The People's Right to Know Legal
Access to Public Records and Proceedings, pp.
23-24. The late U. S. Supreme Court Jack-
son, himself a former Attorney General and
author of one of the Opinions often cited re
"executive privilege" referred to them as
"partisan advocacy" in Young4town Sheet "&
Tube Co. v. Sawyer (343 U. S. 579, 649, note
17 (1952) ).
21 59 Yale Law Journal 1451 (Berger and
Krash, 1950); see also matters cited in Note
20.
Ycrungstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sauryel
(343 U. S. 579 (1952) ).
12vJ Wigmore on Evidence, 3d ed., sec-
tions 2377a et seq.
Congratulations to the Junior Service
League of Jersey City on Its 30th An-
niversary (1928-58)
EXTENSION OF REMARKS-
OF
HON. ALFRED D. SIEMINSKI
OF NEW JERSEY
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, August 15, .1958
-Mr. STIE1VIINSKI. Mr. Speaker, alert
as ever to render merited praise, my ad-
ministrative assistant, Mr. John Murphy,
has brought to my attention the-wonder-
ful and unselfish work of the Junior Serv-
ice League of Jersey City and especially
the help it has given to the Whittier
House Boys Club.
Dr. Henry J. Gewirtzman, Who is presi-
dent of the board of directors, and James
B. Clarke, a member of the board, are
only a few who know of the great assist-
ance to the boys club by the junior
league.
The young ladies of the junior league
sacrifice time, social engagements, and
in many instances their own personal in-
terests to help the young boys at the
Whittier House. I am proud of the work
of these young ladies and I know our
community is grateful and most thank-
ful for all they have done and are doing
to enhance community life.
Under leave to extend my remarks in
the RECORD, I should like to include the
following:
THE JUNIOR SERVICE LEAGUE OF JERSEY CITY,
N. 3., 1928-58
Thirty years ago the Junior Service League
of Jersey City was organized under the able
guidance of Miss Harriet Niese. Its purpose
was to render volunteer service; to,,, promote
the social and economic welfare of Jersey
City, and to further and promote its edu-
cational, cultural, and civic conditions.
The purposes of a Junior Service League
are:
1. Careful t.raining of the individual mem-
ber.
2. Emphasis on her obligation to give her
talents to the community.
Each new member is required to take a
provisional training course to make her
aware of her responsibilities as a citizen.
After this course is taken, an apprentice
period has to be served in any community
agency of the member's choice or wherever
there is it need.
From the time she is accepted as an active
member, each girl continues to contribute
her volunteer services working up in many
cases to positions of real responsibility as
board members of various cultural, civic and
welfare agencies.
A Junior Service League aims never to be
competitive, but rather to pioneer in the
field of cultural and welfare activities, with
the guidance of professional leaders.
During these years of service, while the
league has been training and providing
young women to assist in the social services.
the task of supporting the agencies has not
been overlooked. The income from dues
must cover all operating expenses, thus all
money raised through dances, entertainment,
card parties, and the like is made available
for charitable purposes.
For many years they have published a
pamphlet called Junior Service League
Notes, containing articles written by mem-
bers on various aspects of league work, news
of the members, original stories, and poetry.
A brief review of some of the 'activities of
the league during these 30 years shows that
the league has consistently realized the pur-
poses for which it was founded.
Originally the league distributed the
money it raised among several social agen-
cies. However, in 1932 the league spon-
aored an individual project, the Women's
Exchange. In 1936 a survey of Jersey City
was made and published in book form. This
piece of research studied the city's social-
service needs and evaluated the facilities of
the agencies then in existence. This was
one of the league's greatest contributions to
social work in Jersey City. Because of this
survey the Council of Social Agencies was
formed. Then in 1939 they undertook 'the
revitalization of the -SPCC. During the
war years they maintained clubrooms at
the Fairmount Hotel for the use of officers
of the armed services. In 1944 their special
interest centered on the faimly service child
welfare program, as well as redecorating and
furnishing two dormitories and a sun porch
at the Salvation Army Door of Hope. In
1946 they established the Volunteer Bureau.
In 1949 the league assisted in developing a
recreational program at Whittier House Boys'
Club for girls as well as making major reno-
vations in the clubhouses. This project has
been so rewfirding and the need so great
that the league has continued to support
this worthy organization ever since. In 1954
they furnished sundry equipment for the
Girl Scout camp. In 1955 the league com-
piled and published a directory of social,
health, and welfare agencies serving Hudson
County for the Council of Social Agencies.
They, also purchased two lean-to's for the
Boy Scout camp, as well as sponsored a series
of lectures at the Woman's Club. In 1955
and 1957 they donated a total of six hospital
beds to the American Cancer Society, Hudson
County Chapter. In 1957 they established
a hospitality cart for use at Greenville Hos- ,
pital and participated in the formation of a
Teen-Age Girls' Club at the A. Harry Moore
housing project. Their biggest project that
year was decorating and furnishing the teen-
age lounge at the YMCA. Altogether, in the
past 30 years, the league has given some
$75,000 to various charitable enterprises in
ersey City.
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/03/28: CIA-RDP91-00965R000100200005-6