ANDREAS PAPANDREOU MEETS THE PRESS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP70B00338R000300060018-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: January 4, 2017
• Document Release Date: July 15, 2005
• Sequence Number: 18
• Publication Date: April 22, 1968
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2005/07/25 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300060018-0
zl 22, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -Extensions of Remarks
[From the Elyria, Ohio, Chronicle-Telegram,
. Mar, 16, 19681
"No one has yet invented a way to finance
government without cost to the taxpayer.
There are only ways of putting off the day
of reckoning."
That fact of economic life is pointed out
again by Sen. Harry F. Byrd, Jr., (D-Va.) in
an article in Spotlight, a publication of the
Committee for Constitutional Government,
Inc.
The article was written before the gold
crisis developments of the last few days, but
it is especially timely in view of that crisis.
"No government," Sen. Byrd wrote, "can
play a constructive role in the lives of its
citizens except on the basis of economic
strength. It is not that dollars are more
important than people and their needs. It is
simply that without a sound dollar, all pro-
grams and projects financed by the govern-
ment will be undermined."
Sen. Byrd's warning deserves thoughtful
consideration by all Americans. The day of
reckoning may be nearer than most Ameri-
cans have believed.
[From the Staunton, Va., Leader, Apr. 4,
1968]
The Senate would have won considerable
applause had it also written into its excise
tax bill the proposal of Sen. Harry F. Byrd,
Jr., D-Va., to ban loans to countries trading
with the Communist enemy in Vietnam.
An seas apandreou Meets the Press
HON. DONALD M. FRASER
OF MINNESOTA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 22, 1968
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, on March
10 the guest on the National Broadcast-
ing Co.'s "Meet the Press" was Andreas
Papandreou, chairman of the Panhel-
lenic Liberation Movement and former
Greek Cabinet member, Mr. Papandreou,
who was freed in December after 8
months' imprisonment, spoke forcefully
for restoration of liberties in Greece and
against the oppressive military rulers
who have governed for more than a year.
It is particularly fitting that Mr. Papan-
dreou's comments be reprinted at this
time, because yesterday, April 21, was the
anniversary of the coup that plunged
Greece into darkness.
The "Meet the Press" interviewers
were Robert Novak, of the Chicago Sun-
Times, Philip L. Geyelin, of the Wash-
ington Post, and James Robinson and
Lawrence E. Spivak, of NBC. Edwin New-
man of NBC was the moderator. The full
text of the interview follows:
Mr. NEwMAN. Our guest today on "Meet the
Press" is Andreas Papandreou, the exiled
Greek political leader who is coordinating
the Greek resistance movement. Mr. Papan-
dreou was a member of the Greek Cabinet
and Parliament, and he served as chief aide
to his father, George Papandreou when he
was Prime Minister.
A former naturalized American, Mr. Pa-
pandreou was an economics professor at the
University of California before he returned to
Greece in 1963 to enter politics.
He was charged with high treason under
the government of King Constantine and
later arrested by the military junta. He was
recently released from prison and has just
arrived in this country on a visit.
We will have the first questions now from
Lawrence E. Spivak, permanent member of
the "Meet the Press" panel.
Mr. SPIVAK. Mr. Papandreou, in your speech
before the ADA last night, you said, "I must
add that the U. S. Embassy in Athens gave
strong moral support to the King and the
Greek establishment in their violation of the
democratic processes in Greece, thus paving
the way for the military coup of April 21,
1967."
Are you charging the United States with
responsibility for the coup?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. The United States Em-
bassy I charge with historic responsibility,
not necessarily involvement in the coup it-
self. Actually coups don't occur accidentally.
An atmosphere has to precede a coup, and
the U.S. Embassy, I think, participated in
creating the atmosphere that led to the coup,
Mr. Spivak.'
Mr. SPIVAK. YOU went further. The Wash-
ington Post quotes you as saying that the
"present Prime Minister of Greece, Mr. Pa-
adopoulos, is probably the first CIA agent
who has managed to be come a Prime Min-
ister."
Are you saying that the United States
helped put him in power?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. That is a fact, what I said
in Oslo. Namely, Mr. Papadopoulos was the
key coordinator of the Natsainas KYP, the
KYP leader in Greece. KYP is the CIA of
Greece, the Greek CIA. Papadopoplos was
the contact man with the American CIA,
And I add that the American CIA finances
the Greek CIA directly, not via the Greek
Government, as Mr. Sulzberger himself, has
disclosed in an editorial in The New York
Times.
Mr. SPIVAK. Are you saying that the United
States could have prevented the coup?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. The United States might
not have been in a position to prevent the
coup, but the United States could surely
have overthrown the junta, had it wished.
Mr. SPIVAK. DO you say now that the
United States ought to help overthrow the
dictatorship?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. No less than that, Mr.
Spivak. I would, however, qualify by saying
surely it should not assist the junta, and
the recent exhibitions of friendship, and
the U.S.S. Roosevelt, the recent statements
of Admiral Horatio Rivero in favor of the
junta in Greece surely shocked the demo-
cratic forces of Greece that are struggling
for a free country, for a country that can
take its place among the western nations.
Mr. SPIVAK. Mr. Papandreou, when you look
back to the period when you and your father
ran the government, do you find you too may
have been to blame for the coup to some
degree?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. Mr. Spivak, no one is ever
free, totally, of some historic responsibility.
No one. And it is not for me to judge whether
I am or not. It is for others to judge.
Mr. GEYELIN. Mr. Papandreou, I understood
you to say that you thought we should have
moved in and thrown the junta out in the
first instance. How do you do that?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. This is more complicated
than that, Mr. Geyelin. If the United States
did not lend its moral and material support
to the government of the junta, the junta
would collapse of its own weight, for it has
no strength among the Greek people, and it
has no strength in fact among the Greek
armed services.
Mr. GEYELIN. Was there no danger of a civil
war at that time?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. Of course not. The junta
has charged that the Communists had arms
with which they would threaten to overtake
the country. in the ten months of their gov-
ernment they have not been able to discover
one single cache of arms, And, after all, the
Democratic Center forces were overwhelm-
ingly in the majority in Greece.
E 3161
Mr. GEYELIN. Is it your view now that the
Communists are possibly getting stronger,
although you apparently believe there was
no threat at the time of the coup? Do you
think the junta is creating a threat?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. I should think that as
time goes on it is quite likely that the more
extremist forces in the country will become
dominant.
Mr. GEYELIN. All you would have us do now,
as I-understand it, is what? Withdraw recog-
nition from this government or withdraw all
aid? What would you have us do, specifically?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. Let me- put it this way:
Recognition is a formal thing. Sometimes one
.recognizes even governments it doesn't like.
First of all: to stop the display of enthu-
siasm, love and affection for the government;
second: to stop shipping arms to the junta
with which they subjugate the Greek people.
After all, what are the Greek people to say,
when the alliance which they joined to. pro-
tect their freedoms arms this mafia, these
few officers, to keep the country in bondage.
Mr. NOVAK. Following up Mr. Geyelin's
question about extremist elements in the
resistance, Mr. Papandreou, the government-
controlled Greek newspapers are now con-
tending that your call for a united libera-
tion front is in effect an invitation for the
Communists to cooperate with you, is that
correct? -
Mr. PAPANDREOU. Mr. Novak, the Panhel-
lenic Liberation Movement, which I have the
honor to lead today, calls upon all Greeks,
not upon parties, not upon party platforms,
to join in the effort to overthrow the junta
and establish on a permanent and solid basis
a democratic process, democratic institutions.
Those Greeks who wish to offer time, effort
and their life in the effort to establish demo-
cracy in Greece-which, after all, is the key
principle of the Western World-those Greeks
are all welcome. None excluded.
Mr. NOVAK. Even if they are Communists?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. I will not look at the files
of an individual. Any individual who wishes
to offer his services for democracy may, offer
his services. We do not form a front among
parties. We merely call upon the Greeks to
join the effort to one single objective: over-
throw the junta and establish a democratic
government where the Greek people freely,
with judicial protection, may express their
views and run their own country.
Mr. NOVAK. As far as not forming a front
among parties is concerned, as I understand
it, the leader of the Greek Communist Par-
ty, the KKE, speaking from Rumania, had
endorsed your purposes.
Do you rebuff that endorsement or do you
refuse to in any way collaborate with him?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. My position, Mr. Novak
I have made very clear. The Panhellenic Lib-
eration Movement is a coordination of re-
sistance movements. It is not a collaboration
among parties.
Mr. NOVAK. Going back, Mr. Papandreou,
in April, at the time of the coup, some of
the colonels claimed that if you had-if the
elections had taken place and the Center
Union Party had won, you would have in-
vited Communists into the government in a
coalition popular front. Was that charge
correct or not?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. Mr. Novak, why should it
be valid-after all, our party had 53 per cent
of the vote in '64. On the basis of objective
estimates, we would have had more than 53
per cent of the total national vote in '67.
Why would any party invite any other party
to collaborate when it can run the country
on the basis of its own strength? So the ques-
tion itself is not a sensible question-not
your question, but the question that has been
put and which you transmit.
Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Papandreou, you have
made some very serious charges saying that
the Central Intelligence Agency of this coun-
try is directly supporting the junta leaders,
Approved For Release 2005/07/25 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300060018-0
 Approved For Release 2005/07/25 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300060018-0
E 3162 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -Extensions of Remarks April 22, 1968
and you have said you would bring out proof
of these charges. When could we see these
'proofs?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. When did I make the
charge that it is supporting? And in what
fashion did I make the charge?
Mr. ROBINSON. You said the Prime Minis-
ter Papadopoulos was in the pay of the CIA.
You said that the Minister of Coordination-
Mr. PAPANDREOU. Not in the pay. What I
said was that Mr. Papadopoulos was the con-
tact man between the Greek CIA and the
American CIA and that the American CIA
financed directly the activities of the Greek
CIA, not via the government, a question
which as Minister to the Prime Minister I
raised-one of the reasons in fact that I have
been charged, early, as being anti-American,
a charge that is false, [but] I am against
interference of the irresponsible agencies in
the internal affairs of other countries.
Mr. RoBINsoN. Mr. Papandreou, as far as I
can see from your country, you have had no
support there. The Center Union Party has
denounced you, Karamaniis, probably one of
the most famous Greek exiles, has not come
to your support. The Royal Family has not
come to your suport. Where is your backing?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. Mr. Robinson, the Center
Party has never denounced me. One man
dared say something under the pressure from
the junta, and he has been scratched from
books of the party officially in Greece. - Mr.
Spanoriggas who made this statement is no
longer a member of the Center Union. As for
Mr. Karamanlis, I don't need Mr. Karamanlis'
support. He is the head of a different party.
As for the King, he has no business support-
ing anybody, me included.
Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Papandreou, when you
went to the United States Embassy in Athens
a few weeks ago to get a visa-
Mr. PAPANDREOU. No, not to get a visa; I
got my visa in Paris.
Mr. RoBINSoN. The United States Embassy
anyway reported back to this government
here that you gave them assurances that you
would not indulge in political activities while
in this country. Is this true?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. Quite to the contrary,
there was no discussion about what I would
be doing. When. asked by Mr. Pattakos, the
Deputy Premier of the junta what I would
do abroad, I said I would be true to myself;
you know my history and you can guess the
rest. And my discussion- with Mr. Talbot had
nothing to do with my own personal plans.
Mr. SPIVAK. Mr. Papandreou, as you know
you have been called far left by some and
Communist by others. How do you describe
your politics?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. My politics can be de-
scribed in very few words. Politically I am a
fanatic democrat. I believe in the Bill of
Rights,. the freedom of speech, of press, of
syndicalist and political organization.
I believe, second, in a judicial system which
is independent of the executive and can pro-
tect the citizen from police and arbitrary
executive intervention.
Socially and economically, I am what you
may call a New Dealer. Insofar as foreign
policy is concerned, I believe that Greece as
a member of the western alliance ought to
have a voice in matters that affect its own
future. It should not be a satellite, but an
ally. And I do want to register my great
chagrin, Mr. Spivak, that today this alliance
that Greece joined to protect its freedom is
supplying the junta with arms. This is. un-
acceptable, Mr. Spivak.
Mr, SPIVAx. Would you under any circum-
stances support a Communist regime in
Greece or would you fight it as you are now
fighting the junta?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. I am against totalitari-
anism of all forms, Mr. Spivak, and this is
something that is in the record. I shall fight
for freedom no matter who threatens it.
Mr. Gs LtN. Mr. Papandreou, when you
attack the United States government for its
policy in Greece, are you talking about Pres-
ident Johnson's policy or the Secretary of
State's, or are you suggesting that there are
agencies such as CIA that are out of control
and beyond the effective discipline of the
government?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. I have, myself been very
puzzled to understand the way the political
process leads to a policy, a foreign policy. I
am aware from my experience in Greece that
the various agencies of the U. S. government
have often not been in accord and that often
the more irresponsible elements make out-
the responsible elements being forced to fol-
low a fait accompli.
Mr. GEYELIN. Would you have us now cut
off economic assistance of all kinds to the
junta at the expense of the people in order
to weaken them?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. Indeed I would. For the
Greek people have to bear one kind of sacri-
fice or another. One Is the economic sacrifice
for the short run. But if the junta were to
survive because of economic and military
support of the West, then the sacarifices would
be much greater for they would have to en-
gage in an active resistance effort, very costly,
very costly Indeed to Greece, Europe and the
free world as well.
Mr. GEYELIN. The junta is making a cam-
paign now through a public relations agency
in this country to attract private American
investment. What is your advice to those
potential investors?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. Stay out, for when we re-
turn to Greece, we shall question all those
who decided to help the junta during this
period.
Mr. NovAI. Mr. Papandreou, In your ad-
dress to the ADA last night, you said that
the junta did not even have the support of
the Army last April. Do you feel that there is
still lack of support in the Army, and that
is the basis for a possible counter coup today?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. Yes, Mr. Novak, I believe
this quite deeply, because the Greek Army
today resents the fact that a Mafia, using
the intelligence apparataus at its disposal,
has taken over control, has sacked over 2,000
NATO-trained officers, and is attempting
through intelligence methods and through
political commissars In every unit to run the
Army. There is no longer an Army in Greece.
It is a setup of political cliques. The Army
resents this and will have the opportunity
itself, we believe, to upset the junta.
Mr. NOVAK. Why didn't the Army then
respond to King Constantine's attempted
coup in December? In fact, why didn't the
people, if they were as anti-junta as you
say-why didn't they respond to the King in
December?
Mr. PAPANDREOu. It is a monument of mis-
management, Mr. Novak. The Army, itself,
had not been alerted. The King, himself,
decided suddenly on the date of the coup,
in response to Mr. Karamanlis' appeal to the
Greek people the 9th of December-I think
the King became concerned that Mr.
Karamanlis would make the coup and chose.
to make it very rapidly himself to prevent
Karamanlis from carrying through a coup
against the Junta. It was So badly managed.
And, first of all, how would the people know?
He didn't even have a radio station. A taped
statement from Larissa, a second-rate sta-
tion, reached some Greeks.
Now, of course. I have to add that the
King could have stayed there and fought.
He could have. In Macedonia there were mili-
tary forces ready to fight and win. As for the
Greek people, the King is not a symbol they
can easily follow after the events of July,
1965, and thereafter.
Mr. NOVAK. Are you suggesting that if Mr.
Karamanlis had led the coup, if it had gone
as you say it was originally planned, that
it might have been successful?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. His record is far superior
to that of the King. I think it might have
been better.
Mr. NOVAK. One thing I don't quite under-
stand Is that in the Nazi occupation in
World War II there were repeated incidents
throughout the villages of Greece against
the occupation forces, even though it meant
death. Why are there no such incidents
against the junta` if the people are against
the junta?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. It is not quite true there
is no resistance in Greece, Mr. Novak.
Publicity Is a little difficult to get. Let's
not forget we have 4,000 prisoners today and
heavy convictions; we have mass firings of
Army officers and civil servants. What do
these things suggest? Why the tortures to-
day? One should read the Amnesty Interna-
tional Report, Mr. Novak, to know the extent
to which this junta has surpassed the Nazi
techniques in psychopathic punishment and
torture, things which are not well known
abroad, for the public relations firms, in-
cluding the Litton firm, which has turned
out to be nothing else but a public relations
firm for the junta, managed to put a cover
of secrecy over what happens In Greece.
Mr. Rosucsoe. Mr. Papandreou, you were
a very prominent personality in Greece. Don't
you think it is strange that the junta let you
go?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. I do indeed. I think It is
one of their critical errors. They will regret
it.'
Mr. ROBINSON, Might they think-that-you
are not particularly dangerous to their-
Mr. PAPANDREOU. I think that this is what
they thought, and it Is not for me to judge
whether I-am or not, but I believe they will
regret this mistake.
Mr. ROBINSON. Did you give the junta
assurances that you would not engage in
political activity when you went abroad?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. Quite to the contrary.
None. Quite to the contrary. I said flatly that
I would return to the Greek political life
when the people called for me. Quite to the
contrary. I have made the opposite state-
ment.,
Mr. RoBINSoN. These statements you are
making abroad, does this not endanger your
father?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. It endangers my father,
Indeed, and possibly myself.
I think- thatI should mention to you to-
day, Mr. Robinson, that a government news-
paper asked that the prosecutor in Greece,
the public prosecutor, visit my father and
ask him whether he allies himself with me or
not. If he allies himself with me, then he
has to be charged before a court martial
with high treason. If he disowns me, then,
of course, this means something for his
political-his great political and historic
career. This is the kind of people they are,
and so far as my personal safety Is con-
cerned-you asked earlier about evidence.
Well, I have evidence. It is in a safe and it
is my security.
Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Papandreou, just before
the coup d'etat last year, you made a speech
where you charged that the CIA formulated
American policy, and you criticized this policy
for trying to Isolate the Soviet bloc from
making gross errors in Vietnam, in Latin
America and with our allies in NATO. Do you
still stand on these charges?
Mr, PAPANDREOU. I have made-it Is not a
charge; It is an observation, and it Is an
observation which I believe objective and
which I make with a great deal of sadness,
Mr. Robinson, because I have lived and
worked and enjoyed my life here for 22 years.
I, along with many others who today are
Americans-I am no longer one-feel that the
foreign policy formation process In this coun-
try does not satisfy the rules of democratic
government which exist in all other sectors.
The checks and balances which are so im-
portant In all democratic processes in your
country don't work in the case of foreign
policy. The. Pentagon and CIA and State De-
partment bureaucracy play more of a role
than they should. This is my point, and it
Is a point of critical importance to the survi-
Approved For Release 2005/07/25 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300060018-0
 2l 22, 19 68 ' ' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - Extensions of Remarks
val, not only of your country, but of all the
western world, Mr. Robinson.
Mr. NEWMAN. Gentleman, we have about
three minutes left. Mr. Spivak.
Mr. SPIVAK. Mr. Papandreou, in a recent
article you wrote "Above all, Greece insists
that its allies cease interfering in its internal
political affairs."
Aren't you in effect, by what you are say-
ing here today, interfering in our political
affairs?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. No, I think not. We are
too small, Mr. Spivak, to interfere in the af-
fairs of big, great, America. However, our
own fate is tied up with what America does,
and to make alear plea, Mr. Spivak, to the
American people and the American political
world to come to the assistance of the demo-
cratic forces of Greece is surely not inter-
ference in the internal affairs of the 'United
States.
Mr. SPIVAK. Aren't you then asking us
though to interfere in the political affairs-
Mr. PAPANDREOU. I am.
Mr. SPIVAK. Where is the logic of that?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. The logic is very simple,
Mr. Spivak. When a country is occupied 'by
an enemy force, then we are entitled to ask
all peoples to come to our assistance. The
Greek people are not sovereign today. If they
were sovereign, I would not ask for any inter-
ference.
Mr. SPIVAK. Mr. Papandreou, there have
been reports that you have been in touch
with King Constatltine and that you have
been seeking to heal the breach between you.
Are those reports true?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. They are not. I have
taken no initiative. So far as the breach is
concerned, it is irrelevant. In politics per-
sonal animosities should play no role.
Mr. SPIVAK. Would you like to see the King
back on the throne?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. My personal view, Mr.
Spivak, is that the Greek people ought to
decide this question. My personal views are
quite irrelevant.
Mr. NEWMAN. Two minutes, gentlemen.
Mr. GEYELIN. Mr. Papandreou, I under-
stood you to say that the junta would fall,
really, quite easily if we withheld cur sup-
port, that it has no popularity amongst the
people and not even any support in the
Army.
What does keep it in power?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. An intelligence apparatus
with modern technology. Use the tanks, the
bazookas and a very good communications
system and spy system and you can go a long
way indeed, Mr. Geyelin.
Mr. NOVAK. Mr. Papandreou, you have met
with some conservative exiled Greek leaders
in Europe. Quite apart from the King, do you
think it is possible that these conservatives
will cooperate with you in the Liberation
council?
Mr. PAPANDREOU, I believe that members
of the right, of the center and of the left, in-
deed, in an overwhelming majority, will join
forces to overthrow the junta.
Mr. NOVAK. Can you name any members of
the right now exiled cooperating with you?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. I prefer not to make any
mention of names, Mr. Novak.
Mr. RoBINSoN. It is charged that in 1938
you were arrested by the Metaxas regime and
that you confessed at that time to'being a
member, of the Communist Party, that you
were a Trotskyite. Is this true?
Mr. PAPANDREOU. First of all, let's make a
distinction. Member of the Communist
Party and Trotskyite are not the same thing,
Mr. Robinson.
Mr. ROBINSOIf. You said you were a
Trotskyite.
Mr. PAPANDREOU. No, excuse me, Mr. Robin-,
son. I was tortured for many days. My jaw
was broken, and at some point when I was
punch drunk a piece of paper, already pre-
pared was brought to me and I did sign the
paper, whatever it contained-which I do
not remember at this moment, as a matter of
fact. This is the story of that incident. I was
fighting for democracy then too, against a.
brutal dictatorship.
Mr. NEWMAN. I am sorry to interrupt, but
our time is up. Thank you, Mr. Papandreou,
for being with us today on "Meet the Press."
Judicial Legislation
-HON. LOUIS C. WYMAN
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 22, 1968
Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Speaker, a good part
of the uncertainty and confusion that
troubles our country is due to judges
writing legislation into judicial decisions
rather than deciding cases according to
precedent as a proper interpretative
function. When the Justice of the U.S.
Supreme Court-often by the narrowest
of margins, 5 to 4-add the "hooker" that
a contrary view is unconstitutional, the
only remedy is by constitutional amend-
ment, which they well know is laborious,
time consuming, and unlikely.
Lawyers around the country are be-
coming increasingly concerned as they
seek to advise clients on what courses of
action are permissible. One such lawyer
is Edward F. Cummerford of the New
York Bar, who wrote of the "judcial jum-
ble" in the Wall Street Journal of April
22, 1968. Mr. Cummerford's remarks are
well taken and I am including them in
the RECORD at this point since it is with-
out question of the most fundamental
importance that we preserve in America
a government of law and not of men :
JUDICIAL JUMBLE: ACTIVISM Is THREAT TO
GOVERNMENT OF LAWS ANDNOT OF MEN
(By Edward F. Cummerford)
The formal boundary between responsible
self-government on the one side and tyranny
or anarchy on the other is often termed "the
rule of law." Never has that tenuous line
been in such danger of obliteration in this
country. The rule of law is mocked and at-
tacked, not only by the criminal multitude,
but by supposedly responsible elements.
Educators and clergy urge us to break laws
we do not like, and eager mobs implement
their ideas with destructive violence: labor
unions violate laws that impinge upon their
power and defy court orders, usually with im-
punity; public officials blandly refuse to en-
force the law if their political futures might
suffer.
But ironically, it is within the courts
themselves that the most serious threat to
the rule of law has developed. This comes
from a radically new concept of the judicial
function called "activism." Judicial activism
had its genesis in the Supreme Court about
25 years ago, when some of the Justices began
to abandon the age-old principle of stare de-
cisis upon which American and English law
had been based for centuries. Stare decisis
meant simply that the principles derived
from previous decisions formed a body of
controlling law for future decisions. The pri-
mary duty of the judge, after the facts of a
case were determined, was to find the law ap-
plicabe to such facts anld decide according-
ly, regardless of his personal feelings. On this
system rested what Americans proudly called
"a government of laws and not of men."
Judicial activism means that judges strive
for what they deem a "just" result in a case
in the light of their own philosophies and
socio-economic values, with settled legal
E 3163
principles being accorded little or no weight.
Thus decisions turn more and more upon
"who" is the judge than upon "what" is the
law. As a result, law is rapidly losing its cer-
tainty, stability and continuity. Juris-
prudence is becoming the handmaiden of
sociology.
This concept of the judicial function
reaches its apogee in the doctrine, if that is
what it may be called, that even the meaning
of the Constitution itself may be changed by
the Supreme Court if necessary to achieve
"justice" or "equality." While the power of
the Court to clarify parts of the Constitution
in the first instance. cannot be doubted, it is
no corollary that the Court may, at its pleas-
ure, keep changing such meaning. The Con-
stitution specifically provides for its own
amendment with procedures that completely
exclude the Supreme Court.
Some contemporary pseudo-scholars of the
law would have us believe that judicial activ-
ism is a proper function of courts, entirely
consistent with the historical development of
law. This is just not true.
WILL OF THE LAW
Let us consider what some of the leading
legal minds of the past, men whom propo-
nents of activism claim as philosophical ante-
cedents, have thought about the question.
John Marshall, our greatest Chief Justice, de-
clared bluntly in a landmark case: "Judicial
power is never exercised for the purpose of
giving effect to the will of the judge; always
for the purpose of giving effect to the will of
the legislature; or in other words, to the will
of the law." Charles Evans Hughes, usually
ranked second only to Marshall among Chief
Justices, is often cited as an authority for the
notion that the Supreme Court can change
the meaning of the Constitution. This is
based on a fragment from an extemporaneous
speech in 1907-"the Constitution is what the
judges say it is." Mr. Hughes angrily denied
having meant any such thing, but the out-of-
context words plagued him for the rest of his
life and to this day are quoted in textbooks
and by professors to justify a concept he
abhorred.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, a most influential
legel scholar and for 30 years a Supreme
Court Justice, maintained that judges should
keep their own social and economic views out
of decision-making. Benjamin N. Cardozo,
Mr. Holmes' disciple and successor on the
Court, set forth in painstaking detail the his-
torical and philosophical criteria to be em-
ployed by judges in reaching decisions. A lib-
eral like Justice Holmes, he did not believe
that the law must be static and never change.
He would have been shocked, however, at
decisions that lightly discard decades of set-
tled law on the strength of sociological or
economic theories. Justice Cardozo observed:
"Lawyers who are unwilling to study the law
as it is may discover, as they think, that
study is unnecessary; sentiment or benevo-
lence or some vague notion of social welfare
becomes the only equipment needed. I hardly
need to say that this is not my point of view."
Sir Frederick Pollock, probably the chief
authority in modern times on Anglo-Ameri-
can jurfsprudence, repeatedly cautioned that
judges should follow established precedents
and legislative intent, not their personal
views, in reaching decisions. Two other im-
portant jurist-scholars, Felix Frankfurter
and Learned Hand, were extremely critical
of judicial activism. Mr. Frankfurter, a pro-
tege of Holmes, went on the Supreme Court
a "liberal" in 1939 and retired a "conserva-
tive" in 1962-but it was the Court, not Mr.
Frankfurter, which had undergone the great-
er change. Justice Harlan speaks of the idea
that all social ills can be cured by courts as
having "subtle capacity for serious mischief."
PURE GUESSWORK.
The criticism is not confined to Olympian
levels. The legal profession finds it increas-
ingly difficult to know just what the "law"
Approved For Release 2005/07/25 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300060018-0
 Approved For Release 2005/07/25 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300060018-0 ~ --
E 3164 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-Extensions of Remarks April 22, 1968
is; hence, attorneys cannot advise clients of
the merits of their cases with much assur-
ance. If the outcome of a case depends more
on the personal philosophy of the judge
than on any other consideration, it is pure
guesswork. What was once "Constitutional"
suddenly becomes "unconstitutional." Count-
less Supreme Court decisions are by 5-to-4
votes, often accompanied by several different
opinions and bitter, sarcastic dissents. This
is the precarious state of law today.
Some activist judges go to great lengths
to make sure that they will not be thought
of as having unbiased minds. In speeches,
articles and letters to editors they frequent-
ly take positions on controversial questions.
High-ranking judges have even publicly ex-
pressed opinions on delicate questions in-
volved in cases awaiting decisions in their
own courts-judicial behavior that a genera-
tion ago would have been considered repre-
hensible.
No matter what euphemisms are employed
to disguise its effects, careful reflection fnust
lead to only one conclusion: Judicial ac-
tivism is not merely inconsistent with the
rule of law, it is the total negation of the rule
of law. If cases are decided on the personal
philosophies of judges, then in reality there
is no law. If the Constitution has no objec-
tive meaning but means only what judges
think it ought to mean, it is not a constitu-
tion at all but an empty symbol, a sort of
national totem. History shows that vague
laws, subjectively interpreted and arbitrarily
applied, are the tools of tyrants. The equa-
tion is as old as the human race-power
minus responsibility equals despotism.
Out of the vast crucible of human experi-
ence and travail we have constructed a splen-
did system of law and courts that it is our
duty to sustain and improve. The beating
heart of that system is the judge. If his mind
is a closed one, which recognizes no authority
save his own predilections, then all the long
shelves filled with lawbooks, the great marble
columns and the black robes are but super-
ficial trappings cloaking a traversty.
Judges, like other mortals, need a large
measure of humility-the conviction that
one human mind can embrace but a tiny
particle of all wisdom and knowledge. As one
of ourmost respected living judges, Harold
If. Medina, has expressed it so well: "I don't
think I have any propensity or desire to
mold the law to my own views ... If I had a
question of statutory interpretation and I
was convinced the statute meant, and was
intended to mean, one thing, I would never
decide it meant just the opposite because
I though it was desirable social or economic
policy to do so. This twisting and stretching
is not for me"
Nor should it be for any judge.
Baltimore's Friendship Airport
HON. SAMUEL N. FRIEDEL
OF MARYLAND
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 22, 1968
Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Speaker, 10 years
ago last Thursday, April 18, Baltimore's
Friendship International Airport was
like a bride left waiting at the altar-all
dressed up and no place to go.
As airports go, Friendship was not
exactly a booming enterprise back there
in 1958. In fact, she was acquiring the
label: "That ghost airport over there in
Maryland."
Friendship, to be precise, was not even
an international airport from a practical
standpoint 10 years ago. It did not origi-
nate a single international flight.
Happily all that has changed.
The change beganwhen Pan American
World Airways, using a DC-6B, began
three-a-week flights from Baltimore to
San Juan, P.R. The date was April 18,
1958-10 years ago this past Thursday.
Then and there, Friendship began to
grow, to attract other carriers, and to
slowly but steadily assume stature among
the great international air terminals of
the continent.
The story of thisgrowth is impressive:
In 1958, Friendship handled fewer pas-
sengers than live in Indianapolis, Ind., a
city of 460,000 plus. Last year, 1967, 21/2
million passengers passed through
Friendship-almost 21/2 times as many
persons as live in nearby Baltimore.
Today swift jets fly daily from Friend-
ship to London, Paris, and service to
Latin America has been expanded.
Pan American, an early partner in
Friendship's expanding operations, flew
only 3,000 passengers and 100,000. pounds
of cargo to and from the airport in that
first year, 1958.
Last year, those figures had swollen
to 60,000 passengers and 2,600;000 pounds
of cargo.
If 10 years ago, Friendship was a bride
abandoned, then certainly today she is
a happy wife with a dazzling future.
In the supersonic age just ahead,
Friendship international will be able to
handle the biggest jets on her fine strong
runways.
It is a distinct pleasure to be able to
pay this tribute today to that airport
they once called a "ghost."
The ghost is dead, killed by the faith
and daring of the people of Baltimore, of
Maryland, and the confidence of the air-
line industryin thesuccess of this splen-
did facility.
The determination 10 years ago, Mr.
Speaker, to make Friendship an interna-
tional airport was reached by a man who
is considered the world's greatest au-
thority an international flight--Mr. Juan
T. Trippe, chairman of the Board of Pan
American World Airways. We in Mary-
land are particularly proud of Mr. Trip-
pe's contributions to international flight
because the Trippe family has a Mary-
land history and background dating back
to Revolutionary days. It was like a na-
tive son returning when Mr. Trippe di-
rected the commencement of Pan Amer-
ican operations out of Friendship 10
years ago.
April 18, 1968, Mr. Speaker, is indeed
a day to remember in Baltimore.
Times of Tragedy and Challenge
HON. EDNA F. KELLY
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 22, 1968
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, this year,
the Merchants & Manufacturers Asso-
ciation of Bush Terminal, Inc., one of
the truly outstanding organizations in
Brooklyn, is celebrating its 52d anniver-
sary.
I was deeply honored to be invited to
address the association's spring speaker's
luncheon on April 18-the first woman
to be awarded this distinction in the
history of the association.
It was an exciting experience for me
to be able to exchange views on some of
the basic problems confronting our com-
munity and country with', this distin-
guished group of businessmen headed
by Mr. Ted Hambley, president of the
M. & M. Association.
As a Representativein Congress from
the Borough - of Brooklyn, I shall con-
tinue to work for the interests of our
people, our community, and our country. -
Mr. Speaker, the text of my remarks
at the April 18 luncheon follows:
TIMES OF TRAGEDY AND CHALLENGE
I appreciate your kind invitation to join
you for this monthly luncheon-and to share
with you my views on some of the crucial
issues confronting our country and city.
I can begin by pointing out that we do not
meet under the most auspicious signs.
The din of clashing arms fills the air. Vio-
lence and anger are having their day. Logic,
reason, and understanding seem to have
lost their appeal. -
The fiber of our people-the fabric of our
society-the power and the resolve of our
nation, are being severely tested both at
home and abroad.
These times place heavy demands on all
of us.
At home, we have lived with violence-or
under its dreadful shadow for nearly two
weeks. -
Sparked by the tragic and senseless mur-
der of Dr. Martin Luther King, this violence
found its vent in the equally senseless and
tragic destruction of human lives and mate-
rial resources in a score or more of our cities.
At a time when we were beginning to
grope our way: out of the woods-when our
elective governments-on all levels-were
beginning to 'address themselves to long-
neglected problems; when our community
organizations-ignoring color and religious
barriers-were joining together in a common
effort to help the disadvantaged and the dis-
possessed; when individuals-young and old,
black and white, rich and poor-were laying
the predicates for a viable, cooperating,
healthy society-just at that very moment,
the assassin's bullet found its mark-vio-
lence flared---and lawlessness reigned.
Before long, the reaction beganto set in
and to undo the progress of the past ten
years.
And this Nation hesitated on the verge
of taking a giant step into the darkness, and
ignorance, and prejudice of the past.
I am not an alarmist by nature.
Neither am I the permissive; type who in-
sists that a child, or an adolescent, will be
permanently repressed unless you allow him
to beat your brains out.
I stand some place in the middle-believ-
ing that we must move with the times-
having faith in the good will and the intelli-
gence of each succeeding generation-admit-
ting to the wrongs of the past-yet insisting,
and insisting with every ounce of our con-
viction in my bones, that-you cannot have
progress without some semblance of order;
you cannot have freedom without responsi-
bility; you cannot achieve a better society
by destroying society itself-and the law
which is the foundation of our freedom.
I sorrowed with the millions who wept at
Dr. Martin Luther King's death-I hoped
with the millions who shared his dream of
a new America-an America reformed with-
out bloodshed and violence; and I bowed my
head in shame that my own 'nation would
kill two leaders of our time in a single, brief
period of five years. -
But I have never condoned-and I shall
never attempt to excuse or justify-those
who, with mindless anger, tear at the very
Approved For Release 2005/07/25 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300060018-0