you were a onetime member of the Communist Party. I think that should be made very clear for the record. You are here as a result of these identifications which lay upon the committee the obligation to pursue the matter.

Your suggestion, as I understand it, that the universities themselves should be charged with the task of finding out who the Communists on the campus are is the point I want to bring up.

Is it not the case that the pursuit of such a program would create, in effect, a police state upon an individual campus to the extent that students would be placed in the position of spying upon the instructors, that faculty members would be engaged in espionage activities against each other, and an impossible situation would develop upon a university campus where such a program was being carried on?

Mr. REYNOLDS. If someone were not teaching communism at the university, I don't see what there is to investigate. It is a question of whether or not a teacher teaches communism.

Mr. JACKSON. I think it goes further than that, Professor. I think that it goes to the fundamental premise that one in accepting membership in the Communist Party accepts the discipline and directives of the Communist Party in full. I think that membership in the Communist Party connotes acceptance of the discipline and the directives. (Representative Kit Clardy left the hearing room at this point.) Mr. JACKSON. In the first place, the university has no facilities for conducting such investigations. It has no investigators. It has no authority to subpena a witness. It has no authority to place a witness under oath once he is subpenaed. All of these things are essential for a proper investigation. The very fact that when you were called before the university authorities and were questioned as to your membership in the party, you denied such association. Am I correct in that statement, Mr. Counsel?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes, sir.

(Representative Kit Clardy returned to the hearing room at this

point.)

Mr. JACKSON. Your own case, to me, is evidence per se that a university cannot get to the facts in a matter of this kind without the adequate authority which is made available to investigating committees. There is no compulsion of an oath. It is simply a matter of questions and answers which may or may not have validity, which may or may not be true. However, you are here today under the compulsion of an oath and you are asked the questions, or some of the questions, that were asked by the university officials, questions which at this time you decline to answer. I think the present instance makes the point exactly that the university authorities are not equipped to pursue an investigation of communism on the campus.

In the second place, the information relative to a Communist professor or one suspected of membership in the Communist Party is very seldom developed upon the campus where the professor or edu cator is currently employed. It is generally developed many hundreds or thousands of miles away and comes in the form of identifications under oath which have to do with a period many years past in some instances. I make these points to counter the suggestion that the universities as such are equipped in any way to conduct thoroughgoing investigations, such as are required in the instance of members

of the faculty who may have been at some time in the past members of the Communist Party.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Do I understand, then, that you would have the university fire members of the faculty who have previously been members of the Communist Party? Is that my understanding?

Mr. JACKSON. That I believe is a matter for the decision of the authorities. In a tax-supported institution, the costs of which are borne by the American people, people in many cases whose husbands, sons, and brothers are engaged in the struggle against Communists in Korea, there is certainly a valid reason for the nonemployment of : Communist teachers. If public opinion demands that Communist professors not be employed, then I believe that the university_authorities must make the ultimate decision as to whether or not those who are Communists or those who decline to answer under oath as to their membership are then confronted with the decision as to what course of action should be followed. That is not the function of this committee nor has this committee suggested at any time to any university, to any educational institution that such faculty member should be discharged. I think that would be a matter quite outside the scope of committee jurisdiction. We would be entering into an area in which we certainly had no jurisdiction whatever. We make no suggestions with reference to the action of the university or the educational institution following the declination of a witness to answer. (Representative Francis E. Walter entered the hearing room at this

point.)

Mr. CLARDY. That is exactly why I suggested to you earlier that if -you are not now a member of the party after having been identified by three other witnesses before the committee, you could be doing yourself as well as your Government a service in answering the questions, because this committee has gone on record frequently where a man has rejected the Communist Party, we have gone on record and have suggested that he has performed a noteworthy deed for his Government, and we have not attempted to designate other than the method I just suggested. That was the reason I suggested what I did, previously. Thank you.

Mr. VELDE. Professor, let me say, for your own benefit, for the benefit of the press and the public, as I have said before when we had professors appear here as witnesses from any particular college or university, your testimony or performance here should in no way reflect upon the integrity or patriotism of your employer, the University of Florida.

We, as a committee, realize that the great percentage, overwhelming percentage, of our American teachers and professors, are entirely loyal; and, again, I want to reiterate that no one should draw any inference from your testimony or your performance here that the University of Florida or its student body is in any way more disloyal or more unpatriotic than any other university in the country.

Is there any reason why this witness should be retained under subpena any longer?

Mr. TAVENNER. No, sir.

Mr. VELDE. If not, the witness is dismissed.

(Whereupon the witness was excused.)

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Courtney E. Owens.

Mr. VELDE. In the testimony you are about to give before this subcommittee, do you solemnly swear you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. OWENS. I do.

TESTIMONY OF COURTNEY E. OWENS

Mr. TAVENNER. What is your name, please, sir?

Mr. OWENS. Courtney Owens.

Mr. TAVENNER. How are you employed?

Mr. OWENS. As an investigator by the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities.

Mr. TAVENNER. How long have you been employed as an investigator for this committee?

Mr. OWENS. Five years this September.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Owens, in the performance of your official duties, did you go to Florida for the purpose of conferring with Professor Reynolds?

Mr. OWENS. I did.

Mr. TAVENNER. Prior to his being subpenaed before this committee?

Mr. OWENS. I did.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you have a conference with him?

Mr. OWENS. Yes; I did.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the date?

Mr. OWENS. March 26, 1953.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee briefly, please, what occurred?

Mr. OWENS. I first contacted Professor Reynolds on the evening of March 25 at his home by telephone, and identified myself and said that I would like to see him at his earliest convenience. He stated it wouldn't be convenient for him to see me that night, but he made an appointment to meet me at 9 o'clock the morning of the 26th.

I met him on the morning of the 26th at 9 o'clock, and he advised me that he had made arrangements for our interview to take place in the offices of the dean of the University College and that he desired to have his department head present at the interview; and I asked him very pointedly whether or not he wanted me to ask him the questions that I had planned to ask him in the presence of his dean and his department head, and he replied that he did.

(Representative Morgan M. Moulder left the hearing room at this

point.)

Mr. VELDE. I understand he was not under oath at that time? Mr. OWENS. He was under no oath; no, sir.

Mr. TAVENNER. Well, as a result of the request that he made of you, did the interview take place in the presence of the dean of the university?

Mr. OWENS. It was in the dean's office; yes, sir.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee briefly what occurred there?

Mr. OWENS. I interviewed the professor with respect to his identification by Professor Davis before this committee as having been a member of the Communist Party and told him that he had been identified by Professor Davis, and asked him pointedly whether or not

this identification was true and correct. He stated that he could think of no reason as to why Professor Davis should identify him as a member of the Communist Party. He denied that he had ever been a member of the Communist Party or was a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. And did you inquire from him at that time as to whether or not he was a member, had been a member of the American Federation of Teachers while at Harvard University?

Mr. OWENS. Yes, sir; he volunteered that information when relating to me his employment background and where he had been employed since leaving school.

Mr. TAVENNER. So, he did state at that time before other persons besides yourself the fact that he had been a member of that group? Mr. OWENS. That's right.

Mr. TAVENNER. I have no further questions.

Mr. VELDE. Are there any further questions by any members of the committee?

Mr. DOYLE. Were any notes or memoranda made of that discussion by you?

Mr. OWENS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DOYLE. And when were they made?

Mr. OWENS. Right at the same time.

Mr. DOYLE. In the presence of the dean?

Mr. OWENS. In the presence of the dean.

Mr. DOYLE. And the head of the department?

Mr. OWENS. Head of the department. The subject and I were there.

Mr. VELDE. I understand

Mr. DOYLE. I see you have before you on the table paper with notes and writing on it. Are you now referring to the notes you made at the time of the conference?

Mr. OWENS. That is the transcription of the notes I made. This is my report; yes.

Mr. DOYLE. Made from your original notes made at the time—— Mr. OWENS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DOYLE (continuing). That Professor Reynolds was in conference with you and the two college men?

Mr. OWENS. Yes, sir.

Mr. VELDE. You have testified to everything that is in that memorandum?

Mr. OWENS. Yes; I have.

Mr. VELDE. And at that time the professor whom we have just heard, Professor Reynolds, denied that he had ever been a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. OWENS. Denied that he had ever been or was presently.

Mr. VELDE. And denied his present membership in the Communist Party?

Mr. OWENS. Yes.

Mr. VELDE. The witness is excused.

The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock Wednesday morning, the 29th.

(Whereupon, at 11:56 a. m., the hearing was recessed until 10 a. m., Wednesday, April 29, 1953.)