« PreviousContinue »
If any further information is desired to implement this opinion, I suggest that the Overseas Press Club feel free to call on Barry Lee Cohen or myself at any time. Very truly yours,
MORRIS L. ERNST.
GREENBAUM, WOLFF & ERNST,
New York, N. Y., January 24, 1957. Mr. VICTOR LASKY, Chairman, Freedom of the Press Committee, Overseas Press Club,
New York, N. Y. MY DEAR VICTOR: Your committee may not think it amiss if I write as I am doing a brief comment in view of the statement made by President Eisenhower at the news conference of January 23 on the subject of exclusion of reporters from China.
In response to a question asked by Frank van der Linden of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the President's reply indicated :
“I feel that as long as any power unjustly and improperly holds prisoners of ours and in effect uses them as a pressure upon us to make us conform to what they want done, then it is something with which I will have nothing to do. Until there is some change in that regard, I won't consider changing that policy myself."
The policy referred to I take it relates to "the ban on the entry of American correspondents into Communist China."
In view of the pronounced prestige of President Eisenhower at this moment of history, it may be that some of the members of your committee will derive a conclusion that the President having spoken the issue is closed.
In my opinion the issue is by no means closed by a President's pronouncement, irrespective of the popularity of the President and irrespective of whether it be Roosevelt, Truman, or Eisenhower. The point at issue is where does the power lie to prevent newspapermen from roaming the earth, and insofar as the power lies in the judgment of the Chief Executive of our Republic is his power subject to no review in the courts? I am convinced that the judicial branch of our Gov. ernment can be called into service to determine the legal merits of the grounds for denial of the right to travel and this is the case in order to prevent arbitrary and capricious behavior. That being so, it follows that the executive branch of our Government can properly be called into court to present as best it can its reason for denial of what I deem to be a basic right, and that although the President would not possibly have to show all of the information in his possession leading to his attempt to deny the right of travel, he would at least have to make à prima facie case indicating that the interference with a foreign policy plan overrides the constitutional desires of the right to roam, and on the other hand the basic constitutional right of our people to be informed by gatherers of news who see life in terms of our culture rather than alien cultures.
I do not mean to imply that there is no limit to the right of travel, because as I indicated in my previous memo in the instant case the issue involves the constitutional right of our people to be informed. I could imagine limitations going into the field of an escaping criminal or even possibly diseased people. It is not easy for me to imagine a constitutional right of the American people to flee from their creditors or to infest others with dire diseases.
I thought the above might be of some slight value to your committee, particularly in view of the announcement carried in the press that the House Gov. ernment Information Subcommittee intends to hold hearings on the matter on which you asked me to render an opinion. assume that the OSC will have leading spokesmen of the press appear at such hearings. Yours,
MORRIS L. ERNST. Mr. SLAYMAN. And lastly, Victor Lasky submitted some editorials which he has asked be printed in the appendix of the Record.
Senator O'MAHONEY. Are they some editorials?
Mr. SLAYMAN. We can either put them in the appendix or in the files of the committee.
Senator O'MAHONEY. I think they would be better in the files.
(The articles referred to were filed for the information of the committee.)
Senator O’MAHONEY. Anything else?
Senator O’MAHONEY. The committee will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
(Whereupon, at 4:10 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.)
(Subsequently, the following telegrams and letter were received by the subcommittee for inclusion in the record of the hearing :)
MANCHESTER, N. H., April 5, 1957. CHAIRMAN, Senate Subcommitee on Constitutional-Rights,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: This newspaper wants to go on record as emphatically supporting State Department's ban on United States newsmen traveling to China. For newsmen to want to go to China should come under heading of “trafficking with the enemy." In addition it is obvious that newsmen will be able to report nothing except what Communists want them to report. The Communist purpose is simply to use United States newspapers as sounding board for Communist propaganda. It is regrettable at this late date that leading representatives of the American press should be so naive about how the international Communist conspiracy works. You will have heard only from the articulate, possibly publicity-seeking, representatives of the press. It is my sincere opinion that the vast majority of working newsmen and publishers throughout the country support the position of the State Department against trafficking with the enemy and sending newsmen into Red China.
WILLIAM LOEB, Publisher, Manchester Union Leader.
HOLLYWOOD, CALIF., April 3, 1957. CHARLES ROTKIN, Care Senator Thomas Hennings,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: The 65 members of the southern California chapter of the American Society of Magazine Photographers endorse fully the statements of Charles Rotkin; that the State Department should not have discretionary power limiting the travel rights of journalists. The news must be reported to a free press wherever it occurs.
LOU JACOBS, Jr., President.
ASSOCIATED NEGRO PRESS, INC.,
Chicago, Ill., April 3, 1957. Mr. CHARLES H. SLAYMAN, Jr., Chief Counsel, Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. SLAYMAN: The following represents our belief on passport procedures of United States State Department:
A consensus of opinion of members of the Associated Negro Press indicates their belief that citizens of a democracy like the United States, should have the right to travel wherever they choose in foreign countries. We believe this right should be especially available to newsmen, educators, and public officials whose views, observations, and information may be educative and important to the general public.
CLAUDE A. BARNETT.
Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary with reference to the issuance and withholding of passports. As promised in my letter of May 1, I have discussed your letters with the Secretary.
As you know, this matter is also currently under consideration by the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate. Certain testimony was taken by that committee from Department witnesses. During the course of this hearing, some 11 questions of a detailed nature were raised by the committee, to which the Department offered to prepare detailed replies. This information has been supplied to the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate. At the conclusion of the aforementioned hearing, the Foreign Relations Committee also submitted some additional 22 questions, to which the Department agreed to prepare replies. These will be sent to the Committee on Foreign Relations within the next day or so. This procedure seems to be the one best calculated to enable the Department to furnish that committee full and precise information regard. ing many complex questions of law and fact, much of which has to be gathered from various areas of the Department.
The Department has obtained the permission of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to furnish your subcommittee copies of the written questions and of the Department's replies. A copy of the information already supplied to that committee is enclosed herewith, and a copy of the additional 22 questions and the replies thereto will be furnished to you shortly. It is respectfully suggested that you and the members and staff of your subcommittee may wish to review these questions and answers, since they may supply the additional information which you seek on this general subject. If, after reviewing these questions and answers, the subcommittee still has further questions concerning the issuance and withholding of passports, the Department would be glad to discuss with you the most practical method of providing answers to any such questions.
I can assure you that the Department is anxious to clarify any questions that your subcommittee may have about this subject and will cooperate fully to this end. Sincerely yours,
ROBERT C. HILL, Assistant Secretary. REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING A HEARING HELD BY THE UNITED
STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ENTITLED "DEPARTMENT OF
STATE'S PASSPORT POLICIES” 1. “Who is on the Board of Passport Appeals?"
Membership of the Board of Passport Appeals, Designated by the Secretary of State under title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, section 51.139: Former members:
Present position Thruston B. Morton (Chair- United States Senator.
man). Christopher H. Phillips------- Member designate, United States Civil Serv.
ice Commission. John L. Tappin--
United States Ambassador to Libya. Belton 0. Bryan.
FSO, consul general, Glasgow, Scotland. Leonard H. Price
FSO, first secretary, United States Embassy,
Havana, Cuba. Present members:
S. Houston Lay (Acting Chair- FSO, inspector, Foreign Service Inspection man).
Corps. Jack D. Neal.
FSO, Director, Office of Middle American
Affairs, Bureau of Inter-American Affairs. Allyn C. Donaldson.-
Director, Office of Special Consular Services,
Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs. Raymond C. Miller.
FSO—(CM) Chief Inspector, Foreign Serv
ice Inspection Corps. Francis T. Murphy
Chief, Lend-Lease and Surplus Property
Staff, Bureau of Economic Affairs. Counsel : John W. Sipes ---- Office of the Deputy Under Secretary for
Administration. Assistant counsel : Lawson A. Office of the Deputy Under Secretary for Moyer, Jr.
2. "How may cases (passport) have been successfully appealed and on what
grounds *** what were the grounds on which the courts reversed the deci
sion of the Secretary?" It is assumed that the committee is interested in the appeals procedure open to any passport applicant under the Department's passport regulations as well as those cases in which passport applicants have appealed to the courts for relief. In this connection there are three general categories in which statistics can be furnished.
Informal hearings have been afforded during the year 1956 to 20 passport applicants whose initial application was tentatively refused. As a result of the informal hearing, 11 passports were issued, 4 informal appeals have been taken in the courts prior to the exhaustion of the administrative remedies open to the applicant, 3 appeals are in the process of being reviewed by the Department, 1 appeal was abandoned by the applicant, and 1 applicant was informed, after an informal hearing, of the Department's decision to refuse him a passport and advised of his right to appeal to the Board of Passport Appeals which he did not exercise.
The Board of Passport Appeals, during the course of its existence, has accepted jurisdiction in 20 cases. As the result of an appeal to the Board of Passport Appeals and its recommendations to the Secretary of State, 6 individuals were granted passports and 14 were denied passports. Three of those cases in which the decision to deny passport facilities was reached are presently pending reconsideration by the Board of Passport Appeals upon remand by the courts for compliance with the court's decision in the Leonard Boudin case.
With respect to those cases which have been taken into court, the Department has not yet gathered all of the facts required to answer the questions asked. The information will be sent to the committee as soon as possible. 3. “Supply for the record, statistics, on the number of passports denied each year
since 1941. Break down into categories reflecting typical reasons given to the
applicant for denying the passport.” The Department has no statistics of the nature requested dating back as far as 1941. The statistics and information which the Department does have and which would appear to be responsive to the question follow :
Statistics covering work of the Passport Office from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1955 Number of passport and renewal applications received
529, 785 Number of passports issued or renewed---
525, 259 Difference
4, 526 The difference between the number of applications received and the number of passports issued and renewed is accounted for as follows: 1. Applications filed without final action and the passport fees returned
because the applicant did not respond to requests for additional in-
2,985 2. Applications withdrawn because the applicant decided not to travel and wanted the fee returned--
280 3. Applications for new passports made by persons who had valid pass
ports which were mislaid or not conveniently at hand but which were
145 4. Applications for new passports or for renewals made when applicant
had a passport which could be and was extended or renewed, fees
270 5. Repeaters: Persons who have applications pending but who submit
new applications whenever they request reconsideration of their
390 PASSPORT REFUSALS FOR SECURITY REASONS
Prior to promulgation of title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, sec 21.135 :
7 July 1, 1951, to June 30, 1952_
112 July 1, 1952, to Aug. 31, 1952_
17 Tentative refusals under regulations: Sept. 1, 1952, to June 30, 1953_
79 July 1, 1953, to June 30, 1954.
60 July 1, 1954, to Dec. 31, 1954.
37 Jan. 1, 1955, to Dec. 30, 1955_
79 Jan. 1, 1956, to Jan. 1, 1957
20 Final refusals :
Jan. 1, 1954, to Dec. 30, 1954_
13 Jan. 1, 1956, to Dec. 31, 1956_
1 4. “Give the facts which led the Department to give Arthur Miller a temporary
passport for his honeymoon in Europe.” It was the opinion of the Department of State, after review of all of the information in our records, that there was not sufficient evidence to show that at the time of issue Mr. Miller's case fell within the purview of the passport regulations. The passport issued to Mr. Miller was limited in validity at the time of issuance because it was possible that (1) Mr. Miller could be the subject of contempt proceedings or (2) the subject of a perjury indictment. At the time Mr. Miller applied for his passport, he stated as his purpose of travel “The casting in London of my play, A View Under the Bridge." Both Mr. Miller and his attorney were agreeable to the temporary passport facilities in that the period of travel was sufficient for Mr. Miller to conduct his business abroad. 5. "Is it true that although passports began to be stamped 'Not valid for travel in
Communist-bloc countries,' the Department announced on May 1, 1952, that,
and I quote, 'This does not forbid travel in these areas'?" On May 1, 1952, the Department of State issued a press release, No. 341, which read as follows:
“The Department of State announced today it was taking additional steps to warn American citizens of the risks of travel in Iron Curtain countries by stamping all passports not valid for travel in those countries unless specifically endorsed by the Department of State for such travel.
"In making this announcement, the Department emphasized that this procedure in no way forbids American travel to those areas. It contemplates that American citizens will consult the Department or the consulates abroad to ascertain the dangers of traveling in countries where acceptable standards of protection do not prevail and that, if no objection is perceived, the travel may be authorized.
"All new passports will be stamped as follows:
“ 'This passport is not valid for travel to Albania, Bulgaria, China, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Rumania, or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, unless specifically endorsed under authority of the Department of State as being valid for such travel.'
"All outstanding passports, which are equally subject to the restriction, will be so endorsed as occasion permits."
In supplying this press release to the committee, the Department should like to state that the entire release leaves to the Department the determination as to whether travel may be authorized.
The Department should also like to inform the committee that travel restrictions were placed on American citizens during the War of 1812 and during the Civil War. Travel restrictions were again enforced during World War I. Beginning with World War II travel restrictions were again placed into effect and continued through the present emergency.