You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists)
Chapter 5 - Techniques for Seizing Power
Techniques for Seizing Power
Philosophy of Violence
The Communists have worked out both theoretical and practical techniques for the achievement of their goal of world conquest. One of their fundamental theoretical texts is Lenin's book, The State and the Revolution which has now become the world's most translated book. Lenin was in the process of writing this book when he left Switzerland to return to Russia in 1917 to organize the Communist seizure of power. The revolution that overthrew the Russian Czar in February, 1917, was not a Communist revolution, but a spontaneous mass rising supported by many different groups of people. When this genuine revolution took place, most of the important Communist personalities were in exile either in Siberia or in countries outside Russia. Once the revolution was accomplished, a political amnesty was declared. Thereupon, Bolsheviks and revolutionaries who had been scattered throughout the world converged on Petrograd. Stalin returned from exile in Siberia to assume editorship of the Communist Party paper, Pravda. Trotsky returned from Nova Scotia. Lenin returned from Geneva, Switzerland, where his pen had been pouring forth a floodtide of literature urging civil war in Russia. Upon his arrival in Petrograd, he informed the revolutionary workers that he had returned to conquer and govern Russia. His claim caused considerable astonishment, particularly in the ranks of the orthodox Marxists. It must be remembered that the Bolsheviks of whom Lenin was leader were but a small party numbering some twenty thousand members. Lenin's Marxist critics, when they heard his claim, said, "Farewell, Lenin the Marxist; welcome, Lenin the anarchist!"
Nonetheless, Lenin achieved the impossible. Within six months, with a small band of faithful followers, he had stolen the legitimate fruits of the revolution, betrayed the working people of Russia, and established the greatest tyranny and dictatorship the world has ever known. The State and the Revolution which he was writing at that time is still considered a fundamental theoretical textbook. In it Lenin sets forth how the Communists are to come to power within the state, and what they must do once they are in power.
Lenin here concentrates upon the necessity of violence. He considers government the instrument by which the ruling class controls and exploits the subject class. All government is class government, and the institutions of a state such as the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, the police power, the tax power, and the educational institutions, are the instruments of the ruling class for the exploitation of the subjective class. According to Lenin's thesis, the governments of Europe and America were bourgeois governments which existed to exploit the people. These governments could be overthrown only through violence and bloodshed.
To Lenin the use of force and violence was not to be merely a reaction to force and violence used by the Capitalists. To him force was an instrument of positive purpose and he was totally devoid of any apologetic attitude towards its use. He states categorically that violence is essential to their purpose: "The supersession of the bourgeois state by the proletarian state is impossible without a violent revolution." (1)
In saying this, Lenin went further than his mentor, Karl Marx, had done. Marx had allowed the possibility of bloodless revolutions in England and America. Marx claimed that since the bureaucracy was not developed to the same extent in these countries as in other European countries, and since the police and military power of these states was not so great, there existed the possibility of a peaceful transition to Socialism. Lenin said that these conditions no longer applied. In Europe, in England, and in America, the revolution to bring about the transition from the bourgeois state to the proletarian must be violent. There could be no possibility of non-violent, successful revolution.
One of the specific crimes for which Lenin mercilessly chastized Karl Kautsky, the leading Marxist theorist of the Second International, was his continued clinging to the possibility of a peaceful transition to Socialism in England and America as had been admitted by Marx. In his tirade, The Proletarian Revolution and the renegade Kautsky, Lenin writes:
Further, was there in the seventies anything which made England and America exceptional in regard to what we are now discussing? It will be obvious to anyone at all familiar with the requirements of science in regard to the problems of history that this question must be put. To fail to put it is tantamount to falsifying science, to engaging in sophistry. And, the question having been put, there can be no doubt as to the reply: the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is violence against the bourgeoisie; and the necessity of such violence is particularly created, as Marx and Engels have repeatedly explained in detail (especially in "The Civil War in France" and in the preface to it), by the existence of a military clique and a bureaucracy. But it is precisely these institutions that were non-existent precisely in England and in America and precisely in the 1870's, when Marx made his observations (they do exist in England and in America now)!(2)
The Communist attitude on violence is frequently misunderstood. Even the opponents of Communism think that the Communists do not necessarily want violence, that they use violence only because the exploiting class resists their assumption of power. This was never the viewpoint of the Communist leaders, particularly Lenin and Engels. Kautsky, who was reputed to have learned the entire works of Marx by heart, was viciously attacked by Lenin for his lukewarm attitude toward violence. Kautsky's attitude was that they might have to use violence but that if they had to do so it would be regrettable, for violence was bad and corrupted those who used it. In reply Lenin quoted from Engel's book, Anti Dühring: . . . That force, however, plays also another role (other than that of a diabolical power) in history, a revolutionary role; that, in the words of Marx, is the midwife of every old society which is pregnant with a new one, that it is the instrument with the aid of which social movement forces its way through and shatters the dead, fossilized political forms-of this there is not a work in Herr Dühring. It is only with sighs and groans that he admits the possibility that force will perhaps be necessary for the overthrow of the economic system of exploitation-unfortunately, because all uses of force, forsooth, demoralizes the person who uses it. And this in spite of the immense moral and spiritual impetus which has been given by every victorious revolution! And this in Germany, where a violent collision-which indeed may be forced on the people-would at least have the advantage of wiping out the servility which has permeated the national consciousness as result of the humiliation of the Thirty Years' War. And this parson's mode of thought-lifeless, insipid and impotent-claims the right to impose itself on the most revolutionary party that history has known.(3)
Lenin was an enthusiastic advocate of violence. His revolution was to be no peaceful transition. It is possible to sense the delight with which he proclaimed Engels' teaching on this subject: Have these gentlemen (the anti authoritarians) ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon-authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?(4)
The second feature of the revolution described by Lenin in The State and Revolution was its purpose. The purpose of the revolution was not to seize control of the State, but to destroy it. Most of the book is given over to the thesis that the State must be destroyed. The State functions in many ways. It functions through the constitution; it functions through the executive authority-the President, the Cabinet, the Justice Department, the Police Department, the Defense Department; it functions through the legislature, through the judiciary, and through the civil service. The goal of Communism was not to secure a president exercising constitutional power. It was not to appoint the cabinet officers such as the Secretary of State or Defense. The appointment of the judges was not their avowed objective. The purpose was to destroy utterly the constitution, the legislative system, the judicial system, and the administrative system, to wipe out the State and build a new one in a totally different form.
Lenin's argument is based on Marx's analysis of what had happened to the French Commune in 1871 when the Communards tried to take over the Capitalist State and use it as an instrument of government. The Commune was soon overthrown. Lenin said that when a State is allowed to continue, it inevitably carries within itself the seeds of counter revolution. Its members have their vested interests in the old society. The State must be destroyed. This was expressed by William Z. Foster, Chairman of the Communist Party of America in his statement:
No Communist, no matter how many votes he should secure in a national election, could, even if he would, become President of the present government. When a Communist heads a government in the United States-and that day will come just as surely as the sun rises-that government will not be a capitalistic government but a Soviet government, and behind this government will stand the Red Army to enforce the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Seizure of Power
The assumption of power, then, is by violent revolution leading to the destruction of the State and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Communists worked out theoretical processes by which this seizure of power was to be realized. History now records the practical methods by which they have seized power in a number of countries, specifically, Russia, China, and the misnamed People's Democracies of Eastern Europe. The assumption of power may be by various methods of which three will be discussed. They are:
- Internal revolt through control of the labor unions
- Military conquest
- Piecemeal surrender to military blackmail.
Revolt Through Labor Union Control
This traditional method which the Communists have advocated for many years has not as yet succeeded in the establishment of effective Communist power in any country. Originally they saw the labor unions as the instrument through which the Communist Party was to come to power. The program was as follows. The Communists were to infiltrate the labor unions and secure executive power within them. They were then to call an industrial strike. This industrial strike would become a political strike, then a general strike and finally a revolutionary strike leading to armed insurrection and the conquest of power. The first necessity was to infiltrate the labor unions. Lenin specifically states this in his book, "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder. How they got into the labor unions did not matter. They were to work their way in, lie their way in, or buy their way in. The all important thing was that they get in.
We must be able to withstand all this, (i.e. insults and persecution), to agree to all and every sacrifice, and even-if need be-to resort to various stratagems, artifices, illegal methods, to evasions and subterfuges, only so as to get into the trade unions, to remain in them, and to carry on Communist work within them at all costs.(5)
Once in power, at the appropriate moment, they were to call an industrial strike. An industrial strike is defined as one directed at the achievement of an industrial goal such as higher wages or shorter working hours. Generally speaking, such a strike can always be called. There are always grievances, and desires for improved conditions that any intelligent Communist leader can exploit. Moreover, an industrial strike is, generally speaking, the only type of strike which can be organized and maintained with the support of the workers. The industrial strike must then be transferred into a political strike.
A political strike is not designed to secure immediate, tangible, industrial benefits for the workers, but to destroy the Capitalist system. A political strike is designed to undermine the foundations of authority by creating chaos, unemployment, bitterness, hunger and fear. Usually, a political strike, as such, cannot be called, but an industrial strike can be transformed into a political one. As the political strike extends and grows into a general strike, many situations will arise where the striking workers come into conflict with organized authority, usually with the police, but sometimes with the military forces.
As acts of violence come to be associated with it, the political strike transforms itself into a revolutionary strike. When the revolutionary strike has developed sufficiently and drawn into its orbit enough working people, a general insurrection can take place. Thus the insurrection is successful, the Communists, through their control of the labor unions, will be able to establish their dictatorship of the proletariat.
This method, their traditional method for the seizure of power, has not yet brought them success in any country. But it has been a most important adjunct to their seizure of power and rehearsals of the process have taken place in many countries.
The last great strike wave organized by the Communists for this purpose was in the year 1949. During that year there were world-wide, co-ordinated, organized strikes. There was a dock workers' strike in England when the British authorities expelled from Britain as an international Communist agent Louis Goldblatt, secretary-treasuser of the International Longshore Workers and Warehousemen's Union. The islands of Hawaii approached economic strangulation during the dockworkers' strike that year. In Australia there was a coal-miners' strike. These strikes were co-ordinated on a world-wide scale.
The coal-miners' strike in Australia is of special interest as it was a rehearsal of the Communist program for the assumption of total power. In Australia, the Communist Party is an open political party and nominates candidates for political office in federal, state, and municipal government. These nominations are made in the name of the Communist Party. But the Communists in Australia have always been a small, politically insignificant minority, and their candidates invariably fail miserably. There is a system in Australia whereby a candidate, when he nominates for an elective office, must pay a deposit which is refunded if he secures a certain percentage of the votes of the leading candidate. This is designed to prevent frivolous candidates with no prospect of victory from swamping the candidate list. It is a great day for the Communist Party if one of their candidates saves his deposit. The Communists in Australia do not get elected to political office.
However, their industrial power is very strong indeed. By following Lenin's technique, this handful of Communists has come to power in a vast segment of Australia's labor unions. They are very hard workers, they are good organizers, and they are dedicated. Because of their organizing ability and dedication, they are frequently elected to executive union office.
When I was a resident medical officer in the General Hospital in Brisbane, Australia, the largest hospital in the Southern Hemisphere, the labor situation was most interesting. The official union of the non-medical workers at the Brisbane General Hospital was the Australian Workers' Union which, in its leadership, was fervently anti-Communist. The representative of the workers at the hospital was a man called King who was a fanatical Communist. King was elected by the workers as their representative in the hospital not because he was a Communist, but because he was prepared to work for them assiduously and courageously. Every day when they received their pay checks, King stood at the office and waited. If one of them had a grievance, he went to King who immediately went to the management. There he yelled and shouted if necessary, in order to have the supposed wrong righted. Those workers knew that if they had a grievance, King would be on their side, right or wrong, and that they could depend on him. Therefore, they made him their representative. The union itself was fanatically anti-Communist in its leadership and in its official publication. But local Communists such as King were able by sheer hard work to exercise considerable influence and authority. The workers served by such men saw only the dedication, not the ultimate purpose.
By this method the Communists were able to come to power in a large number of Australian unions. These unions included the Seamen's Union of Australia, the secretary to which was a fervent, self-proclaimed Communist, the Waterside Workers' Federation of which the secretary, Jim Healy, was a prominent Communist, and the Coal Miners' Federation which was under effective Communist control. In 1949, the steelworkers' union of Australia, known as the Federated Ironworkers' Union, was directed by Communist officials, though these have since been expelled. Thus the Communists were in considerable power in a very significant section of organized labor in Australia.
In the winter of 1949, a strike was called in the coal mining industry. Coal is the life blood of Australia. The country has no natural petroleum and no natural gas. Coal is the source of gas, electricity, and, basically, the source of transportation. It is the economic life blood of the country. This was particularly true in 1949. There had been a severe coal shortage since the end of the war. There were no coal stocks at grass anywhere in Australia. Coal that was mined one day was transported for use the following day. The coal that is used to provide gas for heating and cooking in Sydney comes from Newcastle which is one hundred miles to the north. If a storm was raging and a coal ship was held up, it was quite common for gas rationing to be imposed till the coal arrived. Public utilities generally operated under the constant threat of coal starvation.
In this situation a coal strike was called. It was called in defiance of the established lawful processes for the settling of disputes, while the dispute was still before the arbitration authorities. It was called as an industrial strike demanding increased wages and fringe benefits.
When the strike began, chaos became the order of the day. There was immediate rationing of gas and electricity. Industries that depended upon electricity had to close down. Hundreds of thousands of men were thrown out of work. It was illegal to burn more than one electric light bulb in a home at any one time. Gas was allowed for an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening for cooking purposes only. It was mid-winter. Gas fires and electric radiators, which provide the only heat in most Australian homes, were prohibited without a medical prescription. There were a number of tragedies. Old age pensioners, living in rooms by themselves and feeling desperately cold, would illegally light their gas fires and go to sleep. As they slept, the gas would be turned off at the main. Later the gas would be turned on again and flood their rooms with deadly fumes while they slept on. Many did not awaken.
The government in power at that time was the Australian Labour Party, an avowed, self-proclaimed Socialist Party. They declared that this was a revolutionary assault upon the authority and economy of the country and introduced drastic legislation. They sent the armed forces into the strip coal mines to mine coal for the people. The Waterside Worker's Federation, the Miner's Federation, and the Steel Worker's Union under Communist leadership had withdrawn large sums of money from the bank to use as strike pay. The executive officers of these unions were taken before the courts and ordered to produce these sums of money which they had withdrawn before the law freezing their funds was introduced. When they refused, they were sentenced to imprisonment for contempt of court.
Chaos developed. Everywhere there was strife and bitterness. The unemployed and the cold were ripe for Communist agitation. The Communist agitators placed the whole blame on the Capitalist system urging its overthrow.
There was a rehearsal for the armed insurrection. When Jim Healy, the secretary of the Waterside Worker's Federation, was sent to prison for refusal to obey the court's order to produce the money which had been withdrawn from the bank, the Communists agitated on the waterfront. They gathered the longshoremen together and told them that this was an assault on them. This man was their representative. They had elected him. It was their duty to stand by him. If they let this go without protest, soon more serious measures would be taken against them such as reductions in wages. The men were stirred up and, thousands strong, they marched through the streets. It did not break out into open violence, but all the potentials were there. If the moment had been considered ripe, an incident could have been started, leading to fighting. In this way a political strike becomes a revolutionary strike, and a revolutionary strike becomes armed insurrection.
The most revealing aspect of the whole situation was the helplessness of the workers and the power of the leaders in the crisis hours. Every labor union in Australia lined up, not in terms of the patriotism of its membership, but in terms of the Communist affiliation of its leaders. The membership of the unions was helpless while the leadership was all-powerful. This was very well illustrated by the different behavior of the railwaymen in the states of Victoria and New South Wales. Victoria and New South Wales, the two most populous Australian states, are contiguous to each other. There is no possible way by which you could differentiate the Victorian workers from those in New South Wales. They are similar in every respect. Nevertheless, the Victorian railwaymen were part of the Communist revolutionary front. They sided with the strikers and refused to move the coal mined by the army, declaring it hot. The railwaymen of New South Wales, on the other hand, handled the coal, transported it, and delivered it to public utilities, thus playing a large part in the maintenance of essential services. The railwaymen of New South Wales effectively thwarted the Communist objective of a transport strike to advance the revolution.
There was one all-important difference between the railwaymen of the two states. In Victoria, the secretary of the railwaymen was Jack Brown, a Communist, while the secretary in New South Wales was Jack Ferguson, an anti-Communist. That was the sole difference, but in the crisis hour, these men had legal authority to make decisions which were binding on thousands of other men. The executives had the power to make the decisions unless a mass meeting was called to overthrow them. This was well nigh impossible since mass meetings may require up to fourteen days' notice. Multitudes may starve in fourteen days.
Frequently the argument is made that, provided that workers are patriotic, a few extreme union leaders do not matter very much. History has proven this to be nonsense. The International Longshore and Warehouse Workers' Union of the West Coast of the United States was expelled from the CIO because it was a consistent instrument of the international Communist conspiracy. The longshore workers of California are no less patriotic than the longshore workers of the East Coast, but on the West Coast they are controlled by a handful of Communist officials.
That the I.L.W.U. is slavishly devoted to Communist purposes is revealed in the published report of the Sub-committee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws to the Committee on the Judiciary , United States Senate. This report reveals that during the collective or popular front period of the Communist Party, the I.L.W.U supported Roosevelt's anti-aggression program. With the signing of the Stalin-Hitler pact, however, the I.L.W.U. suddenly discovered that the war in Europe was of no concern to it. It attacked President Roosevelt and his policy of giving aid to the allies. Following the opening of hostilities between Germany and Russia in June, 1941, the I.L.W.U. leadership reversed its policy and declared that the war in Europe was, after all, of vital concern to the labor movement. In the summer of 1944, Bridges and the I.L.W.U. executive board urged that the no strike pledge be extended into peacetime. With the end of the war in Europe and the collapse of the wartime collaboration between the Soviet Union and the Democratic Nations, the position of the I.L.W.U., like that of the Communist Party, underwent another change, and the no strike pledge was forgotten.
When the Truman Plan for Greece and Turkey was announced in the spring of 1947, it was bitterly attacked in the newspaper of the I.L.W.U., The Despatcher. In a front page editorial, it was compared with the international gangsterism of Hitler. When the Marshal Plan was enunciated, it too was condemned by the I.L.W.U. The I.L.W.U. has demanded that the United States cease testing and producing the atomic bomb without calling for international inspection of the Soviet's production of atomic weapons. The I.L.W.U. has opposed the North Atlantic Alliance. In June, 1949, The Despatcher hailed the liberation of China, comparing it with the American and French Revolutions. Thus thousands of men follow in minute detail every twist in the Communist Party line, because they are helpless in the hands of a few Communist leaders who control and direct their assets and utilize them for the Communist purpose.
A sample of this Communist process for the seizure of power has occurred here in America. It took place in San Francisco in 1934. Sam Darcy, former district organizer of the Communist Party of California, outlined the Party's plan of operation in his article on the San Francisco Bay area general strike in The Communist for October, 1934. The substance of the article was later presented in a report by Darcy to the seventh congress of the Communist International meeting in Moscow in August, 1935. The report reads as follows:
"Let me state here that there would have been no maritime or general strike except for the work of our party. The very fact that it was a sympathy strike gives it its political character. The fight began in the decisive sector of San Francisco's economy, namely , the maritime industry. It is apparent from the stated facts that the strike had a definite political character.
"About a week previous (to June 18) , in anticipation of the possible needs for a general strike, we had succeeded in convincing the Painters Local 1158 to sign a circular letter addressed to all other locals of the A.F. of L., declaring their own support for a general strike, and asking their vote for it, so that, should a general strike become necessary, it would be possible to call it at the critical moment without any harmful delay.
"The very next day the Machinists Local 68, the oldest, and very influential A.F.of L. local in San Francisco voted to join the general strike movement.
"Of course, the general strike movement was in no sense a spontaneous movement. It took long and careful preparations. At first the militants (i.e. the Communists) sent small committees, chiefly from the longshoremen's local, to other A.F. of L. locals, appealing for support by a vote for a general strike. First we tackled only those locals that we knew were most militant. As we began to tackle the larger locals and those in the key industries which would be critical for the outcome of the general strike, we sent, not small delegations, but delegations ranging from fifty to as much as four hundred. The general strike movement was actually advancing very rapidly, by the votes which were daily taking place in the local unions stimulated largely by the delegations of militants.
"Yet the workers in the Longshoremen's local, an A.F. of L. affiliate and a craft union, were able under the pressure of circumstances, quickly to break down their own routine work inside their own local, and reach out to other locals as far removed from longshore work as bakers and cleaners and dyers, and help organize them for the general strike. Our strategy was to use the Joint Maritime Strike Committee as a base.
"On July 5 the National Guard took control of the waterfront. On that day finally the Joint Maritime Strike Committee issued a leaflet openly calling for the general strike.
"Getting the Teamsters to join the strike was at this time the main force needed to make certain the eventuality of the general strike. This was due to the prestige and strategic post which the Teamsters had. On the night of the 11th the Teamsters met. This was, in a sense, a point which was decisive for the general strike. The Teamsters demanded to hear Bridges, who was given a tremendous ovation, and they finally voted to go out the next morning.
"By the next morning, July 12, 60 local unions had voted for the general strike and about 10 locals were already out.
"Saturday and Sunday were used by the militants for two activities, first, to pull the remaining locals out, and, secondly, to mobilize for organizational contact. We had to develop a movement within all the local unions, for special membership meetings to elect the five to the General Strike Committee instead of appointing them. The militants also tried through agitation, such as a leaflet issued by the Longshoremen's local, a statement by Harry Bridges, an appeal by the party and the Western Worker, etc., to stimulate the workers to force the election of the delegations of five to the General Strike Committee in their locals. We tried to get an appeal from the San Francisco General Strike Committee to the Portland workers.
"On Monday morning the general strike was effective beyond all expectations. Nothing moved in or out of the city. For practical utility there are six ways of entrance to the city. These are: (1) Bay Shore Highway; (2) U.S. 101 road; (3) Skyline Boulevard; (4) the ferries; (5) by sea; (6) the railroads. Every one of these ways, excepting the ferries and railroads, was patrolled by our picketing squads of workers. Nothing moved without permission of the strike committee. Withing the city, transportation was tied up; production stood at a standstill. It was obvious that the military forces were helpless against such a strike movement.
"In a widely popularized radio address by Governor Merriam that very day, he said: 'By its very nature the general strike challenges the authority and ability of the Government to maintain itself.'"(6) A similar situation is potentially possible again. The formation of all transport unions into one association such as that being considered at present under the leadership of Hoffa and Bridges carries potentials of great danger. A mass transport strike could so paralyze this country that starvation and death would be rampant in every part. The danger is not limited to America. An international transportation tie up could be fearful in its outreach through all the world.
The mechanism outlined by the Communists is still in operation. It is not completely out of date. Though it has not as yet fully succeeded in taking over a country, any person of intelligence has great reason for concern when workers can be compelled to join organizations, contribute their money, and obey the leadership imposed by a small group. When that money can be used for political purposes by a constant propaganda campaign by press, radio and television so that the public may be influenced to elect legislators under obligation to the union leadership, the very foundation of republican, democratic government is in danger. When government becomes irreversible, dictatorship is at the door.
- V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House), p. 35.
- V. I. Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1952), pp. 23-4.
- Quoted by Lenin in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, p. 27.
- Quoted by Lenin in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, p. 27.
- V. I. Lenin, "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1950), p. 65 (Words in parenthesis added.)
- The Alliance of Certain Racketeer and Communist Dominated Unions in the Field of Transportation as a Threat to National Security , Report by the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws to the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 85th Congress, Second Session, December 17, 1958, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1958, pp.28-30.