The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEIBELL
The petitioner, Peter Harisiades, an alien, sued out a writ of habeas corpus on July 1, 1949, claiming that he had been arrested and was then illegally detained at Ellis Island, under a warrant of deportation. The warrant had been issued December 16, 1948 by the Acting Assistant Commissioner of Immigration, pursuant to an order of deportation made on that date by the Assistant Commissioner, under T. 8 U.S.C.A. § 137(g). The warrant recited the grounds for his deportation; among them, that he was a member of an organization (the Communist Party) which advises, advocates and teaches the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and violence, and which circulates and distributes literature teaching and advocating that doctrine. Harisiades appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals from the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Argument was had before the Board on April 19, 1949. The Board on May 13, 1949 affirmed the Commissioner's order on the two main grounds stated above. Harisiades was taken into custody on May 20, 1949.
The petitioner is a native of Greece. He was admitted to the United States with his father on March 7, 1916, when he was thirteen years old. In 1920 his father returned to Greece but the petitioner remained here. In 1925 he joined the Workers Party which changed its name to the Communist Party of the U.S.A. in 1929. He was an active organization worker from 1928 to 1930. From 1931 to 1932 he was a Party organizer and was one of the division executives of the Party. He was a secretary of the Greek Bureau of the Communist Party in this country from 1933 to 1937 and was associated with its publication, 'Empros', from 1933 to 1939. He was arrested a number of times in Massachusetts for 'strike activities' between 1928 and 1930, and for 'unemployment demonstrations' in West Virginia in 1930. Petitioner continued as a member of the Communist Party of the United States of America until October 1939, when, he claims, he was formally dropped by that Party, as a noncitizen.
The deportation proceedings date back a score of years. On April 12, 1930 a warrant of arrest was issued charging Harisiades with having been found in the United States in violation of the law, on the ground that at that time he was a member of or affiliated with an organization which taught or advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force or violence. The warrant was based on a sworn statement, which Harisiades had made on March 6, 1930, to the effect that he was a Section organizer of the Communist Party at New Bedford, Massachusetts, that he did not believe in the Government of the United States, and that it was the purpose of his party to overthrow our form of government, although he denied that he or his Party believed in the use of force or violence to accomplish that purpose. (A search was made for him in several states, but the 1930 warrant was not served. Meanwhile he had assumed various aliases.
In 1937 he married an American citizen. He has two children. In 1943 his alien registration record was checked and later his location was ascertained; but it was not until May 2, 1946 that the warrant of deportation was served and he was taken into custody.) During the deportation proceeding that followed his arrest, he was released either on bail or on his own recognizance.
After his arrest in May 1946, the following charges were then lodged against him in the deportation proceeding:-
'(1) Act of October 16, 1918, as amended- Found to have been after entry a member of the following class set forth in Section 1 of said Act: An alien who believes in, advises, advocates, or teaches the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States.
'(2) Act of October 16, 1918 as amended- Found to have been after entry a member of the following class set forth in Section 1 of said Act: An alien who is a member of an organization, association, society or group that believes in, advises, advocates, or teaches the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States.
'(3) Act of October 16, 1918 as amended- Found to have been after entry a member of the following class set forth in Section 1 of said Act: An alien who is affiliated with an organization, association, society or group that believes in, advises, advocates, or teaches the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States.'
The pertinent parts of the statute are quoted below.
Hearings were held before a presiding inspector of the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization, on October 15, 1946 and on January 30-31, 1947. On March 11, 1947 the Presiding Inspector made a report, covering 65 pages, and recommended petitioner's deportation to Greece. The report contained proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as to deportability. The record was forwarded to the Central Office and on May 14, 1947 the attorney for Harisiades filed exceptions to the report. On August 5, 1947 the Commissioner ordered that the hearing be reopened for the proper authentication of documents already introduced, for the reception of additional evidence, and for the lodging of certain additional charges.
The hearing was reopened February 18-19, 1948. Two additional charges were lodged as follows:-
'(4) The Act of October 16, 1918, as amended, in that he is found to have been after entry, a member of the following class set forth in Section I of said Act: An alien who is a member of and affiliated with an organization, association, society, and group that advises, advocates, and teaches the overthrow by force and violence of the Government of the United States.
'(5) The Act of October 16, 1918, as amended, in that he is found to have been, after entry, a member of the following class set forth in Section I of said Act: An alien who is a member of and affiliated with an organization, association, society, and group, that writes, circulates, distributes, prints, publishes, and displays, and causes to be written, circulated, distributed, printed, published and displayed, and that has in its possession for the purpose of circulation, distribution, publication, issue, and display, written and printed matter advising, advocating, and teaching the overthrow by force and violence of the Government of the United States.'
The reopened hearings were continued before the same Presiding Inspector on March 9-10, 1948. He made a report of 300 pages, with proposed findings and conclusions, on June 24, 1948. It is a very complete and thorough report. The case then went to the Commissioner's office where it was considered and reviewed by the Chief Examiner, in a report dated December 16, 1948, covering 46 pages. He concluded that the government had met its burden of proof on all of the lodged charges by ample substantial evidence, and submitted Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
The Chief Examiner recommended that Harisiades be deported to Greece on five charges
and the Assistant Commissioner 'So Ordered'. On the same day, December 16, 1948, a warrant of deportation was issued which embodied those charges. Harisiades appealed.
On April 19, 1949 the Board of Immigration Appeals heard oral argument on the appeal from the Assistant Commissioner's order of December 16, 1948. The Board of Appeals filed an opinion dated May 13, 1949, from which I quote the following:
'We have carefully considered the documentary evidence and the oral testimony in this case. We have reviewed the analyses of the evidence by the Presiding Inspector and the Assistant Commissioner. We find, on the basis of the evidence adduced and the foregoing court decisions, that during the period of the respondent's membership in the Communist Party of the United States of America, it advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and violence, and it distributed printed matter which so advocated.
'The Assistant Commissioner found the respondent deportable on several additional grounds. We do not sustain these other grounds of deportation. We find that the evidence of record does not establish that the respondent personally believed in or advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force or violence. Since the respondent has admitted membership in the Communist Party of the United States, we believe that the grounds of deportation based on affiliation are, at the very best, superfluous.
'The order of deportation will be affirmed on the grounds that after entry into the United States the respondent became a member of an organization which advocated the overthrow by force and violence of the Government of the United States, and which distributed printed matter that so advocated.'
The Board of Immigration Appeals ordered 'that the appeal from the decision of the Assistant Commissioner be dismissed'.
At the hearings and on the appeals, from the time he was taken into custody in May 1946, Harisiades has been represented by counsel of his own choosing.
After the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals on May 13, 1949, Harisiades was taken into custody on May 20, 1949 pursuant to the warrant of deportation dated December 16, 1948. He filed an application in this Court for review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq.,
which was denied by Judge Bondy on July 1st. The Judge suggested that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was the proper remedy. A petition for a writ was filed the same day. After several adjournments it came on for a hearing before me on July 19, 1949. At that time an application for bail was made pending decision on the writ. In view of the size of the record and the time it would take to review it, and because of the length of time the matter had been pending in the Immigration Bureau during the greater part of which the alien was released on his own recognizance, I admitted the petitioner to bail.
The order fixing bail contained a provision that Harisiades report at regular intervals to the Immigration authorities and that he refrain from any activities that might be hostile to the best interests of the United States. Sometime thereafter counsel submitted briefs.
A number of points have been raised by petitioner's counsel but the three main contentions are (1) that the Communist Party of the United States, during the time of petitioner's membership (1925-1939), did not teach or advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force or violence and did not distribute literature teaching that doctrine; (2) that the statute, 8 U.S.C.A. § 137, is unconstitutional, as in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States; and (3) that the June 1940 amendment of the statute, 54 Stat. 673, is, in respect to the charges against Harisiades, an ex post facto law and for that reason unconstitutional. The first contention raises an issue of fact; the second and third, questions of law.
In the case at bar the Presiding Inspector, the Chief Examiner and the Assistant Commissioner found that Harisiades is 'an alien who believes in the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and violence', in addition to being a member of and affiliated with an organization which advocates and teaches that doctrine and circulates literature to that effect. But the Board of Appeals held that the record did not establish that Harisiades personally believed in or advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force or violence. Footnote # 4 of the Board's opinion states:- 'From 1931 to 1932 he was an organizer for the Communist Party and from 1933 to 1937 he served as secretary of the Greek Bureau of the Communist Party- a subdivision thereof. He served in an editorial capacity on its publication 'The Empros' from 1933 to about October 1939. His membership in the Communist Party ended in October 1939 because the Communist Party dropped non-citizens from its rolls'. He was a paid organizer and secretary.
As Chief Justice Stone observed in his dissenting opinion in Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, at page 197, 63 S. Ct. 1333, at page 1370, 87 L. Ed. 1796: 'It is possible, though not probable or normal, for one to be attached to principles diametrically opposed to those, to the dissemination of which he has given his life's best effort. But it is a normal and sensible inference which the trier of fact is free to make that his attachment is to those principles rather than to constitutional principles with which they are at war. A man can be known by the ideas he spreads as well as by the company he keeps.'
Schneiderman was an organization secretary of the Communist Party in California in 1930 and later in Connecticut and in Minnesota.
Mr. Justice Murphy in the majority opinion in the Schneiderman case remarked:-'At this point it is appropriate to mention what will be more fully developed later- that under our traditions beliefs are personal and not a matter of mere association, and that men in adhering to a political party or other organization notoriously do not subscribe unqualifiedly to all of its platforms or asserted principles.'
Mr. Justice Murphy's opinion (the majority opinion) in the Schneiderman case states also:- 'There is a material difference between agitation and exhortation calling for present violent action which creates a clear and present danger of public disorder or other substantive evil, and mere doctrinal justification or prediction of the use of force under hypothetical conditions at some indefinite future time- prediction that is not calculated or intended to be presently acted upon, thus leaving opportunity for general discussion and the calm processes of thought and reason.'
And the court concluded that- 'Because of this difference we may assume that Congress intended, by the general test of 'attachment' (i.e. to the principles of the constitution of the United States) in the 1906 Act, to deny naturalization to persons falling into the first category but not to those in the second.'
The majority opinion in the Schneiderman case held also, that- 'Where two interpretations of an organization's program are possible, the one reprehensible and a bar to naturalization and the other permissible, a court in a denaturalization proceeding, assuming that it can re-examine a finding of attachment upon a charge of illegal procurement, is not justified in cancelling a certificate of citizenship by imputing the reprehensible interpretation to a member of the organization in the absence of overt acts indicating that such was his interpretation.'
In the case at bar Harisiades testified that he did not believe in the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force or violence.
The Presiding Inspector who saw him testify concluded otherwise. The Presiding Inspector, the Chief Examiner, the Acting Commissioner and the Board of Appeals all agreed that the Communist Party during the long period of Harisiades membership, advocated and taught the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and violence and distributed literature to that effect. Harisiades was more than an ordinary member of the Party. He had advanced from the rank and file, as Schneiderman had. But, if the Supreme Court did not consider all of Schneiderman's activities on behalf of the Communist Party as sufficient to justify the conclusion that Schneiderman believed in the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and violence, the Board of Immigration Appeals could reach a like conclusion as to Harisiades. If I were free to do so, I would accept the view expressed in the paragraph quoted above from the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Stone. It seems to me to be more logical.
Petitioner's counsel states that 'the only question of fact in the case is whether, during Harisiades' membership (1925-1939), the Communist Party of the United States of America believed in or advocated the violent overthrow of this Government, and whether it distributed literature containing such advocacy'.
In Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 65 S. Ct. 1443, 1453, 89 L. Ed. 2103 decided June 18, 1945, the majority opinion written by Mr. Justice Douglas held that Bridges had not had a fair hearing on the issue of his membership in the Communist Party because certain evidence (statements allegedly made to an investigating officer by a witness who was called by the government and denied making some parts of the statements) was improperly received, and where but for that evidence it was wholly speculative whether the requisite finding would have been made. The majority of the court held that the use of the ex parte statements was highly prejudicial. The majority also held that Bridges had been ordered deported 'on a misconstruction of the term 'affiliation' as used in the statute'. In the case at bar Harisiades admitted his membership in the Communist Party of the U.S.A. and the Board of Immigration Appeals considered the charge of 'affiliation' as superfluous.
The majority opinion in Bridges v. Wixon, supra, a deportation case, did not discuss the evidence on the question of whether the Communist Party of the U.S.A. advocated the overthrow of the Government by force or violence. But Mr. Justice Murphy in a concurring opinion stated:- 'Proof that the Communist Party advocates the theoretical or ultimate overthrow of the Government by force was demonstrated by resort to some rather ancient party documents, certain other general Communist literature and oral corroborating testimony of Government witnesses. Not the slightest evidence was introduced to show that either Bridges or the Communist Party seriously and imminently threatens to uproot the Government by force or violence.'
Chief Justice Stone in a dissenting opinion (in which Mr. Justice Roberts and Mr. Justice Frankfurter joined) stated:- 'As we are of opinion that the finding of Bridges' membership in the Communist Party, standing alone, supports the deportation order, and that the finding is supported by evidence, we deem it unnecessary to consider other contentions to which the Court's opinion is principally directed.' The dissenting opinion did not discuss the evidence relating to the teachings of the Communist Party.
However, Chief Justice Stone had discussed evidence on that question in a dissenting opinion (in which Mr. Justice Roberts and Mr. Justice Frankfurter joined) in Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 63 S. Ct. 1333, 1369, 87 L. Ed. 1796, decided June 21, 1943, a denaturalization case, and had expressed the opinion that the evidence in that case was such that- 'On the record before us it would be difficult for a trial judge to conclude that petitioner was not well aware that he was a member of and aiding a party which taught and advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and violence.' The period under consideration in that case was from 1922 to 1927. Schneiderman was naturalized in 1927.
In the majority opinion, written by Mr. Justice Murphy in the Schneiderman case, the Court held:- 'We do not say that a reasonable man could not possibly have found, as the district court did, that the Communist Party in 1927 actively urged the overthrow of the Government by force and violence. But that is not the issue here.'
The Court held that the Government failed, in the denaturalization action against Schneiderman, to prove any lack of attachment on his part to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, 'by clear, unequivocal and convincing' evidence. Mr. Justice Murphy also stated:-
'For some time the question whether advocacy of governmental overthrow by force and violence is a principle of the Communist Party of the United States has perplexed courts, administrators, legislators, and students. On varying records in deportation proceedings some courts have held that administrative findings that the Party did so advocate were not so wanting in evidential support as to amount to a denial of due process, 29 others have held to the contrary on different records, 30 and some seem to have taken the position that they will judicially notice that force and violence is a Party principle. 31 This Court has never passed upon the question whether the Party does so advocate, and it is unnecessary for us to do so now.'
'29. In re Saderquist, D.C., 11 F.Supp. 525; Skeffington v. Katzeff, 1 Cir., 277 F. 129; United States ex rel. Vojewvic, v. Curran, 2 Cir., 11 F.2d 683; Kenmotsu v. Nagle, 9 Cir., 44 F.2d 953; Sormunen v. Nagle, 9 Cir., 59 F.2d 398; Branch v. Cahill, 9 Cir., 88 F.2d 545; Ex parte Vilarino, 9 Cir., 50 F.2d 582; Kjar v. Doak, 7 Cir., 61 F.2d 566; Berkman v. Tillinghast, 1 Cir., 58 F.2d 621; United States (ex rel. Lisafeld) v. Smith, D.C., 2 F.2d 90; United States ex rel. Abern v. Wallis, D.C., 268 F. 413.
'30. Strecker v. Kessler, 5 Cir., 95 F.2d 976; 2d, 5 Cir., 96 F.2d 1020, affirmed on other grounds, 307 U.S. 22, 59 S. Ct. 694, 83 L. Ed. 1082; Ex parte Fierstein, 9 Cir., 41 F.2d 53; Colyer v. Skeffington, D.C., 265 F. 17, reversed sub nom. Skeffington v. Katzeff, 1 Cir., 277 F. 129.
'31. United States ex rel. Yokinen v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 57 F.2d 707; United States (ex rel. Ohm) v. Perkins, 2 Cir., 79 F.2d 533; United States ex rel. Fernandas v. Commissioner, 2 Cir., 65 F.2d 593; Ungar v. Seaman, 8 Cir., 4 F.2d 80; Ex parte Jurgans, D.C., 17 F.2d 507; United States ex rel. Fortmueller v. Commissioner, D.C., 14 F.Supp. 484; Murdoch v. Clark, 1 Cir., 53 F.2d 155; Wolck v. Weedin, 9 Cir., 58 F.2d 928.'
However, the majority opinion in the Schneiderman case did discuss some of the documentary evidence on that issue- the 'Communist Manifesto' of Marx and Engels proclaimed in 1848; 'State and Revolution' by Lenin, written in August 1917; the 'Statutes, Theses and Conditions of Admission to the Communist International' adopted August 1930 printed in 1923; the 'Theory and Practice of Leninism' written by Stalin and printed in 1924 or 1925. The court added:- 'The Government also sets forth excerpts from other documents which are entitled to little weight because they were published after the critical period', i.e. after 1927 when Schneiderman received his certificate of citizenship. Those other documents were:- (a) Program of the Communist International adopted in 1928 and published by the Workers Library Publishers Inc. in 1929; (b) Programme of the Young Communist International, published in 1929; (c) 'Why Communism', written by Olgin and published first in 1933 by the Workers Library Publishers. The majority opinion quoted excerpts from the documents published prior to 1927 and styled them 'bombastic excerpts', and stated:- 'A tenable conclusion from the foregoing is that the Party in 1927 desired to achieve its purpose by peaceful and democratic means, and as a theoretical matter justified the use of force and violence only as a method of preventing an attempted forcible counter-overthrow once the Party had obtained control in a peaceful manner, or as a method of last resort to enforce the majority will if at some indefinite future time because of peculiar circumstances constitutional or peaceful channels were not longer open.'
The majority opinion stated:- 'We do not decide what interpretation of the Party's attitude toward force and violence is the most probable on the basis of the present record.'
Concerning that question Chief Justice Stone, in his dissent, stated: 320 U.S. 190, 63 S. Ct. 1367, 87 L. Ed. 1796. 'From the beginning, and during all times relevant to this inquiry, there is evidence that the Communist Party organizations advocated the overthrow of capitalistic governments by revolution to be accomplished, if need be, by force of arms. We need not stop to consider the much discussed question whether this meant more than that force was to be used if established governments should be so misguided as to refuse to make themselves over into proletarian dictatorships by amendment of their governmental structures, or should have the effrontery to defend themselves from lawless or subversive attacks. For in any case the end contemplated was the overthrow of government, and the measures advocated were force and violence.'
Chief Justice Stone, in an appendix annexed to his dissenting opinion in the Schneiderman case, sets forth a number of excerpts from 'Statutes, Theses and Conditions of Admission to the Communist International' (adopted by the Second Congress of the Communist International July-August 1929) and also excerpts from 'State and Revolution' by Lenin. Chief Justice Stone also quoted from the 'Theses' and the 'Communist Manifesto' and from Stalin's 'The Theory and Practice of Leninism', in the body of his opinion. Referring to Lenin's book, 'State and Revolution', Chief Justice Stone stated: 'The Party teachings in this and other publications were that revolution by force of arms was a universal principle and consequently one which embraced the United States,12a and obviously was intended to do so when taught in Communist classes in the United States'. Stalin's book on 'The Theory and Practice of Leninism' was also quoted to support that conclusion.
The same questions were considered by the Presiding Inspector in the case at bar (the Harisiades case) on a record which includes eleven years of Communist Party activities, and some pronouncements and publications that were not before the high court in the Schneiderman case. The period involved in the Schneiderman case was 1922 to 1927; in the Bridges case, 1933 to 1937. The period in the Harisiades case covers 1925 to 1939. The Schneiderman opinion was written in June 1943; the Bridges v. Wixon opinion in June 1945.
The Presiding Inspector in the case at bar discussed the documentary evidence relating to the advocacy by the Communist Party of the use of force and violence in the proletariat revolution, for which the members of the Party were to be prepared to act as the vanguard of the attack. It is not necessary to go back to any 'ancient documents' to show that in our time this has been the basic doctrine of the Communist International and the Communist Party of the U.S.A. A proletariat revolution employing force and violence is advocated in Lenin's 'State and Revolution', written in 1917 (Ex. 20). The theme is again referred to in Lenin's 'Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder', 1920, (Ex. 21); and expounded in the 'Foundations of Leninism' by Stalin, written in 1924, (Ex. 22). The program of the Communist International, adopted in 1928, (Ex. 5A) stress it. 'The Struggle Against Imperialist War and the Tasks of the Communists', set forth in Resolutions of the Sixth World Congress of the Communist International (1928) (Ex. 27); Stalin's 'Problems of Leninism', 1926 (Ex 23); Thesis of the Thirteenth Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International (1933) published in 1934 (Ex. 11); Manifesto and Principal Resolutions adopted by the Eighth Convention of the Communist Party of the U.S.A. held April, 1934 (Ex 23); Thesis of the Thirteenth Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International (1933) published in 1934 (Ex. 11); Manifesto and Principal Resolutions adopted by the Eighth Convention of the Communist Party of the U.S.A. held April, 1934 (Ex. 47)- all these documents are the modern exposition of the Communist doctrine of violent revolution, developed a century ago by Marx and Engels, and restated by Lenin and Stalin with detailed instructions as to their modern application. Bluntly they proclaim the basic communistic doctrine of the violent overthrow of bourgeois 'capitalist' governments (including the United States of America) and the seizure of power by force. If the words used in these pronouncements of the Communist International and of Lenin and Stalin, adopted and circulated by the Communist Party of the U.S.A. are given their plain every-day meaning, they state the Communist doctrine of the overthrow of government by force and violence as the way to power, so clearly that it cannot be obscured by calling it a defensive measure only. Chief Justice Stone exposed as ridiculous that palliation of the Communist doctrine of violent revolution.
Karl Marx stated in his Manifestos (Ex. 19) 'The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions'. Lenin in his 'State and Revolution' put it this way:- 'the liberation of the oppressed class is impossible not only without a violent revolution, but also without the destruction of the apparatus of state power, which was created by the ruling class'. (Ex. 20 at p. 9) And 'The necessity of systematically fostering among the masses this and just this point of view about violent revolution lies at the root of the whole of Marx's and Engel's teaching. * * * The replacement of the bourgeois by the proletarian state is impossible without a violent revolution: (Ex. 20 at p. 20). And finally- 'Opposition and general political struggle are beside the point; we are concerned with the revolution. And revolution consists in the proletariat's destroying the 'administration apparatus' and the whole state machinery, and replacing it by a new one consisting of the armed workers'. (Ex. 20 at p. 96).
In his book entitled 'Left Wing Communism and Infantile Disorder', Lenin refers frequently to the lessons to be drawn from the 1905 and 1917 Russian revolutions. 'There is a strike movement unprecedented anywhere in the world for its extent and acuteness. The economic strike grows into a political strike, and the latter into insurrection. The relations between the proletariat as the leader and the vacillating, unstable peasantry, as the led, are tested in practice. The Soviet form of organization is born in the spontaneous development of the struggle'. (Ex. 21, p. 12-13). And 'At that time (1905) the boycott (of the Duma) proved correct, not because non-participation in the reactionary parliaments is correct in general, but because we correctly estimated the objective situation that was leading to the rapid transformation of mass strikes into a political strike, and then into a revolutionary strike, and then into insurrection'. (Ex. 21 at p. 20) Lenin later points out how the presence of a Soviet opposition within a bourgeois parliament can be used, and asserts that the experience of many revolutions show 'how particularly useful during a revolution is the combination of mass action outside the reactionary parliament with an opposition sympathetic to (or, better still, directly supporting) the revolution inside this parliament'. (Ex. 21 at p. 45) The following tactical advice is given by Lenin to Communist leaders in bourgeois democracies who might favor a policy of 'No compromise, no manoeuvers':- 'To tie one's hands beforehand, openly to tell the enemy, who is at present better armed than we are, whether we shall fight him, and when, is stupidity and not revolutionariness. To accept battle at a time when it is obviously advantageous to the enemy and not to us is a crime; and absolutely worthless are those political leaders of the revolutionary class who are unable 'to tack, manoeuvre and compromise' in order to avoid an obviously disadvantageous battle'. (Ex. 21, p. 59)
This last quotation seems to me to expose the fallacy and delusion of the so-called 'clear and present danger' rule in interpreting and applying the language of T. 8 U.S.C.A. § 137 and similar statutes, and the real danger to our national security that lurks in a judicial interpretation of the writings of leading Communists and of the programs and resolutions of the Party conventions, as 'mere doctrinal justification or prediction of the use of force under hypothetical conditions at some indefinite future time'.
Stalin, in his 'Foundations of Leninism' (Ex. 22) restates the principles of Leninism. He writes in his Introduction that Leninism is not just the application of Marxism to the peculiar situation in Russia. ' * * * We know, however, that Leninism is not merely a Russian, but an international phenomenon rooted in the whole of the international development. * * * The whole truth about Leninism is that Leninism not only restored Marxism, but also took a step forward, developing Marxism further under the new conditions of capitalism and of the class struggle of the proletariat.' (Ex. 22, pp. 9-10) He declares that Russian Communists have gone beyond 'the narrow national bounds of the Russian Revolution * * * to transfer the struggle to the international arena * * * ' and 'finally overthrow capitalism in their own country and to forge a new fighting weapon for the proletariat- the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution- in order to facilitate the task of overthrowing capitalism for the proletarians of all countries'. (Ex. 22, pp. 17 and 18.) Stalin quotes Lenin that the victorious proletariat, wherever established, should do 'the utmost possible in one country for the development, support and awaking of the revolution in all countries'. (Ex. 22, p. 46) Just as after the success of the October 1917 revolution in Russia, it was their objective 'to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country, using it as a base for the overthrow of imperialism in all countries.' (Ex. 22, p. 91). Stalin stated that 'capitalism has evolved into imperialism, and imperialism is a world system of financial enslavement and colonial oppression of the vast majority of the population of the earth by a handful of 'advanced' countries'; a system which he believed 'as a whole is already ripe for revolution'; and since the 'separate national fronts have become links in a single chain called the world front of imperialism' they 'must be opposed by a common front of the revolutionary movement in all countries'. (Ex. 22, pp. 35-36).
Stalin, like Lenin, condemned the so-called 'opportunists' of the Second International (1899) who sought to bring about reforms through parliamentary action using that as the method to accomplish their purposes. Lenin and Stalin believed in the doctrine of the Third International (1919), that a proletarian revolution employing force was the way to power. Stalin wrote 'Does not the history of the revolutionary movement show that the parliamentary struggle is only a school for and an aid in organizing the extra-parliamentary struggle of the proletariat, that under capitalism the fundamental problems of the working-class movement are solved by force, by the direct struggle of the proletarian masses, their general strike, their insurrection?' (Ex. 22 at p. 24). And, 'The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot arise as the result of the peaceful development of bourgeois society and of bourgeois democracy; it can arise only as the result of the smashing of the bourgeois state machine, the bourgeois army, the bourgeois bureaucratic machine, the bourgeois police' (Ex. 22, p. 54). It would seem that force and violence would be needed to smash an army or the police.
In his 'Foundations of Leninism' (Ex. 22) Stalin shows that the dictatorship of the proletariat will become 'the foundation of the proletarian state power', and that 'This new form of organization of the proletariats is the Soviets'. 'The Soviet power is the amalgamation and formation of the local Soviets into one common state organization, into the state organization of the proletariat as the vanguard of the oppressed and exploited masses and as the ruling class- their amalgamation into the republic of Soviets'. (Ex. 22, p. 58). 'The republic of Soviets is thus the political form, so long sought and finally discovered, within the framework of which the economic emancipation of the proletariat, the complete victory of socialism, is to be accomplished'. (Ex. 22, p. 60).
The 'Problems of Leninism' (Ex. 23) is a restatement of the principles of Leninism, with some of Stalin's arguments to show that nothing less than a violent revolution will overthrow the capitalist bourgeois governments and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship of the proleteriat is to be the achieved result of the revolution.
The proletariat dictatorship would be controlled by the Communist Party as described in detail in Lenin's 'Left Wing Communism' (Ex. 21 at p. 31) in which he stated:-
'The correlation, leaders- party- class- masses, as well as the relation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and its party to the trade unions, now present themselves concretely in Russia in the following form: the dictatorship is exercised by the proletariat, organized in the Soviets; the proletariat is led by the Communist Party (Bolsheviks), which, according to the data of the last Party Congress (April 1920) has a membership of 611,000. * * * The Party, which holds annual congresses (the last on the basis of one delegate for each 1000 members) is directed by a Central Committee of nineteen elected at the Congress, while the current work in Moscow has to be carried on by still smaller bodies, viz. the so-called 'Orgburo' (Political Bureau), which are elected at plenary meetings of the Central Committee, five members of the Central Committee to each bureau. This, then, looks like a real 'oligarchy'. Not a single important political or organizational question is decided by any state institution in our republic, without the guiding instructions of the Central Committee of the Party.'
'In its work, the Party relies directly on the trade unions * * * which are formally non-party. Actually, all the directing bodies of the vast majority of the unions, and primarily, of course, of the all-Russian general trade union centre or bureau (the All-Russian Central Trade Union Council) consist of Communists and carry out all the instructions of the Party. Thus, on the whole, we have a formally non-Communist, flexible and relatively wide and very powerful proletarian apparatus, by means of which the Party is closely linked up with the class and with the masses, and by means of which, under the leadership of the Party, the dictatorship of the class is effected. Without close contact with the trade unions, without their hearty support and self-sacrificing work, not only in economic but also in military affairs, it would, of course, have been impossible for us to govern the country and to maintain the dictatorship for two months, let alone two years. * * * ' (Ex. 22, p. 32)
'Then, of course, all the work of the Party is carried on through the Soviets, which embrace the toiling masses irrespective of occupation. The * * * (county) * * * congresses of Soviets are democratic institutions the like of which even the best of the democratic republics of the bourgeois world has never known; and through these congresses (whose proceedings the Party endeavors to follow with the closest attention) as well as by constantly appointing class-conscious workers to all sorts of posts in the rural districts, the role of the proletariat as leader of the peasantry is exercised, the dictatorship of ...