Mrs. Richard Grason, Towson, Md.

W. Gettys Guille, Builders Supply Co., Salisbury, N. C.

D. E. Gwynn, Leaksville, N. C.

J. Addison Hagan, Norfolk, Va.

Mrs. Jeanette Hansel, Falls Church, Va.

Merwin K. Hart, president, National Economic Council, New York, N. Y.

Paul D. Hastings, Reidsville, N. C.

Andrew M. Hewitt, Charlotte, N. C.

N. B. Hicks, Farmer's Grange, Timmonsville, S. C.

A. J. Holt, Graham, N. C.

Dr. Emmett L. Irwin, New Orleans, La.

Roy E. Isenhour, Durham, N. C.

G. L. Ivey, Florence, S. C.

Mr. and Mrs. Fred Jarrell, Arlington, Va.
C. Bissell Jenkins, Jr., Charleston, S. C.
June M. Lainhart, Annandale, Va.
Thomas M. Law, Spartanburg, S. C.
Ellett Lawrence, Greenwood, Miss.
Woodrow M. Lockamy, Durham, N. C.
Clyde R. Lyons, Elloree, S. C.
W. W. McClintic, Farmville, Va.
Dan H. McEachern, Florence, S. C.

A. L. McKenzie, Florence, S. C.

John Gregg McMaster, attorney, Columbia, S. C.

Dr. S. B. McPheeters, Goldsboro, N. C.

Edward L. Mitchell, Charlotte, N. C.

R. Kirk Moyer, New Orleans, La.

Richard and Jane Nash et al., Fairfax, Va.

J. LeRoy Nichols, Sumter, S. C.

J. J. Norton, Jr., Gaffney, S. C.

H. H. Palmer, Tarboro, N. C.

Mary Payne, Marguerite Williams, Estelle Leonard, Fairfax, Va.
William C. Peterson, Memphis, Tenn.

John A. Pickett, Durham, N. C.

Beal B. Plyler, Wilson, N. C.

Robert D. Porter, Greensboro, N. C.

Joe B. Powell and Margaret D. Powell, Florence, S. C.

W. F. Powell, director, Citizens Council of Louisiana, Tallulah, La.

Hugh A. Randolph, Burlington, N. C.

C. A. Renneker, Orangeburg, S. C.

H. G. Reynolds, Trenton, S. C.

L. Richard Rhame, Orangeburg, S. C.

Albert L. Robertson, Reidsville, N. C.

H. M. Rogers, Dillon, S. C.

Harry M. Rubin, Charleston, S. C.
Alfred Scarborough, Sumter, S. C.

F. C. F. Schmidt, Kongsberg, N. Dak.

Joe Scruggs, Balmont, N. C.

William F. Stone, House of Delegates, Commonwealth of Virginia, Martinsville, Va.

Miss Jane P. Strother, Sumter, S. C.

Mrs. James H. Swartz, Frederick, Md.

Mr. and Mrs. C. L. Sweet, Fairfax, Va.

William W. Taylor, Jr., House of Representatives, North Carolina General Assembly, Warrenton, N. C.

Mrs. A. Maude Thomas (telephone call), Falls Church, Va.

M. P. Thomas, Baltimore, Md.

Hon. Strom Thurmond (copy of letter of July 27, 1955, to Senator McClellan). W. L. Totten, Sr., Durham, N. C.

Rev. John W. Davis, Johnston, S. C.

Rev. John W. Vavis, Johnston, S. C.

Mr. and Mrs. W. A. Vaughan and G. E. Vaughan, Richmond, Va.

C. C. Viguerie and E. O. Olson, Jr., New Orleans, La.

Warren S. Webb, secretary, Tennessee Federation for Constitutional Government, Memphis, Tenn.

W. B. Wheeler, Mount Olive, N. C.

S. A. White, Mebane, N. C.

William M. White, Rock Hill, S. C.

Jasper H. Wilson, Roanoke, Va.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Are there any other witnesses?

Mr. LAUGHLIN. My name is James Laughlin. I am an attorney, and I wanted to testify in favor of Mr. Sobeloff.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Very well, sir.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Shall I proceed?

Senator O'MAHONEY. Yes, if you please.

STATEMENT OF JAMES J. LAUGHLIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. My name is James J. Laughlin. I am an attorney and a member of the bar of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Supreme Court of the United States, and in the State of Indiana, where I am a voting and legal resident.

If I were a member of this committee, I would vote to confirm Mr. Sobeloff. I think he is one of the finest characters in American life today, in my opinion. I can't conceive there can be any valid opposition to him.

We need a man like Mr. Sobeloff on the fourth circuit. With all due respect, of course, to the eminent judge who testified here this morning, Judge Soper, I think I can say that we need new blood in that circuit.

The law is a little bit different now than it was in 1930, and let me say to the chairman and Senator Watkins, when you have a circuit which finds itself in a position that they never reverse a criminal case, where you have it in the local court of appeals and I had hoped they would give Mr. Sobeloff to the United States Court of Appeals here, we would like a man like that-but when you have a case that lawyers can never be wrong in criminal cases, I think we need new blood. Judge Parker is an excellent man and, in my opinion, Judge Soper would be the Frank Murphy of the fourth circuit.

This committee can make no mistake, I think the committee should be commended for finally bringing this thing to the surface, having the hearing, because undoubtedly sinister forces tried to keep this thing pigeonholed in the hope that time heals a lot of things, and then you will run into another election, and so on. So the committee, I think, is to be commended.

Senator O'Mahoney well knows it is good to have good judges. A member of the bar really has no relief against a tyrannical judge. That is well illustrated, I believe, by Jerome Frank's statement about indifferent and corrupt judges, and I think in the opinion of Justice Murphy, "Who watches the watchman?"

So I would suggest that when the opposition unfolds here-they mention something about an incident in Baltimore. I know nothing about that, but let's look behind the opposition. Is it because Mr. Sobeloff championed human rights?

Of course, our whole history repeals the theory that you could appraise a person fairly and justly when you have coupled with it racial or religious or any other kind of prejudice.

So, as this opposition unfolds, I would ask that the committee see whether the reasons they advance are logical ones. And I can say this, as far

Senator O'MAHONEY. May I interrupt you, regretfully, I must say? Mr. LAUGHLIN. Yes, sir.

Senator O'MAHONEY. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony with respect to the qualifications of Mr. Sobeloff to be confirmed for this job. It is not for the purpose of having any arguments presented to the committee for or against Mr. Sobeloff. That might take a long time.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. I realize that, and I sometimes fall into that error, Senator, because I heard a 2-day argument of yours in one of our district courts here some years ago. [Laughter.] It was a good one, and it was a successful one.

Let me say this: Judge Sobeloff, I think I can say I don't know him personally.

Senator O'MAHONEY. You have promoted him here unnecessarily. Mr. LAUGHLIN. He has held his job excessively creditably as Solicitor General, and the Government saw fit to appoint him on the Court of Appeals of Maryland. He did an admirable job there. I hope the committee will confirm him promptly, because I look to see in probably a year of two we will have him on the Supreme Court, and we need him there.

He has the good will of the judges in Baltimore. I talked to many of them. Judge Manley, I believe, is regarded as the ablest judge over there, and I talked to many of them, and they all speak in the

same manner.

So I hope he will be promptly confirmed, Senator.
Senator O'MAHONEY. Thank you.

Is Mr. Ketcham in the room?

Mr. KETCHAM. Yes, sir.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Will you proceed with your statement?

STATEMENT OF FRANK S. KETCHAM, ATTORNEY AT LAW, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. KETCHAM. My name is Frank S. Ketcham. I am an attorney in Washington. I am a member of the bars of the State of New York, the District of Columbia, the Supreme Court of the United States.

During the course of Mr. Sobeloff's appointment in the position of Solicitor General of the United States, I have had occasion in numerous instances to meet with him and discuss with him matters of law and of social justice.

My activities upon behalf of my clients have necessitated my getting into various aspects of the law as it deals with human beings. It is my personal feeling that Judge Sobeloff is eminently qualified to occupy a position on the circuit court of appeals, and I highly

recommend him.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Thank you very much, sir.

There was another gentleman who desired to make a statement. Will you state your name, please?

Mr. STEPHENSON. My name is William Stephenson, and I am president of the Virginia League.

Senator O'MAHONEY. What is the Virginia League, sir?

Mr. STEPHENSON. The Virginia League is an organization of taxpayers and voters in Virginia, and I have brought a statement from them in opposition to the confirmation of Judge Sobeloff.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Very good, sir.

Mr. STEPHENSON. May I read my statement?

Senator O'MAHONEY. How long is the statement, sir?

Mr. STEPHENSON. It won't take as long as most of the witnesses have taken.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Well, that is very good beginning, I should

say.

You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM STEPHENSON, PRESIDENT, THE VIRGINIA LEAGUE, NEWPORT NEWS, VA.

Mr. STEPHENSON. This is a statement of the Virginia League's opposition to the confirmation of Simon E. Sobeloff as judge of the Fourth United States Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Virginia League is an organization of voters who take an active interest in Government and governmental questions, on local, State, and National levels.

Knowing that freedom must be won by every generation, we have declared that the Virginia League was organized in the spirit of the American Revolution. The avowed purpose of our organization is to resecure the rights and freedoms won for us by our pioneering ancestors, and to preserve and encourage the noble virtues of independence, self-reliance, and free enterprise.

Because of the interests and ideals of our organization, we take an active interest, as noted, in the affairs of Government and in all persons offering for or proposed for public office.

When Simon E. Sobeloff's name was submitted as President Eisenhower's nominee for judge of the Fourth United States Circuit Court of Appeals, we immediately began to study him. The facts that we have learned make us unalterably opposed to Sobeloff's confirmation as judge in the Fourth United States Circuit Court of Appeals.

We will set forth briefly some of the reasons why we feel that Simon E. Sobeloff should not be confirmed.

We are, for one thing, deeply concerned about his stand on the matter of confrontation of witnesses, and we are also concerned about the lengths to which he will go to further his ideas.

The case of Dr. John P. Peters, discharged as a Federal health consultant as a result of a Loyalty Review Board investigation, illustrates our point. The Loyalty Review Board reached its decision after a hearing in which Dr. Peters was not told the identity of his accusers and not allowed to cross-examine them. Dr. Peters sued to get his job back.

The Attorney General of the United States took the position that the decision reached by the Loyalty Review Board was constitutional, and that the Board's finding, which was adverse to Peters, was in every way justified under the facts and the law.

Solicitor General Simon E. Sobeloff, however, took a different position. He prepared a brief in which he proposed that the Government agree to let Dr. Peters have his job back.

Sobeloff's argument was that while there might be some cases in which concealment of secret accusers is necessary and desirable, the Government should have to prove the necessity of concealment in each case before some impartial board.

He argued that the Government should not be allowed to declare something secret in the interest of national security on its own say-so, as it had done in the case of Dr. Peters.

The Attorney General's view prevailed, however, and there is general agreement that it is both constitutional and wise to conceal the names of accusers in loyalty security cases, even from the hearing boards, when the Government desires.

Solicitor General Sobeloff refused to sign this brief of the Department of Justice and would not appear for the Government before the Supreme Court as the chief law officer of the United States.

It is interesting to note that Dr. Peters, the man whom Simon Sobeloff suggested reinstating in his Government job, was reported to be a member of a number of organizations which have been officially branded as subversive.

Senator O'MAHONEY. What was the decision of the Supreme Court in the case?

Mr. STEPHENSON. I beg your pardon?

Senator O'MAHONEY. What was the decision of the Supreme Court in the case?

Mr. STEPHNENSON. In the Peters case?

Senator O'MAHONEY. Yes.

Mr. STEPHENSON. I couldn't tell you, Senator.
Senator O'MAHONEY. Well, I can tell you.

Mr. STEPHENSON. What was it?

Senator O'MAHONEY. It found for Peters.
Mr. STEPHENSON. It did find for Peters?

Senator O'MAHONEY. Yes, sir. And you are arguing against the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. STEPHENSON. I am only reading a statement, sir.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Well, but you are presenting a statement which is intended to be critical of the nominee, but which is also critical of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. STEPHENSON. As an American citizen, I reserve my right to criticize the Supreme Court

Senator O'MAHONEY. Of course.

Mr. STEPHENSON (continuing). The President, and anyone else.
May I proceed?

Senator O'MAHONEY. Yes, you may, but let us talk about Mr. Sobeloff.

Mr. STEPHENSON. Shall I skip that section? I am prepared to talk about Mr. Sobeloff.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Oh, no. Please take it up.

Mr. STEPHENSON. It is our understanding that Peters also sought amnesty for the 11 top Communist leaders tried by Judge Medina and convicted by a jury.

We are further advised that Peters had been active in efforts to abolish the House Committee on Un-American Activities, a Communistinspired and directed project.

He also refused to release his answers to the Loyalty Review Board which found against him; so we do not know whether he admitted the