戴維’’’’爾
(DAVID LILIENTHAL)

聽證’’說
Confirmation Hearings

 

   我對’’’’’不疑’

   1946’’里’’’’’統任’戴維’’’撒爾領導原’’’Ⅸ’’’’’爾(1899’1981)生’伊’諾伊’’畢’’’’’學’’’’學’學’’’曾任田’’’域管’’’’’

   ’’’國’’’’Ⅸ’聽證’’’’’撒爾’’田’’’參議Ⅸ’尼’’D’麥’凱勒’’問’麥’凱勒’’’’’撒爾有’情’産’’之嫌’’聽證’’參議Ⅸ麥’凱勒曾’’’解田’’’域管’’生産’噸’酸銨’成本’’’撒爾說’’’找’有關數據’’當’’腦裏’不’’’’’’參議Ⅸ’示’’’撒爾’’’’’證’’’’’任’’’’’’而’參議Ⅸ’次提’’’撒爾“’腦裏”竟’不’’’重’’資’’ 

   參議Ⅸ言’正傳’攻擊’’問’’’’’“’實’’’情心頗’左’’’’”’’’爾答’’’’’簡單’用“’”’“不’”’’答’’’’’麥’凱勒參議Ⅸ緊’不捨’“那麽’對’産’’學說’’種’’?”’’撒爾不假’’’脫’而’’答覆由’爾弗’’’弗蘭’’’成報導’’’1947’2月4日’’華盛’’報’’’

    ’個問’’實’’縈’’我’’腦裏’參議Ⅸ’生’

    我’盡’把它講’楚’比’我反對什麽’我’’’’’’’’’我贊成什麽’’’順’成章’把’’’’排除’’’’ 

    ’照傳統’民’’成爲’個’’’’’’而不僅僅’個’’’’’’

   我’’’’而’我’’’’’國憲’正’’教那樣’’立’個’’正’’個基本’提之’’’有’’’’有’’機’都必須用’’’’’’’’衛個’’正’’’’’’’’憲’’’’’’’’’’本’’’正’它本質’’’’教’’’’

   ’’’任’’’成爲手’而’目’’’’’’’機’’任’’國’’’’組織’’’’’之’’’’’’’機’’任’把’’’’’’橫’’’爲’’’’項基本原’’’’’’’機’都’’’’’’’’’’’’我堅’反對它們’ 

    ’産’’Ｗ學’’産’’’’’’’屬’’’’疇’’爲它們’基本原’’我們憲’’’’’’不’’’産’’’基本原’’’國’本身’’目’’’而國’對個’’’’’’不’任’’’標準’’’’

    我完’不’’’種原’’ 

    ’說’個’不’個’産’’’’件’分’’’’’當’’’’’視我’’歷’有必’’我’’’’立場’那麽我’’’’’失望’

   ’’說’說反對’産’’’件’分’’’’’’樣重’’’’’那’’提’’’滿’’有’’替’’’’’’民’’’’’滿’’’’’’替’’’

   民’’’’’’’望’’’它’個’’’’仰’而不僅僅’個反對’’’’什麽’’仰’除’’’’’’’’’’

   民’’’條原’’’’種’仰’’心’該’仰’爲’個’第’’’’’’’’’’’’’’們’’’’’’’’’’原’’’種對公民’由’及’不’’犯’堅’’仰’它對任’欲’’’’側擊’嫁禍’’’’’’’’手’奪’’個’最’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’絕’有’’們’打著民’’’’’麽’’’’’’爲不’’我’爲’倘’我們聽任’種’’’續’’’那麽它’導’我們國’分’離’’徹’毀滅’

   我’’’假’我們’日’生’中實’民’’民’有’’’’’’’面’’任’考驗’

   ’我們必須遵’’準’中有’麽’條’’我們’’’鼓’’’國內’’覆’反民’勢’’’’’不該歇斯’里’’’側擊’誹謗攻擊’’’’’不’’’手’’污我們’’’’’’’’我國’民中’’分裂’’’團體’個’之間互’    仇視’而’種分裂完’’由’’’擊’對團體’個’’’誠’’’’據’’難’

   我還’補’說’’我’’’部分’’立’我’爲’裔’國’’’普’’’’接’’’’’’正’由’我們’’’’’國’民給予’個國’’基礎’傳統’我們堅’’’’’’’對證’’’’’應有最’’’’’’避’傳’證據’排除’言蜚’’而’’’’我們’民’’’個基本’’ 

    不論’由’’’機’’橫’對’商’團體’’立’部’’調’’動’’’’’那’原’’’’’’個’’個’’’’’’言蜚’’’聽’說’未’’問’證詞’’污’原’’’’’踐踏’那麽我們’’’’實’我們關’民’’’’’

    我對’’’’’不疑’

 

This I DO carry in my head, Senator.

   I will do my best to make it clear. My convictions are not so much concerned with what Iam against as what I am for; and that excludes a lot of things automatically.

   Traditionally, democracy has been an affirmative doctrine rather than merely a negative one.

    I believe－and I conceive the Constitution of the United States to rest, as does religion, upon the fundamental proposition of the integrity of the individual; and that all government and all private institutions must be designed to promote and protect and defend the integrity and the dignity of the individual; that that is the essential meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as it is essentially the meaning of religion.

    Any form of government, therefore, and any other institutions which make men means rather than ends, which exalt the state or any other institutions above the importance of men, which place arbitrary power over men as a fundamental tenet of government are contrary to that conception, and, therefore, I am deeply op-posed to them.

    The communistic philosophy as well as the communistic form of government falls within this category, for their fundamental tenet is quite to the contrary. The fundamental tenet of communism is that the state is an end in itself, and that therefore the powers which the state exercises over the individual are without any ethical standard to limit them.

    That I deeply disbelieve.

    It is very easy simply to say that one is not a Communist. And, of course, if despite my record it is necessary for me to state this very affirmatively, then it is a great disappointment to me.

    It is very easy to talk about being against communism. It is equally important to believe those things which provide a satisfying and effective alternative. Democracy is that satisfying, affirmative alternative.

    Its hope in the world is that it is an affirmative belief, rather than being simply a belief against something else and nothing more.

    One of the tenets of democracy that grows out of this central core of a belief that the individual comes first, that all men are the children of God and that their personalities are therefore sacred, is a deep belief in civil liberties and their protection, and a repugnance to anyone who would steal from a human being that which is most precious to him－his good name－either by imputing things to him by innuendo or by insinuation. And it is especially an unhappy circumstance that occasionally that is done in the name of democracy. This, I think, can tear our country apart and destroy it if we carry it further.

    I deeply believe in the capacity of democracy to surmount any trials that may lie ahead, provided only that we practice it in our daily lives.

    And among the things we must practice is this: that while we seek fervently to ferret out the subversive and anti-democratic forces in the country, we do not at the same time, by hysteria, by resort to innuendo, and smears, and other unfortunate tactics, besmirch the very cause that we believe in, and cause a separation among our people－cause one group and one individual to hate another, based on mere attacks, mere unsubstantiated attacks upon their loyalty.

    I want also to add that part of my conviction is based on my training as an Anglo-American common lawyer. It is the very basis and the great heritage of the English people to this country, which we have maintained, that we insist on the strictest rules of credibility of witnesses and on the avoidance of hearsay, and that gossip shall be excluded, in the courts of justice. And that, too, is an essential of our democracy.

   Whether by administrative agencies acting arbitrarily against business organizations, or whether by investigating activities of legislative branches, whenever those principles fail, those principles of the protection of an individual and his good name against besmirchment by gossip, hearsay, and the statements of witnesses who are not subject to cross-examination－then, too, we have failed in carrying forward our ideals in respect to democracy.

   This I deeply believe.

’