Dorothy Thompson

Salt Lake Tribune/January 19, 1941

The protection of the democratic process demands more than allegiance to its outer forms. It demands the strictest loyalty to its inner purposes, lest we “redouble our zeal as we lose sight of our aims.” Indications of degeneration are there when the forms and habits fail to fulfill the function for which they were designed; when, for instance, the law through its infinite complications and pedantries becomes an instrument for covering rather than punishing crime; or free speech becomes distorted into a weapon of blackmail and intimidation; or free assembly becomes a means of organizing open conspiracies against the structure and purpose of the state.

This holds, also, for the process of government itself. All over the world, the party system, which grew up as one instrument of democracy, has been carried to such lengths of partisanship that it has contributed to the wrecking of democracy.

That was true in Germany under the republic. That was true in Italy before fascism; that was true in France and was a factor contributing to her collapse.

President Washington was so afraid of it that he hoped never to see a party system emerge in our democracy. He was particularly afraid of it during times of international disturbance and crisis, such as that of his second administration, and the famous Farewell Address is almost wholly devoted to the dangers to a republic arising from the disease of faction.

The first instinct, therefore, of a threatened republic—if the instincts have remained sound—is to abandon party strife in time of emergency and create governments of national concentration with unified command.

Constitution Gains World Admiration

The American constitution has excited the admiration of scholars for a century because of the exceptional strength that it gives to the executive in dealing with foreign affairs and emergency situations – which makes him, for instance, the commander in chief of the army and navy and which secures his office for a fixed tenure of years against the moods and changes of the legislative body and against the inevitable factionalism of that body.

It is this feature of the constitution as much as any that has enabled us time and again in our history to achieve a necessary concentration of authority without violating or circumventing the constitution and which has assured us a more perfect continuity of historical development than that of any other republic except, perhaps, the Swiss.

And again, in all the minor functions of government, a clear concept of purposes is a guide against pitfalls.

This holds for legislative hearings. The purpose of holding hearings is to afford a means whereby the members of congress may receive facts and information which will help them to frame intelligent legislation.

It is a purpose, however, which has often been completely or partially ignored. The congressional hearing has become in our days an instrument whereby interested groups are afforded a rostrum from which to make partisan speeches and a means of pillorying and intimidating groups and persons whose public prosecution—without benefit of counsel and with the exclusion of all the rules of evidence—is a means of furnishing the public with a confirmation of current prejudices.

Congress Has Right To Hear Opinions

These thoughts are induced by the hearings on the lend-lease bill now in progress. Certainly the congress is justified in giving this bill their most earnest consideration. But the object of the hearing is to produce light and clarity, not to furnish a platform for a confusing public debate in which partisanship and acrimony can be stirred up In the face of the world to the delight of those foreign nations who wish nothing more than confusion and division in this country for their own purposes.

It is fitting and proper that the congress should hear those who are unquestionably qualified to testify on constitutional matters and regarding the state of the world at this time.

It is well that the committee should hear the secretary of state, the representatives of the department of war and navy and outside citizens whose views are worthy of consideration because they possess some special Information and knowledge.

In this class fall naturally such diplomatic representatives as are available in this country.

But here again the committee should take account of the wisdom of discretion. It would seem that Mr. Hull, as secretary of state and the recipient of the reports of all of his ambassadors and as ultimately responsible for them, were alone qualified to speak for his department.

In looking over the list of some of the persons whose testimony is to be solicited, one sees names of those who certainly cannot cast more light than they have already shed.

I do not know what more General Johnson, or Mr. Roy Howard, or Colonel Lindbergh can contribute to the enlightenment of the senators than they have already publicly contributed. It is as foolish and as time-wasting to call them as it would be, for instance, to call Mr. Herbert Agar or Miss Dorothy Thompson.

There ars others called whose testimony can only be a means of airing a partisan and inexpert viewpoint—for instance, Mr. Verne Marshall or Mr. Thomas Dewey.

Many Who Have Real Information

On the other hand, there are many persons who have been reticent about opinions but who do possess exceptional and disinterested knowledge which might be of great value to the committee.

I think, for instance, of two journalists who are not, nor have been, engaged in forming opinions, but who are as certainly possessed of as exceptional knowledge and information as any diplomat. I think of Mr. Otto Tolischius, for 20 odd years correspondent of The New York Times in Berlin, and of Mr. William Schirer, until very recently the Columbia Broadcasting company’s reporter in the same capital, who also possesses knowledge gained from 20 years’ residence and study in central Europe.

It would also seem to me—if what the committee is seeking is expert opinion end not ammunition for partisan policies determined upon in advance—that the committee could well afford to hear Mr. Hamilton Fish Armstrong, who, as editor of Foreign Affairs, the magazine exclusively devoted to the subject of its title, possesses more overall information than many a diplomat and whose impeccability of character and moderation in judgment are known to all his associates.

For surely the object of these hearings is to generate light, not heat, to give the committee access to facts, not prejudices, to be a means of assistance to wise judgment, not to take a poll of opinion, to be a seminar, not a debating forum.

For when the functions of government become confused in purpose they cease to operate for the general welfare, and if they fail too radically the whole structure is threatened. Everybody on the committee will agree on one thing—that we live in a crisis of unprecedented proportions in which boldness, vigor, wisdom and the greatest possible amount of factual knowledge are all required.