ePub 版

Senator THURMOND. Now, I am not going to take a lot of time. I might just say to you in fairness to you, that the press in many instances, has not carried your statement or set out your reasons as you stated here in your statement. I observe you say here that you gave information to the AP, the UP, and television stations and radio stations, but in most cases they were not carried ?

Dr. BAILEY. Yes, sir.

I would like to make a point here if you don't mind which I think is also important. The men and women of the press, television, and radio, communications media, in general, the ones in the room, for example, are all as far as I know doing their job real well. They film what goes on, the reporters take down what they can learn and they send it up. But somewhere up the line, up top, the cuts are made. It is very interesting that the same things seem to be cut by different wire services or different television networks. It appears to me that someone up there does not want certain information disseminated to the public. The people at the grassroots level who are gathering the news, do a good job. So it is a few who are in high positions who appear to me to be doing this. I have talked with some of the men, for example, some of the wire service men who called me for a statement and things like this and I said "Well, I know it is not going out” and he would agree with me. But there is nothing he can do about it.

Senator THURMOND. In order words, you are not criticizing the working press?

Dr. BAILEY. Not at all.

Senator THURMOND. But you are criticizing those who make the policies in the sense of what does go out, is the effect of your statement ?

Dr. BAILEY. Exactly.

Senator THURMOND. I observe here that you state you requested equal time from the National Broadcasting Television Network to reply to the remarks of Senator Muskie and Representative O'Hara on television and you were never granted that.

Dr. BAILEY. That is right.
Senator THURMOND. Did you appeal to the FCC about that?

Dr. BAILEY. Well, I sent a copy of the original telegram to the FCC, thinking maybe that would spur them on, but apparently it didn't.

Senator THURMOND. Did you follow through with the FCC and demand that you get that equal time?

Dr. BAILEY. No, sir.

The first time I have been near a television camera was when all this came up. I am not particularly anxious to go before television. As things died down I thought perhaps it best to leave it.

Senator THURMOND. Of course, you understand I was for Mr. Nixon, you knew about that during the race because I think I stated that for a large part of the time.

Dr. BAILEY. Yes, sir, I did. Senator THURMOND. Now, I observe that a member of the New York Times wrote you for a copy of your statement and you expected him to present your view of it, at least, to the people so they would know why you took the action you did, but they never did do it, but merely wrote a derogatory editorial which presented only their view of the situation, was that correct?

Dr. BAILEY. Yes, sir.

The title of the editorial was "The Defector Elector." I have a copy of the letter which I sent to Mr. Hamilton here, if you would like it in the record. My idea here was to write a nice letter to him, and he sounded like a very reasonable man and I am sure he is, but for some reason, I don't have knowledge of my letter getting into his paper. But my idea here was to write a letter which would politely make him feel uncomfortable if he didn't.

Senator THURMOND. That is the gentleman from the New York Times !

Dr. BAILEY. Yes, Mr. John A. Hamilton. I have a copy.
Senator THURMOND. Would you like to put that in this record ?
Dr. BAILEY. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, he would like to put a copy of the letter he wrote the New York Times in the record.

Senator BAYH. We will be glad to put it in at this time and further observe that I will be very happy to put your entire statement in the Congressional Record which is disseminated all over the country so there is no question about this committee trying to preclude full dissemination of it. Dr. BAILEY. Thank you very much.


Rocky Mount, N.C., December 17, 1968. Mr. JOHN A. HAMILTON, Editorial Board, New York Times, Vero York, N.Y.

DEAR MR. HAMILTON : Thank you very much for your call this morning. I enjoyed talking with you. You impressed me as being a very reasonable person, and I appreciate your interest in learning the facts behind my decision to oppose Mr. Nixon. I feel that the action which I took requires an explanation and that the reasons for such action must be plausible ones which can be supported by documented evidence. It is my impression that my reasons meet these requirements. I think that the American people are entitled to know these reasons why I chose not to support Mr. Nixon in order that they might decide for themselves whether I was right or wrong. Of course, they will be unable to judge this fairly unless they have the facts. It seems reasonable to me that if my action was newsworthy that my reasons for the action should be reported by the news media as I wrote them. I am aware of the fact that there are many in this country who do not want this information generally known or understood, yet, it appears that if this country is to survive, someone who is in a position to do so is going to have to publish this information which might kindle enough interest to bring about the necessary changes. I sincerely hope that you concur with me in this.

I am enclosing a copy of my prepared statement for you to use as you wish. Being a political novice, it had not occurred to me that a formal statement would be necessary until I was deluged by telephone calls from different parts of the country and my congressional district after my intentions were announced in the local newspaper on the morning of the 15th. I hurriedly dictated it that night and it was typed only minutes before I drove to Raleigh to vote. As you may know, there are many more supporting facts which could have been included, but I think that there are enough here to present the case. My intent is constructive and I hope that it will serve a good purpose.

You expresesd an interest in the book by Dan Smoot, “The Invisible Government." I am enclosing a copy of it.

I shall be very interested to learn your feelings about this letter and my statement. Sincerely yours,


Senator THURMOND. And your statement never did appear in the New York Times, but only a derogatory editorial about your position; is that correct?

Dr. BAILEY. As far as I know. I went down and bought copies of the New York Times for about 10 days after I knew he had received this letter or after enough time had passed, and I looked through it every page, but if it was there it was pretty well hidden.

Senator THURMOND. Well, don't be too badly disappointed. That has happened to many others.

Dr. BAILEY. Yes, sir, I know. [Laughter.]

Senator THURMOND. You also gave your position to various other news media which never did properly present your view, as I understand it, maybe some of your local papers or stations.

Dr. BAILEY. Yes.

I was asked by a North Carolina television station, for example, to prepare a brief statement. The same thing which I considered to be important, references to Republics, democracies, Vietnam war, and American aid to the enemy were left out. You can't always say these things were intentional. There could always be a shortage of time in presenting things and I can understand certainly this is the case many times. But the thing that struck me was the fact that these same things were cut wherever I gave them.

Here is a copy of that statement which has never been in print. It has many of the same things that I read to you today from this one, many of the things in this statement came from prior statements. Here is a copy of that if you would like to have it.

Here is a copy of the telegram.
Senator THURMOND. Do you want any of these put into this record ?

Dr. BAILEY. Well, yes, sir. Probably it is pertinent to this. It does emphasize the point I am trying to make about that.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent they go in if there is no objection.

Senator Bayh. Without objection.
Dr. BAILEY. Here is a copy of a telegram.

Senator THURMOND. Select those you want to go in along with your statement today. They will be put in the record.

Dr. BAILEY. Thank you, sir.

OFFICIAL DEFINITION OF DEMOCRACY Here are four (4) fac simile section reproductions taken from a 156 page book officially compiled and issued by the U.S. War Department, November 30, 1928, setting forth exact and truthful definitions of a Democracy and of a Republic, explaining the difference between both. These definitions were published by the authority of the United States Government and must be accepted as authentic in any court of proper jurisdiction.

These precise and scholarly definitions of a Democracy and a Republic were carefully considered as a proper guide for U.S. soldiers and U.S. citizens by the Chief of Staff of the United States Army. Such definitions take precedence over any "definition” that may be found in the present commercial dictionaries which have suffered periodical "modification" to please “the powers in office."

Shortly after the "bank holiday" in the thirties, hush-hush orders from the White House suddenly demanded that all copies of this book be withdrawn from the Government Printing Office and the Army posts, to be suppressed and destroyed without explanation.

This was the beginning of the complete red control of the Government from scithin, not from without. (No. 1 fac simile)

TM 2000-25


WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, November 30, 1928.

Prepared under direction of the Chief of Staff

This manual supersedes Manual of Citizenship Training
The use of the publication "The Constitution of the United States," by Harry
Atrood, is by permission and courtesy of the author.

The source of other references is shown in the bibliography. (No. 2 fac simile)

TM 2000-25

118-120 CITIZENSHIP Democracy: A government of the masses.

Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.

Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic-negating property rights.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

(No. 3 facsimile)
TM 2000–25


Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individuals rights, and a sensible economic procedure.

Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form” of government throughout the world.

A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of (1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.-Atwood.

121. Superior to all others.-Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority cannot be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.

Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.

Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy *** and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.”

(No. 4 facsimile)
(A.G. 014.33 (4-28-28).]
By order of the Secretary of War:


Major General, Chief of Staff. Official: LUTZ WAHL, Major General, The Adjutant General.

Why DEMOCRACIES FAIL A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.

(Written by Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago while our thirteen original states were still colonies of Great Britain. At the time he was writing of the decline and fall of the Athenian Republic over two thousand years before.)-Reprinted from the Freeman Magazine.

Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said republic !" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy.

It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegena. tion. graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive.

By Westbrook Pegler in the New York Journal American of January 25th and 26th, 1951, under the titles "Upholds Republic of U.S. Against Phony Democracy" and "Democracy in the U.S. Branded Meaningless."

1 copy 10c, 20 copies 1.00, 50 copies 2.00 Send check or money order to:


WRAL-TV CHANNEL 5 VIEWPOINT An Editorial Expression of the Voice of Free Enterprise in Raleigh-Durham

Jesse Helms, Executive Vice President and Vice Chairman of the Board All last year-even up until Monday of this week—the country was repeatedly beseiged with hysterical outcries that the Electoral College system was sure eventually to throw the republic into a Constitutional crisis, and that we might have to live for weeks, or even months, without knowing who the next President would be.

It was calculated nonsense, of course, but a lot of otherwise sensible citizens were taken in by it nevertheless. A lot of people believe without stopping to think about it—that the Electoral College system is "outmoded” and “unfair". because this is what they have been repeatedly told.

The truth of the matter is that, while not perfect, the Electoral College system has served—and continues to serve the very purpose our Founding Fathers intended for it. It stands as a restraining wall against the easy establishment of political mob rule which, in politer terms, is referred to as an “unrestricted democracy".

It is no accident, certainly, that the fondest dream of the leftwing set in America has been—for three decades or more to destroy the Electoral College system completely. The strategy has been to do it in nibbles, one proposed "re ētiffi2 mūņēm2?Â2Òâmēģ22/\/2ū2 ưģ2 22 /2/2/2/2 /2/2/2ūti2ti2m22ņēmēņ2ti2m2/2/2/2ņģētiòtiffi§Â2Ò2Âò§2ņēmēģ

« 上一頁繼續 »