to know what they are entitled to know and, affirmatively, we are in favor of anything that will further that right of the public to know and a realization of that right.

One of the most important committees in the American Newspaper Publishers Association is its Federal laws committee. It could more properly be called its freedom of information committee. That committee maintains a vigilant attitude not only in the Federal area, but at the State and local level, and acts in cooperation with other organizations, notably the American Society of Newspaper Editors who, of course, live closely in their day-to-day work in this area to the problems that arise in it. They do this at the so-called publisher level. But the ANPA, as I said, is concerned with any restraint or reluctance on the part of government, at any level-Federal, State, or localwhich results in a lessening of the public's right to information and the actual flow of that information.

I would like to make clear that we do not contend that every action of every governmental body is entitled to public exposure. We recognize there must be some things in the interest of national security that must remain secret and there is therefore, of course, a basis for some secrecy and some use of the Executive discretion. But it is the abuse of these which has been brought out here so fully by these other gentlemen this morning that we are concerned with and we address ourselves to.

One of the things we have done which may be of interest to your committee, in cooperation with the American Society of Newspaper Editors during the past year was to try to make realistic this right of the public to information. As you know, it is a subject which has been talked about over the years, but we have tried to make it actual by getting members of the legislature here, Congress, to include in bills which they introduce an affirmative right of the public to information. It is almost strange to me, but this has never been done before certainly not in a concerted way. I am glad to say the efforts have been gratifying. There have been a few Members of Congress who have said "no" or have tried to walk the other way when the matter was taken up with them; but, by and large, there is cooperation and seemingly recognition on the part of Congress, "Here is a good, practical idea to get something done specifically." There is also talk, as you know, of an omnibus statute. Newspapermen debate whether the omnibus method would be as good as a specific guaranty in each bill. The ANPA would, of course, favor both because we cannot have too many guaranties in this area.

I would like to point out that the press and the ANPA, specifically, of course claim no special privilege, no special right. I say that in view particularly of comments I am going to make in a moment or two. It may be that in the old days members of the press acted as though they had a special privilege or talked that way-but that day has gone. They realize that whatever right the press has is a public right and when members of the press today, whether individually or as associations, seek information or press for it, under the guaranties of freedom of the press, I can assure you they are conscions that they are exercising a public right, or acting in the public right and certainly not in a private commercial right. We are simply citizens actively enaged in the conduct of a public right; we are individual trustees of a public right.

Now, in my own experience, in the American Newspaper Publishers Association, in the past year and a half I have had certain opinions of things that definitely stand out to me. The first is that there is a general quickening of the public consciousness of this matter of freedom of information. I suppose in the old days it was a favorite topic that every gathering of newspapermen talked about publicly and I suppose a good many speeches fell on deaf ears, or the public thought it was just some special position and thinking. But there is great evidence today that the public has really caught on to the fact that the Government's business is its business.

Newspapers, periodicals, radio, television have, of course, quickened the interest of the public in recent years in governmental affairs. What has been going on in the world has naturally caused the public to take an increased interest in what has been going on and what their Government has been doing and how the lives of their sons and other members of their families may be affected if the Government does not act in a way they might themselves act. So there is not only a quickened interest of the public in news; but, as I said a moment ago, the public is definitely alert to this freedom of the press-to this right of the public to know.

I was reading a statement in some of the newspapers and they seemed to feel that is still a right of the press. That is not the experience of those who are active in the American Newspaper Publishers Association. I mention that particularly because I think it gives special importance to the hearings and investigations which this committee has undertaken. On the other hand, it is a matter of deep concern not only to the public but with the public at this time.

The second thing I notice and in this association that the ANPA has noticed, is a quickened resistance in officialdom to releasing some information. The men who are active on that front-editors, reporters and the heads of associations some of whom have spoken here this morning, can, of course, speak with greater specificness than I can; but the attitude is there. I am sorry to say there are too many members of the Government at all levels-it is not confined to the Federal level— that wish their connection with the press could be confined to cocktail parties at the Gridiron Club and just go away many times, because most people like to be thought well of and like to have said of them only things that will make them look better. I suppose that is human nature. But certainly it should not be the official attitude to try to give emphasis to the things which will cast a favorable light and to hide, or make difficult to know, things which might make their department or the official stand seemingly in less favor, or at least be open to criticism.

I believe and I believe you do-that the actions of the administration determine the public attitude. I think, therefore, your committee might wish to look into some of the attitudes and I can speak of one specifically from within the Government. Recently the American Newspaper Publishers Association was sued by the present administration, by the Department of Justice. That suit resulted from an investigation started a year and a half earlier, with a request to the ANPA and some other prospective defendants, to have their records open to inspection by the FBI. That permission, of course, was granted. At the same time, the officers of the ANPA went to the Department of Justice and said "You are not going to have any

trouble with us; you do not have to worry about us. You people saw the law changed in the last 10 years. If there is anything we are doing that we should not do, or should do, we will be the first to changethe first one to change it. You won't have to spend the taxpayers' money or waste the time of your staff; we will get together on this matter and, if there is anything to change, we will change it."

We made this specific request of Mr. Brownell and his assistant, Mr. Barnes-that before any action was taken there would be a discussion with them; indeed, before any definitive decisions were made, that there would be a discussion with us, so that we might consider moves that would fully clear up whatever needed to be cleared up in view of any changes which had taken place in the law, so that public expense might be spared and, on the other hand, that the press-at least an important arm of the press-might not have to go forward with some kind of injunctive control hanging over its head. We made those promises, which were rejected. So you can imagine it was a matter of very great surprise and concern when, about 10 months later, we received a telephone call from Mr. Barnes stating that the ANPA was going to be sued. I refreshed his memory and had a meeting with Mr. Brownell and Mr. Barnes and they must have known, because their attitude was very simple, very firm, that the ANPA had a choice either of accepting suit, or to sit down and negotiate a consent decree. There was no interest in trying to make sure they had the facts correct; no interest in seeking some other solution which might lessen the possible jeopardy to the public interest. There it was. And that has given us great concern.

As I said a few moments ago, we believe that actions frequently result from attitudes. We have been unable to tell whether that kind of attitude, which was so sudden, which was not in accordance with the understanding, as we understood it, which said to citizens "You cannot talk with us, even though we are your servants, unless you agree with us and, in effect, submit to it." We could not tell whether that stemmed from a desire to cut the cards or somebody thought it was politically expedient for the Republican administration to sue the press, when a former head of the Democratic Party, a former President, had referred to the press as a "one-party press" or "controlled press"; or whether it represented some desire to have some kind of control of the press in the future through a constant threat of action to condemn if an injunction resulted from the litigation, or whether it represented just an attitude of hostility in some departments toward the press.

Whether there is anything in that situation that merits concern of that kind that might be a precedent, or whether it was just a routine action on the part of the Department of Justice, we are going to try to find out; because we are going to try to settle that action and if the Department of Justice has no prejudice against the press, is interested solely in the legal concepts of the American Newspaper Publishers Association, and is mindful of the perhaps basic right of checking to determine what is involved, that suit will be settled. And then there will be no basis for any concern with which that action is involved of this possible hostile attitude toward the press. So we shall see how that goes and invite that to the attention of your committee. We are, of course, not asking any interest in that case on the part of

your committee, that is presently in the courts, but invite your attention to our efforts to settle.

We are particularly anxious, as we stated to the Department, that there be no idea that anything connected with the business affairs of the press, that we are pleading "freedom of the press" or claiming any freedom from accountability or responsibility; but we are concerned that no Government official either now or in the future can think, "Well, after all, we can at least take a flyer at the press, because an injunction is standing against one of the important arms," and therefore be inclined to take an attitude toward the press which they might not otherwise take. It is our belief they plan to prosecute that case in a way that will build up a form of public interest.

Those are just a few thoughts I had in this area of investigation and discussion.

I would like to offer the help of the American Newspaper Publishers Association in any specific material we might have that you would be interested in, and our willingness to be responsive at any time as your study progresses.

I thank you.

Mr. Moss. Thank you, Mr. Slocum. I want to assure you that this committee will be seeking the assistance of the press. We regard this as a mutual study.

We will now hear from Mr. Guy Easterly, publisher of the La Follette (Tenn.) Press, chairman of the freedom of information committee of the National Editorial Association.

STATEMENT OF GUY EASTERLY, PUBLISHER, LA FOLLETTE (TENN.) PRESS

Mr. EASTERLY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am Guy Easterly, owner-publisher of a weekly newspaper at La Follette, Tenn. For several years I have been actively interested in access to information under the general term of "freedom of information," or "freedom of the press. I have been active in the National Editorial Association freedom of information committee and am, at the present time, the chairman of this committee. I am not representing this association, nor its FOI committee at this study. I am acting purely on a personal basis by invitation of your committee. And although I am not representing any organization, I believe my weekly newspaper is representative of the operation of some 8,200 other weekly newspapers in the United States.

The place of the small weekly newspaper at the community level, or at the grassroots of our system of free government, has been described by someone as the "backbone of democracy." I shall try to sketch briefly its relation to the Federal Government.

The citizens in the circulation area of my newspaper come in contact with some 10 to 12 Federal agencies in their daily lives. No longer are the people of the many small communities across the Nation isolated from their Government, as they once were. They are at all times cognizant of its long arms. To deny them information concerning its intentions, its rules, its actions, is to deny them the right to participate in a free government. To the extent to which this is denied, to that extent they are not a free people.

Among the agencies or arms of Government in which the people of my community come in daily contact are the Atomic Energy Commission (many people of my area work at Oak Ridge), the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Internal Revenue Department, the Federal Bureau of Information, the Naval Reserve, the Army Reserve, a radar post, our national banks, the Bureau of Mines, and naturally, the United States Post Office.

The weekly newspaper not only is in the area of Federal Government, but it must have also State, county, and municipal, for which it is responsible for news to its readers. We would not fail to place the suppression of news in any of these categories on the same plane as those of the Federal Government and its agencies. I believe the fight against the suppression of news is a continuing one. It began in this Nation, I believe, under the administration of George Washington. It has continued, to a more or less degree, under all succeeding administrations. Perhaps this fight will never be wholly won. But committees, such as yours, and alert newsmen, can do a lot toward minimizing the evil of suppressed news.

In many cases, I believe, Federal bureaus which withhold news are manned by men who were allowed to withhold news when they were municipal, county, or State officials, back in their own homes in small communities. Perhaps an alert weekly press would make it easier for our big city cousins if we fought this fight harder at the grassroots. As I see it, the very basic foundation of our free government is the right of the people to know. I believe we were guaranteed this right in the first amendment to our Federal Constitution. And while we have no particular cases of suppression of information to report, I do know many such cases occur. I believe under constitutional law we have a due process to rectify such disregard or abatement of the right of the people to know. I hope we can bring about a due regard for this law.

Believing as I do in freedom of information, I realize there are requirements of national military safety. I believe all weekly (or country) newspaper editors realize this phase. I remember that during the building of Oak Ridge some 15 weekly editors in the area gave strict regard to this secret, so that it was the "best-kept secret of the war."

Quoting the Statement of Principles of the Freedom of Information Committee of the National Editorial Association:

The right of the people to know is basic to the preservation of our freedom and fundamental to our American way of life. The infringement of this right, whether by Government or by groups or by individuals, no matter in what measure it may begin, will lead to tyranny and to the death of liberty.

Mr. Moss. Thank you, Mr. Easterly.

Now in order to accommodate a member of the panel who has an appointment, I would like at this time to call on Mr. Joseph Alsop, Jr., Washington columnist and author.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH ALSOP, JR., WASHINGTON COLUMNIST AND AUTHOR

Mr. ALSOP. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I feel I can make only one and very small contribution to this panel.

69222-56