administration supported by the oil lobby. I introduced legislation to prohibit this but these same interests were able to kill it. The fight was continued on the floor of the House where I opposed the extension of the treaties which permitted such importation. While we could not kill this legislation completely, we did limit its extension to 1 more year. I am confident that a Republican Con

gress will put an end to this disastrous practice next January.

I am using my efforts to have an Internal Revenue Service field office established in Kingston.

The United Mine Workers Journal said the Eisenhower administration is doing something definite to help the ailing coal industry:

Increasing Government concern over the sagging economy of the American coal industry, which threatens the national security in case of war, has brought concrete action by Uncle Sam in the announcement that 10 million tons of anthracite and bituminous coal will be purchased by the Federal Government for shipment, under the economic aid program, to fuel-short Allied Nations in Europe and Asia.

I am pleased to have an active part in revitalizing the anthracite coal industry. With the continued cooperation of the coal mine workers, it is hoped that the coal industry will regain its market and bring increased employment to the people of Luzerne County.

Several conferences have also been arranged by me with the President and Cabinet members for our community business leaders to discuss our situation. I have personally discussed various concrete propoals, with the President, Secretary of Defense Wilson, and Mobilization Director Flemming. They have assured me that everything possible will be done to aid our community and plans are currently being studied to devise an active program to accomplish this end. The President told me, however, that he wants a long-range, sound program and not half-baked measures designed to get a few votes. I think we will all agree with Ike on this.

During the past 20 years, many temporary solutions were tried; look what they resulted in. I am confident that we will see great changes in the next few years of the Republican administration-changes which will build for the future and not for election day.

I also made a protest over the alleged removal of our social-security offices to Baltimore, only to verify that the local newspaper, carrying the story, had not published the truth. Mrs. Oveta Culp Hobby, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, called me personally to tell me that the story was untrue. Actually, my Democratic predecessor voted both in the Appropriations Committee and on the floor of the House to construct the new building in Baltimore. Mrs. Hobby has told me that, under revised plans, they will be moving only old papers and records to the new building and that Luzerne County will not lose any jobs. She has stated that the President, deeply concerned with our community, does not want anything done which will hurt us.

CONCLUSION

I regret that this report is all too brief, as I feel that you are all entitled to know what went on in Washington. However, because I am circulating this at my own expense, I must, of necessity, keep it short. If any of you have any questions about my activities, I shall be glad to answer them for you. It has been a high honor to serve Luzerne County in this office, and I sincerely hope

that I have fulfilled the confidence which you placed in me.

Bob Crosser

SPEECH

OF

HON. WRIGHT PATMAN

OF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, August 20, 1954

Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, ROBERT CROSSER, who is retiring at the end of his credit. I have never known a Memthe 83d Congress, has a great record to ber of Congress to have such a conscientious feeling about his duty to his constituents. It has been my privilege to serve with BOB CROSSER 251⁄2 years, and during that time, I have been closely associated with him. His every thought and action, as a true Representative of the people of his district, were in consideration of whether or not they would redound to the benefit and help of the people he represented. In order to effectively represent his people, it was necessary that he have a fine working relationship with his colleagues in the by yielding his beliefs and principles in House. This he succeeded in doing-not any respect, but by fair dealings, loyalty, and faithful performance of duty. Such a Member always has the admiration and respect of his colleagues, and no Member was admired or respected more by Democrats and Republicans than BOB CROSSER. He was always on the side of right and never, knowingly, on the side of wrong. His quick, intelligent mind and tremendous backlog of knowledge and information caused him to be one of the most powerful Members of Congress.

BOB was an able debater and was always fair and honorable. He did more for the retired railroad worker than all the rest of the Congress combined while he was serving. He was our leader in that fight, and without his vigorous and intelligent leadership, the railroad workers would probably not have the most generous and favorable retirement system in the United States today.

Bов was also a great friend of independent business, particularly, small business. He was always fighting for rights and benefits for the workers, veterans, aged, and particularly, the classes and groups of people who did not have special representatives in Washington to look after their interests.

Although BOB CROSSER has retired, I am sure he will be called upon many

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, August 20, 1954

Mr. GAMBLE. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted by the House I present for insertion in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the following editorial published in the New York Times on August 20, 1954, titled "Victory on the Farm Front":

VICTORY ON THE FARM FRONT

The passage of the conference version of major victory, in principle, for the concept the new agricultural-support bill means a of flexible farm price supports. Instead of being forced to support such prices at 90 percent of that mythical concept, parity, the administration will have a choice of support prices down to 82.5 percent of parity for 5 crops-cotton, wheat, corn, peanuts, and rice. It is disappointing, of course, that the President was not able to get the minimum support price reduced to 75 percent of parity, as he originally desired, but even the compromise version represents a welcome defeat for the most obstinate members of the congressional farm bloc.

That this partial victory has been won is a credit not only to President Eisenhower but also to Secretary of Agriculture Benson. Mr. Benson's refusal to surrender in the face of heavy political pressure, his insistence that economic necessity could not be junked merely for political advantage, and his patient explanatory work to Congress and to farmers all form a pattern which we might wish followed by all major members of the President's team.

Welcome as is this recognition of the principle of flexible supports, the new law is no cure-all for our present and future farm problems. We have $6,500,000,000 worth of farm products in Government storage, and ways must be found to get these products into the channels of consumption. In the case of several major crops, even the lowest support level permitted by the new legislation will require continued Government control over production and measures that ultimately tell farmers how much they may grow and how much they may sell. The real goal, toward which only the first step

has now been taken, is an American agriculture economically strong, with adequate domestic and foreign markets for its produce, so that neither Government bounty nor Government regulation is required.

A Tribute to a Great Humanitarian

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. JOHN W. McCORMACK

OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, August 20, 1954

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I wish to say that I cannot let this House adjourn without spreading on the RECORD an expression of the high esteem in which I hold one of our distinguished colleagues, the Honorable PETER W. RODINO, JR., of the 10th New Jersey District. It is a feeling which I know is shared by all Members of this House, Republicans as well as Democrats.

Although he is young in years, I know of no Member of Congress of either party who has greater ability than Mr. RODINO, or who has used his abilities more diligently in the interest of his constituents and of our beloved country.

As minority whip, moreover, I can testify few Members have been more conscientious in attendance at sessions of the House or at committee meetings and hearings than our young friend from New Jersey. I need not remind you, Mr. Speaker, how important this conscientiousness is in the conduct of the affairs of this House or in the passage of legislation, for you were minority leader in this House for many years, and no doubt have had many occasions when you wished that your party colleagues were as diligent in the performance of their duties as our young friend from New Jersey has been in his.

It is not, however, of Mr. RODINO's ability or of his devotion to duty that I wish to speak today. It is, rather, to his great heart, his warm human sympathies, his deep humanitarianism that I wish to pay tribute. For PETER RODINO, more than any other Congressman I have ever met in all the many years I have been in Congress, has revealed repeatedly that in his every action, his every word, he is guided and governed by a desire to help his fellow man and especially those men, women, and children who dwell in the 10th District of New Jersey.

I could cite innumerable examples of how Mr. RODINO has revealed this trait in his daily performance as a Member of this House. I daresay that you, too, Mr. Speaker, could also cite additional examples of his humanitarianism that have come to your attention. But for the sake of brevity it probably would be better to dwell for a moment on only one.

This was the case of John Hvasta. Although the rescue of this young American soldier from behind the Iron Curtain

has been emblazoned on the front pages of all our daily newspapers and has been told many times over the radio and on the television screen, I doubt if, notwithstanding this enormous publicity, a sufficient number of people realize that the prime mover in the rescue of Hvasta, indeed for a long time the only American who concerned himself with Hvasta's fate, was PETER RODINO.

As a colleague of Mr. RODINO, however, I have had an unusual opportunity to know how much Mr. RODINO did in this case and also why he did it.

As we all know know, John Hvasta was the son of naturalized American parents of Czech birth. A veteran of World War II, during which he had fought valiantly for the preservation of the democracy of the land his parents had adopted, Hvasta was in Czechoslovakia after the war on a visit, when he was arrested by the Communists as a spy. He was thrown into jail and, without a trial, or given one of those travesties of justice that the Communists call trials, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison as an American spy.

As soon as he learned of this outrage, my good friend Represenative RODINO sprang into action. It mattered not that Hvasta and his parents did not live in Mr. RODINO's own district but lived rather in Hillside, N. J., outside the 10th District; the fact that a fellow American was in trouble and was being abused by the Communists was sufficient.

Indeed, it is these two factors in the case that give us the key to PETER RODINO'S character. The first factor was that a fellow human being was in trouble. The second was that an American was being mistreated by Communists. These two elements of the case fused in PETER

RODINO two outstanding characteristics: his love for his fellow man and his hatred

of communism.

Spurred by these two great emotions, Representative RODINO lost no time in starting his campaign to obtain Hvasta's freedom. He went to the State Department, he went to the White House, he went to the press, he took to the air over the radio. Day after day, until his efforts were finally crowned with success, he devoted all his great talents and energies to the cause of John Hvasta. And he never let up until he saw with his own eyes that Hvasta was freed from the Communist grip and was reunited with his parents in Hillside, N. J.

I wish to emphasize, however, that while the Hvasta case captured the headlines, it in no way represented all that Representative RODINO has done for people. I know, because I have made it my duty to know how all our Congressmen conduct their affairs, that Representative RODINO has been tireless in serving his constituents. No errand is too trivial, no trouble is too great for this young Congressman, if by performing this errand or incurring this trouble he can benefit one of his constituents. And, incidentally, I might add that the political faith of the constituent is never a consideration to Representative

RODINO when he is called upon for help. Republicans as well as Democrats have reason to be grateful that in Congress they are represented by PETER RODINO and that in PETER RODINO they have a friend.

This House is about to adjourn. Soon all of its Members will be scattered all over the country, back in their home districts. Among them will be PETER RODINO. Although you, Mr. Speaker, and I, myself, will be back in our home districts, I am sure since I have known you for many years, that you must share with me a wish for something that is quite unattainable. That wish is that I be allowed to accompany Representative RODINO among his constituents when he returns to his district. I would like to make this trip because it would give me great pleasure to see the warm, friendly greeting his constituents are certain to give to PETER RODINO when he walks among them again. I am confident that this will be their feeling because, just as all his friends here in Congress have responded to Representative RODINO'S deep human sympathies, so must the people of his district, who know him even better than we do, give him their friendship and appreciation.

While it will be impossible for me to be with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. RODINO] when he returns to his home in New Jersey, I am confident, nevertheless, that I shall see him again soon. For, when Congress reconvenes in January, I am sure that, thanks to the good sense of the intelligent, discerning voters of the 10th New Jersey Congressional District, PETER RODINO will have been reelected as a reward for his splendid service and will be back here for another 2 years as a Member of this House.

Report to My Constituents in the Sixth Congressional District of Maryland

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. DEWITT S. HYDE

OF MARYLAND

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Friday, August 20, 1954

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, at the close of my first term in Congress I feel it is my duty to make a report of my voting record to the voters of the Sixth Congressional District of Maryland. An analysis of this report will show that I cast my vote on every bill that was brought to a vote except one which involved water control of Lake Michigan. I missed this vote because I was absent from the city on official business as a member of a special committee studying immigration and labor problems in the Virgin Islands.

Following is the itemized statement of my complete voting record for the 2d session of the 83d Congress:

Description and vote

My vote

Yea.

Nay.

Yea.

Nay.

Nay.

Yea.

Edward J. Hart

SPEECH

OF

HON. WRIGHT PATMAN

OF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Friday, August 20, 1954

Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, ED HART is retiring as a Member of Congress at the end of this Congress. He will never retire from public service because ED will continue to be in the harness working in the public good as long as he lives; he is just that type citizen and devoted servant of the people.

It has been my privilege to work with ED HART on a number of important congressional matters. ED is entitled to a lion's share of the credit for the passage of the Maximum Employment Act of 1946. He was on the committee that considered the proposal and assisted in getting the bill favorably reported by the committee and assisted in getting the bill passed by the House of Representatives, which resulted in the bill becoming a law. It is now one of the laws that is recognized as containing more of our Government's economic policy than any other law that has ever been enacted. ED HART was a member of the Joint Committee on the Economic Report since its organization 8 years ago. This committee has made a number of wonderful and lasting contributions to the economy of our Nation.

He has always been an aggressive, vigorous fighter in the interest of the plain people of the country and just as hard a fighter against special interests and benefits for a few. He demonstrated his loyalty to the little man, the small-business man, the independent merchant, and for the competitive free-enterprise system. He was a bitter foe of monopoly and always an effective watchman for the people.

The people of his district were fortunate in having a Representative like ED HART. His record as a Member of Congress proves conclusively that the people who elected him have a right. to be very proud of the type service he has rendered and the fine Representative that he has made. ED HART is highly regarded and admired by all of the Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who served with him.

I personally regret very much to see him leave as I have learned to depend upon him for guidance and advice. Although he does not expect to continue

as a Member of Congress, I understand he will continue in public service, and we expect to see him on Capitol Hill from time to time and as often as possible.

How Free Is Formosa?

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. WALTER H. JUDD

OF MINNESOTA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, August 20, 1954

Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, when Japan attacked China in July 1937, most of the alleged western experts on China shook their heads and announced gloomily that the new Chinese Government under Chiang Kai-shek could not last 6 months against Japan's superior arms, industry, organization, and so forth. Yet it held out 8 long years, not only against Japan, but against a constant barrage of charges and criticisms from powerful forces in America and China's other supposed allies. These criticisms and predictions of disaster followed a quite uniform pat

essential fact that American aid to other countries is not based primarily on whether they are good enough to deserve our help, but on whether American boys deserve the better chance to live that they will have if those countries are free and on our side than our boys will have if those countries are not free and on our side.

The most universally respected Chinese of our century is Dr. Hu Shih. He is primarily a Chinese scholar, historian, and philosopher, and has never been a member of the Kuomintang, the dominant political party in free China, although he was drafted to be China's Ambassador to the United States from 1938 to 1942. Moreover, Chiang Kai-shek sought to have Dr. Hu elected as the first President of China after its constitution was adopted in 1947, but his health would from another extended visit to Formosa, not permit. He has recently returned and if anyone is confused as to the truth about conditions there, Dr. Hu's report can be accepted without question as the most accurate and trustworthy. He has no political ax to grind, no enemies or

rivals to discredit, and no personal actions to rationalize or seek to justify. cent charges, freedoms have been gradDr. Hu declares that, contrary to reually expanded on Formosa despite a state of war and the constant threats of Communist attack and infiltration. The

and assistance of the sort we were giving Greece, Turkey, France, England, and a dozen others.

Despite all the attacks and the resulting withdrawal of effective American assistance for 4 years, July 1946 to July 1950, the Government of China still lives-17 years after it was supposed to collapse. Furthermore, on Formosa, it moves steadily ahead toward better government-more competent, more efficient, more democratic, more concerned for the well-being of its people. Its progress has been uneven, but as consistent as that of any government in Asia even though its basic problems are more difficult than any other country's, with the exception of war-torn Korea.

Recently the attacks designed to discredit the Nationalist Government have been stepped up again in our country, principally in the so-called liberal press, and, perhaps significantly, at about the same time as Communist spokesmen throughout the world have resumed their propaganda assaults. The attacks follow the same old sure-fire line-that Chiang's government is a police state and does not deserve our help. That approach diverts our attention from the

follows:

HOW FREE IS FORMOSA?
(By Hu Shih)

Recently, within a single month, there appeared two contradictory estimates of the

state of freedom in Formosa. In the May 17 issue of the Freeman we read these statements by Rodney Gilbert, who had just returned from 31⁄2 years' residence in Formosa:

"An inspection of Formosa today reveals that the 8 or 9 million Chinese now on the island are getting the best government that any part of China has had for many generations-the freest, most efficient, and, yes, most honest...

*

"As for common, ordinary freedom of speech-unthinkable in any Communist country-nobody on Taiwan (Formosa) who has a critical word to say about this or that Government person or policy ever has to give a thought to possible eavesdroppers. ** "There is no censorship of news, incoming or outgoing. * • Correspondents of all nationalities come and go without let or hindrance, and the resident correspondents of the Associated Press, United Press, Reuters, and the French Press Agency send out exactly what they please.

on Taiwan and has a police card showing that he resides there, he can ride the railroads, the buses, the planes, or wander about by car, pedacab or on foot, as freely as though he were in Vermont, Kansas, or Oregon. What is more, he can work at any job he can find, or just sit on a rock, looking out to sea, reciting poetry and reveling in dolce far niente."

Within 4 weeks, the newsstands were selling the June 29 issue of Look, which contained an article by Dr. K. C. Wu, governor of Formosa from December 1949 to May 1953. The article was entitled "Your Money Has Built a Police State in Formosa," and had this to say:

"Formosa has been perverted into a police state, not unlike that of Red China

"The dictatorial moves [of Gen. Chiang Ching-kuo, son of President Chiang Kaishek] to establish a secret police and control of the army, to rig elections and corrupt legal processes were only a start. Today, a program is under way to control the minds and souls of youth and suppress freedom of speech and of the press

"He [Chiang Ching-kuo] is fast building a regime that in many ways follows exactly the pattern of a Communist government; he has even organized a youth corps modeled after the Hitler youth and the Communist youth ・・・

"There is no such thing as freedom of speech any more. Freedom of the press has become a farce. Newspapers that annoy or offend Formosa's rulers are forced to suspend publication, and reporters and writers have often been jailed. Formosa's newspapers now print only the party line."

Which of these two sets of judgments on Formosa are we to accept? My own answer is that Mr. Gilbert and Dr. Wu were referring to two different groups of phenomena. Mr. Gilbert was painting a general picture of the life and freedom of the 8 or 9 million Chinese now on the island of Formosa. He honestly admitted that there were important exceptions to this general description. For instance, he wrote: "You can talk yourself hoarse about the shortcomings of the municipal, provincial, or national authorities and there will be no comeback. But start preaching communism-and look out."

On the other hand, it was exactly those exceptions-those particular cases of criminal offenses which under the national emergency law were placed under the jurisdiction of military courts-which Dr. Wu utilized to build up his sweeping generalization about Formosa as a police state. This logical fallacy of generalizing from particular and exceptional cases assumes a more serious form of misstatement when he makes this categorical assertion:

"As Formosa had been declared under a state of siege, all cases of any nature were sent to the military courts for trial."

This statement is baseless and untrue. At no time since the Communist conquest of the mainland have the military courts of Formosa had jurisdiction over “all cases of any nature."

When Formosa was declared in early 1950 to be "a region adjacent to a battle zone," 10 categories of crimes were placed under the jurisdiction of the military courts of the Taiwan Peace Preservation Force. These were: Offenses against the internal security of the state; offenses against the external security of the state; offenses against public order; offenses against public safety; counterfeiting of currency and negotiable securities, and forging of official documents and seals; homicide; offenses against personal liberty; robbery and piracy; kidnaping for ransom; damage and destruction of property. All other criminal offenses were under the jurisdiction of civil courts.

In April 1951, when the "new Taiwan currency," which had replaced the old currency in the summer of 1949, was threatened

by inflation, the Government issued a series of emergency regulations on currency stabilization which gave authority to the military police and military courts of the Taiwan Peace Preservation Force to deal severely with three types of violation of the currency laws: Illegal transmission of money abroad, illegal traffic in gold or foreign exchange, and highinterest money lending through underground banking.

These are all the categories of criminal offenses that were ever placed under the jurisdiction of the military courts of the Taiwan Peace Preservation Force, of which Governor Wu himself was chief commander, and Gen. Peng Meng-chi was deputy commander. Military courts of the army, navy, and air force and other military establishments had no jurisdiction over crimes committed by persons not in active military service.

As a result of public dissatisfaction and criticism of the incompetence and inefficiency of the military courts, and of known abuses of power by the military police, the Central Government, under the leadership of Premier Chen Cheng, moved toward reducing the jurisdiction of the military courts. A decree of the Executive Yuan on October 20, 1951, restored 4 of the original 10 categories of offenses to the jurisdiction of the civil courts. A second decree on June 1, 1952, ordered that the jurisdiction of the military courts be henceforth limited to:

1. Offenses by military personnel.

2. Offenses under the act on Communist agents and the law on insurrection and treason.

3. Offenses under the law on banditry. 4. Civilians conspiring with military personnel in smuggling.

5. Grave offenses (subsequently defined by the Ministry of Justice in minute detail) against public order and public safety.

Since June 1, 1951, offenses against currency stabilization had been removed from the jurisdiction of the military police and military courts.

These successive reform measures represented partial success for the movement for the separation of the jurisdiction of the military and civil courts, a movement in which many Chinese leaders, both inside and outside the Government, have taken an active part. It is a part of the fight for civil liberties and constitutional government in Free China.

The success has been only partial, and the fight is still going on. Last month, the new Premier, O. K. Yui, was severely questioned in Parliament (the Legislative Yuan) about the constitutional guaranties in times of national emergency, especially the right of habeas corpus under article 8 and article 9 which says that "no person, except those in active military service, may be subject to trial by a military court." At the end of the session, Premier Yui declared:

"The new Cabinet will see to it that the constitutional guaranties of freedom of person under article and civil-court trials of nonmilitary personnal under article 9 are upheld."

In discussing this question of the jurisdiction of military courts, I have gone into some detail, not only to refute the irresponsible generalization of Dr. Wu that all cases of any nature were sent to the military courts for trial, but also to correct the impression created by many of his statements-the impression that Formosa was actually achieving the "rule of law and democracy • at one time in the past," but only recently has been perverted into a police state, especially since Dr. Wu's resignation from the governorship.

The fact is that Formosa was far from the rule of law and democracy in those early years of 1949-51, at the height of the fear of Communist invasion and infiltration and of the dangers of currency inflation, and only in the last 3 years, and notably since

June 1952, has there been a far greater measure of civil liberties and the rule of law than at any time in the past.

Let me cite an example of the present state of freedom of the press on Formosa a year after Governor Wu's resignation. The April 1 issue of the fortnightly magazine Free China editorially questioned President Chiang Kai-shek's power of reviewing the decisions of the military courts and, in some cases, ordering an increase in the severity of the sentence.

"The constitution," says the editorial "under article 40 gives the President only the power of 'granting amnesties, pardons, remission of sentences, and restitution of civil rights.' But the constitution nowhere gives him power to increase the sentence of any court. What the President has done on a number of occasions is clearly a violation of the constitution. One of our best wishes of his reelection is that no unconstitutional act of this kind will ever happen again during his second presidential term of 6 years."

No such open criticism of President Chiang was published at any time in the past. I may add that the same question, among others, was earnestly discussed early last April at the home of Vice Presidentelect Chen Cheng in 3 evening sessions participated in by 6 invited members of the National Assembly and about 20 leaders of the government and the Kuomintang, including General Chiang Ching-kuo. I am happy to report that President Chiang Kaishek has now given written instructions to his new secretary general, Chang Chun, that in the future, when the military tribunal requests him as commander in chief of the armed forces to review the graver sentences of the military courts, he will never again order any increase in the sentences.

Dr. Wu will probably retort that the freedom of Free China magazine has always been an "exception." He has said in his Look article:

"There is no such thing as freedom of speech any more. Freedom of the press has become a farce. There may be an exception in the case of a weekly [sic] sponsored by Dr. Hu Shih, the philosopher and diplomat, with his special eminence and international reputation."

The weekly he referred to is the fortnightly Free China, edited and published by a score of my liberal friends (including a few independent members of the Kuomintang), who, because I wrote the principles of faith of the Free China Association, honored me by making me its publisher from 1949 to 1953. I want to say, in the first place, that Free China is not an exception, and that this freedom of speech and the press is now shared by all who have the moral courage to speak out. The best proof of this is found in the numerous critical articles on the May elections published in many independent newspapers both before and after the elec-. tions.

Secondly, I would like to ask: How and why did the weekly sponsored by Dr. Hu Shih come to enjoy what to Dr. Wu was an exceptional freedom of the press in the police state of Formosa? Has he ever known of a police state that permitted exceptional freedom of speech and the press to any individual or publication?

Free China magazine certainly did not enjoy any such exceptional freedom in the summer of 1951, when it got into serious trouble with the Taiwan Peace Preservation Force by publishing an editorial entitled "The Government Must Not Entrap the People to Commit Crimes." The editorial pointed out the inherent danger of the Government policy of offering heavy monetary rewards-30 percent of the confiscated property of the convicted offender to the informer and 35 percent to the prosecuting agencyin offenses under the emergency regulations