lleged by their publisher, Nilus, that the documents were stolen by a woman and were given to Russians, who first published them. No one has ever personally identified the woman. 3. The Russians, who first published the "Protocols," admitted that they did not see the original manuscript, but came into possession only of copies of the original. 4. The first publisher in book form, Nilus, a Russian, admitted that he could not prove the authenticity of the document. PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION 5. Internal evidence discloses that references and language used in the "Pro tocols," supposed to have been done in 1897, are inconsistent with that date. 6. Those who uphold the " Protocols" as authentic contend that they were designed by very able but scheming Jews who, on the other hand, were extremely stupid in reducing their design to writing. This does not make sense. 7. It was clearly demonstrated by a British journalist (non-Jewish) that large portions of the "Protocols" were plagiarized from a book written to discredit the government of Napoleon III . Moreover, the French volume, it has been shown, was once the property of the Russian political police ; and there is other evidence to indicate that the "Protocols" originated with and were used by the Russian political police. 8. Christian theologians have branded the "Protocols" as forgeries. 9. At a recent trial in Bern, Switzerland, the court declared the "Protocols" to be forgeries. In his Anti-Semitism, Historically and Critically Examined (1936) Hugo Valentin , lecturer in history at the University of Upsala in Sweden characterizes the "Protocols" as "The Greatest Forgery of the Century" (p. 165) and adds: One need not be a specialist in historical research or have any extensive knowl edge of matters Jewish to see through the fraudulent nature of the " Protocols" after a cursory glance *** (p. 173) . In his foreword to the Valentin work, Herbert L. Willett, professor emeritus in the Department of Semitic Languages and Literature , University of Chicago, calls the "Protocols" "one of the stupidest for geries of all literary history". More recently, in an article entitled "The Subliterature of Hate in America," Southwest Review (vol. XXXVII, No. 3, summer 1952) , published by Southern Methodist University Press, the author, Margaret L. Hartley, writes as follows of the "Protocols" and another well-known forgery the so-called "Benjamin Franklin Prophecy" (p . 188) : Two "authorities" often cited (by anti-Semitic writers) the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" and the "Benjamin Franklin Prophecy," hold their place in the subliterature in spite of the fact that again and again they have been proved bogus. These false authorities might be called the classics of anti Semitism. References to the " Protocols" may be found in almost any item of hate literature examined * * *. It is impossible for a fairminded person of any commonsense not to see that the "Protocols" are the fictional product of a warped mind and that for years they have been and still are the chief staple of the anti-Jewish pamphleteer. In the subcommittee's judgment, those who would mislead the American people by continuing to peddle this crude and vicious non sense impede and prejudice the Nation's fight against the Com munist menace. The subcommittee believes that the peddlers of the "Protocols" are peddlers of un-American prejudice who spread hate and dissension among the American people. Falsely using the guise of fighting communism, they, like the Communists who set class against class, would set religion against religion. Both would sub vert the American system.