Title: Investigation of Communist Activities in Seattle, Wash., Area, Hearings, Part 1
Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Un-American Activities
Release date: January 16, 2018 [eBook #56383]
Language: English
Credits: Produced by Richard Hulse, Bryan Ness, Wayne Hammond and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive/American
Libraries.)
i
| United States House of Representatives | |
| FRANCIS E. WALTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman | |
| MORGAN M. MOULDER, Missouri CLYDE DOYLE, California JAMES B. FRAZIER, Jr., Tennessee EDWIN E. WILLIS, Louisiana |
HAROLD H. VELDE, Illinois BERNARD W. KEARNEY, New York DONALD L. JACKSON, California GORDON H. SCHERER, Ohio |
| Thomas W. Beale, Sr., Chief Clerk | |
iii
(Testimony of Robert Krahl, Robert Miller, Eugene V. Dennett, Lawrence Earl George, and Harriett Pierce, also heard on March 18, 1955, is printed in pt. 2 of this series.) iv v
The legislation under which the House Committee on Un-American Activities operates is Public Law 601, 79th Congress [1946], chapter 753, 2d session, which provides:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, * * *
17. Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine members.
(q) (1) Committee on Un-American Activities.
(A) Un-American activities.
(2) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommittee, is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (i) the extent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, (ii) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and (iii) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary remedial legislation.
The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such investigation, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable.
For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American Activities, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act at such times and places within the United States, whether or not the House is sitting, has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, and to take such testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under the signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by any member designated by any such chairman, and may be served by any person designated by any such chairman or member. vi
1. There shall be elected by the House, at the commencement of each Congress, the following standing committees:
(q) Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine members.
17. Committee on Un-American Activities.
(a) Un-American activities.
(b) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommittee, is authorized to make from time to time, investigations of (i) the extent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, (ii) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and (iii) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary remedial legislation.
The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such investigation, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable.
For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American Activities, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act at such times and places within the United States, whether or not the House is sitting, has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, and to take such testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under the signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by any member designated by such chairman, and may be served by any person designated by any such chairman or member. 247
A subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a. m., in room 402, County-City Building, Seattle, Wash., Hon. Morgan M. Moulder (chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Representatives Morgan M. Moulder (chairman) and Harold H. Velde.
Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel, and William A. Wheeler, staff investigator.
Mr. Moulder. The subcommittee will be in order.
Let the record show that the Hon. Francis E. Walter, chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives of the Congress, pursuant to the provisions of law creating this committee, appointed Hon. Clyde Doyle of California, Hon. Harold H. Velde of Illinois, with myself, Morgan M. Moulder of Missouri as chairman, a subcommittee to conduct hearings in Seattle, Wash.
The membership of the subcommittee, with the exception of Mr. Doyle, is present. Mr. Doyle has asked that I express his regret that a legislative assignment by the Speaker of the House makes it impossible for him to leave Washington at this time.
Following an extensive investigation by the staff, the Committee on Un-American Activities held hearings here during June 1954, and also in Portland during that same period. These hearings were productive of outstanding results in that the committee was furnished by numerous witnesses with facts reflecting the extent of Communist Party activities in the great Pacific Northwest, and the infiltration methods used in this area by the Communist Party.
Mrs. Barbara Hartle will be remembered as a witness whose knowledge of the Communist movement in the Pacific Northwest was very extensive, and the careful and intelligent consideration she gave to her testimony has been excelled by few if any other witnesses which this committee has heard.
In the time allotted for that hearing the committee could not hear all the witnesses who had been summoned, and could not hear fully some of the witnesses who testified. The committee desires at this time to continue with the hearings begun in June of 1954, last year. 248
Before calling the first witness I desire to recognize the Hon. Charles P. Moriarty, United States attorney for the Western District of Washington, whose office has rendered outstanding service to the Congress of the United States in matters of importance to this committee which have been referred by the Congress to him.
I also desire to extend the committee’s thanks to Mayor Pomeroy and the board of county commissioners who made it possible for us to use this room as a hearing room, United States Marshal William B. Parsons, also Sheriff Tim McCullough and Chief of Police H. J. Lawrence, and members of their respective staffs for their great assistance to this committee.
I also desire to announce at this time—and I trust that it will not be necessary to repeat it at any time during the course of the hearing—that a disturbance of any kind or audible comment on the part of persons other than witnesses during the course of the testimony, whether favorable or unfavorable to the committee or any witness appearing before it, will not be tolerated by the committee. For any infraction of this rule the offender will be ejected from the hearing room.
I also wish to announce that Congressman Velde and I have conferred with respect to the use of cameras and the taking of pictures in the hearing room. Each House of the Congress has its own rules. The rules of the House prohibit the use of cameras, the taking of pictures and televising proceedings of the Congress in the House while it is in session. The Speaker has ruled that that applies to committee hearings wherever they may be held in any part of the United States. However, Congressman Velde and I have decided that it would not be in conflict with the ruling and the interpretation placed upon the rules by the Speaker of the House to permit photographs to be taken at any time in the hearing room except when a witness is testifying, and in the course of his testimony.
Therefore, photographs will be permitted to be taken of the witness while he is being sworn in and after that. While he is testifying no additional photographs will be permitted to be taken.
Mr. Velde. I certainly want to say, Mr. Moulder, that I concur with you in the statement you have just made about the matter of taking photographs. However, I do feel that we should also protect the freedom of the press as much as possible, instead of merely protecting the so-called rights of some of the witnesses who will appear here.
It is very important in my opinion, and I think the Chair will concur with me in this, that we do give the public, especially in the great Northwest area of our country, the benefit of all the information we are able to obtain. And I do feel that within the rules of the House of Representatives we should do everything we can to give that information to the public here in Seattle.
I also want to say that it is great to be back here. I enjoyed very much being here last June for at least 3 days, as chairman of the full committee at that time.
Mr. Moulder. I am in complete agreement with you as to the committee televising and giving the public all information possible as to those who have proved to be active in the Communist Party. However, the rules of the House and the ruling of the Speaker of the House prohibit the televising of the hearings we are going to hold today. 249
Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Counsel?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes.
Mr. Moulder. Call your first witness.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Eugene V. Dennett, please come forward.
Mr. Moulder. Hold up your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you are about to give before this committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Dennett. I do.
Mr. Tavenner. What is your name, please, sir?
Mr. Dennett. Eugene Victor Dennett.
Mr. Tavenner. Are you accompanied by counsel, Mr. Dennett?
Mr. Dennett. I am, sir.
Mr. Tavenner. Will counsel please identify himself for the record.
Mr. MacDonald. Kenneth A. MacDonald, attorney at law, of Seattle, Wash.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dennett, you were subpenaed as a witness before this committee in June of 1954, and you were called on the first day of that hearing, which was June 14.
Mr. Dennett. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tavenner. At that time you stated some special considerations you had in mind under which you felt that you desired not to testify and, as a result, you refused to testify on the ground of the fifth amendment.
Mr. Dennett. Correct.
Mr. Tavenner. Later on during the hearings, in fact on the next to the last day of the hearings, you and your counsel came to me and stated that after further considering the matter, you desired to appear as a witness.
Is that correct?
Mr. Dennett. That is correct.
Mr. Tavenner. As a result of that you were again called before the committee.
Mr. Dennett. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tavenner. The record of the hearing at that time reflects that neither you nor your counsel was approached by any member of the committee or the staff, or any representative of either the committee or the staff in an effort to get you to change your testimony.
Mr. Dennett. That is absolutely correct.
Mr. Tavenner. That is true, is it not?
Mr. Dennett. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tavenner. As a result of that the committee proceeded to ask you a few questions. However, the record also shows that counsel was of the opinion that your knowledge of Communist Party activities in the Northwest was so extensive that at that late point in the hearing it would be impractical to try to take your testimony unless the committee would cancel the rest of its hearings, and there were a number of witnesses waiting to be heard at that time. Consequently the committee decided that it would have to interrogate you at another time. So you are here this morning for that purpose. 250
Mr. Dennett. That is correct, sir. As a result of that decision I conferred with the then subcommittee chairman—who was at that time Mr. Jackson—following that session, and Mr. Jackson was unable to advise me when I might be called again. He referred me to Mr. Wheeler. I asked Mr. Wheeler at that time when I might be called again. I anticipated some problem of preparation. I wanted to look at some of my old material and refresh my knowledge. But Mr. Wheeler was unable to give me any information at that time.
Later, on January 28, I wrote to the new chairman of the committee asking him what I might expect from the committee by way of further interrogation. He did not reply directly. Instead, later I received a letter from Mr. Wheeler advising that they expected to hold the hearings in June.
The day after that I received another letter advising that they were going to hold the hearings at this date. So I still was unable to do the preparation that I wanted to do.
Mr. Tavenner. You have a great wealth of Communist Party literature and documents in your possession, do you not?
Mr. Dennett. Well, I saved them over a period of 20 years. I have quite a few.
Mr. Tavenner. In the limited time that we have here this week, have you made some of that material available to the staff?
Mr. Dennett. That is correct.
When Mr. Wheeler came to town he left word in his letter to me that he wanted to reach me at a certain time. I called the hotel and saw him, asked him what he wanted to know. He wasn’t too certain what he wanted specifically, but he wanted to know what I knew.
So I said, “Well, the simplest way to find that out is to come up to my house, and you can look at everything I have got.” So Mr. Wheeler came out to my house and he looked at everything I had.
Mr. Tavenner. During the course of the hearing in June 1954 you were asked a number of questions regarding your background. But the present chairman of the subcommittee was not present with the committee on that occasion, and I think it would be well to begin as if we had taken no testimony whatever.
Will you tell the committee, please, when and where you were born?
Mr. Dennett. I was born in Revere, Mass., April 26, 1908.
Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside?
Mr. Dennett. 7324 34th Avenue SW., Seattle 6, Wash.
Mr. Tavenner. When did you move to the general area of Seattle, or may I say to the State of Washington?
Mr. Dennett. In 1932.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you give the committee, please, a brief outline of your formal educational training?
Mr. Dennett. I graduated from high school in Rickreall, Oreg. I was out of school a year, unable to raise the finances to go on to college. The second year I made arrangements to finance going to normal school by carrying a paper route.
I graduated from the Oregon Normal School in 1928, and started teaching school. That was a 2-year college at that time, or 2-year normal school. It has since been changed to a college of education, and it is a 4-year school now. That was at Monmouth, Oreg.
After receiving my teaching certificate and starting to teach, I carried on extension work with the University of Oregon, and later, at 251 a later year, I took a couple more quarters of advanced work at the University of Oregon in the School of Education, Sociology, and Philosophy. I did not graduate.
Mr. Tavenner. When did you complete your work at the university?
Mr. Dennett. Well, the work that I took, which was not sufficient for a degree or graduation, ended in 1931.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, briefly, what your employment record has been since that time.
Mr. Dennett. Well, after I left teaching I was unemployed for quite a long period of time. The great depression had started, and I became active in the unemployed work.
Later on when the CCC’s were organized, that is, the Civilian Conservation Corps, since I was in a soup line here in Seattle and saw an announcement that it was possible for us to leave the soup line and go out in the woods in the CCC’s, I chose to do so, and spent a year there, about 15 months, in fact.
When I came out of the CCC’s one of the fellows whom I had worked with in the CCC shanghaied me onto a boat here in the sound. And, unbelievable as it may sound, I actually was shanghaied to work on the waterfront, working on one of the Puget Sound freight boats. I didn’t know a thing about it. And that is how I got started, a fellow just shoved me on and fed me, and the boat pulled away from the dock without my knowing what was going on. Then I got started working in the waterfront work and continued.
Mr. Tavenner. What year was that?
Mr. Dennett. 1935. I continued at that work off and on practically until the beginning of the Second World War, doing various kinds of work, deckhand and freight handling, and some longshore work. I also worked on some of the tugboats and some of the barges.
Mr. Tavenner. You say that type of employment continued until the war. Were you a member of our Armed Forces?
Mr. Dennett. I was. There was an intervening period there, however. I was screened off the waterfront in 1942. After being screened off the waterfront in 1942 I was searching for work again, and I saw a big advertisement in the paper that Bethlehem Steel Co. was hiring everybody and anybody. So I went out there to work.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee what you mean by screened off the waterfront? Briefly, not in detail.
Mr. Dennett. There was an intelligence unit of the Army which seemed to have information which convinced them that I was some sort of a dangerous person, and they were convinced that I should not be permitted to work on the waterfront. So my passes were lifted and I was denied opportunity to do any further work longshoring or work anywhere on the waterfront. By the way, according to my information, I am the only one who never did get his pass back that was lifted at that time.
Mr. Tavenner. Did the lifting of your pass have anything to do with Communist Party activities on your part?
Mr. Dennett. Well, I was asked to go down to the security office at that time. It was in charge of a Mr. John J. Sullivan, I believe. And he put it to me rather bluntly. He said, “We think that you are still a Communist. And so we just don’t think we should have Communists on the waterfront. That is why we are lifting your pass.” 252
Mr. Tavenner. Will you continue with your narrative of employment?
Mr. Dennett. I went to work at Bethlehem Steel Co.
Mr. Tavenner. What year was that?
Mr. Dennett. In 1942, October 19.
And after being employed there for some little time I was classified I-A in the draft. I didn’t know until after it was all over, but the company evidently thought enough of my work to get at least two deferments for me unbeknownst to myself. You remember there was something of a manpower shortage at that time.
I was finally inducted into service on the 27th of August 1943, took my 3-week furlough which was permitted to married men at that time, and reported to the service. I think it was the 17th of September of 1943, reported for active duty.
I remained in the service until, I think it was about October 10 of 1945, at which time I received an honorable discharge. But I was in somewhat broken health. So upon my return to Seattle I had to take some little time to recuperate, and spent a little time at the naval hospital which was conducted by the Navy at that time. It is now known as Firlands.
By the time I got out of the hospital the steelworkers were in their famous 1946 strike. So I couldn’t return to work until the strike was over. I did, however, return to work shortly after the strike was over. I think it was in April of 1946. And I have been working continuously there ever since.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee whether or not you were a member of the Communist Party at the time that your pass was lifted?
Mr. Dennett. I was.
Mr. Tavenner. How long had you been a member?
Mr. Dennett. Well, originally I joined the Communist Party in 1931.
Mr. Tavenner. 1931?
Mr. Dennett. I was in active membership in the Communist Party until the time I went into the Civilian Conservation Corps. During the year I was in the CCC I was not an active member of the Communist Party. As a matter of fact, I was under some cloud. The leadership of the party at that time disapproved of some of my activities and some of my policies, and I certainly disapproved of some of theirs. It was sort of a mutual disagreement. And they were satisfied to leave me alone while I was in the CCC, and I was satisfied that they did.
However, upon my return from the CCC, as soon as I went to work on the waterfront, the conditions under which we were working at that time were so repulsive that it was no wonder that the workers there were seriously contemplating strike action. With my prior knowledge about trade unions and some knowledge of political activity, it was only natural that I should assume a position of leadership among those workers. And when the strike was called I was elected to leadership in that strike committee. It was at that moment that the Communist Party found it very convenient to make new approaches to me and to try to enlist my efforts in their behalf. I was willing and I did cooperate and I became a member again in good standing. 253
Mr. Tavenner. What date was that?
Mr. Dennett. 1935.
Mr. Tavenner. I think it may be well at this point, before I ask you any detail about your knowledge of Communist Party activities, as a matter of general background for the committee, you should state briefly the various positions you have held in the Communist Party, and the opportunity you have had to know of Communist Party activities.
Mr. Dennett. I have held nearly all the organizational positions in the lower ranks of the party. That is, I have been a branch organizer, sometimes called branch, sometimes called unit. I have been an educational director in a branch, I have been a section organizer, I have been a fraction secretary, I have been a district agitprop director. That is a combination of two words—agitation and propaganda. I doubt that the term is used very much any more. It would be comparable to educational work now.
I have been a member of the district bureau of the Communist Party. I was a member of the secretariat of the Communist Party in district 12 on 2 different occasions. The secretariat is a group of perhaps 2 or 3 persons who are responsible for the daily activities of the Communist Party and the way in which the various branches and sections are carrying out the Communist Party policy program. I think that covers it.
Mr. Tavenner. What was the last position you held in the Communist Party?
Mr. Dennett. I think the last position was that of an educational director in a branch.
Mr. Tavenner. What was the date?
Mr. Dennett. I think that would be in 1946 or 1947.
Mr. Tavenner. Are you a member of the Communist Party now?
Mr. Dennett. I am not.
Mr. Tavenner. Over what period of time were you an active member in the Communist Party?
Mr. Dennett. With the 2 exceptions of the CCC and the term of service in the Army, from 1931 to 1947.
Mr. Tavenner. I believe in 1947 you were expelled from the Communist Party?
Mr. Dennett. That is correct.
Mr. Tavenner. With that general background I would like to go back, Mr. Dennett, to the inception of your membership in the Communist Party.
You have said that that was in 1931. And the committee would be interested to learn what the circumstances were under which you became a member of the Communist Party. By that I mean why you joined the Communist Party as well as the mechanics that were used in your becoming a member.
Mr. Dennett. Well, I would remind the committee and those who have read the record of a statement I made at the other hearing. I was named after Eugene V. Debs. I am very proud of that. It should be remembered that Eugene V. Debs was the leading Socialist in the United States of America for a great many years.
I was virtually born into the Socialist movement. My parents admired Debs very much, and my father was an active leading Socialist. 254 Therefore, I had a great deal of knowledge of the Socialist movement as a child. In fact, I had the honor of appearing on the same platform with Eugene V. Debs in Old Peoples Hall in Boston. He was making a political speech. I had a great admiration for the man and I felt greatly honored to be named after him.
In the period following the First World War after my mother’s death, my father and I moved to the farm in the West. That was in 1919. Those who may have some knowledge of the history of that period will remember that following the First World War there was a depression in agriculture. Those who farmed suffered a continuing crisis, and we were trying to farm.
So we were confronted daily with the problem of how in the world do you get out of a depression. And, frankly, we did not find any solution to it.
I went on to school being firmly convinced, as a result of what I had seen as a child, having seen workers defeated time after time in strikes and in disputes, I became thoroughly convinced that the most priceless thing that anyone could obtain would be a full and complete education. And I hoped to receive one. I don’t think I ever received as much as I wanted.
Finally, after obtaining my teaching certificate and beginning to teach—you remember the year was 1928. And in 1929 the stock market crashed. And it wasn’t very long before the effects of that economic interruption began to be felt throughout the land. And among the first to feel it were the teachers, at least in the State of Oregon with which I was then familiar.
The teachers were required to accept great discounts in order to cash their warrants—15, 20, and in some cases 25 percent discounts were taken by the banks to cash the teachers’ warrants. And teachers were generally receiving at that time about $100 per month.
I was fortunate. I was teaching in a district which was a rather wealthy district, and they were not on a warrant basis.
But I began to have great apprehension because most of the teachers I knew were suffering this way. And this was in 1931.
Of course, I had been concerned about economic problems over most of my life. And when I was a high school boy I read Marx’s Das Kapital, and I was somewhat acquainted with his theory of economics. And I was quite disturbed at this economic crash which began with the stock market crash of 1929.
So I was looking for some organization which might give some kind of an answer. In fact, I think that I told some of my friends that I was actually looking for the Communist Party for 2 years before I found it.
In 1931 my father sent me a notice of a Civil Rights Conference to be held in Portland, Oreg. This conference was being called to organize a defense for some people in Portland who had been accused of violating the criminal syndicalism law in the State of Oregon. They were alleged to be Communists. Some of them I later learned actually were Communists. My father was unable to attend the conference. So he asked me to go. I went. There I met the first Communists. The first one that I met was Mr. Fred Walker, and a person by the name of Paul Munter.
Mr. Moulder. May I interrupt? Is that the Civil Rights Congress?
Mr. Dennett. It wasn’t a congress, it was a conference. 255
Mr. Moulder. Civil Rights Conference?
Mr. Dennett. Yes, sir.
Mr. Moulder. Was it an organization?
Mr. Dennett. No. It was certainly a temporary organization for that particular case.
Mr. Moulder. Who was the leadership of that?
Mr. Dennett. It was organized under the auspices of the International Labor Defense, better known as the ILD.
And they had their attorney at this conference who gave an explanation of the case, an explanation of the law, and outlined the program of the International Labor Defense for the purpose of trying to win that case.
I was very much impressed by his presentation. Later on, years later, I was still more impressed when I learned that he actually had met with success, because after the persons who were charged then had been convicted he appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case of Dirk De Jonge which held that the criminal syndicalism statute in the State of Oregon was invalid. And the decision was reversed. Those convictions were reversed that way.
So you see that my interest and introduction was of a twofold character: One, I was impressed with the economic problems that were not being solved. I was also impressed with what appeared to me to be an invasion of the civil rights of individuals to think and act as they pleased in political matters.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you state the first person you knew as a Communist was a man by the name of Walker?
Mr. Dennett. Yes, Fred Walker.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether Mr. Fred Walker held any position in the Communist Party at that time?
Mr. Dennett. At that time he was the section organizer of the Communist Party in Portland, Oreg.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee whether or not, as a result of your attendance at that conference and your discussions with Mr. Fred Walker, you became a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Dennett. It was not immediate, but it was soon after that that I became a member of the Communist Party. Actually I wanted to become a member of the Communist Party, and they were a little bit fearful that since I was a teacher that maybe there was some kind of bourgeois corruption there that they were afraid of. And they insisted that if I wanted to join the ranks of the Communist Party it would be necessary for me to take a little schooling.
So they offered me an opportunity to attend some classes which they had organized, classes in labor history, classes in analyzing the role and functions of the Communist Party? And they had other classes. I do not recall exactly what they were. But these 2 were the 2 main groups.
Mr. Tavenner. Was this a recognized school of the Communist Party or what was it?
Mr. Dennett. Well, it was a school that was organized by the section in Portland under Fred Walker’s leadership. It had the approval of the district leadership.
Mr. Tavenner. Of the Communist Party? 256
Mr. Dennett. And they were following the outlines which were sent out by the Workers School of New York, which was the center of the Communist Party.
Mr. Tavenner. Was it unquestionably a Communist Party function that was being performed?
Mr. Dennett. Very distinctly so. We used 2 important textbooks, 1 by Bimba, and 1 by Forner, in those schools. Both of them on labor history.
Mr. Tavenner. Who were the teachers in that school?
Mr. Dennett. Fred Walker taught some of them. Munter taught some of them.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you know his first name?
Mr. Dennett. Paul Munter, I believe.
And then there was another fellow by the name of Rodney. His last name was Rodney, R-o-d-n-e-y.
My recollection of him is due to the fact that at that time he was some kind of under secretary or employed by the YMCA in Portland. I did not then know him as a member of the Communist Party either. I heard later that he did join the Communist Party. But at the moment or at the time that he was teaching this class in labor history I did not understand him to be a member of the Communist Party.
Mr. Tavenner. Was your attendance at this school prior to your becoming a member or after you had become a member?
Mr. Dennett. It was prior; it was before joining.
Mr. Tavenner. Were there others in this school besides yourself?
Mr. Dennett. Yes.
Mr. Tavenner. How many?
Mr. Dennett. My recollection is between 15 and 20.
Mr. Tavenner. Due to the fact that you have told us that you, yourself were not a member at that time, is it possible that others in attendance likewise were in a similar category and not actual members of the Communist Party at that time?
Mr. Dennett. I am quite sure that was true, that most of them who attended that class were not members of the Communist Party, but they were curious, and their curiosity had been aroused because of what appeared to all of us was an attempt at oppression by the use of the criminal syndicalism statute against unemployed veterans and unemployed workers and other people, and particularly some foreign-born people.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, to what extent did this training that you had in this particular school prepare you for the role you later played in the Communist Party? Did it amount to anything? Was the instruction effective? Did it serve to instill the spirit of the Communist Party in you?
Mr. Dennett. I certainly felt that it did. As a matter of fact, I was one of those teachers who considered that most of our teaching methods were quite inappropriate for the best benefit to the child. I felt that what is characterized as the lock-step system of education is inadequate to our modern needs. And I finally despaired of ever hoping to be able to do what I felt should be done as a teacher.
Mr. Moulder. Just what do you refer to there? I mean in what respect?
Mr. Dennett. The rigidity with which big school systems are straitjacketed. Courses of study are laid out in an ironclad fashion, 257 and there is no opportunity for teachers to attempt to satisfy the needs or the growing needs of the child.
Now remember this was in 1932. There have been a great many changes in most of the school systems since then. And while I was personally not under that kind of restraint, I knew many teachers in the city of Portland who felt that they were at that time. And I was an active member of the Classroom Teachers Association in Portland—or not in Portland, but in the State of Oregon.
We were always concerned with this problem, and we felt that it was very difficult, almost hopeless to expect to make the improvement which needed to be made.
The Communists introduced me to some of the writings of Frederick Engels and Nicolai Lenin, and I found these writings to be very illuminating. I found them to throw a great deal of light on the development of economic and political crises. And they intrigued me by showing me a set of what is known as the Lenin library. I believe there were about 8 or 10 volumes of it published at that time. And I purchased the whole business. I think it cost me about $15. And I proceeded to read voraciously. I read everything there was in it, and I was very much impressed by the analysis, the penetrating analysis which Lenin made of all of the various political movements that existed way back at the turn of the century in 1900. All these things caused me to feel that there was more here than the average person realized, and I hoped that I was finding the solution to the problems which beset mankind.
Mr. Tavenner. Inasmuch as all persons in attendance were not members of the Communist Party, I am not going to ask you to give me the names of all who participated in that school. But I will ask you to give us the names of any of those who participated in that school who later became functionaries in the Communist Party during the period of time that you were a member.
Mr. Dennett. That is an awfully long time ago, and I did not keep any record of those persons.
Frankly, outside of Fred Walker and Paul Munter and this fellow Rodney, I do not recall distinctly enough to be certain in my own mind. I think that a couple of persons attended there whose names would come up at a later period. But I couldn’t be certain of identifying them in that period.
Mr. Tavenner. How long did you attend this course of training?
Mr. Dennett. I think it was about 3 months.
Mr. Tavenner. Was it an intensive training course?
Mr. Dennett. Yes; it was. I believe the classes were at least twice a week, and there was a great deal of reading and study to be done with it. And they found that I was a ready and willing subject. So they assigned reports to me very frequently. And I made many of them.
Mr. Tavenner. How soon after the completion of that work, or was it during the period of that course of training that you became a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Dennett. It was during that time. I think within 6 weeks after I started they satisfied themselves that I was sincerely trying to be a good Communist. 258
Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what mechanics were used for bringing you into the party?
Mr. Dennett. Well, at that time the party was what is generally referred to as underground. They were very much afraid of their own existence and their own identity. And they were particularly fearful of agents of the police entering their ranks. And they viewed all persons with great suspicion, especially these foreign-born workers. And they used to spend a great deal of time talking with me, inquiring into every phase of my life and my background and my existence, giving me in their own way the third degree to determine whether or not I was trustworthy and whether or not I was worth being a member of the ranks.
Mr. Tavenner. Now as you look back upon it, do you think that that careful study of your past and your capabilities was rather in the way of choosing you for future leadership in the party as distinguished from membership in the Communist Party?
Mr. Dennett. No. I think that so far as they were concerned, they looked upon all persons entering the party as equals. That is, they did not predetermine who was going to be a leader and who wasn’t going to be a leader. But they were determined to work each new member to the utmost until they got the most out of each one that they could. And in my case I responded by studying very intensely, and they had great hopes that I would develop into the kind of leader which they needed.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you proceed, please, to tell us about your induction into the Communist Party?
Mr. Dennett. Some of that is rather indistinct at this period. There are only snatches of it that are vivid.
One thing that is quite vivid is one of the foreign-born workers warning me that they had to deal rather vigorously with traitors. That seemed to be their chief obsession.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you mean traitors to the cause of communism?
Mr. Dennett. Yes. That seemed to be their chief concern.
Mr. Moulder. In what period of time are we now?
Mr. Dennett. That is still in 1931.
Finally they told me that my name had been submitted to the party as a candidate for membership. And after—I think it was about a month delay—they informed me that the membership had passed upon my name, and that I had been accepted. And they invited me to party meetings.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you become a member under your own name or were you given a pseudonym?
Mr. Dennett. I was given what is known as a party name. All the party records and documents were kept in that name. However, it always seemed rather ridiculous to me because alongside of the party name there was always my real name anyway.
Mr. Tavenner. What was your party name?
Mr. Dennett. Victor Haines, H-a-i-n-e-s.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you have anything to do with the selection of it, or was it selected for you?
Mr. Dennett. Yes; I had something to do with selecting it. When they told me that I had to choose a party name I asked for help on it, and the only help they could offer was to use the name of J. P. Morgan or John D. Rockefeller or Henry Ford or something like that. 259 They were always suggesting the most prominent capitalists as the party pseudonym.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what your first activity was in the Communist Party after becoming a member?
Mr. Dennett. I believe that I was first assigned to carry on this classwork in Portland, to keep this school going that was started. But that didn’t last very long because at that time the district organizer of the party was a man by the name of Alex Noral, who was here in Seattle.
And Noral was troubled because they were unable to get someone to fill the function of a district agitprop director here in Seattle. So he was asking Fred Walker to come to Seattle to be the agitprop director because Fred Walker had organized such a successful school in Portland and had done such splendid work which met with the district approval.
Walker, however, had personal reasons for not wanting to leave Portland. So he requested me to accept the assignment to Seattle. And I was perplexed as to what to do. I was in the middle of a school teaching year, but I was becoming more convinced all the time that there was no future in teaching—at least the way I wanted to do it. So I accepted, under a great deal of pressure, the assignment to come to Seattle. And that was, I say, under a great deal of pressure, too, because the way I was approached on it was that “Well, now you are a member of the party. You do what the party tells you to do, and you go where the party wants you to “go.”
Mr. Moulder. May I interrupt at that point before you start on your Seattle testimony?
I am curious to know, during that period of time when there were no laws prohibiting membership in the Communist Party, why there was direction that you operate underground or under false names?
Mr. Dennett. You remember I spoke about the criminal syndicalism prosecutions in Oregon. The members of the party were being accused of violating the criminal syndicalism statute.
Mr. Moulder. A statute?
Mr. Dennett. In Oregon, yes. And they considered that they were under attack for illegality.
Mr. Velde. May I ask a question?
Mr. Velde. I would like to know at the time you joined the Communist Party, I believe it was in 1931, if you had any idea at that time that the policy of the Communist Party of the United States of America was being dictated by Soviet Russia?
Mr. Dennett. Well, there is a sort of mixed answer to that.
I had been reading the Daily Worker. I had been reading the Butte Daily Bulletin. I was somewhat familiar with the international politics in which there was conflicting interest between the United States and the Soviet Union. But it was reconciled in my thinking with the firm conviction that the Communist Party was attempting to serve the interests of the working class all over the world and that in doing so there would be no conflict so far as we were concerned. Now that was the way it was resolved in my mind at that time.
Mr. Velde. I think that is true of many early Communist Party members. 260
Mr. Tavenner. Without going into detail, did your views continue to be the same or were they altered as time went on in the course of your Communist Party work?
Mr. Dennett. It didn’t take very long after I reached Seattle before I had my first rude awakening. I was naive enough to believe that it was proper for anyone to ask any question at any time in a party meeting. But after coming to Seattle and being assigned as the district agitprop director, believing that my duty required that I should supervise the production of leaflets and propaganda which was being issued, I was naive enough to ask what were my various duties. And the answer I got from Mr. Noral was to the effect that anybody knows what that is, which left me completely in the dark.
So I turned to the nearest associate who, at that time was Mr. John Lawrie, Sr., who more or less agreed with me that it was time to get some clear definition as to what the function was. Later on when I insisted upon criticizing a leaflet which Noral had issued he accused me of being some kind of a deviationist. I had only been in the party about 3 months. I didn’t know what the term meant.
Later on he accused me of being a Trotskyite. I think he used the term “Trotskyite,” which was a term of derision. And that conflict led ultimately to my being removed as district agitprop director. As a matter of fact, if Noral had carried out his wishes at that time I would have been liquidated.
I didn’t know what he meant by liquidation then, and I think the term was used rather loosely. But he did declare that liquidation was the proper thing to do with deviators such as I at that time.
However, there was another leader in the district by the name of Ed Leavitt, L-e-a-v-i-t-t, who was the organizational secretary, and Leavitt felt that it was improper to deal with me in that fashion, and he felt that since I was a young man at that time that I should be given an opportunity to prove my worth and prove myself. And he prevailed upon the district secretariat, namely, himself, Noral, and Lawrie, to assign me to section organizer in Bellingham. It wasn’t very long before I was banished from the district headquarters and sent to Bellingham to prove myself, which I think I did.
Mr. Moulder. Were you then being compensated?
Mr. Dennett. No, sir.
Mr. Moulder. Or reimbursed for your travels?
Mr. Dennett. I was not. We just bummed our way around.
Mr. Moulder. Were you employed then?
Mr. Dennett. I was unemployed. But we were just living as best we could, from hand to mouth.
I never was on the payroll of the Communist Party.
Mr. Tavenner. I think you should define more specifically what was meant by the term “liquidate.”
Mr. Dennett. Well, in that connection, I believe it occurred during a meeting of the district bureau, in which I had insisted that the grammar of one of Mr. Noral’s leaflets was in need of repair. He insisted that he knew what he was saying and that if anybody else didn’t know it was just too bad. And he proceeded to describe the importance of party discipline.
And in a very boastful way remarked that he was in the Fosterite faction that went to the Soviet Union in 1928 to the Sixth World Congress of the Comintern, and that following the decision of the Sixth 261 World Congress to liquidate factionalism in the American section of the Communist Party, that the Comintern set up a special commission to deal with the American section delegates, dealing with the Foster faction, the Lovestone faction, and the Cannon faction. And he said that since he was in the Foster faction that they, being the largest faction, were called up first.
And when they were called before the commission the chairman of that commission was Josef Stalin, and that Stalin leaned over the rostrum, shook his finger at them, and demanded to know, “Do you or do you not submit to the authority of the Comintern and its decisions?”
Noral said that he very proudly was the first to arise and say that he did submit to it. And he gave that to us as an illustration of the kind of discipline that we must expect and that we must follow.
Mr. Moulder. Mr. Dennett and Mr. Tavenner, would you like to have a recess at this time?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes.
Mr. Moulder. The committee will stand in recess for a period of 5 minutes.
(Whereupon a short recess was taken.)
Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order.
Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to call the witness, Mr. Jerry O’Connell.
Mr. Jerry O’Connell. Is he present?
(There was no response.)
Mr. Tavenner. May I ask that he be called in the corridor?
Mr. Moulder. Mr. Officer, would you call the witness Jerry O’Connell in the corridor?
Is there anyone here, an attorney representing the witness Mr. O’Connell?
(There was no response.)
Mr. Moulder. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.
Is there any announcement you wish to make on that, Mr. Tavenner?
Mr. Velde. May I inquire of Mr. Tavenner or Mr. Wheeler, was Jerry O’Connell served with a subpena?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir; he was.
Mr. Moulder. For appearance here today?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Velde. I think it would be appropriate at this point to have the subpena and the return thereon entered in the record.
Mr. Tavenner. I would like to interrupt the course of this testimony and produce to the committee a copy of the subpena served on Mr. Jerry O’Connell, and call the committee’s attention to the return which shows that it was served at 12 minutes to 9 p. m., March 8, 1955, at his residence, 3415 Central Avenue, Great Falls, Mont., signed Harold Mady, chief of police.
I desire to offer the document in evidence and ask that it be marked as “O’Connell Exhibit No. 1,” for identification purposes only and to be made a part of the committee files.
Mr. Moulder. It is so ordered.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dennett, you were asked a question by one of the members of the subcommittee with reference to your knowledge at the time you became a member of the Communist Party as to what 262 control, if any, that a foreign power had, over the Communist Party in this country, and you explained that.
I would like to carry that point a little further at this time.
While you were a member of the Communist Party were you acquainted with an organization known as the Trade Union Unity League?
Mr. Dennett. I was.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, briefly, what that organization was?
Mr. Dennett. Well, it was an effort on the part of the Communist leadership in this country to bring about the organization of unorganized workers. It had the idea that they should be organized in industrial unions. This is because its leader was William Z. Foster, and William Z. Foster had been an active leader in A. F. of L. unions. As a matter of fact, he was the leader of the great steel strike of 1919, and in the course of that strike he drew certain conclusions about the way it was conducted, namely, that it was next to impossible for the workers to obtain the kind of solidarity they needed to win when they were divided into so many different craft organizations.
So it was Foster who gave the greatest attention to this question of getting the maximum strength through organization of the workers in unions. And the Trade Union Unity League was an effort to organize these unorganized workers.
Now to the best of my knowledge some of the greatest success of the Trade Union Unity League occurred right here in the Northwest.
When I came into the district in 1932 there was a comparatively young fellow by the name of James Murphy who was the head of the Trade Union Unity League here. He was a lumberworker. He was a bona fide worker. He knew the language, he knew the habits, and he was able to get around the same as any “bindle stiff.”
For fear some might not understand the use of the term, in the old days loggers had to carry their own blankets when they went from place to place. And the way they carried them caused them to be called bindle stiffs.
These fellows were very adaptable. They were very skillful at traveling under adverse conditions, overcoming all kinds of physical difficulties. The stories of Paul Bunyon are not something out of the figment of the imagination entirely; they grew out of the huge efforts that the Northwest lumberworkers had to make in order to live.
So Murphy was a very successful organizer. He organized a very large number of people in the National Lumberworkers Union. He had an assistant by the name of Roy Brown who was almost equally successful. I do not recall the names of the others who were active in that organization, but I do know that they met with great success organizing miners here in the Northwest. They organized fishermen.
Mr. Tavenner. What connection did those organizations have with the Trade Union Unity League?
Mr. Dennett. They were all national unions in the Trade Union Unity League. And one of the greatest successful organizing drives was conducted among fishermen here in the Northwest.
A person who is now deceased, by the name of Emil Linden, was profoundly successful in organizing fishermen on the Columbia River and here in Puget Sound. 263
Mr. Tavenner. Was he successful in the organization of groups affiliated with the Trade Union Unity League?
Mr. Dennett. That is right.
The fishermen’s unions, as a matter of fact, had the distinction of having been organized and affiliated directly with the Red International of Labor Unions, which had a headquarters in Prague at that time.
Mr. Tavenner. What do you mean by saying that the Trade Union Unity League was affiliated with or a part of the Red International of Labor Unions?
Mr. Dennett. Well, they paid dues to an international organization, and this particular fishermen’s group which originated here were affiliated directly with the Red International of Labor Unions, and they paid dues directly to the headquarters in Prague.
Mr. Tavenner. Did that make them virtually a part of the Red International of Labor Unions?
Mr. Dennett. They were.
Mr. Moulder. What period of time was that?
Mr. Dennett. That was way back in about 1931 or 1932, or 1932 or 1933.
Mr. Tavenner. Where was the seat of the headquarters of the Red International of Labor Unions?
Mr. Dennett. At that time it was in Prague.
Mr. Tavenner. Among the documents which you have turned over to the staff of the committee and which we have examined is one entitled “The Trade Union Unity League, Affiliated to the Red International of Labor Unions.”
Will you examine it and state whether or not you can identify it as one of the documents which you turned over to us?
(Document handed to the witness.)
Mr. Dennett. If it has got my initials on it is mine; and it has.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you return it, please?
Mr. Chairman, I think I should read into the record at this point several paragraphs which I see in this document.
Mr. Moulder. Very well.
Mr. Tavenner (reading):
The national center of the revolutionary industrial union movement in the United States is the Trade Union Unity League, organized in Cleveland, August 31, 1929. The TUUL coordinates and binds all the revolutionary union forces into one united organization. It leads and directs the general struggle of the new union movement. It is the American section of the Red International of Labor Unions.
Is that just what you have been telling us, Mr. Witness?
Mr. Dennett. Correct.
Mr. Tavenner. I desire to read again from page 35 of this document.
In the event of an imperialist war it will mobilize the workers to struggle against American imperialism and to transform this war into a class war against the capitalist system itself.
Do you recall that as one of the objectives of the Trade Union Unity League?
Mr. Dennett. Yes, of course, I do. It is very plain. It is in black and white. I think that it has to be admitted by anyone with any knowledge of the subject that that was the objective, that was the 264 policy. That goes back a long way. That goes back to Lenin’s teaching. It goes back to the teachings of Marx. In fact, it goes back to the teachings of almost any of the philosophers, the idea that when a given set of circumstances becomes impossible to withstand it is to be expected that somebody is going to break the bonds somewhere.
Mr. Tavenner. I find this following paragraph on the same page under the title “Defend Soviet Union”:
The Trade Union Unity League especially organizes and educates the masses to fight in defense of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is the stronghold of the world’s working class. It is the cause of the workers in all countries. The overthrow of the Soviet Union by the capitalists would mean not only the slaughter of tens of thousands of Russian workers but would mark the beginning of the worst period of reaction internationally that the world has ever known. It would lead to widespread Fascist terrorism, and wholesale destruction of workers’ economic, political, and cultural organizations and the wiping out of conditions won by the workers through a century of sacrifice and struggle. It would throw back for decades the development of the world labor movement.
The workers must fight to the end in defense of the Soviet Union.
Is that paragraph in accord with what you understood at the time to be the objectives of the Trade Union Unity League?
Mr. Dennett. Well, shortly after my induction into the Communist Party I, as recounted earlier this morning, became the district agitprop director. In that position at that time we had the special privilege of receiving the first issues of all new pamphlets or magazines or anything like that that were issued. At that time there came into my possession a document with the title “The 21 Conditions for Affiliation With the Communist International,” and among those conditions these points that are set forth in this document you have just read cover some of those conditions.
Mr. Tavenner. In other words, was there a strict linking together through this organization and through the action of the Comintern, of the control of the Communist Party in this country by the international organization?
Mr. Dennett. I think that has to be acknowledged by anyone who is familiar with the record at all.
However, there is one little addendum that should be inserted at this point, that at a later point in the history of the Communist Party in the United States—I believe it was about the time the Voorhis Act was passed—under the leadership of Earl Browder the Communist Party in the United States took steps by formal resolution adopted at convention to completely disassociate itself legally from any of this previous material. They attempted to satisfy and comply with the provisions of the Voorhis Act.
And in their effort to do so they adopted a resolution in which they repudiated all of this political statement and line that we are now talking about. That was a formal act.
Mr. Tavenner. There was considerable testimony before this committee at the time it attempted to interrogate Max Granich and his wife, who were connected with a news facility which transmits from Europe to this country decisions of the Communist Party on an international level, and we heard a number of witnesses, including Louis Budenz, who was connected with the Daily Worker.
The testimony is very clear that that action you have spoken of was a device, not in good faith a severance or a disavowal of what had happened before. But it was a device, to keep the Communist Party 265 from being liable under provisions of the Voorhis Act to which you have referred, of representing a foreign country.
Mr. Dennett. Browder visited here in the Northwest during the time this action was being taken, and he explained it to our district bureau in this fashion, that the law was clearly aimed at putting the Communist Party out of business, and that the Communist Party was determined to not be put out of business, and it was going to comply with the act to the best of its ability, but that certainly did not mean that the Communist Party was going to disavow its sympathy with the working class throughout the world and the various sections of the Communist Party throughout the world.
There was great apprehension on the part of our district bureau about the action. We feared that perhaps the Communist Party was going nationalist on us, and we thought that was a heinous crime, that you should always be internationalists. And Browder was reassuring us that the Communist philosophy was still internationalist and would continue to be internationalist, but that the formal connection and the formal affiliations would have to be dispensed with.
He felt that the party was strong enough to travel along the road, as it needed to, without the direct intervention of the Comintern.
And, of course, it was shortly after that the Comintern itself was dissolved.
Mr. Tavenner. How long did this organization, the Trade Union Unity League, remain in effect in this area? And when I say in effect, I mean in existence.
Mr. Dennett. Until the organization of the CIO.
As the organization of the CIO approached or became clear that it was going to come in, the policy of the Red International of Labor Unions was modified by the international headquarters in Prague. It was modified because the 12th Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International had reviewed the developing world situation, had noted with alarm the rise of fascism in Germany, and resolved that somewhere their policies were not being too effective and, therefore, they must make certain modifications and allow for a little more flexibility than they had before.
You must understand that one of the conditions which existed as a condition for organizing these Red trade unions was that those workers so organized were virtually obliged to declare their loyalty to the cause of the Communist Party. Now that did not mean that they had to be members of it, but it meant that they had to express their sympathy with the efforts of the Soviet people and they had to accept the idea that the objectives of the working class and of the Communist Party were the same.
Therefore, they didn’t meet with much success in the United States in organizing these Red trade unions because the average worker who was confronted with this choice would say, “The devil with you.” He wouldn’t make a choice of that kind.
Mr. Tavenner. In other words, they realized they could not sell communism to the rank and file of American labor if it knew what they were buying.
Mr. Dennett. They certainly couldn’t sell it under that label to the American worker. They rejected it.
Mr. Tavenner. A label is for the purpose of describing an item; is it not? 266
Mr. Dennett. I can accept your statement; I think you are right. I think that confirms our experience.
Mr. Moulder. This was in a period, the conditions and circumstances of which offered a ripe opportunity for the exploitation of labor in this country by the Communist organizations.
Mr. Dennett. That is very true. And you must understand that we met with an uneven success.
I have described to you that in the Northwest we did meet with great success among the lumber workers, among the miners, and among the fishermen. We did meet with great success there because a very large number of those workers originally had been with the Industrial Workers of the World. And they weren’t afraid of a Red label. Wherever you found workers who were not afraid of a Red label they could accept such organization in good faith. But in most of the industrial centers in the East except in places where desperation was at the breaking point they did not meet with success.
I am thinking now of the situation which obtained in the textile mills of Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill following the First World War. In those places the Industrial Workers of the World were successful in offering leadership to those workers. And it is true that in some parts of the South, contrary to the usual idea, in some parts of the South the Red leaders were quite successful in organizing.
I remember vividly the Gastonia strike, and that was completely Red leadership. There is no question about it. They were the only ones that had the tenacity to stay with it under such adverse circumstances. But they stayed with it and they met with great success. They organized thousands and thousands and thousands of workers.
Mr. Tavenner. Would you say, generally speaking, the rank and file of labor would not accept the Communist Party if the Communist Party label were on it?
Mr. Dennett. That is true. They wouldn’t accept even the red cards which were used.
It was a peculiar thing. It seemed as though it was a badge of honor to some people, but something of a shock and surprise to others that the membership cards very often were printed in a very deep red color in the various unions of the Trade Union Unity League. And, of course, some of the membership cards of the Communist Party at that time were in identically the same color. The only addition was the hammer and sickle was imposed upon it as well. And it would be a very easy matter to become mixed up or confused if you didn’t look carefully at some of those cards in that period of time.
But to complete the point that you are concerned with at this moment, it is true that the program as set forth by the Red International of Labor Unions did not meet with the uniform success which they hoped for in the United States. So in 1935—I believe it was in 1935, it may have been a little bit earlier than that—following the 12th Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International’s decision that a sharp turn must be made in the mass work, that they must combat the rise of fascism by allowing greater flexibility to organize masses to resist the onrush of fascism, they took note of the situation in the United States and concluded that they could not prescribe the exact conditions under which to organize the workers in the United States. 267
That gave the opening which permitted the top leadership of the Communist Party in the United States to grant the request of most of the organizers in the Trade Union Unity League to dissolve their organizations and permit them to join the new rising organizations which were developing as industrial unions, and also to join the appropriate American Federation of Labor unions.
In other words, at the time of the split between the A. F. of L. and the CIO in the United States of America the Communist movement declared that it was logical and necessary to give up its own identity, which it did when it sacrificed the industrial unions that it had organized. And by 1935 they issued instructions that the industrial unions under the Trade Union Unity League must dissolve.
And I recall the regret which some of the fishermen had in having to give up their affiliation with the Red International of Labor Unions and go into what they call the “finky” organization, the International Seamen’s Union. They didn’t like it. They resented it. But nevertheless, as good soldiers, they obeyed the order. Later on it didn’t take them more than a couple of years when they were embarrassed whenever I would remind them that they had a Red origin. And the leadership there came to dislike me with a very firm resolve because I would never permit them to forget that they did have a Red origin and that I was ashamed of them being backward about taking progressive steps.
They caused me no end of concern because they were trying to be as conservative as the stanchest Republican when, in fact, they had a very, very Red origin.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dennett, would it be correct to analyze the situation you have described generally in this way: Beginning in 1935, and from then on, when the Red international of labor unions gave up the idea of having its own organizations within labor under its own label in this country, was the principal problem in dealing with the question of communism a matter of infiltration or attempted infiltration by the Communists into the leadership of all the unions in which they had a chance to gain leadership?
Mr. Dennett. Well, I recognize that the term infiltration is used to imply generally that somebody did something with a secret purpose.
Now that may have been true. So far as my own knowledge is concerned, we took it in stride. We didn’t think that there was anything special about it. We declared our objective to be the organization of all the workers. And, of course, we were part of all the workers. And as long as we could maintain that philosophy we were satisfied that we were part of the organization.
Mr. Tavenner. When you say part of the organization, what do you mean?
Mr. Dennett. I mean that those members that were organized by the Communist Party in the Trade Union Unity League, when they gave up their identity as members of a Trade Union Unity League organization, such as the national lumberworker’s union or the fishermen’s union or the miner’s union or something of that kind, they had the opportunity to become members of the appropriate union which was organizing in that field. In the case of the Northwest it was at that time the woodworkers federation, which was organized, in part, under the leadership of the carpenters and joiners, but against the wishes of the top leadership of the carpenters and joiners. 268
The top leadership, especially Mr. Hutcheson (William), was fearful of these rebels from the Northwest. He was afraid that if they became organized strong that they might cause him some trouble in his organization. And he put in a great deal of effort to see to it that they didn’t succeed in that.
Well, it is true that these rough-and-ready lumberworkers were willing to take on all comers so far as opposition was concerned. And Mr. Hutcheson seemed to be no bother to them, no more than anyone else would be. They didn’t fear anyone. They just proceeded to organize as best they could. But they were so thoroughly indoctrinated with the old Wobbly notions, that is, the Industrial Workers of the World ideas, they were very strong individualists, and they didn’t take kindly to the kind of discipline which doesn’t explain why it gives an order, and, consequently, the Communists in the woodworkers had a great deal of trouble.
As a matter of fact, the organization of the woodworkers federation was punctuated with stormy upheavals at every convention. The various caucuses which were led by the Communists and led by some of the old Industrial Workers of the World and led by some of those who wanted their loyalty to the carpenters and joiners and some who wanted their loyalty to the new organization of the CIO, these various groups were unable to compose and resolve their differences. It was never completely resolved. To this day it is not completely resolved.
The result of it today is that, well, of course, I realize there is a new merger in prospect, but the lumber workers in the Northwest were divided between the A. F. of L. and the CIO to such an extent that they were unable to use their full strength to bring it to bear during negotiations with their employers, and they have suffered very, very much here in the Northwest.
Mr. Velde. You are making a very fine story of the methods used by the Communist Party in infiltrating labor unions.
I want to ask you this: from your experience as a member of the Communist Party, which of the unions in this area were most successfully infiltrated by the Communist Party?
Mr. Moulder. May I ask during what period of time?
Mr. Velde. During the whole period of time since the Communists started infiltrating.
Mr. Dennett. I think it would have to be said that it was lumber. Actually, to begin with, it was the marine unions. The organization of the Maritime Federation of the Pacific was something that was inspired by the Communist Party because the Communist Party called for the organization of industrial unions, industrial organization. And that was a result of Foster’s leadership.
Mr. Velde. You think they were more successful in lumber than in the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union?
Mr. Dennett. Yes, I do. I do for the reason that in the maritime unions at the outset the Communists furnished the aggressive leadership which initiated the organization of all of the maritime unions, but it didn’t take very long before those workers, upon getting together, found that they had differences with those leaders. And the sailors union particularly made a sharp break with the Communists early in 1935, not over the issue of Communists but over tactical application of policy. 269
The Communists at that time were opposed to Harry Lundeberg’s organization of the tanker strike. And Mr. Lundeberg felt that he had the right to go out and improve the conditions of a contract by a process known as job action.
Now the Communists couldn’t possibly condone a thing like that because that permits individual action, and the Communist philosophy and theory did not permit variations of that kind.
It is also true that the old conservative leaders in the labor movement likewise frowned upon such an action. So you will find that if you have familiarity with it you will very often find that the most conservative people and the most radical people, if you go to the point of referring to the Communists, you very often will find that they are in agreement more on policy and on discipline than other people in between. Because both extremes depend upon centralized authority in order to maintain their positions, whereas the other people in between are a little bit more apt to make their decision on the basis of the merits of the given situation—a little more flexibility.
Mr. Velde. Before you get back to your story, let me ask you this:
The distinguished chairman was not present at our hearings here last June, but I am sure that counsel and our investigator and Mr. Dennett, too, recognize the fact that the great majority of the loyal labor unions in this area cooperated with this committee 100 percent last June. While our gratitude was expressed at that time, I again want to express gratitude to these local labor unions who cooperated with this committee and did everything within the bounds of reason to eliminate the Communist movement from this area.
Mr. Dennett. Mr. Chairman, may I be privileged to just make one comment about that?
Mr. Moulder. Yes.
Mr. Dennett. I have conferred with Mr. Wheeler, and I have expressed the idea to Mr. Tavenner that I think that it is a mistaken idea to refer to me as a cooperative witness or to refer to another witness as an uncooperative witness. I am here to testify to facts that I know. And I think that the question of cooperation is sometimes subject to misconstruction.
And the reason I say that, is because the other day while I was conferring with Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Tavenner and my counsel, I received a phone call, and this phone call had a conversation of two words that came from the other end. A person said, “Rat—stool pigeon.”
I am sorry that people who have been my friends over the years cannot see that I feel that it is my duty and my obligation to testify as to facts. I am sorry that they feel as embarrassed or bitter as they do.
I suppose before these hearings are over I will probably have as many people hate me as people even know me. That is not my concern.
I recognize that we do have some major problems to resolve, and I am fully aware that the Congress of the United States has made efforts in many different directions, many of which I am not in agreement with.
But I think that I do owe the obligation to you gentlemen and to the Congress and to my fellow Americans, that to the best of my knowledge, I will give you the benefit of my knowledge and my experience, and we will just let the chips fall where they may. 270
Mr. Velde. I don’t want to become involved in an argument with you.
Mr. Dennett. I don’t either.
I wanted to take an opportunity to say that, so I said it.
Mr. Velde. In my use of the word cooperate, and saying that the great majority of the labor unions cooperated with us, possibly I did misuse the term, but I wanted to again express my appreciation for the way they responded, let us say, to the evidence we produced here at the last hearings.
Mr. Moulder. I would like to say I think you are entitled to be complimented, and to the respect of the Congress of the United States and fellow American citizens, for the sincere and conscientious manner in which you are now testifying as to the facts.
Mr. Dennett. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Velde. I think you will find, Mr. Dennett, that you will have a lot more friends now after you get through testifying in this area than you had when you relied on the fifth amendment and refused to answer questions at a previous hearing.
Mr. Dennett. Without trying to prolong this, I would just say that I feel a keen obligation to one group of people, and that is the fellows that I work with on the job. The fellows that I have worked closest with have always had confidence in my integrity, and even when I have been under the sharpest attacks they have remained confident that my integrity would stand up.
Mr. Moulder. You should have more of them now.
Mr. Dennett. To them I feel the greatest obligation. And it is mainly for them that I am testifying here today, and I hope that it will be of satisfactory use to you.
Mr. Tavenner, for your benefit, during the recess I found something which I did not know that I could find, on this question of Mr. Stalin’s insistence upon iron discipline, and I found it in a little pamphlet: The Soviets and the Individual. I do not recall the year in which this was published. I will see if I can find a date on it. Well, this is an address that he delivered to the Red Army Academy, in the Kremlin, on May 4, 1935, and in the course of it he makes a remark like this:
Of course, it never even occurred to us to leave the Leninist road. More, having established ourselves on this road, we pushed forward still more vigorously brushing every obstacle from our path. It is true that in our course we were obliged to handle some of these comrades roughly. But you cannot help that. I must confess that I, too, took a hand in this business.
Mr. Tavenner. I believe that was after the first set of purges but before the second.
Mr. Dennett. I read that to corroborate the oral information which was passed on to me from Alex Noral.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Tavenner. Let us return at this point to that period of your Communist Party experience when you were assigned as agitprop or agitation propagandist in Seattle.
You have told us that you were relieved from that position. But how long did you serve in that capacity here?
Mr. Dennett. My memory is a little indistinct as to how long. It was only a very few months. It seems to me that it was between April of 1932 and some time in the summer of 1932 because I am quite sure that I went to Bellingham as the section organizer late in 1932. 271
Mr. Tavenner. The committee would be interested in learning the nature of your activities while engaged as an agitprop in Seattle.
Mr. Dennett. Actually in that first assignment no one seemed to know exactly what my duties were. I was struggling to find out. In the process of it I learned that the head of an agitprop department had to do almost all of his work through the organizational apparatus of the party, and it was his responsibility to see to it that the organizational structure of the party became thoroughly indoctrinated with the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism, as it was called.
Now the main thing that they were concerned with was to spread the knowledge of the theory and tactics of the class struggle. And I believe from my own study that it must be acknowledged that Lenin was the greatest master of that because Lenin proclaimed that every act has a class character to it, and he contended that every act of the employer is a class-conscious act, every act of the bourgeois politician is a class-conscious act. That was his contention.
And it was his contention that it was necessary for the workers to become thoroughly conscious that this is the nature of our present-day society, and they must learn the methods by which to overcome the ruling class.
Now this stems from the teachings of Marx. Marx originally stated that the capitalist state is the executive committee of the ruling class.
That is an abstraction which is very difficult for the average person to comprehend. I used to think that the reason it was so difficult was because these people had not come into contact with the material experiences which would be convincing.
In later years, since my leaving the party, I have had to reflect upon that a little bit more carefully, and I am rather inclined today to believe that both Marx and Lenin were in error in trying to apply a uniform rule.
I think that it is foolhardy for anyone today to deny that there are many evidences of class warfare which do exist, but I believe that it is also foolhardy to think that those points of conflict are going to be resolved by engaging in class warfare because they lead ultimately to the destruction of either one or both participants in that combat.
Mr. Moulder. May I interrupt you?
You made a very interesting and impressive statement a while ago, that both extreme radicals and extreme conservatives are inclined to assume a position of dictatorship.
In what year are we now on his associations here?
Mr. Tavenner. We are still in Seattle during the period that he was agitprop here.
Mr. Dennett. We are dealing with the question of the theory and tactics of the Communist Party in which it was the responsibility of the agitprop to make certain that it spreads through the ranks so that all the members understand it.
You see, there has been a great deal of effort put in to try to describe the role and function of the Communist Party. The leaders from time to time have gone to great lengths to explain it. But under Stalin’s leadership he resolved that question very firmly and very positively, that the members of the party were soldiers in the ranks, and they were obliged to obey the orders of their superiors. And he enforced that with a determination which I think is unequaled in history. 272
Mr. Tavenner. Throughout your experience in the Communist Party did you observe instances of iron discipline to which you have referred?
Mr. Dennett. Well, I have been told since my expulsion from the Communist Party that I had the reputation of being one of the worst offenders in the matter of enforcing that discipline. I was very vigorous, and I did try to insist that everyone I came in contact with follow the party line to the very letter. I was among the first to sense any deviation, and I was among the first to insist that steps be taken to correct such deviation. In doing so I thought I was following the party line.
Mr. Tavenner. Let us proceed now to the period when you were transferred to another area.
Will you tell us about that?
Mr. Dennett. I went to Bellingham, Wash., in 1932, and found a party membership, I believe, there of seven persons.
Unemployment was our greatest problem at that time. Everyone was unemployed. And, of course, the Communist Party policy then was to organize unemployment councils. And, of course, we had an unemployment council, and it consisted of seven members.
It was the exact duplicate of the membership in the Communist Party.
No one else would join it. No one else would have anything to do with it.
Mr. Tavenner. In what capacity were you sent to Bellingham?
Mr. Dennett. As section organizer.
I was in charge of the party. I immediately questioned the wisdom of the policy that they had been pursuing where they had two organizations consisting of the same people, doing exactly nothing.
So I began to take rather vigorous steps. I contacted people in the district center and advised them that this was a ridiculous situation and was very unrealistic.
Mr. Tavenner. What do you mean by district center?
Mr. Dennett. Seattle was the district headquarters of the party, and I was trying to win the agreement of Alex Noral to permit me to do something to get more members, at least in the unemployed council, in the hope that if I got them in the unemployed council I might be able to work upon them to win them to membership in the Communist Party.
But Noral was very adamant. He insisted that I must follow the exact directions which the national leader, Herbert Benjamin, had issued with respect to the policy of unemployment councils. And, of course, Herbert Benjamin had earlier outlined that the organization of the unemployed was one of the most important political tasks confronting the party because he called attention to the fact that the Russian revolution had obtained its greatest strength because it had organized the unemployed prior to the 1905 revolt, and that during the course of the 1905 revolt these unemployed organizations became Soviets, they became councils, and that when the 1917 revolution broke out these soviets had been reconstituted and the unemployed had comprised a very essential part of the organization to begin with, and therefore the masses of unemployed in the United States were looked upon as the elementary core around which it might be possible to develop a Soviet power in the United States. 273
Mr. Moulder. To what period of time are you now referring?
Mr. Dennett. That was in 1932.
We had another situation in Bellingham at that time. Noral had been there prior to my assignment. He wasn’t their section organizer, but he had been there on a visit as the district representative, and he had taken part in disciplining some people who apparently, prior to my arrival, had had ideas similar to my own, namely, that the people who were unemployed should be organized for the purpose of getting some assistance to solve their problems of hunger and housing and clothing, and that that should be the center of our attention.
But Noral was adamant with my predecessor as he was with me and had brought about the expulsion of a person there. A person who is known by the name of M. M. London.
Mr. London had adopted this name of London in honor of Jack London. It was not his real name at all.
But Mr. London was a very sharp-thinking person and very devoted to his neighbors and associates, and felt that the unemployed, the people who were suffering should be fighting for immediate relief whereas the unemployment councils had offered the slogan that the solution must be in the form of unemployment insurance.
Well, to the person who is hungry the hope of unemployment insurance, which required the adoption of legislation, which would take a longer period of time, wasn’t a very realistic thing.
But the demand for immediate relief was a very realistic thing. And the people in Bellingham flocked to the banner of London, and London organized what was known as the people’s councils.
He had as his able assistant a man by the name of George Bradley. George Bradley had had no connection with the Communist Party at that time or prior to that time. George Bradley at that time was an unemployed railroad worker. London, I believe, was an unemployed seaman at that time, who was actually living on a farm.
Mr. Tavenner. What was London’s real name?
Mr. Dennett. I do not know. I never have known. I think he took legal steps to have London established as his proper name. I think that is his legal name.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you know in what court and at what time he took that action?
Mr. Dennett. I have no knowledge of that. I say that I think that is true.
Mr. Tavenner. Proceed.
Mr. Dennett. In a county with a population of, at that time, about 40,000—there were, I guess, about 60,000 in the county, and there were about 40,000 in the city. London had succeeded, London and Bradley had succeeded in organizing the people’s councils until it actually had a dues-paying membership of over 60,000, and we were stewing around with 7 people. And we were trying to contend that our program was a better program than his.
I finally violated district discipline and joined the people’s councils myself. It caused great consternation in the district. The district leader, Mr. Alex Noral, threatened to have me expelled because I had violated discipline. The leaders of the people’s councils were fearful that I had joined to infiltrate their ranks. 274
So I was damned on both sides. It seems to have been my lot through the biggest part of my life.
It is immaterial to me, however. I think that my decision was correct because before the year was over we changed the situation until we had approximately 150 members in the Communist Party, and the unemployed movement was under the leadership of the people’s councils, and practically all of our people were in those people’s councils exerting an influence in them. It was not a decisive influence but it was an influence, and it did have a lasting effect because we recruited some people who later rose to great heights in the party, and they served the party very well and ably and as devotedly as they knew how.
Mr. Moulder. Mr. Tavenner, we will resume the hearings after the noon recess. It is now 12 o’clock.
Congressman Velde, do you wish to make a statement before taking the noon recess?
Mr. Velde. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think that most of us remember our hearings last June as a result of which two witnesses who appeared before us were cited for contempt.
I was very pleased and happy to learn that both of these witnesses, who were unanimously cited for contempt by the House of Representatives, were found guilty.
I want at this point to express my appreciation to Judge Bolt, to United States Attorney Moriarty, and United States Attorney C. E. Luckey for the promptness and efficiency and fairness exhibited during the trial of these two cases.
We all remember that the witness, George Tony Starkovich, was one of the most contumacious witnesses who has ever appeared before this committee in my experience.
I certainly hope that the Supreme Court, upon his appeal—while he certainly has the right of appeal—will affirm the decision of the United States district court.
Mr. Moulder. Thank you, Mr. Velde.
Mr. Dennett, you will return promptly at 1:30. The committee will stand in recess until 1:30 o’clock.
(Whereupon, at 12 o’clock noon, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p. m.)
Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order.
Is Mr. Jerry O’Connell in the hearing room?
(There was no response.)
Mr. Moulder. Will the officer standing at the door call for Jerry O’Connell in the corridor.
(There was no response.)
Mr. Moulder. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dennett, you were describing to the committee the formation of the unemployed councils in Bellingham and the success which the Communist Party had in having its members become members of that organization. You also described for us in a general 275 way the extent of influence that the Communist Party had in those organizations, in those councils, by reason of having its own members become members of the councils.
I ask you why the Communist Party was interested, and why it made a fight to get its own members into these unemployed councils. What was the purpose of it?
Mr. Dennett. Our purpose was at that time to find some way of prevailing upon the unemployed organizations to adopt a program we were advocating.
At that particular time it consisted mainly in fighting for the adopting of the slogan of demanding unemployment insurance. And I think that that is a point which must be remembered by everyone.
Many people accept unemployment insurance today as a principle, but they don’t know that its origin in the United States, at least, came because the Communists seized upon that as a means of winning the support of the masses of unemployed people.
And any ordinary person should have known in that period, if you look back from now, they should have known that that was a necessary step to be taken. But at that time the resistance to it was terrific.
Mr. Tavenner. Are you saying it was the desire of the Communist Party, by these methods, to win support of the masses?
Mr. Dennett. Correct.
Mr. Tavenner. To win support in what way?
Mr. Dennett. To win them to an interest—I should say, first, an interest in the Communist Party; then to lead them along the path of struggling against the capitalist system which would ultimately, they hoped, result in the replacement of the capitalist organization of a Soviet form of society.
Mr. Tavenner. Would you say that the Communist Party made that type of effort in almost every form of our society?
Mr. Dennett. Well, the leaders were held responsible to see to it that they did make such an effort. It wasn’t so easy to do so among the ranks of the members who didn’t hold any official position, but any person who held an official position, such as a unit organizer or a section organizer or an agitprop director or a trade-union organizer or a fraction secretary, in any of those positions a person was expected to carry the Communist Party line. If he didn’t, he was certainly subject to discipline.
Mr. Tavenner. The committee from time to time has heard a great deal of evidence about the organization of Communist Party cells or branches or units which have been variously termed neighborhood groups and street groups. There has been an effort made in some instances to make it appear that such groups had very little part to play or very little function in the overall picture and purposes of the Communist Party, although they testified that in the instances where Communist Party branches were organized within factories and within industry generally that they had a more definite purpose.
Will you tell the committee about the formation of neighborhood groups of the Communist Party, or what we call sometimes street groups, and explain what part those organizations played in the overall Communist Party program?
Mr. Dennett. Well, first of all, it is necessary to understand one principle of organization that the Communist Party adopted, and that is, that the form of the organization had to satisfy a need, and 276 that the form itself was subordinate, the form was not the principal question.
The principal question was the function that they were to serve.
So the Communist Party adopted a very flexible attitude on this. In some of the early Communist Party literature it refers almost exclusively to Communist cells. And cells are generally thought of as some very small unit that is sort of hidden away. Actually it was Lenin’s instruction to the party that they should make every factory a fortress for Communist activity.
And the directives of the Red International of Labor Unions always held forth that as an objective.
Now they found that in some countries such factory cells were impractical forms of organization. They just didn’t work out. And it was particularly true in the United States of America because most workers in most of the factories had very little opportunity to discuss political business while they were at work.
In some of the other countries workers did engage in that kind of effort and activity. So shop units and shop cells were possible of organization and were effected. In fact, they were openly known.
In the united States the Communist Party adopted the practice of adapting its basic organization, the elementary part of the organization, to whatever circumstances they found themselves in.
In the period of great unemployment people weren’t working in the factories. So we found them in the neighborhoods. And in the neighborhoods where we could recruit a half dozen Communists we made a neighborhood branch.
At first we called them units. In later years I understand they were called branches. But at the time when I was most active we always referred to them as units. And we would try to get each neighborhood branch to assume some responsibility for some factory or some industry, to carry on agitation and propaganda among the workers of a particular factory or plant for the purpose of trying to recruit those workers into the party and establish a shop unit or what later became known as a branch.
So the point that is of importance here, as I see it, is that the party was flexible in adopting forms of organization, but it was inflexible as to the purpose of those organizations. And their purpose certainly was always as far as I knew—and I was one of those who insisted that it must be kept foremost—to lead the working class to overthrow the capitalist class in political power.
Now I think that there is a great deal of misconception and misunderstanding as to just what that may involve.
The Communist Party went to great length to try to draw a distinction, particularly in the United States, between overthrowing the rule of a particular class and overthrowing the form of the particular government. And it was always the party’s claim in the United States that what they were trying to accomplish was to unseat the robber barons and the big business interests who had seized the seats of government in the United States, and the Communist Party always played down the problem of changing the form of government because nearly all liberal persons you come across will raise the point that one thing that America contributed which the rest of the world has never enjoyed is the right to individual freedom. 277
The preservation of the constitutional democratic form of organization in the United States governmental structure has always held a very firm appeal to any person who has made any study of governmental structures. The Communist leadership found it virtually impossible to convince anybody that is acquainted with that fact that this constitutional, democratic form of representative government should itself be changed. However, I think that it is a form of self-delusion, and I think that perhaps I have to admit my own in that connection because, among the principles that Lenin hammered away on was the necessity, once the workers seize power, of completely destroying the bourgeois forms of organization. And there is no question about it; there is plenty of literature to substantiate that that would include what was referred to as the constitutional democracies.
You must recall that in the history of the Russian Revolution when the Bolsheviks seized power they replaced a representative form of government, which had been completely unable to solve the economic, financial, and political problems that confronted the people in old Russia. So it was quite natural that the Bolsheviks should say we must sweep aside all these forms that are hindrances.
And I fear that the average person who attempts to transplant an arbitrary form or an idea which is erected in one part of the world because of a certain historical set of circumstances and arbitrarily transplant it to another part of the world under entirely different historical circumstances finds himself trying to solve an impossible problem. And I think that that is basically the problem which the Communist Party itself ran into.
There is no question about it: Lenin’s teachings and the teachings of the Communist Party call for the change of the form of the present so-called bourgeois democratic governments.
I don’t know how valuable or informative this line of response is for your committee, but I would just interject this part of my own thinking, that it is self-delusion on the part of those who think that it does not involve sweeping aside the present constitutional government.
I can see no explanation which would justify such a conclusion.
My own conclusion necessarily is that it does involve such a change, and for a long period of time I felt that such a change was justified because of the adamant refusal of people in high places in government to respond to the needs of the people. And that was particularly true in the depression period, in the unemployed period.
Mr. Velde. I take it from your testimony that you feel the Communist Party of the United States never did teach the overthrow of our form of government by force and violence.
Mr. Dennett. I would have to say to that that they did not emphasize that point.
I think it would be ridiculous to contend that that is the complete statement of it.
They relied and fell back on Lenin’s explanation of the question of force and violence. And Lenin’s explanation always was that force and violence occurs because the employers start it.
In the case of strikes Lenin always contended that it was the employers who started the violence by bringing in either strikebreakers 278 or armed guards or police or something of that sort, and that the violence is started against the workers to begin with.
And then he taught that the workers must defend themselves.
Mr. Velde. Did you have the feeling while you were in the Communist Party that the ultimate goal in case all peaceful methods fail was to use force and violence?
Mr. Dennett. It is hard to give you a direct answer to the question as you are posing it.
Let me say it this way and see if this answers you:
This is the most delicate question that is before everyone on the subject, and I think that I would be unfaithful to myself if I were to give you a snap answer because a snap answer, I think, is inappropriate.
I think we have to get at the facts as they exist. And my own feeling and the thing that I was impressed with was, again, the teachings of Lenin wherein he proclaimed that never did any autocracy willingly yield up its power. Never did any tyranny willingly yield up its power, and that necessarily any group who sought to obtain political power under those circumstances would be confronted with solving a problem of force and violence. They would be met with force and they would have to answer it with force.
Mr. Velde. That substantiates the testimony that Barbara Hartle gave us here last June. I am satisfied.
Mr. Dennett. I think that is fundamental teaching of the Communist Party, and anyone who reads Lenin’s works very carefully will find that is there.
The point that is germane to us is: Does the United States come in the category that Lenin was speaking of?
Now the Communist Party went through a terrific amount of theoretical argument on this question, and some resolved the question as meaning, yes; the United States comes in that category.
Some questioned whether that were true, and I think that is why you will find a divergence of testimony from different Communists.
Mr. Velde. I take it then you feel that the methods used in the United States were different than the methods used by the Comintern in other parts of the world, in countries that are now Communist countries.
Mr. Dennett. I was referring in what I was discussing to the difference between the form of government in the United States and the form of government as exists in other countries, particularly comparing it with old Czarist Russia.
Something most people don’t realize is the extent of the oppression which existed under the old Czar. And it was only natural that people who sought to accomplish a change, after finding that no amount of effort could bring about a rational or reasonable change, finally came to the conclusion the only thing they could do was to eliminate the Czarist regime. That was an autocracy.
Now the question theoretically arises: Does such a situation obtain in the United States? Or is it possible for the people, by legitimate political organization, to bring about the changes that they consider to be desirable?
There was a great dispute raging in the ranks of the Communist Party over that question. 279
Mr. Jay Lovestone fell by the ax over it. He taught that America was an exceptional situation and that exceptional tactics had to be used in the United States. Because of that he suffered expulsion.
Mr. Velde. Do you happen to know Jay Lovestone?
Mr. Dennett. I did not know him. I have read some of his works. Not very much; only what the party said he said.
Mr. Velde. Of course, Mr. Dennett, you realize that we have had, I think about 100 convictions under the Smith Act whereby various Communist Party leaders were convicted of advocating communism.
Mr. Dennett. I didn’t know how many.
Mr. Velde. It may be less or more than that.
Do you know, Mr. Tavenner?
Mr. Tavenner. 86 or 87, according to my recollection.
Mr. Velde. And, of course, those trials were held under our American system of jurisprudence.
I am inclined to agree with all the juries involved and all the judges involved that the Communist Party here in the United States of America did advocate the overthrow of our form of government by force and violence, if necessary. I don’t want to appear to be arguing with you.
Mr. Dennett. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this question with you because I think any general rule is a dangerous thing to lay down. I think that it has to be on the merits of each individual case. That is my own feeling. And I think that that is consistent with our American tradition of jurisprudence, too.
Mr. Velde. I certainly agree with you on that.
Mr. Dennett. I have a feeling that it is unwise to make sweeping, uniform applications of the rule. I think they have to be judged on the merits of each particular case. I think that is one of the things that we must fight with all our might and main to preserve.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you state, with respect to Jay Lovestone, that you thought his group insisted on viewing the aspects of this problem under special circumstances?
Mr. Dennett. It was known as the theory of exceptionalism.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you state very briefly what the theory of exceptionalism is?
Mr. Dennett. The Communist Party taught that the theory and tactics which Lenin taught were universally applicable, that they applied to all countries, they applied to all situations.
Lovestone said, “Yes; except in the United States. Here we have got to do something different.”
Mr. Tavenner. I was discussing with you the purposes of the Communist Party in infiltrating the unemployment councils which you have described. I handed you, just a few moments ago, a document which was one of those you turned over to the staff. That document discusses the importance of Communist Party cell organizations. I believe it discusses it in very much the same way that you have.
Mr. Dennett. I think that is where I learned it.
Mr. Tavenner. What was the source of that document?
Mr. Dennett. Well, the title of it is: “How the Communist International Formulates at Present the Problem of Organization.” And the title or the subject was written by a person by the name of B. Vassiliev. He was a high official in the Comintern and was responsible 280 for one of the committees in the executive committee of the Communist International. I do not recall much else about him. And this document doesn’t establish much more. But I believe that the document originally came into my possession while I was an agitprop director, and it was in a mimeographed form. It came from the central committee.
Mr. Tavenner. Of the Communist Party?
Mr. Dennett. Of the Communist Party.
It was sending forth to the districts direct information as to the policy which had been laid down by the executive committee of the Communist International, and it was detailed information because many people had been complaining that nowhere was there anything in a detailed form describing organizational methods and practices.
Vassiliev came forth with a document which outlines it, spells it out in every detail. It spells out how to work under illegal conditions, it spells out how to work under legal conditions. It also spells out how to combine legal and illegal work.
This, by the way, for those who have been in the Army, you can readily recognize a similarity of military training with party organization because there is the method of the emphasis upon maintaining communication lines between various parts of the organization at all times, the necessity of having secondary lines of communication in case the primary lines are destroyed. And there is also the question of use of passwords. It is all described. The description of how to use code is also contained here. And I think that some people attach more significance to it than I do for the reason that I saw military organization practice virtually the same things.
Of course, that brings up a subject which may be unpleasant to reflect upon, and I suspect that the average member of the Communist Party is quite unaware of the similarity of his position as a member of the Communist Party to that of a person who is a member of the Armed Forces. He is under discipline. His directions come from above. He has to obey or suffer the consequences.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, this is a very unusual document. I wish the committee had time right now to go into every phase of Communist Party organization that is referred to in it.
I think all that we can do now is to offer it as an exhibit and have it made a part of the record with the view of giving it more detailed study later. So I offer it in evidence and ask that it be marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 1,” and that it be incorporated in the transcript of the record.
Mr. Moulder. The exhibit offered in evidence, marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 1” for identification, will be admitted as a part of the record.
Dennett Exhibit No. 1
How the Communist International Formulates at Present the Problem of Organization
(By B. Vassiliev)The Enlarged Presidium of the E. C. C. I. (February 1930), summing up the international situation, called upon all Communist Parties to fundamentally change the methods and pace of their work by concentrating their chief attention on the problems of the preparation and the carrying out of mass REVOLUTIONARY ACTIONS OF THE PROLETARIAT—strikes, demonstrations, etc., while at the same time continuing as far as possible to promote their agitational 281 and propaganda work. Consequently, in the present conditions, the Party apparatus, in response to the demands which the direction of the Comintern puts forward, should in the first place be fitted for the organization of demonstrations, strikes and other mass actions of the proletariat. Party leaders who are not capable of organizing demonstrations and strikes do not answer to the demands which the circumstances of the class struggle are now placing before the Communist Parties, and therefore should be replaced by others who have shown these qualities in the course of the class battles of the most recent period.
Why did the Enlarged Presidium put the question in this way? The political resolution of the Enlarged Presidium states that the growing new economic crisis is hastening the process of upsetting capitalist stabilization (it has already led to the beginning of the collapse of capitalist stabilization) and the growth of class contradictions, thus accelerating the rise of a new revolutionary wave. The resolution further states that the working class movement in the period since the 10th Plenum of the E. C. C. I. had been raised to a higher stage. The revolutionary activity of the proletarian masses has grown stronger, the fighting capabilities of the Communist Parties have been heightened. The whole position of the class struggle has placed before the Communist Parties and the Communist International as a whole, a number of new fighting tasks. In the process of the growth of a new revolutionary upsurge there are present already in certain capitalist countries elements of a gathering political crisis and of a revolutionary situation, as for example, in Poland, Italy, Spain, partly in Rumania, in Yugoslavia, and in Greece. A deep political crisis is present in China and India, being the starting point of a revolutionary situation. In Germany the process of the radicalization of the masses of the working class is proceeding at a swift pace. In France, another country of powerful capitalism, the number of strikers grew from 222,000 in 1928 to 431,000 in 1929, whilst these strikes assumed a more and more clearly expressed political character and were characterized by the growing tenacity of the workers. In England, in spite of extraordinary difficult conditions for the growth of a revolutionary movement, in spite of the extraordinary weakness of the Communist Party (on the 1st January 1930, 2,800 Party members and 120 members in the Y. C. L.), the number of strikers in 1929 compared with 1928 grew from 124,000 to 534,000 comprising the most important sections of industry, such as mining and textiles.
At the same time, the gigantic successes of socialist construction in the U. S. S. R. are sharpening in the most extreme way the contradictions between U. S. S. R. and the entire capitalist world and are forcing the leaders of the capitalist world to strengthen and hasten to the highest degree their military preparations of a new armed attack on the U. S. S. R. The 10th Plenum of the E. C. C. I. showed that the danger of new Imperialist wars and of new attacks of the imperialists on the U. S. S. R. never was so imminent from the time of the imperialist war of 1914-18 as it was at the moment of the 10th Plenum. By March 1930 that danger had increased still more.
In these conditions of growing economic crisis and heightened threat of war against the U. S. S. R. all measures will be taken by the ruling classes of the capitalist countries to guarantee their rear before declaring war, that is, everything will be done by them to weaken, disorganize and, as far as possible, liquidate completely all revolutionary proletarian organizations, and in the first place the Communist Parties.
Moreover, the elections themselves in illegal Parties must, as a rule, take place in such a way that even the members of the conference do not know who is elected on to the Party Committee. At the present time two methods of electing leading organs in illegal Parties are practised. The first method. The Party Conference elects a special commission for counting the votes cast for candidates for members of the Party Committee. Then the candidates are named and the election of the Party Committee proceeds by secret vote. The commission checks the results of the voting, whilst it does not report to the conference as to the personnel elected. Another method of election. The conference elects a narrow commission in which a representative of the higher Party Committee takes part and this narrow committee elects the new Party Committee. In strictly illegal Parties, as for example, the Italiana Communist Party, the latter method of election is the only one which more or less guarantees strict conspirative conditions.
Self-criticism of the mistakes of the Party direction in illegal Parties must also be organized through narrow conferences and must take place in such a way that the names of the Party leaders and the functioning of the Party apparatus, do not lose their conspirative character. 282
15. QUESTIONS OF COMMUNICATIONS
The most important element of successful working of the Party Committee—the one on which during the checking of its work the most serious attention must be concentrated—is the question of connections of the Party Committee with the higher and lower Party organizations, especially with the factory cells and the fractions of the mass non-Party organizations. This question now has a decisive importance, especially in the legal and semi-legal Communist Parties. The illegal Communist Parties have already worked out a whole number of measures and methods in order to keep their communications with the lower organizations and with separate members of the Party, in spite of the severest police repression. But with the legal and semi-legal Parties there is bad work all the time along this line. In Austria during the last Fascist rising, the C. C. lost connection with the Vienna Committee, and the Vienna Committee lost connection with the enterprises. In Paris on the 6th March 1930, the C. C. lost connection with the Paris organization for six days. Such a state of affairs is absolutely impossible and the most important task of each of our Party organizers, of every instructor going to the locals to check the work of the Party Committee is above all to check how the connections between the Party Committee and other Party organizations are organized, and especially these with the lower Party organizations, and the factory cells. It is perfectly clear that the Communist Parties will not be in a position to organize any mass actions of the Proletariat or mass strikes, or mass street demonstrations, if the Party Committees at sharp moments of struggle lose connection with the factory cells and mass non-Party organizations.
Which are the most important methods of communication it is essential to foresee? It is essentially important to have a well-laid out live communication. Live communication is kept going by the help of the system of so-called appearing or reporting places. What is a reporting point. A reporting point is this: the Party Committee establishes special addresses of flats or other places where on certain days and at certain times representatives of the cells and fractions of the mass organizations must appear. There also representatives of the Party Committees appear. The representative of the cells and fractions makes reports on what has happened in the factory, what the cell has done, what it proposes to do and so on, and the representatives of the Party Committee, having received the report, advises the cell how it should act, passes on to it the directions of the higher Party organs and so on. This system of appearing places must without fail be established in all Parties without exception, legal and illegal whilst in the legal Parties a double system of reporting places must without fail be established—a system of legal and illegal appearing points. Legal reporting places in the legal premises of the Party Committee and illegal appearing places in case the legal premises of the Party Committee are closed, or a police ambush is sitting there, in order quickly to re-establish connection with the lower Party cell in another way through the illegal reporting place. For the latter, appearing points should therefore be prepared beforehand. In Germany, in Belgium, in France, Party meetings in cafes were at one time very widespread. This is a very bad habit because there are always spies in cafes in countless numbers and it is difficult to get rid of them. It is necessary to go over more quickly to the establishment of appearing places in safer localities. If the Party has already more or less seriously and fundamentally gone over to underground positions, and the shadowing of leading active Party members has begun, and Party members are being arrested in the streets, then it is very important that special signals should be established for the appearing flats, showing; in the first place, the safety of the flat, second, showing that exactly those people have come who were expected and that these comrades who have come are talking with exactly those comrades whom the observer is coming to see. In order to show that the reporting places are in working order, in Russian conditions, for example, a flowerpot was placed in the window, the comrade came, saw that the flowers are there, knew that it is safe, and entered. It is necessary to say that these reception signals were very quickly learned by the police and that they therefore, when visiting any flat, carefully searched for signals before fixing an ambush. If they saw that flowers are in the window and the person whom they have come to arrest has tried by all means possible to take these flowers away, the police insisted on putting them back in the place where they were. So, when arranging safety signals for reporting places, it is necessary to arrange them in such a way that they don’t strike the eyes of the police and that they can be taken away without being noticed by the police. 283
For verifying those who come to the reporting places, a system of passwords is established. The comrade comes to the reporting place, and he says some agreed-upon sentence. They answer to that agreed-on sentence by some other agreed-on sentence. So both comrades check each other. In Russian underground conditions very complicated passwords were sometimes used in the central appearing places. This was called forth by the circumstances that different workers passed through such reporting places; rank and file workers from the cells, district and Central Party workers. Accordingly, one password was fixed for the rank and file worker, a more complicated one for the district worker and still more complicated one for the central worker. Why was this necessary? It was necessary for conspirative reasons, since only certain things could be said to the rank and file worker while perhaps other things could be said to the district worker, whilst you could speak with full frankness about the whole work of the illegal organization to the representative of the Central Committee. Therefore, passwords were, as they used to say at that time of “three degrees of trust.” This was done in this way. The first degree of trust: a comrade comes and says an agreed-upon sentence and is replied to by an agreed-upon sentence. The second stage: the comrade who has come in reply to the agreed-upon sentence spoken to him, says another agreed-upon sentence, in reply to which yet another agreed-upon sentence is spoken to him. The third stage of trust: to the second agreed-upon sentence the comrade replies by a third agreed-upon sentence. Then the keeper of the appearing place also replies to the third agreed-upon sentence.
Besides flats for reporting points, connecting link flats are also needed for communication by letter, and these flats must in no case coincide. And finally, there must be flats for the sheltering of illegal comrades, comrades whom the police are looking for; comrades who have escaped from prison, etc., etc. For all our legal Communist Parties the question of addresses and flats now plays a role of the first importance. Last year, on the eve of the 1st August, when it was clear that the leading workers would be arrested in a number of countries, comrades did not know where to go, there were no flats. In any case, when it was necessary to shelter comrades hiding from the police in Germany, Czechoslovakia and France very great difficulties occurred, especially in the provinces. It is essential for all Parties to occupy themselves now in the most serious way with the solution of the “housing” problem.
Concerning communications by letter. It is also necessary to give the most serious attention to the problem of the organization of letter communications. In checking the work of the Party Committee it is necessary to consider this question specially: Does the Party Committee have addresses for communicating by letter with the higher and lower Party organizations, and how are these communications put into practice? Now, even for the legal Parties, the firmest rule must be established that all correspondence concerning the functioning of the Party apparatus, must without fail go by special routes guaranteeing letters from being copied in the post. All kinds of general circulars, general information reports on the condition of the Party in legal parties can go through the ordinary post to legal Party addresses, but everything concerning the functioning of the Party Committee even in legal Parties, most now without fail go by special routes. In the first place, the use of special couriers must be foreseen, who will personally carry letters, not trusting these letters to the State post. Here the Parties must make use of the connections which they have with post and telegraph and railway servants, connections with all kinds of commercial travellers for trading firms and so on. All these connections must be used in order that without extra expense responsible Party documents can be transported. Further, every Party should take care that every letter, apart from whether it goes through the State post or by courier should be written in such a way that in case it falls into the hands of the police it should not give the police a basis for any kind of arrest or repression against the Party organization.
This makes the following three requisites. The first requisite: the letter must be in code, i. e., all aspects of illegal work are referred to by some special phrase or other. For example, the illegal printing press is called “auntie”; “type” is called “sugar” and so on. A comrade writes: “auntie asks you without fail to send her 20-lbs. of sugar;” that will mean that the press is in need of 20-lbs. of type or a comrade writes: “we are experiencing great difficulty in finding a suitable flat for our aunt.” That means that it is a question of finding a flat for the illegal printing press.
Second requisite: besides a code, as above, ciphers are used, illegal parts of letters being put not only into code but also into cipher. There are many different systems of cipher. The simplest and at the same time most reliable system 284 of cipher is the system of cipher by the help of a book. Some book or other is agreed upon beforehand and then the cipher is made in this way: simple fractions or decimals are ciphered. The first figure of the first fraction shows the page of the book. Then further comes the actual cipher. For the numerator of the fraction we must take a line counting from above or below; for the denominator that counting from the left or from the right which it is necessary to put into cipher. For example, we need to put into cipher the letter “A”. We look in the book and we see that this letter is in the third line from the top, the fourth letter from the left to the right. Then we cipher 3 over 4 (¾), that is the third line from the top, fourth letter from left to right. You can agree also on this method; for example, counting the line not from above but from below, then the 3 will not be the third line from above but the third line from below. You can agree to count the letter in the line not from left to right but from right to left. Finally, for greater complexity in order to keep the sense from the police, you can also add to the fraction some figure or other. Let us say the numerator is increased by 3 and the denominator by 4. In this case in order to decipher, it will be necessary first to subtract in the numerator and denominator of every fraction. A whole number of similar complications can be thought out in order to complicate the cipher. The advantage of such a cipher is that it is not only very simple but also that each letter can be designated by a great number of different signs and in such a way that the cipher designation of the letters are not repeated. The book cipher can be used without a book. In place of a book some poem or other can be chosen, learned by heart and the ciphering done according to it. When it is necessary to cipher or decipher, the poem must be written out in verses and then the ciphering or deciphering done and the poem destroyed.
The third requisite which is also recommended should be observed in correspondence, is writing in chemical inks, that is, with such inks that it is impossible to read them without special adaptations. If a secret Party letter falls into the hands of the police written in invisible ink they must first of all guess that it is written in invisible ink; the open text of such letters must be made perfectly blameless, for example, a son is writing to his mother that he is alive and well and of the good things he wishes her. Not a word about revolution. The police must guess first of all that under this apparent innocent text there is a hidden text. Having discovered this secret the police tumble against the cipher. If they succeed in deciphering the cipher, they stumble up against a code and they have still to decipher that code. But all this takes time in the course of which the police can do nothing. If the police succeed in reading it in the course of two or three weeks, then by that time the Party organization has been able to cover up all the consequences of the question which was written about in the letter.
What kind of invisible ink should be used? Invisible inks exist in a very great number. They can be bought in any chemist’s shop. Finally, comrades must use the latest inventions of chemistry in this direction. The simplest invisible ink which can be recommended and which can be found everywhere, is, for example, onion juice and pure water.
16. PLAN OF WORK OF THE PARTY COMMITTEE
Every Party Committee must have a definite plan of work for the period immediately ahead. In the conditions of the capitalist countries Party Committees cannot work out the same complicated calendar plans as the Party organizations of the C. P. S. U. The C. P. S. U. is a Party in power, the plans of the C. P. S. U. regulate the whole social and political life of the country. In capitalist countries the Communist Parties are the parties of an oppressed class. The bourgeoisie in power uses the whole apparatus of the State power and the full help of the Social-Fascist and other reactionary organizations in order to smash the plans of the Communist Parties. In these conditions the committees of the Communist Parties must systematically reconsider and reconstruct the plans of their work; accordingly, these plans must be very pliable. But plans there must be, without fail. Every Party Committee must have an approximate plan of its work for the period immediately ahead and must group the forces of the Party organization according to that plan, fit the forms of the Party structure to it and also the methods of Party work. The essence of the plan of work of the Party Committee is the adequate catering for the needs of the masses in the largest enterprises, playing a more important role in the territory of the given Party organization. The structure of the local Party organization must be such 285 that the organizations can above all serve these big enterprises. That is to say, that in the first place the Party Committee must interest itself in questions of the work of the factory cells at these big enterprises, must help in the work of these factory cells, seeking to attain that these Party cells should become really strong political and organizational organs of the Party, that they should be in practice connecting organs between the Party and the masses of workers at these enterprises. This idea can best of all be made clear by a concrete example, say as follows: in a town there are two or three big enterprises; railway workshops, a metal factory, a textile factory. Besides these three big enterprises there are two or three dozen small enterprises, and in addition scattered Party members, individual workers, artisans, representatives of the so-called liberal professions,—lawyers, writers, a doctor and so on, as well as a few students. The Party Committee of this town should interest itself above all in what is happening in the big enterprises—in the railway workshops, in the metal factory and the textile factory, how the factory cells are working there and in the first place help the factory cells of these enterprises by all and every means possible, concentrating all their attention and all their forces on this task. In the lawyer’s office and the doctor’s surgery there are no masses which the Party must win over and organize for revolutionary struggle. It is another matter with the big enterprises. Therefore the central question in the work of every Party Committee is the question of systematically coming to the assistance of the factory cells in the big enterprises. A Party Committee which cannot provide serious daily help to such factory cells, a Party Committee which cannot organize factory cells capable of working in the enterprises, is a bad Party Committee and the leading organs of the Party and the mass of Party members should hasten to draw from this state of affairs the necessary conclusions and as quickly as possible make a change so far as such a Party Committee is concerned.
17. MOBILIZATION OF THE FORCES OF FACTORY CELLS
We must bear in mind with regard to the internal organization of the work of factory cells that in all countries some members of the Party working in the enterprises, do not wish to be members of factory cells and do not wish to carry on Party work in the factory. For example, in the documents of the Central Committee of the Czechoslovakian Party on the preparation for the campaign for the 6th March 1930 there is information from all districts that when practical questions of the preparation for the demonstration for the 6th March were put before the meetings of factory cells, in many factory cells voices were raised to the effect that it was impossible to do any work in the factory, and at a place called Laza in Moravia, one responsible worker of a factory cell even put the question in this way: “If the Party will guarantee material help after I have been thrown out of the factory for taking part in the demonstration, but if the Party cannot guarantee my family and myself then I will not carry on Party work in the factory.” Such moods among Communists working in the factory are to be observed on all sides. There are Party members who agree to pay membership dues, agree to come to a meeting once every fortnight or once a month, in order to hear a report on the world proletarian revolution, and vote for the platform of the Comintern against the liquidators, the Trotskyists and all other renegades, but are not willing to carry on recruiting work among the workers of their enterprise, do not wish to prepare strikes in their own enterprises, do not wish to call out the workers of their enterprises to demonstrations, and so on. Every Party Committee has to fight with such Party members in their enterprises. What should we do with them? The most important task of the Party committee consists in organizing all Party members working in enterprises into factory cells and drawing them into the day to day work of the factory. With regard to Party members who do not wish to take part in the work of factory cells, the most attentive and stubborn explanatory work must be carried out. But if somebody or other all the same, categorically refuses to work in a factory cell, that comrade must be told that nobody is keeping him in the party. (The Communist Party is a voluntary organization, but every worker who voluntarily joins the ranks of the Communist Party accepts iron party discipline. If that discipline seems very hard to him, even unbearable, then the Party should not shut its doors upon him.) In this regard we must bear in mind that Party members who do not wish to work in factory cells are not necessarily traitors to the working class. In some organizations Party workers, proletarians, who have refused to carry out difficult tasks in their enterprises, 286 have been cleaned out of the Party as alien elements. There are alien elements in the ranks of the Communist Party, including direct provocators, agents of the police and the employers, who specially creep into the Party for the purpose of carrying on disruptive work in the ranks of the Party. The Party must strictly observe each one of its members, verify in the most careful way every suspicious Party member, and if it is established that he is an alien element and even more a provocative agent, then of course, there is absolutely no reason to beat about the bush with him. But in the ranks of the Communist Parties there are a large number of proletarians who sincerely sympathize with Communism but who at the same time are not strong enough to fulfill all the demands of Communist discipline. With regard to such proletarians, if they are not capable of being members of the Communist Party there is no need to keep them in the Communist Party, but at the same time there is no need to throw them out of the Party like a dirty rag; they must be organized round the Party as sympathizers as members of non-Party mass organizations, in the Red Trade Unions, in the I. L. D., the W. I. R. and so on. In these organizations no such discipline is demanded as in the ranks of the Communist Party and they can work here in a suitable manner. At the present stage of development of the Communist movement, when the Communist Parties are ceasing to be organizations for propaganda and agitation of the Communist idea, and are turning into fighting organizations, preparing and leading revolutionary actions of the proletarian masses against the organized forces of the employers, police, State and Social-Fascists, some members of the Party are showing themselves incapable of fulfilling the new fighting tasks of the Communist Party. But without doubt such Party members can be useful to the Party as sympathetic elements, and even as leading active elements in different mass organizations, as for example, in the ILD, Tenants’ Organizations, W. I. R., and so on. Factory cells must be composed of proletarians who are really the advance guard of the workers of a given enterprise, devoted to the cause of Communism, ready to carry out the directions of the Party, grudging neither health nor strength, nor life, not being afraid if Party interests demand it to carry out such work in the enterprise as may cause the employer to throw them out of the factory, perhaps the police to arrest them, and the courts to condemn them to heavy punishment. In fact, only factory cells composed of such proletarians can do great revolutionary work even though they be very small. In one of the mining districts of Czechoslovakia in 1930 there was such a case. The Social-Democrats organized a meeting of miners. Only one Communist took part in the meeting. Different questions which the Social Democrats brought forward were considered. After a discussion in which the Party member present at the meeting took the most active part, the meeting decided to join up in the Red Trade Union. The Czechoslovakian comrades will remember another case which took place in 1930 in Prague. When the famous social traitor Vandervelde came there, the Social-Democrats organized a big meeting at which about 30 active Party members were present. Vandervelde delivered a long speech pouring dirty water on the Communist International, the U. S. S. R., and the Czechoslovakian Communist Party, nevertheless, not one of the 30 Party members present at the meeting and there were members of the C. C. amongst them, opened his mouth in protest against the counter-revolutionary speech of the Social-Fascist leader. It is perfectly clear that with activists like the “activists” of the Prague organization, who were present at Vandervelde’s meeting, the Czechoslovakian proletariat will not win power but the Communist Party will be a shameful laughing stock in the eyes of the proletariat and the proletariat, quite rightly, will not listen to such “activists” and will not support Party organizations which keep such “activists” in leading Party work.
18. STREET CELLS
The organization of a factory cell in a big enterprise in the present conditions is a very difficult affair, demanding very long and stubborn work by the Party members, both those working in the enterprise as well as those who are employed elsewhere. It is the business of the Party Committee to secure the essential co-ordination of the work of the Communists who are working inside the enterprise, with that of the Communists who are outside the boundaries of the enterprise. And here a very important question presents itself with regard to the form of organization of Party members who are not workers in enterprises; artisans, housewives, etc. According to the decisions of the International Organizational Consultations, and according to the constitution of the Communist Parties, such Party members are organized in street cells. But how should these street cells be organized? The practice of the Parties of the different countries 287 shows that the street cells are often organized without any plan. Street cells are organized according to place of residence, those Party members who live in the territory of a definite district or around some street or other, being brought into the street cells. But what should these street cells do? The practice of street cells in many countries shows that as a rule they meet from time to time, discuss various general questions, but do not carry on any practical day to day work. Street cells as a rule come to life only during big campaigns at the time of various elections, etc., when they are called upon to distribute leaflets, collect signatures, canvass flats, etc.
In future Party Committees must see to it that street cells are constructed so that in their day to day work they should help the Party Committee to strengthen its connection with the workers in big enterprises, strengthen the work of factory cells and so on. This should be the fundamental practical rule for the organization and work of street cells. At the same time it must be firmly borne in mind that along with the development of the class struggle Party Committees must not fail to carry out changes in the composition and structure of the street cells which may become necessary, make a re-grouping of the forces of the members of street cells, in order at a given moment to have a concentration of forces on the most important sectors of the front of the class struggle. For example, if some unrest should arise in a textile factory, the Party Committee must at once consider the possibility of developing that unrest into a strike inside the factory. But a strike can only be organized provided good preparatory work has been carried out. Who must carry it out? In the first place Party members and sympathizers working in the textile factory, but on the other hand, the Party Committee must organize the maximum assistance for these comrades, drawing on Party members working in other factories, and also members of street cells. There can be all kinds of combinations here. For example, it might be advisable and practicable that a Party member working as a fitter in a metal factory, a member of the factory cell of the metal factory should apply for a job in the textile factory where a fitter may be needed. Everything must be done in order by such means to strengthen the cell of the textile factory from within. Further, let us suppose that near the textile factory a street cell is working and that in this street cell there are, let us say, five more or less weak comrades living in the district. It is essential to strengthen this street cell by including in it a number of other comrades who live nearby, or even at the other end of the town, in order with the help of this street cell to strengthen the agitation among the workers of the textile factory on their way to and from work, to strengthen through this street cell the distribution among the workers of a textile factory paper, leaflets, and other literature which may be issued by the Party with the aim of preparing and organizing a strike, in this textile factory. Let us suppose that after the strike is finished a movement begins in another factory; the Party Committee must at once regroup its forces in order to concentrate them again on another fighting sector of the Party work. And so all the time. It is impossible to regard the Party structure or any local organization as something unshakably firm and not liable to undergo changes. The Party Committee must systematically check the distribution of members between different cells, check the expediency of the organization of the cell, carry out regrouping of the members of the cell in order in each separate case and at each concrete moment, to concentrate the best forces of the Party round the most important sectors of the front of the class struggle. In this lies the fundamental art of the Party organizer. His general task consists in seeing that every Party member as well as sympathizer should be constantly drawn into day to day work, attention being concentrated upon the most important sectors of the class struggle.
19. SHOCK GROUPS
The practice of the Y. C. L. has recently given rise to the method of so-called shock groups or brigades. This method of shock brigades could be usefully carried over into the practice of the Party. The term “shock brigade” is not in itself very good. Shock brigades are organized in the factories in the U. S. S. R., the Communists working in the factories organizing shock groups around which non-Party workers are gathered. But the Communist Party is the advance guard of the working class, i. e., it is in itself the shock group of the working class; to create within this shock advance guard of the working class yet other shock brigades is of course at bottom not correct. But this is what IS correct. In the Party organizations of capitalist countries, numbers of Party members are not drawn into the everyday work. Every Party member belongs to a 288 cell, which meets once a fortnight or once a month, and in between these meetings Party members do not perform much Party work, in many cases, in fact, have no Party tasks at all. This happens because in the given cells at the given time, there is not much internal work, while other sectors of Party work may at the same moment have important militant tasks before them. It is for the Party Committee to keep on combining Party members into different groups for the concentration of forces upon the most important sectors. Having performed a given task such groups or brigades are broken up or reconstructed into other groups for taking up new work. The general aim in creating such groups should be the strengthening of Party work in the big enterprises of the most important sections of industry. Here, on this problem the full attention of the leading Party organs must be sharply directed in the near future.
20. WORK OF THE FACTORY CELLS IN THE ENTERPRISES
When we approach the study of the work of the factory cells in capitalist countries we are often struck by the great passivity of the members of the cell. A further examination of the reasons for this passivity will reveal, as a rule, a complete ignorance on the part of the Party members as to what they should do in the factory in their everyday work. The task of the Party organizer, his most important task, consists in teaching every Party member working in the factory what he should do every day. Every Party member working in the factory should begin with the workshop in which he is working, organizing the Party work there. He should first of all find out who his fellow workers in the shop are. That is his first Party duty. He should establish who is the Fascist agent in order to know whom to avoid, and in his presence not talk about Party affairs or carry on Communist agitation; next he should find out which workers are so narrow-minded that they are not interested in politics at all, either Communist or Social-Democratic; he should know which of his neighbors in the shop is a member of the Social Democratic Party, but still an honest proletarian, capable of fighting for the interests of the working class even though against his Party leaders. Finally, what is specially important, every member of a factory cell should know which of his neighbors at the bench is revolutionary minded even though non-Party, and ready to take or has already taken, active part in strikes and revolutionary demonstrations. When a Party member working in a workshop has a clear picture of what each worker there represents, it will be much easier for him to carry on his everyday work. He will then know whom he is to avoid, whom he will have to fight, with whom to become acquainted and establish closer relations with the aim of bringing them into active revolutionary work. As to the latter, he must have systematic chats with them in the intervals of work, preferably during working hours, also on the way to and from work, or arrange special walks with them in the town on holidays; he must patiently, unceasingly, from day to day, using every hour, every minute, agitate them into the spirit of Communism, of course not in a general abstract way, but on questions of everyday struggle in the given enterprise and in the given workshop, organizing them around himself and thus creating a revolutionary kernel in the shop, and in consequence a workshop factory cell. Next, the most important everyday task of the comrade in the workshop is to carry on discussions with the Social-Democratic workers, winning over the Social-Democratic workers to his side, bringing the more revolutionary minded of them and members of reformist trade unions into every kind of action against the employer, against the Social-Democratic and reformist leaders. His third task should consist of getting the Fascist agents, police spies, etc., driven out of the shop and factory. This last task is forgotten most often of all. However, it is evident that so long as there are among the workers in the shop police agents who are following every movement of the revolutionary minded workers, and informing the boss about their actions every day, it will be very difficult to organize work in that shop. But if by pressure of the workers he should succeed in ridding the shop of these agents, Party work will be greatly facilitated. Among those who should be thrown out it will now be necessary to include individual Social-Democrats who show themselves Fascist police agents, but the general line in relation to Social-Democratic workers must remain, i. e., they must be drawn into the general class channel of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat by means of the organization of the united front from below.
Thus the foundation of the factory cell must definitely be the workshop of dept. cell. The general factory cell can work well only when it has strong support points in the workshops and separate departments. 289
21. THE SHOP CELL
The most important task of the shop cell is to concentrate the non-Party active workers in the shop compactly around itself. To organize the shop, the dept.—this is the task of the shop cell, so that every shop of a factory may act as an organized force. How can this be done? It can be done only provided the shop cell works on the foundation of the defense of the everyday interests of the working class, that every Communist in every shop organizes the mass of the workers of that shop around every question of everyday struggle of the working class. For example, there is a foreman in the shop who behaves very roughly to the workers. The cell must organize the whole mass of the workers around the demand that this foreman should be dismissed. The cell should create a committee of action, organize elections of shop stewards who should be delegate-representatives of all the workers in the shop, in order to effect the driving out of the foreman. Active Communists among these shop stewards should form the leading core, but non-Party workers who are respected by the mass of the workers, should also be drawn in, including even individual Social-Democratic workers who have declared their readiness to fight for the removal of this foreman, in spite of all orders and threats from their leaders. If the shop cell succeeds in creating such a directing center around concrete tasks affecting the interests of all the workers of the factory, then we can say that this shop cell has worked well: it has become the revolutionary leader of the workers of a given shop. A cell which is every day closely bound up with the working masses on questions of the defense of their closest interests and which enjoys the full confidence of the workers in the cause of the defense of their interest, will retain that confidence in the future, in more responsible actions and at most responsible moments of the struggle for power.
The question of the creation of such support points for revolutionary class struggle in the shops and also on a general factory scale is the most important question in the work of our factory cells. In the first place the question of the so-called revolutionary shop stewards is bound up with this. This slogan was issued by the Communist Party of Germany in 1929. At present it is extremely real for all capitalist countries. Revolutionary shop stewards—that means those workers elected by the revolutionary section of the workers of the factory at their workshop of general factory meetings, who are the organizers of the united front from below in the struggle for the defense of the closest interests of the workers of the given factory against the attacks of the employers and against the leaders of the Social Democratic and reformist trade unions.
So the factory cell can only become a strong Party organization capable of acting efficiently, and connected with the masses, when it operates on the basis of strong shop cells. Therefore the strong shop cell is the most important organizational guarantee for the good working of the general factory cell. The shop cell in its turn will only work well when it is able to organize the whole mass of the workers of its shop around the issues of the class struggle, which are near to and understood by all the workers of the shop, including non-Party workers and members of the reformist unions and members of the Social-Democratic Party. Shop cells should carry on their mass work within the shop on the basis of the tactic of the united front from below through revolutionary shop stewards. Revolutionary shop stewards in their turn most include among their number the most active Communists, members of the shop cells, but in addition individual revolutionary-minded Social-Democratic workers and non-Party advanced workers must be drawn into this work who are ready not to listen to their leaders in the struggle against the employers and their agents. When the shop cell succeeds in creating the institution of revolutionary shop stewards leading their everyday struggle, then no police can drive the Party organization from the factory, then, in order to drive the Party organization out of the factory it will be necessary to shut the factory down, to dismiss all the workers and recruit a new staff of workers.
22. ON WORK IN THE MASS ORGANIZATIONS
Mass organizations must be divided into two large groups: mass organizations supporting the Communist parties and other mass organizations fighting the Communist Parties. To the first category belong the revolutionary trade unions. ILD, WIR, etc. Organizations of the second kind are in their turn divided into two groups: 1) formerly non-Party mass organizations like reformist christian 290 and other reactionary trade unions, sport organizations, etc. and 2) all kinds of organizations politically hostile to us, such as the Social-Democratic Party, various Fascist political unions, etc.
In all non-Party mass proletarian organizations, such as trade unions, sport organizations, tenants’ organizations, etc. the Party should form fractions embracing all Communists and sympathizers. There are thousands of decisions about fractions in mass organizations, but up to now the position in all Parties with regard to fractions is bad. In the first place fractions are far from being organized everywhere. In the second place, organized fractions in the majority of cases work without the direction of the Party Committee. So, the Party Committees should before all find out whether fractions exist everywhere, where they should be established, and in the second place it is essential that Party Committees should direct the work of the fractions and that the fractions should in the strictist way carry out all the directions of the corresponding Party Committees. In the constitution of the Communist Party it is laid down that a fraction has the right to appeal against the decision of a Party Committee. A Party Committee is bound to examine the protest of a fraction against its decision in the presence of a representative of a fraction. The decision of a Party Committee is binding on a fraction and there is no appeal against it: it should be accepted without argument and put into the life without delay. At present in practice directions of the Party Committee are frequently not carried out by fractions. The task of the Party is to see that every fraction carries out these directions in the strictest way. With regard to fraction members who avoid carrying out directions, the most serious explanatory work must essentially be undertaken and in case of necessity, the strictest Party measures should be taken even up to expulsion from the Party, for otherwise the Party will be completely unable to direct the work of a fraction. There may be cases when swift interference of the Party Committee is called for, while it may be impossible to convene a full meeting of the Party Committee to give out such a new direction. For example, some trade union Congress or other is being held. Before the congress the fraction meets, called together by the Party Committee and jointly works out instructions. But during the Congress questions may come up which have not been foreseen in the directions of the Party Committee. What is to be done? Should the committee meet immediately? And how can this be arranged, when questions may arise at any moment which are absolutely unexpected and which must be reacted to at once? For such cases the Party Committee must nominate a special group of three comrades or a plenipotentiary representative, who could decide in the name of the Party Committee. At the meeting of the fraction it should be explained that for the leadership of the work of the fraction the Party Committee has nominated a group of three comrades consisting of such and such comrades, or such a plenipotentiary, and that the intervention of these comrades, their propositions, should be looked upon by all fraction members as official directions of the Party Committee and carried out without any argument. In this way uninterrupted guidance of the Party Committee is guaranteed in the work of the fraction.
Mr. Dennett. I would only say that the existence of a document of that kind probably was more responsible for Mr. Browder’s insisting that the central committee disavow all previous documents which had been issued prior to, I think, 1938. That one was issued much earlier. This was issued in the period just as the depression was starting. In fact, the depression had not reached its maximum at the time that document came out, and it anticipated the depression was coming, and laid out plans how to take advantage of the depression for revolutionary purposes.
Mr. Tavenner. I notice under section 17 of this document a reference to the voluntary character of the person’s membership in the Communist Party. This reference reads:
The Communist Party is a voluntary organization, but every worker who voluntarily joins the ranks of the Communist Party accepts iron party discipline. If that discipline seems very hard to him, even unbearable, then the party should not shut its doors upon him.
291
Mr. Dennett. At the time I first came into the Communist Party the most common expression I heard in that connection was that you couldn’t leave the Communist Party voluntarily. And I think that document intends to convey that impression because individuals who become members of the Communist Party become privileged to knowledge and information about their associates which, if they leave the Communist Party, may fall into the hands of persons who are unsympathetic to the Communist Party. And they were fearful that whenever anything like that would occur it would hurt the working class. As a matter of fact, most people in the Communist Party are probably just blaspheming me up one side and down the other for testifying here to you on these matters for that very same reason.
It is my own feeling, however, that the average member of the party is completely unaware of the nature of the discipline. They only come in contact with surface scratches of it.
Mr. Tavenner. This document also refers to the importance of establishing cells of the Communist Party among the professions, such as the doctors and the lawyers; does it not?
Mr. Dennett. Yes.
The attitude of the party was simply that it must win the majority of the working class to support its position. To do so often required the aid and assistance of prominent people.
Now this is a political tactic which every political group uses. This is not something peculiar to the Communists, but they used it quite effectively.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I think that this document warrants a great deal of study and analysis. It should be analyzed, and the contents of it put into this record. It would take too long to attempt to do it through answer-and-question form.
Mr. Dennett. Well, it has roots in the fundamental theory of the Communist movement, which actually should be pursued when you have time and leisure to do so. It is not something that lends itself to this meeting.
Mr. Moulder. It has been admitted as an exhibit, and, by order of the committee, if it is agreeable with Congressman Velde, consent will be given to counsel to read such portions as he wishes to read at this point.
Mr. Velde. May I ask counsel, have we ever had a similar document to this one?
Mr. Tavenner. I was so impressed with the contents of this document, Mr. Chairman, that I called our Washington office. I received a reply this morning that there is neither a copy nor a record of this document in the files of the committee.
I am unable to state without further study whether there is anything of a similar character. But this document certainly goes into detail. It is much plainer in its purposes than anything I have seen on the subject.
Mr. Moulder. How many pages are there in the document?
Mr. Tavenner. It is 26 pages in length. However, the exhibit covered page 1 and pages 17 through 26. 292
Mr. Moulder. How do you refer to that exhibit?
Mr. Tavenner. That is Dennett Exhibit No. 1. It is so marked.
Mr. Moulder. From whom did you receive this document?
Mr. Dennett. I received it when I was district agitprop director in the district.
Mr. Moulder. And do you know the source of it?
Mr. Dennett. It came through the mail from the central committee.
Mr. Moulder. The central committee of what?
Mr. Dennett. Of the Communist Party in New York City.
Mr. Moulder. Let me ask you the date you received it. Approximately in what year?
Mr. Dennett. It must have been in about 1932.
Mr. Tavenner. How long were you engaged in the work of an organizer at Bellingham?
Mr. Dennett. Approximately 1 year. The latter part of 1932 through the early part of 1933.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you have any experience in youth work within the Communist Party while you were at Bellingham?
Mr. Dennett. Not too much in Bellingham. There was a little work of the Young Communist League there. They did interest a few students at the normal school. There was a normal school in Bellingham, and they did organize, I think, a half dozen young people who became interested in the theoretical work of Marx and Lenin. Most of those later became members of the Communist Party.
Mr. Tavenner. Was there an organization known as Pioneers, or Young Pioneers, in the Communist Party?
Mr. Dennett. Yes; Young Pioneers of America.
Mr. Tavenner. Are you now speaking of that group?
Mr. Dennett. No. That group I have just referred to was the Young Communist League, which dealt with a group in the younger age, but mature people. The Young Pioneers was an effort on the part of the Communist Party to organize a group which would be comparable to the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.
In the Soviet Union the Young Pioneers occupied that position. It is a position of support to the Government. It is a position of support to the Communist Party similarly as the Scouts are here to the Government and service organizations and patriotic organizations occupy a similar position, parallel organization.
Mr. Velde. There is one distinct difference, is there not?
Mr. Dennett. I can think of several.
Mr. Velde. The Young Pioneer movement is financed by the Soviet State, and here in America the Boy Scout movement is financed by good will of the American people.
Mr. Dennett. I don’t know too much about how they finance it there. I have an idea that they probably do finance a lot of it through individual contributions, however, there. I think that there are dues, membership, and that sort of thing which carries the big part of the financing. Of course, it receives approval by the Government, and receives favors. 293
Mr. Tavenner. Were you called upon in connection with your Communist Party duties to either organize or supervise the operation of any of the Young Pioneer groups?
Mr. Dennett. Yes.
There was one occasion when I was falling in some disfavor in the eyes of the district leadership, and they wanted to get me out of their hair. At the time a young woman by the name of Yetta Stromberg came to Seattle from California for the purpose of organizing a Young Pioneer summer camp. And she requested the district leadership to assign someone from the district leadership to work with her in the organization and supervision of this camp.
Mr. Moulder. Can you give us the year on that?
Mr. Dennett. I am quite sure this was in 1932. I think this was before I went to Bellingham.
Mr. Tavenner. Was this while you were in Seattle?
Mr. Dennett. While I was in Seattle.
I was the one chosen to go to this camp to represent the district. The purpose at the camp was to offer summer recreation facilities to provide relaxation for youths, young people, under supervision of party leadership, and to introduce them to some of the theoretical program of the Communist Party.
Mr. Tavenner. Was it basically an actual part of the Communist Party plan of recruitment and indoctrination?
Mr. Dennett. Yes, it was. I thought we were quite successful, too.
Mr. Tavenner. What age group attended that camp?
Mr. Dennett. Well, at that particular camp the age limits were not restricted too narrowly. Ordinarily the age limit would be in the teens for the Young Pioneers. Some of them did get up just beyond, up into the early twenties. These young people were of mixed age and grouping.
Mr. Tavenner. I hand you another document which we found among the documents you turned over to the committee, and I will ask you to identify it, if you will, as a flier advertising the camp to which you refer.
(Document handed to the witness.)
Mr. Dennett. Oh, yes. This was circulated by the party to its branches, and was especially circulated among what we called the language sections.
The language sections were organizations such as the Finnish Federation, and there were some Slavic organizations; there were some Jewish organizations, which were national in form. I mean only members of those particular national groups belonged to those organizations. And we were trying to offer them an opportunity to see to it that their children had a chance to go to a summer camp and to have as much prestige and as much satisfaction as people who went to YMCA or YWCA camps, or Girl Scout or Boy Scout camps.
We were trying to rival them, compete. 294
Mr. Tavenner. In other words, was the Communist Party selecting what was probably to the interests of a group of people and attempting to use it for the benefit, and the advancement of Communist Party purposes?
Mr. Dennett. Very true.
Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer the document in evidence, and ask that it be marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 2,” and that it be incorporated in the transcript of the record.
Mr. Moulder. The exhibit offered in evidence, marked “Exhibit Dennett No. 2,” for identification, will be admitted as a part of the record.
Dennett Exhibit No. 2
Pioneer’s Summer CampOn the other side of this page are the questions which will have to be filled out in detail by all the children who wish to go to the camp, or by their parents. The Pioneer Summer Camp this year will be held at Pine Lake, 30 miles outside of Seattle. The camp will open on July 10, and will last for a period of one month unless too many children who wish to go cannot be accommodated during this time. If such is the case, the camp will last for 6 instead of 4 weeks. Each child will remain for a period of two weeks.
The charge will be $5 for the two weeks, if possible the parents pay this amount. If not, then the sponsoring organization is to make arrangements to raise the money. By the sponsoring organization is meant the organization that recommends the child for the summer camp and assists the camp project in every way possible. Every child coming to the camp must be O. K.’d by some such organization, so that we are sure that the children at the camp are worth while elements to work with. 50 children will be accommodated during each shift. The transportation will be provided by the sponsoring organization. Parents, if they like, will be able to visit the camp during week ends.
The camp will provide swimming, boxing, boating, dancing, music, dramatics, educational and organizational training along working class lines. A lot of fun and real training for every worker’s child. The location is great, right on the shore of Pine Lake, pine trees on the grounds, good beach, swings and teeter-totters for the children. The children will be taken good care of, there will be a nurse at the camp the full time, good meals will be served and the children will be watched all the time they are swimming, so parents need have no fear that their children will not be properly cared for.
For further information, phone Main 9850, Seattle, or write to Lila Walker, Secretary Pioneer Camp Committee, 1421½ Eighth Avenue, Seattle.
All children who have filled out their application blanks and have been accepted by the executive committee of the summer camp conference in Seattle should bring the following equipment with them:
1. A sheet blanket, to be used instead of sheets, or sheets if the parents prefer them; also pillow case (pillows will be provided.)
2. Sufficient blankets and quilts for covering.
3. Three or four towels.
4. Toothbrush, toothpaste, comb, soap.
5. Bathing suit, several pairs of stockings or socks, several changes of underwear, play clothes, tights for boys, some kind of sun suit for girls, if possible.
6. Balls, bats, checkers, dominoes, puzzles, books, paints, etc., should be brought by the children if they have any and would like to put them into the camp library while they are at camp.
THESE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS WHICH EVERY CHILD MUST PASS
1. The child must be sponsored by some working class organization.
2. The child must be examined by a physician furnished by the sponsoring organization. 295
3. The signature of either or both of the child’s parents must be obtained before the child will be considered for the camp.
4. The child must be between the ages of 10 and 15. (Inclusive.)
5. The registration fee of $5 must be brought with each child to the camp when he or she comes, this fee to be paid by the parents or by the sponsoring organization.
6. The child must be of a working class family and his parents must thoroughly understand the purpose of the camp.
7. Each child must fill out one of the registration blanks sent out from the Pioneer Camp Committee, 1421½ Eighth Avenue, Seattle.
Registration Blank for Pioneer Summer Camp at Pine Lake
(Please read the instructions on the other side carefully before filling out this blank.)
Organization sponsoring————————————————————-
Name——————————————————————————————
Address—————————— City———————- State—————-
Age—————- School attending————————— Grade————-
Occupation, if any——————————————— Wages—————
Where employed—————————————————————————
Member of what organizations——————————————————
Did you ever attend a Pioneer camp before?———————————
If so, when and where—————————————————————-
Did you ever attend a summer camp for Boy Scouts, Girl Reserves,
Girl Scouts, etc.?—————— If so, when———————————
Mother’s name—————————————————————————-
Occupation——————————— Working?————— Wages———-
Are you willing that your child go to a working-class children’s
camp for the purposes of recreation, physical development, and
working-class training?————————————————————-
(Yes)
—————————————————-
Mother’s Signature
Father’s name—————————————————————————-
Occupation——————————— Working?————— Wages———-
Are you willing that your child go to a working-class children’s
camp for the purposes of recreation, physical development,
and working-class training?——————————————————-
(Yes)
——————————————-
Father’s Signature
Fee of $5 for two weeks being paid by organization
sponsoring———————————————————————————
Fee of $5 for two weeks being paid by parents—————————-
This is to certify that I have examined————————————-
and have found him, her, with no physical disabilities and
free of communicable disease. Signed
—————————————-
Examining physician
The——————————————— Feels that——————————
Name of sponsoring organization child’s name
--------------------------------answers all the requirements for
admission to the Pioneer Summer Camp and is sponsoring him, her.
——————————————————
Secretary of sponsoring organization.
——————————————————
Chairman of sponsoring organization.
Mr. Tavenner. I would like to read into the record one or two sentences from this advertisement: 296
Every child coming to the camp must be O. K.’d by some such organization, so that we are sure that the children at the camp are worthwhile elements to work with.
What was meant by that?
Mr. Dennett. Well, I cannot recall exactly at this time except to say that it was our purpose then to find young people who would have at least enough knowledge and understanding to be possible leadership material. It was our hope and purpose to develop more leaders. We needed them very much.
Mr. Tavenner. To develop them for leadership in the Communist Party?
Mr. Dennett. True.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you conduct any courses at the camp yourself?
Mr. Dennett. Yes; I did.
Mr. Tavenner. We find among the documents that you turned over to us what apparently is a questionnaire submitted to a number of members of the class, with their names appearing on them and with questions relating to their plans for the future, what they consider about class struggle, surplus value, materialist conception of history, and so forth.
I do not want you to mention in the testimony the names of any of these individuals at this moment, but I would like you to examine the questionnaire.
Mr. Dennett. I have my own copy.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you examine the group and state whether any child attending these classes was as young as 15 years of age?
Mr. Dennett. I have one 19, I have one 16. Yes; here is one 15.
Mr. Tavenner. In fact, there are several as young as 15 years of age, are there not?
Mr. Dennett. 21, 20, 15, 17, 17. Yes; 18, 17, 17.
Mr. Tavenner. Am I correct in stating that this is in the form of a questionnaire to determine the success of the training at this camp?
Mr. Dennett. Well it must be remembered that I was just fresh from teaching, and one of the things that a teacher has to learn is whether or not their teaching is successful. The way you determine that is to devise a test. So I devised a test to determine whether or not my efforts had been successful. So this is in the form of a test.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what reaction you get from reading the test papers of some of the younger of the group? Say, 15, 16, and 17 years of age.
Mr. Dennett. I have picked out those 2 that were 15 years of age.
I had something here in which I asked this kind of question: What organizations they belonged to. I asked them to list them. And this one said: “YPA,” which was the Young Pioneers of America. And a workers’ youth club. 297
And I asked also what kind of work they did in the organization, and one of them says that he was the secretary of the club. And I asked what his occupation was, and he said a student in school. And I asked if he had any special abilities, and he says “Sing, act, sports, football and track.” Hobby: “music, sports, reading.” Main shortcoming: “To learn more about organization.” Received most benefit from camp: “Art and music.” Most benefit from class: “What Marxism is based on.”
Mr. Moulder. Are you reading the answers to the questions?
Mr. Dennett. These are the answers to the questions.
I asked what they knew about the materialist conception of history, and this student answered:
“It is based on scientific facts.”
I asked if the student understood surplus value, and this student answered:
“The difference between the amount paid to the worker and the amount of goods he produces.”
I asked this student if he understood the meaning of the class struggle, and his answer in his own handwriting is:
“It is the history of the workers fighting against their rulers.”
I asked his plans for the future, and his answer is:
“To help organize the Pioneers and the Workers Youth Group.”
And I asked if there was anything special, and this student answers:
“I want to start a sports club, and I wish to play the baritone horn.”
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Dennett. I have another one here of a little older one who was 21 years of age at that time. Without going through all of the preliminaries, there are certain details here that are of some concern. And this is in that student’s own handwriting.
I asked what is the most benefit he received from the class, and his answer is:
“Why the present system cannot stand up.”
I asked what his understanding of materialist conception of history was, and he said:
“Taking a scientific attitude.”
I asked him if he understood surplus value, and his answer is:
“Is the amount of the value left after the laborer’s wages are paid.”
I asked him if he understood the class struggle, and he said:
“It is a struggle for the needs of the working class.”
I asked for plans for the future, and his answer:
“To work on Pioneer—”
I asked if anything special, and he says:
“To develop public speaking and to be able to teach workers of the class struggle.”
We looked upon that student as a very promising student.
Mr. Tavenner. For any particular reason?
Mr. Dennett. For the reason that he indicated that he was interested in continuing his efforts in the class struggle. 298
Mr. Tavenner. In looking over these I find another name where the age is given as 14 years of age. I believe that is about the youngest of the group.
Among those papers is also a list of the names of students. I am not certain that they are the same students whose examination papers are attached.
Mr. Dennett. They are.
Mr. Tavenner. I desire to have these documents marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 3” for identification only. I do not want to make them a part of the record. However, I desire to withdraw from this exhibit one typewritten sheet describing the objectives of the Pioneer Leader’s camp and have it admitted in evidence and marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 3-A,” to be incorporated in the transcript of the record.
Mr. Moulder. It is so ordered.
And the committee wishes to announce the purpose of so admitting them in that manner is that we do not wish to reveal at this time the names of young people who were then being indoctrinated into the Communist philosophy or belief through their enrollment in the Young Pioneers’ youth camp. Is that the name of it?
Mr. Dennett. Young Pioneers.
Mr. Moulder. Because we feel that it might be an injustice to them for they probably have had no connection with the Communist Party, and maybe never did have so far as we have any evidence to show.
The Pioneer Leader’s Camp had two objectives: One to equip those in the Camp with the necessary theoretical foundation to do effective work in the Revolutionary Movement in general; and second to equip and train them to do Pioneer Work in particular.
The First Objective was approached mainly from the class in Theory which dealt with 1. The Materialist Conception of History, 2. Dialectics, 3. Surplus Value, 4. The Class Struggle, 5. Orientation in Organization, 6. Proletarian, 7. Discipline as Social Control.
The Second Objective was approached from the very organization of the camp itself. Study circles were arranged in the subjects of Revolutionary Art, Revolutionary Music, Study of Science, Woodcraft—practical work, gathering wood etc.—sewing—practical work, sewing badges for Pioneer Leaders, organized sports—learning games which have been organized with a view to adaptation to use with workers children in a way to take chauvinism out of them, etc., and still retain the benefits of physical exercise contained therein.
Mr. Velde. I presume, Mr. Chairman, that some of those members of the Young Pioneers are still in the area.
Mr. Dennett. I think some of them probably are, although it is very difficult to keep track of young women because of their changing names.
Mr. Moulder. It might result in an injustice to reveal them at this time.
Mr. Dennett. Right.
Mr. Moulder. May I ask, Are you going into the conduct of the classes, how you proceeded to teach them, what they were taught, and whether or not you felt the answers to the questions were the result of your teaching at that time?
Mr. Dennett. I think I could answer that briefly, that they certainly were the result of my teaching.
Mr. Tavenner. I have a few other questions, Mr. Chairman, to finish this subject. 299
Mr. Velde. Let me state that while I concur with the chairman and the views of our counsel that the names of these young people should not be put on record, I do think that any adults you knew to be members of the Communist Party should be identified in this record at the present time.
Mr. Moulder. May I also add that further investigation will be made concerning it.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dennett, we have followed with a great deal of interest the record of many of these young people who were gotten into camps, gotten into the Young Communist League organizations in school, Labor Youth League organizations in school, to determine what happened to them afterward.
We have found at one place, for instance, that there was an organized drive made by the organizer of the Communist Party in that area to follow these young people after they had finished their schooling.
Mr. Dennett. It was my intention in this case, too.
Mr. Tavenner. To follow them and to eventually bring them into active work within the Communist Party. Was that the general purpose?
Mr. Dennett. That was my purpose. And I tried to do it. But I was shifted around a little bit too rapidly, and I broke contact too many times and lost track of all of them.
Mr. Tavenner. I want to ask at this time, with the chairman’s approval, this question:
Are there any of these young persons who attended this camp who you later learned identified themselves with the Communist Party and became active in Communist work? If so, I think those names should be given.
Mr. Velde. Certainly I concur.
Mr. Dennett. There is only one in this list that I feel certain enough about to identify in the manner in which you ask. The rest are names which do not ring as clearly to me after a passage of 20 years. Remember now that was in 1932. It is nearly 25 years ago. In fact, I had no idea that I even kept this record. I had forgotten that I had kept it.
But it is very refreshing to me because it brings back to my own recollection certain things which, if I hadn’t kept such a record, I would have completely forgotten.
The only person in this group that I remember distinctly is Oiva Halonen.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell the name, please?
Mr. Dennett. The first name is O-i-v-a, and the last name Halonen, H-a-l-o-n-e-n.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, this individual was also identified by Barbara Hartle while a witness before this committee as having been known by her to be a member of the Communist Party, and has been subpenaed.
Mr. Moulder. Is that a man or woman?
Mr. Dennett. It is a man.
Mr. Moulder. Do you know where he is located now?
Mr. Tavenner. He is under subpena, Mr. Chairman.
Will you examine the answers to his test, and state whether you can identify the handwriting, whether you filled it out, or whose it was? 300
Mr. Dennett. His was the one I referred to as a very promising one.
Mr. Tavenner. You are at least correct in stating that he found his way into the Communist Party, according to the testimony of Barbara Hartle and yourself.
Mr. Dennett. Yes; he is the one who said he wanted to develop public-speaking ability so he could teach workers the class struggle.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you write the answers? Is this in your handwriting?
Mr. Dennett. It doesn’t look like my handwriting to me. In fact, I am quite certain this is not my handwriting. It looks to me as though it is written in the same manner as the name, which was his.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, whether other camps were conducted after this one?
Mr. Dennett. Yetta Stromberg tried hard to get someone in this area to continue the camps each year. She was unable to return each year herself. I believe 1 or 2 camps were held after that. I lost track of it. So I couldn’t swear as to what happened later.
But it was a very difficult undertaking. It required volunteer help from the mothers of these young people. The camp was held out at Pine Lake. Pine Lake could best be located by someone familiar with the county territory. But one of the members of the Finnish Federation—I believe it was the Finnish Federation—owned some property out there at that time and built a rather large dining hall there, tents were pitched, and the regular facilities of a summer camp were established.
Mr. Tavenner. Have you any recollection now how many persons attended that camp?
Mr. Dennett. I think, looking at my list, that there were at least 22 persons who attended it, including some of the adults who were there to do the work and supervise the camp. It looks to me as though there were about 18 young people.
Mr. Moulder. Before taking a recess, however, it is announced that a subpena was duly issued for service upon Jerry O’Connell, 3415 Central Avenue, Great Falls, Mont., to be and appear at this place of hearing in this room, 402, County-City Building, Seattle, Wash., at 9:30 a. m., on this date, March 17, 1955, to testify in matters of inquiry committed to this committee to inquire into, and it appears from the record that the subpena was personally served upon Jerry O’Connell on the 8th day of March of this year, as provided by law. The witness, Jerry O’Connell, has been called several times on this day but has failed to appear as he was required to do as provided in the subpena.
Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of this subcommittee, both of Congressman Velde and myself, that unless cause or satisfactory legal excuse is presented for his failure to appear and abide by the summons or subpena, that the subcommittee will recommend and request that Jerry O’Connell be cited for contempt as provided by law.
The committee will stand in recess for 5 minutes.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dennett, I have asked you to produce the original examination paper of the young man to whom we referred, Oiva Halonen. Do you have it before you? 301
Dennett Exhibit No. 4
302
Mr. Dennett. I have.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I desire to offer that particular examination paper in evidence, and ask that it be marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 4,” and that it be incorporated in the transcript of the record.
Mr. Moulder. It will be admitted.
Mr. Tavenner. I would like to have the privilege of replacing the original exhibit by photostat.
Mr. Moulder. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Tavenner. Inasmuch as reference has been made to this individual and the fact that he has been subpenaed, I believe the committee should hear him now. I ask that Mr. Dennett be excused until tomorrow morning, and that we proceed with the other witnesses.
Mr. Moulder. Mr. Dennett, you will be excused for the remainder of the afternoon, with the instruction to report tomorrow morning at 9 a. m.
Mr. Dennett. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Halonen, will you come forward, please, sir.
Mr. Moulder. Will you hold up your right hand and be sworn? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Halonen. I do.
Mr. Tavenner. What is your full name, Mr. Halonen?
Mr. Halonen. Oiva R. Halonen.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell it, please.
Mr. Halonen. The first name is O-i-v-a; the initial is R; the last name is Halonen, H-a-l-o-n-e-n.
Mr. Tavenner. It is noted you are accompanied by counsel. Will counsel please identify himself for the record?
Mr. Sykes. Jay, J-a-y, G. Sykes, S-y-k-e-s.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Halonen, when and where were you born?
Mr. Halonen. In Minnesota, in 1912.
Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside?
Mr. Halonen. In Seattle.
Mr. Tavenner. What is your occupation?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. I am a machinist.
Mr. Tavenner. How long have you worked as a machinist in Seattle?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. The last 12 years.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, briefly, what your educational training has been?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. Merely a high-school graduate. 303
Mr. Tavenner. What employment have you had in Seattle other than the employment beginning 12 years ago which you just described?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. Prior to the time that I became a machinist I knocked around in the apple orchards, harvest fields, did odd jobs this way and that way—no particular trade.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Halonen, where did you live in 1932?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. In Minnesota.
Mr. Tavenner. What was your first address on arriving in Seattle?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. 1011 East Columbia Street.
Mr. Tavenner. During what period of time did you live at that address?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. From the middle of 1933, I would say; between the 15th of May and the last of June, somewhere in there, for approximately a year, or a year and a half. I can’t remember.
Mr. Tavenner. I hand you Dennett Exhibit No. 4, purporting to be a test or an examination taken at the Young Pioneer camp at Pine Lake in the State of Washington. Please examine the exhibit and state whether or not the handwriting found thereon is your handwriting.
(Document handed to the witness.)
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. On advice of counsel, that the answer to that question might tend to incriminate me, I must invoke the fifth amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you examine, please, the name at the top of the test paper and read what name you find there?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. I must invoke the fifth amendment again, for the same reasons as stated before.
Mr. Velde. Mr. Chairman, I notice the witness states that he must invoke the fifth amendment.
The fifth amendment is a privilege that you have, and you are under no compulsion to invoke the fifth amendment.
The only question is, do you?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. I do invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you examine the exhibit again, please, and state what you see on the line immediately under the name appearing at the top of the page.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. Again, I do invoke the fifth amendment for the reasons previously stated.
Mr. Tavenner. I am not asking you, Witness, whether or not that is your address. I am asking if you will read what appears on the document? I am asking you no question other than what is it that appears on the document.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. I respectfully give the same answer I gave before, on advice of counsel.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you see it before you?
(The witness confers with his counsel.) 304
Mr. Halonen. Yes; I see it.
Mr. Tavenner. Rather than lose more time, I will read into the record from this document that the address on the line under the name Oiva Halonen is 1011 East Columbia, Seattle.
Mr. Moulder. Is this the same document that you referred to as an exhibit which was identified by Mr. Dennett?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir; and it is marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 4.” Was that your address in 1933?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Moulder. Did he state what his address was at the beginning of his testimony when he first appeared on the stand?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir; I asked him where he lived when he first came to Seattle, and it is the same address, if I recall the testimony correctly.
So that there may be no uncertainty about it, what was your address in 1933 when you came to Seattle?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. It was 1011 East Columbia.
Mr. Moulder. Is that the same address appearing on this exhibit?
Mr. Halonen. Yes.
Mr. Velde. May I inquire of counsel the year he attended the youth camp at Pine Lake, as testified to by Mr. Dennett. Was that in 1932?
Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. The year was not specified.
Are you acquainted with Mr. Dennett who just testified here a moment ago?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. Was the name Dennett or Bennett?
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dennett.
Mr. Halonen. On advice of counsel, on the grounds that the question might tend to incriminate me, I do invoke the fifth amendment and refuse to answer the question.
Mr. Velde. I can’t possibly see how the admission that you were acquainted with any person would possibly tend to incriminate you. So I ask the chairman to direct the witness to answer the question.
Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to answer the question.
Mr. Halonen. I do invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Moulder. I want you to answer this question.
You say upon advice of counsel you are advised that the answer might tend to incriminate you. Now is it because of the advice of counsel or do you yourself feel that it will incriminate you?
Mr. Halonen. I do it on advice of counsel. Counsel advises me to invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Moulder. May I ask you this:
Would your answer tend to incriminate you?
(The witness confers with this counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. It might tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Moulder. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you attend a Young Pioneers summer camp at Pine Lake in the State of Washington?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. Could we be more specific as to time?
Mr. Tavenner. Did you attend any “Pioneer” summer camp at any time? 305
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. On advice of counsel, I do again invoke the fifth amendment on grounds of possible self-incrimination.
Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with Barbara Hartle?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. Again on advice of counsel, I find myself in the position that I do invoke the fifth amendment on grounds of possible self-incrimination.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Tavenner. Were you present in the hearing room at the time Mr. Dennett identified you as having been a member of the Communist Party?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. Yes; I was in the room.
Mr. Tavenner. You heard his testimony?
Mr. Halonen. Yes.
Mr. Tavenner. Was he correct in stating that you became a member of the Communist Party?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. I find myself in the situation of invoking the fifth amendment again on grounds of possible self-incrimination.
Mr. Tavenner. And you do so invoke?
Mr. Halonen. I do so invoke.
Mr. Moulder. Do you decline to answer the question for that reason?
Mr. Halonen. I decline to answer the question on grounds of possible self-incrimination under the fifth amendment.
Mr. Tavenner. Mrs. Barbara Hartle testified in June of 1954 before this committee as follows:
Oiva Halonen was a member of the Communist Party in the central region; lived in that area; and was connected with the national group’s work of the district.
Do you desire to explain her testimony in any way or to deny it? Or do you confirm it as being true?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. I decline under the grounds of the fifth amendment, on possible self-incrimination.
Mr. Tavenner. Are you now a member of the Communist Party?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. I decline to answer that question under the fifth amendment for the reasons stated before.
Mr. Tavenner. Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. I decline to answer that question for the same reasons.
Mr. Tavenner. Have you engaged in various activities of the Communist Party within mass organizations in the area of Seattle?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. I decline to answer that question for the reasons stated previously, under the fifth amendment.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you at any time affiliated with the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee?
(The witness confers with his counsel.) 306
Mr. Halonen. I decline again, under the fifth amendment, to answer that question, as previously stated.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you actively engaged in the work of the Young Communist League in 1942?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. I decline to answer that question under the fifth amendment, as previously stated.
Mr. Tavenner. Have you traveled outside of the continental limits of the United States?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Sykes. May we have a minute, please.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Moulder. Let the record show that the witness is conferring with counsel.
Mr. Halonen. To the last question I again invoke the fifth amendment on grounds of possible self-incrimination, and refuse to answer.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade?
Mr. Halonen. Once again I do decline to answer the question on the grounds of the fifth amendment, as previously stated.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you in the Spanish area 14 months during the Spanish Civil War?
Mr. Halonen. Once again I decline to answer the question, under the fifth amendment, on grounds previously stated.
Mr. Tavenner. Have you had any affiliation with the International Workers Order?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. Once again I decline to answer the question, under the fifth amendment, for previously stated reasons.
Mr. Moulder. In response to the question asked by counsel, which you refused to answer or declined to answer, there are constitutional reasons as to whether or not you served in the armed services in Spain.
Now you declined to answer the question in reference to the Spanish Civil War. I want to ask you this question:
Did you ever serve in any branch of the armed services of the United States of America?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. No; I never did.
Mr. Moulder. Do you refuse to state whether or not you have served in the armed services of another country?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. I refuse to answer that specific question; yes.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Moulder. In other words, it leaves the impression you were willing to fight for some other country but you are not willing to fight for the United States of America, your own native country.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. I refuse to answer the question in regard to the Spanish Civil War.
Mr. Moulder. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Halonen, I don’t want to leave an inference that this committee feels that a person should be criticized by it for 307 any position he or she may take regarding any bill before Congress, but if a certain bill before Congress is being opposed by the Communist Party and the Communist Party is instrumental in creating opposition to it, then the committee would be interested in that fact.
Now I am not attempting to criticize any opposition you may have registered to the Walter-McCarran Act, but, if you did oppose it, I want to know whether or not the Communist Party had anything to do with the position that you took in the matter.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. I decline to answer that question on the grounds of the fifth amendment, as previously stated.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.
Mr. Moulder. Mr. Velde?
Mr. Velde. Were you born in Minnesota?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. Yes.
Mr. Velde. I note you took refuge in the fifth amendment when questioned about your acquaintanceship with Mr. Eugene Dennett.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. That is correct.
Mr. Velde. You were here in the hearing room while he was testifying about your activities at the youth camp at Pine Lake, were you not?
Mr. Halonen. I so testified earlier.
Mr. Velde. You did see him here, didn’t you?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. Yes, I did.
Mr. Velde. Had you ever met him before? Did you recognize him when he was testifying?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. I invoke the fifth amendment and decline to answer that question on the grounds of possible self-incrimination.
Mr. Velde. You might have some misunderstanding about what acquaintanceship is. I wanted to know if you ever saw him before. I can see no reason why you shouldn’t answer that question or why that would tend to incriminate you in any way.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. Not being too sharp on the legal aspects, I am afraid of waiving my rights under the fifth amendment, and, for that reason, I am invoking the fifth amendment.
Mr. Velde. I am not trying to trap you. Seriously, I can see no reason for not identifying him or anyone else you may have seen before. A lot of people in this room are acquainted with people who have been incriminated and have served jail sentences. I see no reason why an acquaintanceship of that type with a person should incriminate you or me or anyone else.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. Well, I respectfully invoke the fifth amendment again on the question asked for the reasons previously stated.
Mr. Velde. Have you ever known any member of the Communist Party?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. I again must decline to answer that question under the fifth amendment, as previously stated. 308
Mr. Velde. Have you ever met a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Halonen. Again I decline to answer under the fifth amendment for the reasons stated previously.
Mr. Velde. Do you know anyone in this room?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. I know my counsel here.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Velde. Why do you admit that you know your counsel and refuse to admit that you know Mr. Dennett?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. My acquaintance with my counsel could not possibly incriminate me in any way.
Mr. Velde. Do you feel that you are engaged at the present time in any activity which is of a subversive nature and subversive to the Government of the United States?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. I must decline to answer that question again, under the fifth amendment, for the reasons as stated previously.
Mr. Velde. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Moulder. In connection with the last question Mr. Velde was asking if you had any knowledge, or if you ever committed any act of espionage or engaged in any activity contrary to the interests of the United States, I will ask you this question?
Are you engaged in any organization work or any activities leading toward the overthrow of our present form of government by force or violence?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. I must decline, or I must state that I have never engaged in any espionage, but, as far as the rest of the question is concerned. I must again invoke the fifth amendment on possible self-incrimination.
Mr. Moulder. In other words, you answer by saying that you did not engage in any espionage, but refuse to answer as to whether or not you are actively engaged in any effort to overthrow our Government by force and violence. That is the way I construe your answer.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Halonen. That is correct.
Mr. Moulder. Are there any further questions?
Mr. Velde. No, but I do feel that the witness possesses a great deal of information which would be valuable to the committee in its work, in its obligations that we are duty bound to perform, and I regret the position the witness has taken.
I hope he will reconsider his position and return to give the committee the information he possesses.
Mr. Moulder. The witness is excused.
(Whereupon the witness was excused.)
Mr. Moulder. Counsel, proceed with the next witness.
Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Eugene Frank Robel, please.
Mr. Moulder. Will you hold up your right hand and be sworn?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Robel. I do. 309
Mr. Wheeler. Will you state your name, please.
Mr. Robel. E-u-g-e-n-e F-r-a-n-k R-o-b-e-l, Eugene Frank Robel.
Mr. Wheeler. When and where were you born, Mr. Robel?
Mr. Robel. I was born in Kit Carson County, Colo., on a homestead.
Mr. Wheeler. In what year?
Mr. Robel. 1911.
Mr. Wheeler. You are represented by counsel. Will he please identify himself for the record?
Mr. Sykes. Jay G. Sykes, Seattle.
Mr. Wheeler. Would you briefly advise the committee as to your education?
Mr. Robel. I have a high-school education and 2 years of university.
Mr. Wheeler. What university is that?
Mr. Robel. Moscow, Idaho—not Russia.
Mr. Wheeler. The University of Idaho?
Mr. Robel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wheeler. How long have you lived in the city of Seattle?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Robel. I came here the latter part of 1937, I believe. I have been here since.
Mr. Wheeler. Have you ever served in the Armed Forces of the United States?
Mr. Robel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wheeler. In what branch?
Mr. Robel. United States Navy.
Mr. Wheeler. At what period of time were you in the United States Navy?
Mr. Robel. From 1933 to 1937.
Mr. Wheeler. Were you honorably discharged?
Mr. Robel. Yes, sir. I had a good-conduct discharge. I have the medal at home.
Mr. Wheeler. What is your employment record for the last 10 years?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Robel. I worked for an oil company for my first 4 years in Seattle, General Petroleum Corp.
Mr. Wheeler. That would be 1937 to 1941?
Mr. Robel. I think that is approximately the figures. Then I worked as a machinist at various jobs.
Mr. Wheeler. Specifically, what jobs have you held as a machinist?
Mr. Robel. Mostly outside machinist, but at times maintenance.
Mr. Wheeler. For what companies have you worked?
Mr. Robel. I have worked for Todd’s, Pacific Iron Foundry, Isaacson Iron Works, and Sahlberg Equipment Co.
Mr. Wheeler. Where are you employed now?
Mr. Robel. Todd’s.
Mr. Wheeler. Todd Shipyards?
Mr. Robel. Yes, sir. 310
Mr. Wheeler. Are they engaged in defense work or defense contracts?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Robel. I think so, indirectly. I don’t know how they get their contracts.
Mr. Wheeler. Do you have a security clearance?
Mr. Robel. No, sir.
Mr. Wheeler. Have you been denied security clearance?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Robel. No, sir.
Mr. Wheeler. Are you a member of any labor union?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Robel. On the advice of counsel, because to answer that might tend to incriminate me, I will have to invoke the fifth amendment and refuse to answer that.
Mr. Velde. May I again say you are not under any compulsion to take refuge under the fifth amendment. It is a privilege.
The question is do you invoke the fifth amendment?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Robel. I do invoke it. I recognize I am not under compulsion, but I do invoke it because of the possibility that I might be incriminated.
Mr. Velde. Mr. Chairman, again let me say that I cannot possibly see how a membership in a labor union, admission that you are a member of a labor union, could possibly tend to incriminate a person, and I ask the Chair to direct the witness to answer the question.
Mr. Moulder. Certainly your being a member of a labor union could not in any way tend to incriminate you. So you are directed to answer that question.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Robel. Well, membership in a particular labor union might incriminate me, and that is the reason I invoke the fifth amendment. One question leads to another.
Mr. Moulder. It might lead to another question, but certainly if the other question would tend to incriminate you that is an entirely different matter. But the simple question as to whether or not you are a member of a legitimate labor union could in no way whatsoever tend to incriminate you.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Robel. I wouldn’t like to waive my rights under the fifth amendment by answering a previous question and then be forced to answer another one. That is the reason I took the position that I do.
Mr. Moulder. Proceed.
Mr. Velde. Do you belong to any labor union? That was the original question of counsel.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Robel. Because that question might lead to the particular labor organization that I belong to, I will decline to answer that question.
Mr. Velde. If it does lead to that question, you can then invoke your privilege under the fifth amendment of the Constitution.
(The witness confers with his counsel.) 311
Mr. Robel. It is my understanding legally that I may waive my rights by answering one of these questions, and I don’t wish to waive my right to invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Moulder. You certainly were not waiving your rights when you stated a moment ago you were employed and where you were employed.
Now if you belong to some labor organization in connection with your employment there is nothing in that connection certainly that would tend to incriminate you, if you are employed or in legitimate employment.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Robel. We are getting into complicated rights of waiver, and it is my understanding legally that I may refuse to answer.
Mr. Moulder. Do you decline to answer under the fifth amendment?
Mr. Robel. Under the fifth amendment, yes, sir.
Mr. Wheeler. Are you a member of the International Association of Machinists, A. F. of L.?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Robel. I must invoke the fifth amendment, as previously, and refuse to answer that.
Mr. Moulder. I wish to say that for as long as I have served on this committee, a period of approximately 7 years, I have never heard anyone invoke the fifth amendment in response to a question as to whether or not he was a member of an A. F. of L. union.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Moulder. Proceed.
Mr. Wheeler. Are you acquainted or have you been acquainted in the past with Mrs. Barbara Hartle.
Mr. Robel. For the same reasons as previously given, that I might tend to incriminate myself, I will have to invoke the fifth amendment and refuse to answer that question.
Mr. Wheeler. Quoting her testimony before this committee, appearing on page 6094 of volume 2 of the hearings held in June 1954:
The Communist Party has always had a number of members in the machinists Union. Some of them that I can remember are Glenn Kinney, Ray Campbell, Frank Kerr, Gene Robel.
Was Mrs. Hartle advising the committee of the truth when she testified to that?
Mr. Robel. I must again invoke the fifth amendment for the previously stated reasons, and not admit or deny anything that any stool pigeon you may bring out says about me.
Mr. Moulder. To whom do you refer as a stool pigeon?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Robel. I apologize for that statement, sir, and withdraw it.
Mr. Moulder. Ordinarily a person referred to as a stool pigeon is one who is an accuser of some fact against someone else, and that person ordinarily retorts that they are a stool pigeon.
You do withdraw that reference.
Mr. Wheeler. Mrs. Hartle also testified—and this reference to her testimony can be found on page 6173 of volume 3 of the hearings:
Gene Robel, whom I have mentioned before, and Glenn Kinney were also members of this industrial section.
312
Mr. Robel, the committee, in pursuance of its duties, is endeavoring to gain knowledge of the industrial section of the Communist Party in King County, and you, having been identified as a member of that section, is the reason you have been subpenaed here. We would like to get what information we can from you.
Now I would like to ask you:
Were you a member of the industrial section of the Communist Party?
Mr. Robel. I must invoke the fifth amendment for the same reason previously stated, and refuse to answer that question.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Wheeler. Are you a member of the Communist Party today?
Mr. Robel. I must invoke the fifth amendment for the same reason and refuse to answer that question on the ground that I might incriminate myself.
Mr. Wheeler. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Moulder. Were you ever a member of the Communist Party?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Robel. I must, likewise, invoke the fifth amendment on that question, and refuse to answer, sir.
Mr. Moulder. Mr. Velde, any questions?
Mr. Velde. No questions.
Mr. Moulder. The witness is excused.
(Whereupon the witness was excused.)
Call the next witness, Mr. Wheeler.
Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Frank Kerr.
Mr. Sykes. Mr. Chairman, may I address the committee in respect to Mr. Kerr? There is a special problem involved with respect to Mr. Kerr.
Mr. Moulder. Yes.
Mr. Sykes. I would like to hand to Mr. Wheeler a statement from Dr. Beattie, and ask that the committee consider Mr. Kerr’s physical condition, and if it sees fit to have him examined by a county doctor.
Mr. Moulder. I notice that this is a letter written by Dr. John F. Beattie wherein he says that:
Mr. Frank Kerr has been under my care since January 12, 1954, because of coronary artery disease.
The letter does not state the patient was hospitalized in connection with his examination. It does not state he is now in the hospital. It is not very specific as to his exact illness, as to whether or not he is capable of appearing here as a witness without endangering his health or life.
Mr. Sykes. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. There was serious doubt in my mind, without knowing anything about the specific details of his illness, to be absolutely sure whether or not he should be examined by a doctor here, and if the doctor here should rule that he can testify I would have no objection. I thought that I should protect Mr. Kerr.
Mr. Moulder. This is very vague.
Mr. Sykes. That is correct. 313
Mr. Moulder. And very indefinite. We will take this under consideration.
Counsel, will you call another witness?
Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Harold Johnston.
Mr. Moulder. Hold up your right hand and be sworn, please.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Johnston. I do.
Mr. Wheeler. Will the witness state his name, please?
Mr. Johnston. Harold Johnston.
Mr. Wheeler. Are you represented by counsel? Will counsel identify himself for the record?
Mr. Sykes. Jay G. Sykes, Seattle.
Mr. Wheeler. When and where were you born, Mr. Johnston?
Mr. Johnston. 1907, Yakima, Wash.
Mr. Wheeler. And what is your educational background?
Mr. Johnston. Very little, less than grammar; didn’t finish grammar school.
Mr. Wheeler. How long have you lived in the Seattle district?
Mr. Johnston. By Seattle district you mean King County?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes; or the periphery.
Mr. Johnston. I don’t live in Seattle.
Mr. Wheeler. I understand that.
Mr. Johnston. I have been there 15 years.
Mr. Wheeler. What is your employment record?
Mr. Johnston. For the last 10 years it’s been machinist.
Mr. Wheeler. And prior to that?
Mr. Johnston. Oh, odd jobs.
Mr. Wheeler. Are you presently employed?
Mr. Johnston. Yes, I am.
Mr. Wheeler. Where are you presently employed?
Mr. Johnston. Mr. Chairman, the subpena was served on me. First, they went to my home and my wife told them where I worked. And they went to the shop and were very courteous and called up my foreman, and I went out and they served me. And I am sure the committee has a record. And I don’t feel that it would do myself any good or the company to make it a part of the official record as to where I work. And I would like to not answer this question on that basis.
Mr. Moulder. Do you decline to answer the question?
Mr. Johnston. No. I definitely—I would like to be excused from answering it. I am not taking a position that I—but inasmuch as the deputy sheriff served me on the job, very courteous about it—met me at the gate and did not come in; told me he would be there—and I went out and looked him up—the committee knows where I work and I don’t feel it should become a record here of the company I work for.
Mr. Moulder. Do you mean that answering the question as to where you are employed would reflect unfavorably upon the company which employs you? 314
Mr. Johnston. It is possible with publicity in the paper. No use to bring unnecessary publicity on it. I feel that the committee should take that into consideration. They know where I work. Their man served a subpena on me. I would not like to answer that question.
Mr. Velde. Mr. Chairman, I feel I must insist that the witness answer the question as to where he is employed.
Throughout the history of this committee every witness who has appeared before the committee has been required to give his place of residence and his place of employment, or take refuge under the fifth amendment. It would be grossly unfair to all the witnesses who have previously appeared before this committee to allow you to escape answering that question.
Mr. Johnston. Inasmuch as you already know——But I will answer then if you insist that I answer. I work at Lake Union Shipyards as of today—I don’t know about tomorrow.
Mr. Wheeler. What type of work do you do for the Lake Union Shipyards?
Mr. Johnston. Machinist.
Mr. Wheeler. Is that company engaged upon classified matters, security work for the United States Government?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Johnston. Well, we do a lot of fishing boat work. We do work on all types of ships. It is a small yard. So it is small boats we have there. We don’t have large ones like other yards do. It is mostly small boats. There is some Government work there, naturally.
Mr. Wheeler. Do you have a security clearance?
Mr. Johnston. No, I do not.
Mr. Wheeler. Have you ever requested one?
Mr. Johnston. No, I haven’t.
Mr. Wheeler. Have you ever been denied one?
Mr. Johnston. No, I haven’t.
Mr. Wheeler. Are you acquainted with Mrs. Barbara Hartle?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Johnston. Because the answer is liable to have a tendency to incriminate me, at this time I invoke the fifth amendment and decline to answer that question.
Mr. Moulder. In future replies along that line, do I understand you decline to answer on the grounds of the fifth amendment for the reason that your answers might tend to incriminate you?
Mr. Johnston. That is right, sir.
Mr. Wheeler. Being a machinist, are you a member of any union?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Johnston. Well, I will have to decline on the same reason, of the fifth amendment.
Mr. Velde. I suggest that the Chair instruct the witness to answer the question.
Mr. Moulder. The Chair directs you to answer the question.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Johnston. I respectfully decline to answer that on the grounds that it will tend to incriminate me, and ask the privilege.
Mr. Wheeler. Are you a member of the International Association of Machinists, A. F. of L.?
(The witness confers with his counsel.) 315
Mr. Johnston. For the same reason, again I invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Moulder. You are directed to answer the question. I think it is a very unfair reflection upon that union, a legitimate, highly respected labor organization, and you should answer that question.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Johnston. There is a very particular problem on that in my case, and for that reason I don’t want to waive any rights under the fifth amendment. So I respectfully again have to invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Moulder. Proceed.
Mr. Wheeler. Have you held any position in any union?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Johnston. The same—the fifth amendment. I will have to invoke the fifth amendment again on that question.
Mr. Wheeler. Is it not a fact that you at one time were business agent for the International Association of Machinists, A. F. of L.?
Mr. Johnston. Again I will have to invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Wheeler. To refer to the testimony of Barbara Hartle, page 6094, part 2 of the hearings held in June 1954:
The business agent for several years of the machinists union during this time was Harold Johnston, who was a member also of the district committee of the Communist Party of which I was a member.
Was Mrs. Hartle correct in making that statement?
Mr. Johnston. I will have to again invoke the fifth amendment in that it is liable to incriminate me.
Mr. Wheeler. Were you ever at any time a member of the district committee of the Communist Party of King County?
Mr. Johnston. I will again have to invoke the fifth amendment on the grounds it will possibly incriminate me.
Mr. Wheeler. Were you a member of the district committee of the Communist Party of King County while business agent for the machinists union?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Johnston. I will again have to invoke the fifth amendment on the ground possibly to incriminate me.
Mr. Wheeler. Is it not a fact that there was a group of machinists of 8 or 10 who were members of the Communist Party within that union?
Mr. Johnston. Again will I have to invoke the fifth amendment for the same reason.
Mr. Moulder. Let me understand that question, Mr. Wheeler.
Mr. Wheeler. I will repeat it.
Is it not a fact that there was a branch or cell of the Communist Party within the machinists union of which you were a member?
Mr. Moulder. Can you specify the date?
Mr. Wheeler. The date, sir, runs during the war years and before, a continuing date.
Mr. Moulder. Do you have any knowledge or information concerning the question propounded to you by Mr. Wheeler?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Johnston. I didn’t get that complete. I am a little bit hard of hearing. Would you read it over again? 316
Mr. Moulder. My question is, Do you have any knowledge or information concerning a Communist cell in the machinists union?
Mr. Johnston. On the question of knowledge, it is liable to incriminate me. So again I have to invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Johnston, do you believe the Communist Party has a place in organized labor?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Johnston. Well, I couldn’t answer that yes or no. I am no expert. You have experts here, and I am not one. I am sorry I couldn’t give you an intelligent answer on that.
Mr. Moulder. You can express your approval or disapproval of it. That is, in the form of the question you could express your approval or disapproval of it.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Johnston. I just can’t; I can’t formulate any answer for that one way or the other. So I just couldn’t answer that question one way or the other. I can’t understand what exactly, what kind of an answer would have to be on that. I am not clear. My education is very little.
Mr. Moulder. Do you mean to say you haven’t made up your mind about it?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Johnston. I have never thought about it before.
Mr. Moulder. Well, give it some thought now and answer the question as to whether or not you approve or disapprove of Communist Party domination of a labor union.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Johnston. On that one I will give it some thought, and before the committee leaves town I will give you a statement of my thinking on that.
Mr. Moulder. All right; we will keep you under subpena and give you an opportunity to think that out and answer that question some time before we adjourn.
Proceed with the next question.
Mr. Wheeler. Are you a member of the Communist Party today?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Johnston. I will again, as in the past, have to invoke the fifth amendment for the same reason. The answer will incriminate me.
Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.
Mr. Velde. I have no questions.
Mr. Moulder. The witness is not excused.
You will be kept under subpena. You may attend the hearings and give the thought you said you would give to answering the question. When you are ready, notify Mr. Wheeler, and we will recall you to the stand.
Mr. Counsel, proceed with the next witness.
Mr. Wheeler. John Lawrie, Jr.
Mr. Moulder. Do you solemnly swear the testimony which you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Lawrie. I do.
I also want to say that I am here under protest and that all answers I give will be—I will invoke the first and fifth amendment. 317
Mr. Moulder. You haven’t been asked any questions yet.
Proceed, Mr. Wheeler.
Mr. Lawrie. I also have a written statement I would like to read before this committee.
Mr. Moulder. We will file the statement. Hand it to Mr. Wheeler.
Mr. Wheeler. Will the witness state his name, please.
Mr. Lawrie. My name is Jack Lawrie, Jr.
Mr. Wheeler. Will you spell the last name.
Mr. Lawrie. L-a-w-r-i-e.
Mr. Wheeler. When and where were you born, Mr. Lawrie?
Mr. Lawrie. I was born in 1921 in the city of Casper, Wyo., July 12.
Mr. Wheeler. And what is your educational background?
Mr. Lawrie. My education background is one of having graduated from grade school in the city of Seattle, and also Franklin High School in the city of Seattle.
And at this point I would like to raise a point of order.
Mr. Moulder. I would like to ask you a question.
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Lawrie. I would still have a point of order here that is in the rules of procedure, and I think the committee would certainly be interested in their own rules of procedure. And I would like to read article No. 10, which deals——
Mr. Moulder. Will you answer my question first?
Mr. Lawrie. Deals with rights of a person affected by a hearing. I am certainly affected by the hearing.
Mr. Moulder. I asked you a question if you are now or have ever been a member of the Communist Party. You may answer. Then you may have a point of order to raise when you answer to that question.
Mr. Velde. If he answers the question instead of refusing to answer.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Lawrie. I am going to have to decline to answer that question. And the reason I am declining to answer that question is that, due to the many oppressive and repressive laws, both on the Federal and State level, I am going to invoke the first amendment and also the fifth amendment.
I would like to be able to read the first and fifth amendments from the Constitution of the United States. I believe we have a good Constitution, and I am sure—or at least this committee claims they are interested in the Constitution, and upholding the rights.
So I would like to read from the Constitution of the United States at this time.
Mr. Moulder. That won’t be necessary. We are familiar with the provisions of the Constitution. You have declined to answer on the first and fifth amendment.
Do you have any questions, Mr. Wheeler?
Mr. Wheeler. Would you relate briefly to the committee your employment record? 318
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Lawrie. You stated previously that you would give me a point of order if I answered the question.
Mr. Moulder. You didn’t answer the question.
Mr. Lawrie. I responded; I certainly responded to the question.
Mr. Moulder. Mr. Wheeler, repeat your last question.
Mr. Wheeler. Would you relate briefly to the committee your employment record?
Mr. Lawrie. That was not the question that was put to me.
Mr. Wheeler. It is the last question I asked.
Mr. Moulder. This question is now being propounded to you.
Mr. Lawrie. That was not the question that he asked me to answer, and that I would get my point of order.
Mr. Velde. I think I can clear up the matter. The question he is referring to is the chairman’s question as to membership in the Communist Party at the present time or at any time in the past. And I think the Chair very well stated that if you answered the question instead of refusing to answer, invoking the first and fifth amendments, then you would be given an opportunity, as you put it, to make a point of order, which is not within your rights at all.
But now will you answer the question as to whether you were a member of the Communist Party or are now a member of the Communist Party? Let’s put it a different way. Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Lawrie. I still would like to raise my point of order, and I think that I have that right, because, after all, this is your rules of procedure, and I think you would be interested in it, interested in that question. I didn’t write the rules of procedure. You gentlemen were the ones that helped to draw that up.
Mr. Velde. The chairman gave you a great privilege by allowing you to answer the question “Yes” or “No,” and then by giving you the right to spout off about our rules and regulations, which we know very well. And we know about the Constitution.
Now it seems to me that any person who is interested in preserving the Constitution against encroachment from our prospective enemies would be willing to answer the question as to whether or not he was a member of the Communist Party or ever had been a member of the Communist Party.
Mr. Lawrie. As I stated before, I still think that, as you pointed out, you are interested in the Constitution. And I certainly think you should grant a witness here, after all, that is here at your own invitation—not at his own request—he certainly should be granted the right to raise a point of order, and if the committee feels that—in my opinion they should feel that a witness should be granted that right.
Mr. Moulder. Let me say you are a witness who has been duly subpenaed here. You are under oath to answer certain questions. You have the privilege under the Constitution to decline to answer.
We are not going to be engaged with you in an argument concerning the Constitution or the rules of the committee.
Now certain questions will be propounded to you by Mr. Wheeler. You have the right as an American citizen to claim privilege under the Constitution, which I assume you are about to do. You are certainly 319 not going to be permitted to enter into a soapbox argument with this committee.
Proceed, Mr. Wheeler.
Mr. Wheeler. Would you briefly relate your employment record for the last 10 years?
Mr. Lawrie. I don’t see any basis for the honorable gentleman’s statement. I still think that I have the right to raise my point of order.
Mr. Moulder. You are directed to answer the question propounded to you.
Mr. Lawrie. I still think I have——
Mr. Moulder. Ask the next question.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Lawrie. What was the question?
Mr. Moulder. You haven’t answered it.
Mr. Lawrie. I am asking the question.
Mr. Moulder. You made a statement you were refusing to answer without giving the legal reason for refusing to answer. I am directing the examiner to proceed with the next question because you have refused to answer it without cause.
Mr. Wheeler. Are you acquainted with Mrs. Barbara Hartle?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Lawrie. I will have to state that I didn’t understand the previous question.
Mr. Moulder. Do you understand the present question?
Mr. Wheeler. I think the record will show that my question was asked three times.
The question now is: Are you acquainted with Mrs. Barbara Hartle?
Mr. Lawrie. Well, with reference to the last two questions, I am——
Mr. Moulder. We are not making reference to the last two questions. He has asked you a simple question now, and you are directed to answer.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Lawrie. With reference to that question on Barbara Hartle and the previous question, I am going to invoke both the first and the fifth amendment which states that an individual is not compelled to be a witness against himself and shall not be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law.
Mr. Moulder. The next question, please, Mr. Wheeler.
Mr. Wheeler. Where are you presently employed?
Mr. Lawrie. I am going to answer that question in this way: During the time the committee was here—I believe it was last June—I read in the newspapers where a number of workers, men and women, lost their jobs.
Mr. Moulder. You are not responding to the question. You must be responsive to the question and not take the question as an excuse for making a speech.
Now the question is: Where are you now employed? Do you decline to answer?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Moulder. Give him a reasonable time to decline or answer, and proceed with the next question.
Mr. Lawrie. At this time I am going to request that I be allowed to talk to my attorney. 320
Mr. Moulder. Very well. You will have an opportunity to confer with your attorney.
(Witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Wheeler. Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Witness?
Mr. Lawrie. I am ready to proceed.
I would like to know if I can state my reasons for not answering this question.
Mr. Moulder. Certainly, if it is not at great length in the form of a speech. Or, you may decline to answer claiming and invoking the first amendment, as you have.
Mr. Lawrie. I don’t think that it will be long, but that is my opinion.
I state again, as I stated before, because of many workers losing their jobs because they were mentioned by this committee or in some subpena, I believe that I have the right to earn a living, and that this committee may be responsible for my losing my job to make a living. And I would like to decline from answering that question, but if the committee compels me to, I will.
Mr. Velde. In that connection, have you ever made a living by being a member of the Communist Party? Has the Communist Party paid you anything for being a member of it?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Lawrie. I am going to refuse to answer any questions that refer to communism—in this committee under the fifth amendment.
Mr. Wheeler. Where are you presently employed?
Mr. Lawrie. I am going to make the same statement as I made before, that, due to the fact that many working people were fired from their jobs at the last hearing, that I am liable to the same thing happening to me, lose my source of income and——
Mr. Wheeler. Were you fired from your job after the hearings here last June?
Mr. Lawrie. No, not I, because I wasn’t here.
Mr. Wheeler. Where were you?
Mr. Lawrie. I was working.
Mr. Wheeler. Where?
Mr. Lawrie. I am going to have to speak to my counsel for a second.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Wheeler. Were you on an underground assignment at that time for the Communist Party?
Mr. Lawrie. I said I would like to speak to my counsel at the present time.
Mr. Moulder. You may confer with your counsel.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Lawrie. I am through conferring with counsel.
It seems to me that there are two questions. One is where I am working now. And the other is did I have anything to do with the Communist underground.
Mr. Wheeler. You weren’t responsive to the first question. We are now proceeding along with the interrogation to another question.
Mr. Lawrie. Which question are you asking now?
Mr. Wheeler. I am asking if you were on an underground assignment for the Communist Party last June.
(The witness confers with his counsel.) 321
Mr. Lawrie. Well, if it will help the committee any, as I said in the beginning, that any and all questions that I am going to have to—due to the many oppressive and repressive laws, both on the Federal and State level, I am going to have to invoke the first amendment and the fifth amendment, which have to do with communism or anything of that category.
Mr. Wheeler. Where were you last June? What part of the country? Where were you residing?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Wheeler. Let the record show that he is conferring with counsel.
Mr. Lawrie. I was in the State of Washington.
Mr. Wheeler. What part of Washington?
Mr. Lawrie. I would say it was Everett.
Mr. Wheeler. Now, Mrs. Hartle identified you as organizational secretary of the central region of the Communist Party during some time in the last few years.
Mr. Lawrie. Are you referring to a possible future Harvey Matusow, one that swears one thing one day and then, the next day, swears something else?
Mr. Moulder. But you are refusing to deny or affirm the charges. You have the opportunity to show that Barbara Hartle, referred to by you as a so-called Matusow, was telling a falsehood. But you are refusing to do that. You refuse to say whether she is telling a falsehood or telling the truth.
Mr. Lawrie. If it will help this committee any, as I stated before, that, due to the many oppressive and repressive laws, both on the Federal and State level, I am going to decline to answer that question under the first and fifth amendments.
Mr. Moulder. Proceed with the next question.
Mr. Wheeler. Are you a member of the Communist Party today?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Lawrie. The same answer.
Mr. Wheeler. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Velde. I do want to make this observation. Here again we have a witness who follows the usual line of the Communist Party.
It is my belief that the witness, from his behavior on the witness stand, is presently engaged in Communist Party activities. I feel it is improbable that you will change your mind from the attitude you have taken.
I very much regret to say that I do feel you are engaged at the present time in activities which are harmful to the preservation of our constitutional form of government.
Mr. Moulder. May I ask did you ever answer the question as to where you were now employed?
Was that question ever answered?
Mr. Wheeler. No.
Mr. Moulder. Then I ask you that question. Where are you now employed?
(The witness confers with his counsel.) 322
Mr. Lawrie. I am employed at the present time by the Weyerhauser Timber Co.
Mr. Moulder. The witness is excused.
(Whereupon the witness was excused.)
Mr. Moulder. Call the next witness.
Mr. Wheeler. Edward Brook Carmichael.
Mr. Moulder. Hold up your right hand and be sworn.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Carmichael. I do.
Mr. Wheeler. Will the witness state his full name, please?
Mr. Carmichael. Edward Brook Carmichael, Jr.
Mr. Wheeler. And where do you reside, Mr. Carmichael?
Mr. Carmichael. At Monroe.
Mr. Wheeler. Monroe, Wash.?
Mr. Carmichael. Monroe, Wash.
Mr. Wheeler. Where were you born and when?
Mr. Carmichael. In Washington.
Mr. Wheeler. What date?
Mr. Carmichael. 1917.
Mr. Moulder. Are you represented by counsel who appears now before the committee?
Mr. Carmichael. Yes.
Mr. Moulder. Would your attorney please state her name?
Miss Lesser. My name is Sarah H. Lesser, and I am a member of the Seattle bar.
Mr. Wheeler. Where are you presently employed?
Mr. Carmichael. Washington State Reformatory at Monroe.
Mr. Wheeler. What is your position there?
Mr. Carmichael. Supervisory cook.
Mr. Wheeler. How long have you been so employed?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. Four years.
Mr. Wheeler. Would you advise the committee of your educational background?
Mr. Carmichael. High-school graduate.
Mr. Wheeler. Of what school, please?
Mr. Carmichael. Sultan Union High School.
Mr. Wheeler. How were you employed prior to your employment by the Washington State Reformatory at Monroe?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. By the privilege granted me under the fifth amendment, I decline to answer that question.
Mr. Wheeler. On all employment prior to the time you went to work with the State or for the State of Washington?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. For the same reason, I decline to answer. 323
Mr. Wheeler. In what year did you graduate from high school? (The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. 1935.
Mr. Wheeler. You are pleading the fifth amendment on the question of all employment from 1935 to 1951? Am I correct in that? (The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. That is correct.
Mr. Wheeler. Have you traveled outside of the United States?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. I decline to answer for the same reasons as stated before.
Mr. Wheeler. Have you served in the Armed Forces of the United States?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler. During what period of time?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. From April 1945, until August 1946.
Mr. Wheeler. Did you receive an honorable discharge?
Mr. Carmichael. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler. Have you served in the armed forces of any country other than the United States?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. I will decline to answer that for the same reasons as stated before.
Mr. Wheeler. Is it a fact that you were a member of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in Spain?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. The answer is the same as before.
Mr. Velde. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be appropriate at this point to place in the record that the Abraham Lincoln Brigade has been cited by the Attorney General and by the House Committee on Un-American Activities and by various other committees as being subversive.
Mr. Wheeler. I hand you a passport application signed by E. Brook Carmichael, and it was subscribed to and sworn to on the 30th day of June 1937. Did you execute this application?
(The witness examines document and confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. I decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment.
Mr. Wheeler. Would you look at the second page and advise the committee whether or not that is your signature? It is about halfway down.
(The witness examines the document and confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. I decline to answer for the same reason.
Mr. Wheeler. You will notice a photograph on the second page. Is that a photograph you submitted for the application?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. I decline to answer for the same reason.
Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce this document as Carmichael Exhibit No. 1.
Mr. Moulder. It is so admitted. 324
Carmichael Exhibit No. 1
(The document above referred to, marked “Carmichael Exhibit No. 1,” for identification, is filed herewith and made a part of the record.) 325
Carmichael Exhibit No. 1
Mr. Moulder. Is that a picture of you on that document?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. I decline to answer on the grounds stated before.
Mr. Wheeler. Have you ever been expelled from a union for Communist Party affiliations? 326
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. I decline to answer for the same reasons.
Mr. Wheeler. Our records show that you were a member of the regional committee, Northwest Region, 12th District, Communist Party, as late as 1950. Is that correct?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. I decline to answer under the protection of the fifth amendment.
Mr. Wheeler. Also a member of the Sultan Section 51. Is that correct?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. I decline to answer for the same reason.
Mr. Wheeler. Also that you have been a member of the Communist Party in this area, and a functionary on many occasions for the past 18 years. Is that correct?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. I decline to answer for the same reason.
Mr. Wheeler. When you became employed by the State of Washington did you sign a loyalty oath of any kind?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. I decline to answer for the same reason.
Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.
Mr. Moulder. Any questions, Mr. Velde?
Mr. Velde. You have declined to answer whether or not you were a member of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. Is that right?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. I declined to answer for the same reason.
Mr. Velde. Did you ever know Steve Nelson?
Steve Nelson, for your information, was a member of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade and one of the Communist Party organizers from Alameda County, Calif.
Mr. Carmichael. I decline to answer for the same reasons.
Mr. Velde. Are you now a member of the Communist Party?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. I decline to answer for the same reason.
Mr. Velde. No further questions.
Mr. Moulder. The witness will be excused.
(Whereupon the witness was excused.)
Call the next witness, Mr. Wheeler.
Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Ed Carlson, please.
Mr. Carlson. Mr. Chairman, because I do have quite a headache, and it bothers me very badly, I wish to refrain from those snapping pictures.
Mr. Moulder. The photographers will not take pictures while he is testifying.
Hold up your right hand and be sworn.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Carlson. I do. 327
Mr. Wheeler. Will you state your full name.
Mr. Carlson. Edwin A. Carlson.
Mr. Wheeler. I see you are represented by counsel. Will counsel identify himself for the record?
Mr. Sykes. Jay G. Sykes.
Mr. Wheeler. When and where were you born, Mr. Carlson?
Mr. Carlson. I was born in Grantsburg, Wis., 1909.
Mr. Wheeler. How long have you lived in the State of Washington?
Mr. Carlson. Since 1940.
Mr. Wheeler. And where did you live prior to 1940?
Mr. Carlson. At Cloverton, Minn.
Mr. Wheeler. And what is your occupation?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. I am a machinist.
Mr. Wheeler. Being a machinist, are you affiliated with any union, or are you a member of any union?
Mr. Carlson. Because the answer to that question may tend to incriminate me, I invoke the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution, and refuse to answer it.
Mr. Wheeler. Is it not true that you are it member of the machinists union, A. F. of L.?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain that there are 3 branches of the machinists union in the city of Seattle.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. Which one do you mean?
Mr. Wheeler. Any one of the three.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. I must invoke the fifth amendment to that question, and refuse to answer.
Mr. Wheeler. Are you presently employed?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. I am unemployed at the present time.
Mr. Wheeler. I would like to read a telegram. This telegram was sent by one Ed Carlson, member of the machinists union, is so identified, and appears in part 11 (appendix), page 6748, of the hearings held here in June 1954. It is dated Seattle, Wash., June 19, 1954, and addressed to the Velde committee, Seattle.
Dear Sirs: I see by the paper that Mrs. Hartle names one Ed Carlson as a member of the Communist Party in the machinists union. I presume I am the individual referred to. So that the record is straight, let me insert this into the record for all to see and hear.
It did not take me 20 years to decide that the Communist Party was not the answer to the problems as I see them. In fact, I am very nearly positive it was Mrs. Hartle who tried to persuade me to reconsider my decision to discontinue my affiliations, which is now approximately 5 years ago.
I do believe that my many friends and acquaintances are entitled to this additional clarification of the facts.
Sincerely,
Did you send that telegram, Mr. Carlson?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. Yes; I did.
Mr. Wheeler. Were you a member of the Communist Party?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. Will you specify the date that you are referring to?
Mr. Wheeler. Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of the Communist Party today. But in regards to whether I ever have been one, the answer may tend to incriminate me, and I refuse to answer.
Mr. Moulder. In other words, during the past 5 years, as I understand the telegram, you have not been a member of the Communist Party?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. Yes; that is correct.
Mr. Moulder. In other words, 5 years ago you disassociated yourself from any connection with the Communist Party movement. Is that so? Approximately 5 years ago?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Moulder. It all amounts to the same thing since you answered the question by simply saying that during the last 5 years you have not been associated with the Communist Party, as I understand it from your attempt or your endeavor to clear yourself here. And that I would certainly like to see you do.
Mr. Carlson. Mr. Chairman, the question of association is so very broad that I feel that you should make that question more specific.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Moulder. By disassociating yourself it is not meant by that if you happened to be around someone who might have been a member of the Communist Party. I mean did you yourself, in your belief, your philosophy, your way of thinking and your way of activities, disassociate yourself from the Communist Party approximately 5 years ago? Is that so?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. Mr. Chairman, I never have—I did not participate knowingly with the Communist Party during that period.
Mr. Moulder. Are you now referring to the past 5 years?
Mr. Carlson. That is correct.
Mr. Moulder. May I ask you this question:
Is your attitude and opinion concerning Communist Party activities now different than 5 years ago?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. Mr. Chairman, I can’t specifically state what my opinions are. I just am in utter confusion.
Mr. Moulder. It is not the purpose of this committee, it is not our intention, Mr. Velde and I or Mr. Wheeler, to confuse anyone or to commit any injustice toward you.
I am impressed by your appearance and your endeavor to try to come forward and make a clean statement or explanation. And I think it would be to your benefit for you to do it for your own interest. I am sure it would be. 329
You infer that maybe at one time you may have had some connection with Communist Party activities. You probably have some reasonable explanation for which you maybe couldn’t or wouldn’t necessarily be criticized or condemned.
Mr. Carlson. It is very hard for me to understand what you are saying. Some of the words I do not catch.
Would you speak a little louder, please?
Mr. Moulder. May I ask you this question:
Are you now a member of the Communist Party?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. No.
Mr. Moulder. Do you now believe in the Communist Party philosophy or its objectives?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. Well, Mr. Chairman, in the light of all the testimony that I have read in the papers and heard, I really don’t know what it is about, I don’t really know what they do stand for. I am confused in my own mind.
Mr. Velde. It is not the purpose or intention of this committee, and I can very well speak for all of the members of the committee, to get you into a position where you are in contempt of Congress. I concur with Mr. Moulder in his statement a few moments ago. I think that you do have a problem. I think that you are confused about the situation. Nevertheless, you do have, in my opinion, some information which would be valuable to this committee. At the same time you could clear your own conscience, so to speak, if you would give us the benefit of the information you have regarding your Communist Party connections.
So I am going to ask, Mr. Chairman, that the witness be excused and be given a chance to consult with his attorney and think the proposition over, and possibly he may decide to return and give us the information which we believe he has.
Mr. Moulder. I think that is a splendid suggestion Mr. Velde has made.
You will be excused until tomorrow morning. You think this over, and in the meantime, if you wish to talk to any of the investigators or counsel or any member of the committee, we would be happy to talk to you. Give it serious thought.
You will be excused until 9 o’clock in the morning.
(Whereupon the witness was excused until 9 o’clock the following morning.)
Mr. Moulder. Call the next witness, Mr. Wheeler.
Mr. Wheeler. Edmund Kroener.
Mr. Moulder. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Kroener. I do. 330
Mr. Wheeler. Will you state your full name, please?
Mr. Kroener. Edmund D. Kroener.
Mr. Wheeler. Will counsel for the witness identify himself for the record?
Mr. Knudsen. C. Calvert Knudsen. And may the record show that I am, Mr. Chairman, if you please, the treasurer of the Seattle Bar Association, and, at the request of that association and at the request of this gentleman, I am undertaking to represent him at this hearing inasmuch as he is financially unable to obtain other counsel.
Mr. Moulder. The record will so reflect the statement made by counsel.
Mr. Velde. May I make this remark?
In connection with our hearings last June it was mentioned several times that the mere fact that an attorney represents a witness who might be a fifth amendment witness should be no reflection whatsoever on the attorney. And I am sure that is true of all the attorneys who have appeared here today.
Mr. Moulder. It is your duty to be here in the capacity in which you appear here today, in the honor of your own profession.
Mr. Knudsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wheeler. Will you spell your name, please?
Mr. Kroener. K-r-o-e-n-e-r.
Mr. Wheeler. Do you presently reside in Seattle?
Mr. Kroener. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler. What is your occupation, Mr. Kroener?
Mr. Kroener. Work as a machinist.
Mr. Wheeler. Are you presently employed?
Mr. Kroener. No; I am not.
Mr. Wheeler. Being a machinist, are you a member of any union?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Kroener. I wish to invoke, on answering that, the fifth amendment, on the grounds that it may incriminate me.
Mr. Wheeler. Are you a member of the International Association of Machinists, A. F. of L.?
Mr. Kroener. Again I wish to invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Wheeler. Have they instituted charges against you to remove you from membership in the union?
Mr. Kroener. Again I wish to invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Wheeler. What has been your educational background, Mr. Kroener?
Mr. Kroener. First half year of the eighth grade of grammar school.
Mr. Wheeler. In Seattle?
Mr. Kroener. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler. How have you been employed?
Mr. Kroener. When I was younger I worked in logging camps and did odd jobs in the steel mills, and as a welder. And, oh, since about 1941 and 1942 I have worked in the machine trade.
Mr. Wheeler. In the machine trade?
Mr. Kroener. Yes. 331
Mr. Wheeler. For what companies have you worked as a machinist?
Mr. Kroener. I don’t remember all of them exactly, and I couldn’t say the times I have worked for a number of the uptown shops and marine yards in Seattle. Some of them have gone out of business. Gibson’s has gone out of business. And I worked at Washington Iron Works and marine yards around Seattle.
Mr. Wheeler. Do you know who just preceded you on the witness stand?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Kroener. I wish to again invoke the fifth amendment on the grounds of self-incrimination.
Mr. Wheeler. Were you present in the hearing room when Mr. Eugene Robel testified?
Mr. Kroener. I was present.
Mr. Wheeler. Are you acquainted with him?
Mr. Kroener. Again I wish to invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Wheeler. Were you present in the hearing room when Mr. Harold Johnston testified?
Mr. Kroener. I was present.
Mr. Wheeler. Are you acquainted with Mr. Harold Johnston?
Mr. Kroener. Again I wish to invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Wheeler. Is it a fact that the three individuals I just mentioned, along with you and other people, were members of a cell within the machinists union?
Mr. Kroener. Again I wish to invoke the fifth amendment on the grounds of self-incrimination.
Mr. Moulder. Do you have any knowledge as to the action taken by a machinists union referred to by Mr. Wheeler in expelling members from that union where there is evidence of their Communist affiliations?
Mr. Kroener. I believe there may be some such program going on, but I am not too well acquainted with it. So I couldn’t answer it too clearly.
Mr. Moulder. Is the reason why you refuse to answer because of the fear you might be expelled from the union?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Kroener. Again I wish to invoke the fifth amendment on the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate me.
Mr. Moulder. Do you have knowledge and information that the union referred to is exercising its efforts to rid its ranks of persons who are Communists?
Mr. Kroener. Again I wish to invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Moulder. I hope the witness has contributed to the union’s effort.
Mr. Wheeler. When and where you were born, Mr. Kroener?
Mr. Kroener. Seattle, Wash., April 8, 1920.
Mr. Wheeler. Are you acquainted with Mrs. Barbara Hartle?
Mr. Kroener. Again I invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Wheeler. Did you know that Mrs. Hartle, in her testimony as a witness before this committee in June 1954, identified you as a member of the Communist Party? 332
Mr. Kroener. Again I invoke the fifth amendment on the grounds of self-incrimination.
Mr. Wheeler. Have no comment other than that concerning her testimony?
Mr. Kroener. No.
Mr. Velde. Mr. Wheeler, do you have the testimony of Mrs. Hartle there?
Mr. Wheeler. I do, sir.
Mr. Velde. Will you read it for the record, please?
Mr. Wheeler. Mrs. Hartle, during a portion of the testimony discussing the industrial branch of the Communist Party, was questioned by Mr. Tavenner:
Will you tell the committee, please, whether or not there was any important function that Elmer Thrasher performed in the industrial section of the party?
Mrs. Hartle. He was chairman of a branch in the industrial section, in the building trades. He was a member of one of the building-trades unions—the carpenters union.
Another one whom I recall is Ed Kroener. He lived in the Duwamish Bend area, in the Duwamish Bend housing project, with his wife, Donna Kroener, who was a member of the south King region and the Duwamish Bend Club, but he was a member of the industrial section inasmuch as he was a member of the Machinists Union, Local No. 79.
Do you wish to comment on that testimony, Mr. Kroener?
Mr. Kroener. No.
Mr. Velde. To what period of time was Mrs. Hartle referring?
Mr. Wheeler. To what period of time, Mr. Kroener, was she referring?
Mr. Kroener. Again I wish to invoke the fifth amendment on the grounds of self-incrimination.
Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Kroener, did you at any time participate as an individual within the Progressive Party in 1948 in the State of Washington?
Mr. Kroener. Again I wish to invoke the fifth amendment on the grounds of self-incrimination.
Mr. Wheeler. Are you a member of the Communist Party today?
Mr. Kroener. Again I wish to invoke the fifth amendment on the grounds of self-incrimination.
Mr. Wheeler. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Moulder. Mr. Velde?
Mr. Velde. I have just one brief question. How could your acquaintanceship with Mrs. Hartle or Mr. Johnston or the other witnesses whom you were asked about tend to incriminate you?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Kroener. The answer to that question may open up a whole field of other questions, and, therefore, I wish to invoke the fifth amendment on the grounds of self-incrimination.
Mr. Moulder. Do you have anything else you wish to say in explanation of your presence or your appearance here?
Are you married?
Mr. Kroener. Yes.
Mr. Moulder. Do you have a family?
Mr. Kroener. Yes. 333
Mr. Moulder. Did you serve in the Armed Forces of the United States?
Mr. Kroener. Yes.
Mr. Moulder. In what capacity and what branch?
Mr. Kroener. I was in the Marine Corps, 1944, 1945, and 1946, South Pacific and China.
Mr. Moulder. Is there anything further you wish to say?
Mr. Kroener. That is all.
Mr. Moulder. The witness is excused.
(Whereupon the witness was excused.)
The committee will stand recessed until tomorrow morning at 9 o’clock.
(Whereupon, at 4:57 p. m., the committee was recessed, to be reconvened at 9 a. m., Friday, March 18, 1955.) 334 335
A subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met, pursuant to recess, at 9 a. m., in Room 402, County-City Building, Seattle, Wash., Hon. Morgan M. Moulder (chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Representatives Morgan M. Moulder (chairman) and Harold H. Velde (appearance as noted).
Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel; William A. Wheeler, staff investigator.
Mr. Moulder. The subcommittee will be in order.
Mr. Counsel, call the witness you wish to examine.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recall Mr. Dennett at this time.
Mr. Tavenner. It is noted, Mr. Dennett, that your counsel is not with you. Do you prefer to wait until he arrives before proceeding?
Mr. Dennett. It doesn’t make any particular difference. I am sure my counsel intends to be here as soon as he can get here, but there is no need to delay.
Mr. Tavenner. I understand he is in the corridor, so we will wait until he arrives.
(At this point Kenneth A. MacDonald, counsel to the witness, entered the hearing room.)
Mr. Tavenner. When you left the stand yesterday, Mr. Dennett, we were speaking of your experience in the Communist Party at Bellingham. Will you please describe to the committee what additional activities of the Communist Party you engaged in while at Bellingham.
Mr. Dennett. I believe, sir, that I recounted that the Communist Party was active in the unemployed movement, and our membership grew from 7 to approximately 160 in the course of a year’s time, and that we had proceeded to reorient that membership in the party from exclusive work in the unemployment councils to working in an organization known as the People’s Councils, which was organized by non-party people. 336
The two leaders of that organization at that time were Mr. M. M. London and Mr. George Bradley.
The Communist Party was quite disturbed that there was such an effective organization in existence which was not directly under our leadership.
Mr. Tavenner. What was the name of that organization?
Mr. Dennett. The People’s Councils. Consequently, one of our major objectives was to win that leadership to support the party position one way or another. We had had previous experience with Mr. London and we considered that it was not possible to win Mr. London back to—or to support the party. Therefore, we concentrated our attention on Mr. Bradley, and ultimately won him to support the party and the party position in opposition to Mr. London.
Mr. Tavenner. When you say you won Mr. Bradley to the support of the Communist Party position, do you mean to indicate that he became a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Dennett. Yes; he did. He became a member of the Communist Party after my constant agitation with him had convinced him that the Communist Party program was a sounder program and a better program than the one that they were pursuing in the People’s Councils.
And Mr. Bradley was unable to convince Mr. London, and they became at some conflict in point of view on that.
Mr. Tavenner. The organization there known as the Unemployed Councils, if I understood your testimony correctly, was a Communist-organized group?
Mr. Dennett. That is true. The Unemployed Council was organized by the Communist Party, and it was our policy throughout that entire period to insist that all unemployed organizations, if they were to truly represent the unemployed, had to affiliate with the Unemployed Councils.
Now in the case of the People’s Councils, we tried to get them to affiliate with the National Unemployed Councils. They never did. Even after we won Bradley to our support the rest of the membership still would not agree to direct affiliation with the National Unemployed Council. Instead, they felt that they had a greater kinship and association with the Unemployed Citizens Leagues, which had been organized in the city of Seattle and in various parts of the State of Washington under the leadership of anti-Communists who had originally come from the labor movement in the city of Seattle.
There were three particular leaders of the Unemployed Citizens League who organized it at the outset.
And I am not sure that I related yesterday how serious the unemployment problem was in the city of Seattle, but I am sure that if anyone would take the trouble to look up the records they would find that at one time there were over 90,000 families in the city of Seattle who were dependent upon public assistance to maintain themselves and their families.
There was no private employment in the city. The only persons who were receiving paychecks were those who were working for either the State, Federal, or city governments. And under those circumstances the problem was very, very acute. The tax rolls were overtaxed. I mean by that that the tax burden was greater than the city was able to bear. The city treasury was soon exhausted trying 337 to maintain the citizens who were unemployed through no fault of their own.
Soon the county budget was exhausted, and they were perplexed. The problem was far more serious and far more acute than the average person today can possibly comprehend unless he looks at the statistics, which are available, I am sure, in some of the research libraries.
I speak of that about the city of Seattle because I have some knowledge of it from personal experience. The same situation existed in nearly every small city in the State of Washington at that time. I cannot testify as to what the condition was in other parts of the country.
But it was that condition which opened the door for widespread organization on the part of workers and unaffiliated and disaffiliated people, and it was when they came into these organizations that it became possible for the Communists to begin to hammer away with the class-struggle line of tactics and the insistence that a relentless fight must be waged against the capitalist system and blame the capitalist system for this condition of unemployment.
It created a problem, too, for those who held public office because they did not know what to do about it. And, frankly, it wasn’t possible for any local people to solve the problem. It had to be dealt with on a national scale, on a national basis.
It was not until after the new administration took office in 1933 that steps were taken which made it possible to start the wheels of industry in motion again. And as those wheels of industry got started in motion it was possible for these workers to find jobs. And when they started finding jobs they left the unemployed organizations. When they left the unemployed organizations they got out from under the immediate influence of the Communists who had entered those organizations, and, in many instances, obtained control.
I am speaking specifically of the Unemployed Citizens League, the People’s Councils, and I think that there were some other organizations around here that I have forgotten the names of.
I think that there was one called the United Producers of Washington that was created over in Pierce County which was affiliated with the Unemployed Citizens League.
There were many different names of these organizations, and they assumed different forms. But essentially they all performed the same function. They provided a center around which people could begin to develop their own ideas and listen to other people’s ideas.
I would certainly like to make certain that everyone understands that that kind of problem has to be dealt with also with ideas.
Mr. Tavenner. You made reference to unemployment citizens’ leagues. Were there such organizations in Bellingham?
Mr. Dennett. No, there were not. The People’s Councils performed all the functions which the Unemployed Citizens Leagues would do, plus the fact that the People’s Councils also developed some political aspirations. I mean they did embark upon an independent political campaign, and they did run candidates for public office. That was largely due to the influence of the Communist Party there. Remember 1932? We were insistent that they not support either the 338 Democratic or Republican Parties because we branded them as capitalist parties, and we insisted that the only way it was possible for the workers to obtain what they wanted was through their own party.
We succeeded in prevailing upon the People’s Councils to run their independent candidates, and some of them came very close to election to office. They didn’t quite make it.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dennett, I think it would be of value to the committee to understand as fully as possible the methods used by the Communist Party in that period in causing the Unemployed Councils to take various courses of action in Bellingham and Seattle, and to understand to what extent the Communist Party was successful in using other organizations which it did not control.
Mr. Dennett. I can think of two very graphic illustrations of that.
One occurred in the city of Seattle at the time the unemployed occupied this building for 3 solid days. The Unemployed Citizens Leagues in the city of Seattle were anti-Communist; their leadership was anti-Communist. But they were confronted with the budget running low, the city funds exhausted, and the county commissioners were confronted with the dilemma of what to do with their funds diminishing.
The county commissioners at that time ordered a cut in the amount of relief which would be allowed. When they did that it placed the anti-Communist leadership in the Unemployed Citizens Leagues in a most embarrassing position because we in the Communist Party and in the Unemployed Councils had been very critical of everything which the Unemployed Citizens Leagues had been doing and which their leaders had been doing.
When this cut occurred we blamed the leaders of the Unemployed Citizens Leagues for permitting it. We didn’t know that these leaders had been opposing the cut. We didn’t know what their actual attitude was. But we very soon found out because these leaders were so desperate that they decided to make a march on the County-City Building where the commissioners were to meet in a room similar to this one. And it was their intention to demand at that time that the cuts not be put into effect.
However, the demonstration proved to be much larger and had much more support than the leaders of the Unemployed Citizens Leagues anticipated, and the Communists—I remember it very well because I was on the district bureau at that time—and we found ourselves not in the leadership of a militant action, and we were embarrassed and fearful that if we didn’t get into the act that we would be blamed by the national leadership.
And we didn’t have any contacts in the Unemployed Citizens League leadership, and we didn’t know what to do. So we debated the question for about 30 hours in 1 continuous bureau meeting. Following that meeting we decided that it was best for us to join the demonstration regardless, whether we had contact or not, and we issued leaflets and called upon our members to join in the demonstration.
(At this point Representative Harold H. Velde entered the hearing room).
Mr. Dennett. In the process of doing so we received a bigger response than we expected. In other words, the need was more acute than even the most closest observers realized. Consequently, there 339 were about 6,000 people down here in this building. They couldn’t all get into the chambers. They crowded the hallways, they crowded several floors of the building. And some of the commissioners got so scared of the demonstration that they tried to run out. They tried to avoid meeting the leaders.
As a result, the demonstrators decided they would stay until they did meet the leaders, until they met the commissioners. And it took over 3 days before the commissioners finally agreed to meet with the committee of this group.
I happened to be the secretary of that committee at that time, and I am sorry that those records that I kept of that demonstration are records which I do not have today. They would be quite valuable to understand all the things that happened, the chronology of why one thing followed another.
But I am quite convinced and I am quite certain that the account I have just given you can be verified by checking the newspaper files of that period.
Mr. Tavenner. Now is it correct to say that the general objectives of the Unemployed Councils, which was organized by the Communist Party, and the general objectives of the Unemployed Citizens Leagues, which were anti-Communist in character, were the same in that their purpose was to alleviate suffering from unemployment? Is that true?
Mr. Dennett. I think that is generally true with this possible exception, that the Communist Party was never satisfied to resolve the alleviation of immediate suffering. That was a tactic to win wider support and to pursue their further objective of political control.
But, on the other hand, the Unemployed Citizens Leagues were concerned only with the question of getting some relief for the immediate situation and not fundamentally altering the economic system.
The Unemployed Councils did strive to change the economic system.
Mr. Tavenner. That is the point I wanted made clear. This appears to be an excellent example of the Communist Party using a situation in which all people were interested from the humanity standpoint and endeavoring to turn it to its own advantage in developing its general objectives.
Mr. Dennett. I think that is true.
And while we speak of that point I think that all political parties do the same thing. They try to turn things to their own advantage. That is the way the Communists try to do it.
Mr. Tavenner. Was there any other development at that period of time which would demonstrate how the Communist Party by its organizational efforts turned unfortunate situations of this character to its own advantage?
Mr. Dennett. There was another example which seems rather devious when you look at it from this perspective, but at that time we thought it was quite skillful.
In the city of Seattle after this embarrassing financial crisis arose it became quite clear to everyone that to finance the relief load was a problem greater than cities or counties could bear. It required State and Federal assistance. But the State was not helping at that time. The State was not doing anything. And the Communists conceived the idea of hunger marches. I remember there were national 340 hunger marches. There were also State hunger marches. There were county hunger marches. There were hunger marches within cities. Wherever the need was acute there were hunger marches.
And we had more than our share of them here.
In one, in particular, on one occasion, the Communists raised a demand for a march on Olympia to demand that the State finance the relief load for localities. Our request was for a big bond issue.
The unemployed councils in the city of Seattle did not have a very large following, and it was a hopeless task unless some means could be found to prevail upon the unemployed citizens’ leagues to take part in such a march. But the Unemployed Citizens’ League leadership was hostile to the Communist leadership in the unemployed councils. But through the people’s councils we were able to exert some influence because we had a considerable Communist leadership developing in the ranks of the people’s councils in Whatcom County. Strangely enough, that organization was in a position where its top leadership was friendly with and collaborated with the unemployed citizens’ leagues in Seattle while those of us in the Communist Party, in the ranks of the organization, naturally were following the leadership of the national unemployed councils and were friendly with and working with the unemployed councils in the city of Seattle.
Consequently, when the unemployed councils in the city of Seattle issued a call for a march on Olympia, that call was transmitted to Bellingham where we entered into the people’s councils and won a majority vote in support of such a march, and with the further request that they call upon the unemployed citizens’ leagues in Seattle to join the march, which they did. They prevailed upon the unemployed citizens’ leagues to join in the march.
Consequently, we had two somewhat hostile groups participating in the same event, marching on Olympia.
But when they got to Olympia there was a split. There were two demonstrations. And there is a gentleman in this room who suffered as a casualty of one of those demonstrations because at that particular time he was a leader in the unemployed citizens leagues.
The unemployed councils people wanted to chase the leadership of the unemployed citizens leagues and the people’s councils away from the head of that demonstration. And Mr. Jess Fletcher was a casualty on that occasion. He was pulled down off of one of the—I forget what you would call it—one of those approaches to the steps. And he had a badly crushed ankle as a result of that occasion.
I was called upon by the district leadership of the party at that time to make a speech. I was instructed to expose Mr. London and to otherwise denounce the Social-Fascist leaders of those organizations. And, of course, being a thoroughly disciplined Communist, I did precisely what I was instructed.
It had some repercussions because when we returned to Bellingham I had some other unfortunate experiences about it.
I should say that in this demonstration in Olympia the Unemployed Citizens League people did wait out the Governor and did get a committee in to see the Governor, whereas the unemployed councils people left Olympia without seeing the Governor and without accomplishing their objective.
Mr. Tavenner. If I correctly understand these two illustrations which you have described, in one instance the Communist Party 341 occupied this very building, joined in the activity of the unemployed citizens leagues, and attempted to obtain for its own credit whatever credit could be obtained, whereas in the other instance, by devious means, they got the other organizations to cooperate with the unemployed councils in the march on Olympia.
Mr. Dennett. That is true.
Mr. Tavenner. The Communist Party reversed its tactics.
Mr. Dennett. That is true. We were very flexible people. We could do almost anything with our tactics.
Mr. Tavenner. Therefore, the Communist Party’s objectives were accomplished in both instances.
Mr. Dennett. That is right. And what was even more important to the party was to be able to carry a great big newspaper story in the Daily Worker to the effect that the revolution was starting because the workers had seized the County-City Building in King County, State of Washington, and held it for 3 days.
Mr. Tavenner. Was that used as Communist propaganda over the entire United States?
Mr. Dennett. It was.
Mr. Tavenner. Up until the time you made that speech at the direction of the Communist Party it appears to me that this was a cooperative effort between the unemployed councils and the unemployed citizens leagues in the march on Olympia. Am I correct in that?
Mr. Dennett. It was; through the people’s councils.
Mr. Tavenner. But manipulated through the people’s councils where you had influence?
Mr. Dennett. Correct.
Mr. Tavenner. Then after arriving on the scene, you, at the direction of the Communist Party, made this attack on the leadership of the unemployed citizens leagues.
Mr. Dennett. And the people’s councils.
Mr. Tavenner. Was the purpose of this attack to utterly destroy any effectiveness of those organizations in the accomplishment of the general purpose of the march?
Mr. Dennett. Looking back on it from this distance, it certainly appears to me that that was its objective.
Mr. Tavenner. When you returned to Bellingham what reception did you receive from these organizations which had in good faith supported this march on Olympia?
Mr. Dennett. There was a great deal of tension; open threats were made that if I showed my head around anywhere I would have my head knocked off.
However, I was not so easily scared as that. So I showed my head. The people’s councils had a practice of, which I considered to be most democratic, reporting to their membership.
Following the hunger march they called a mass meeting for the purpose of reporting what had been happening, what their success was. And these very leaders of the people’s councils whom I had denounced in Olympia presented themselves and reported to their membership. In the process of reporting naturally they reported my part in the affair, and their report aroused a great deal of bitterness among the members of the organization. 342
When I appeared in attendance at the meeting those who were present near me moved about 6 or 8 feet away, leaving me a conspicuous figure out in the open spaces. And some of the remarks were directed toward me in that meeting.
I felt at the time that something was wrong with the situation, of what I had done. But I wasn’t sure what. I knew, however, that if I didn’t face it all would be lost. So I chose to face it and take whatever consequences might happen.
The consequences came very soon. When the meeting adjourned, as I attempted to leave the building four members of the organization surrounded me and marched me around behind the building where they proceeded to give me a physical beating.
I never have been much of a fighter as such. Physically I am not equipped to do so. So I merely rolled up into a ball and let them do as best they could.
In the meantime some of my friends came to my assistance, and the police intervened to stop anything from proceeding too far.
However, I did surprise everyone by appearing and I did unnerve them because they didn’t believe that I had the nerve to show up after what I had done in Olympia. And as a total consequence of it all, I finally recruited most of the people who beat me up into the Communist Party.
I felt they were good, militant people, and they were the kind of people we wanted.
Mr. Tavenner. How long was that before you left Bellingham?
Mr. Dennett. Right now I can’t fix a real date on that. I would have to look at the newspaper files to be certain of the date. It wasn’t too long, however, because our influence had grown, and it wasn’t very long after that.
Mr. Tavenner. Was there any other activity of the Communist Party while you were at Bellingham which would be of value to this committee as far as you know in making the committee aware of the tactics and methods used by the Communist Party to advance its objectives?
Mr. Dennett. Offhand, right now I think of nothing further with respect to Bellingham.
Mr. Tavenner. I see before me several pamphlets which apparently relate to the various hunger marches which are among the documents which you made available to the staff. Will you examine these, please, and state whether or not they were used in any connection with the matters you have been describing?
(Documents handed to the witness.)
Mr. Dennett. Yes. These were what we called popular pamphlets, to popularize the hunger marches. They were brief penny pamphlets which we tried to sell in mass lots. In other words, if we could find someone who would contribute a dollar we would make a hundred of these things available and try to hand them out in large numbers. They were given to nearly all persons who participated in hunger marches, and they were an elementary introduction to the orientation which the Communist Party had to the whole economic situation.
Mr. Tavenner. The purpose is not clear of the use of those documents by the Communist Party.
Here were those members who had agreed to take part in the hunger marches. Why was it necessary for them to have such material? 343
Mr. Dennett. Because in many instances people would participate in these events because they were in need of relief themselves, but they had no conception of what the economic problems were, and they had no conception of the political objectives that we had.
And we were quite anxious to take that occasion, when they were rubbing elbows with us, to make certain that they took some elementary steps of understanding in our direction.
Dennett Exhibit No. 5
THE MARCH
AGAINST
HUNGER
By I. AMTER
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce in evidence three pamphlets entitled “The March Against Hunger,” by I. Amter, “The Highway of Hunger,” by Dave Doran, and “Our Children Cry for Bread,” by Sadie Van Veen, and ask that they be marked “Dennett Exhibits 5, 6, and 7” respectively, with the understanding 344 that only the front cover and the back cover of each be incorporated in the transcript of the record.
Read! Subscribe!
Daily Worker
Central Office Communist Party U.S.A.
50 East Thirteenth Street
New York, N. Y.
“The Only English Daily Working
Class Newspaper in America”
Brings you the truth about all vital and dramatic
developments in the class struggle in America and
throughout the world.
SPECIAL CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE
SOVIET UNION. The only authoritative news
accounts and features of the life and accomplishments
in the First Workers Republic.
Address All Subscriptions and Communications to:
DAILY WORKER
50 East 13th Street New York, N. Y.
| In Boros of Manhattan and Bronx, N.Y.C.: |
In the Rest of the United States: |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| One year | $9.00 | One year | $6.00 |
| Six months | 5.00 | Six months | 3.50 |
| Three months | 3.00 | Three months | 2.00 |
| One month | 1.00 | One month | .75 |
Mr. Moulder. They will be so marked and admitted.
Mr. Tavenner. In other words, you were going beyond the real immediate purposes of the hunger march, and were trying to sell the participants a bill of goods through these pamphlets.
Mr. Dennett. That is true.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you hurriedly look through these documents, please, and call the committee’s attention to a few items which would substantiate your testimony on that point?
Mr. Dennett. Well, here is this one on the March Against Hunger, by Israel Amter, in which some of the subheadings tell the story.
There is one, “Struggles Force Relief.” The implication is very plain that the only way they can get the relief is to engage in mass struggles. And in too many instances that was true from their own experience. 345
Dennett Exhibit No. 6
THE
HIGHWAY OF HUNGER
STORY OF
AMERICA’S
HOMELESS
YOUTH
BY DAVE DORAN
1¢
“Large Bodies of Workers Represented”: There was always a tendency to exaggerate the number who actually participated.
“Marchers Enter Washington”: the inference that the workers could get to Washington and be represented by marching on Washington; not by trying to be elected.
“Marchers Hold Conference Surrounded by Police”: referring to the attempt to thwart the efforts of the workers.
“Workers’ Congress v. Bankers’ Congress”: the meeting of the unemployed representatives in Washington, trying to hold a comparison between their efforts and that of the Congress itself.
“Mass Action, Basis of Struggle”: a repeat of an earlier point. 346
Box 28, Station D,
New York, N. Y.
“Workers’ Demands Can Be Realized.”
“Crisis Deepens.”
“Broadest United Front Must Be Set Up.”
“No Unemployment in the Soviet Union.”
“Our Next Step.”
“Expose Starvation Conditions.”
“Unemployment Insurance Will Be Won.”
Those are some of the subheads in this pamphlet.
There is another pamphlet here, The Highway of Hunger, Story of America’s Homeless Youth, by Dave Doran. There is a subhead, “Why the Boss Class ‘Worries’ About the Starving Youth”: their point being that the only interest the Government had in the youth was to make soldiers of them, not to feed them or educate them.
Another subhead: “Unemployment Cannot Be Abolished Under Capitalism.” 347
Dennett Exhibit No. 7
OUR CHILDREN
CRY FOR
BREAD
by
SADIE VAN VEEN Price 1c
“The Young Communist League Leads the Fight.”
“The Only Way Out for the Unemployed Youth.”
“For Cash Relief! Not Military Camps!” They branded the CCC’s as military camps at the outset. Unfortunately, later on some people tried to make military camps of them, and that did not succeed either.
Here is another pamphlet: Our Children Cry for Bread. And it was certainly true. Children did cry for bread when their families didn’t have it to give them. And they have a subhead on “The Homeless Youth.” 348
MISSOURI
1243 Garrison St.
St. Louis, Mo.
910 W. 21st St.
Kansas City, Mo.
MONTANA
P. O. Box 33
Butte, Mont.
NEBRASKA
1410 W. 20th St.
Omaha, Neb.
NEW JERSEY
385 Springfield Ave.
Newark, N. J.
NEW MEXICO
P. O. Box 143
Rosswell, N. M.
NEW YORK
10 East 17th St.
New York City
476 William St.
Buffalo, N. Y.
NORTH CAROLINA
P. O. Box 654
Charlotte, N. C.
OHIO
1426 W. 3rd St.
Cleveland, O.
OKLAHOMA
7 Broadway
Oklahoma City, Okla.
OREGON
245½ Alder St.
Portland, Ore.
PENNSYLVANIA
919 Locust St.
Philadelphia, Pa.
2203 Center St.
Pittsburgh, Pa.
RHODE ISLAND
15 Snow St.
Providence, R. I.
SOUTH DAKOTA
P. O. Box 13
Frederick, S. D.
TENNESSEE
P. O. Box 219
Chattanooga, Tenn.
TEXAS
1310 Walker St.
Houston, Tex.
UTAH
225 Ness Bldg.
Salt Lake City, Utah
VIRGINIA
200 E. Main St.
Richmond, Va.
WASHINGTON
617 University
Seattle, Wash.
WISCONSIN
1207 N. 6th St.
Milwaukee, Wis.
WYOMING
P. O. Box 354
Torrington, Wyo.
Unemployment Series No. 2
Issued by National Committee Unemployed Councils, Room 436, 80 East 11th Street, New York City. Published by Workers Library Publishers, P. O. Box 148. Sta. D (50 East 13th St.), New York City, March, 1933.
Remember, if you please, there were more than a million young people in their ‘teens who were wandering around this Nation of ours, just hoboes. They had no homes; they had no food; they had no jobs. So such a heading has great appeal to them because it holds for the hope that some other form of existence would provide a better life for them, and the inference always being the Soviet Union was doing that. The Soviet Union had solved that problem. Little did the people know how they solved it. And now, of course, there is a great deal of evidence coming into public attention which indicates that many of those young people in the Soviet Union, while some of them certainly did receive education as a way out, others also wound up in prison camps, vast prison camps, enormous prison camps. And we must not forget that that did actually happen.
Here these pamphlets try to present the idea that the children in the Soviet Union live in a paradise. And at that time there was no contravening or contradicting evidence to change anyone’s knowledge about it. Today I think there is. 349
Mr. Tavenner. Apparently the Communist Party did not lose any opportunities it had to promote its own objectives.
Mr. Dennett. That certainly is true.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, the circumstances under which you were transferred away from Bellingham.
Mr. Dennett. Yes.
I referred to Mr. Alex Noral as the district organizer at the time I came into the district. He was fresh from the Soviet Union, and it was presumed that he would give the most astute leadership because he had spent considerable time in the Lenin School in Moscow between 1928 and 1931. However, Mr. Noral’s attitude and methods of work were so arbitrary that the average person could not stand them, not even the most devoted Communists here. And he ran into political difficulties with them.
Reports of these difficulties reached the central committee in New York City, and they decided that Mr. Noral had to have some help. So they sent some more people out here to help him.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you mean Communist Party functionaries were sent from New York to this area?
Mr. Dennett. Communist Party functionaries, people who fall into the category of professional revolutionists, people who devote their lives and dedicate themselves to the Communist cause and do as they are told without question.
At that particular time 2 outstanding people came to the Northwest. In fact, 3 came at one time. One of them was another person who had just returned from the Soviet Union having spent 2 years’ study at the Lenin Institute. His name was Hutchin R. Hutchins, a Negro who had done some outstanding work here before going to the Soviet Union. But when he returned here he ran into difficulty.
Then there was Mr. Lowell Wakefield, who had achieved national prominence for having discovered the Scottsboro case in the South, and had carried a large part of the responsibility of conducting the organization of the defense of the Scottsboro boys.
It was Lowell Wakefield who got hold of the mothers of these boys and prevailed upon them to go on national speaking tours in behalf of their boys under the auspices of the Communist Party.
Mr. Lowell Wakefield was an especially able man because he could raise finances and organize mass meetings and do almost impossible tasks, at least tasks which the rest of us seemed to be very inept at. He was very skillful.
Another person who came at that time was Mr. Alan Max. I noticed from the masthead of the Daily Worker a couple of years ago that Mr. Alan Max was the editor of the Daily Worker. Mr. Alan Max spent considerable time here then.
I became very well acquainted with each of the men. However, they were unable to solve the problems that were rising here in this district, and the central committee was not satisfied with even their efforts.
Following a national hunger march some time in 1933 a Mr. Morris Rappaport,1 better known to us as Rapp or Rapport.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell his last name, please. 350
Mr. Dennett. Our use of it was R-a-p-p-o-r-t, and I believe the full spelling is R-a-p-p-a-p-o-r-t or something like that.
Mr. Rappaport came into the district with a great deal of suspicion and alarm on the part of us local people because we thought he was an easterner who didn’t understand the ways of the West. We were quite surprised to find that he had originally come from the West. He came from California. And he, like Mr. Noral, had been a part of the Foster delegation or a part of the Foster faction. Although he had not been a delegate to the Sixth World Congress in Moscow, he learned a great deal more about it than Mr. Noral did because when he came here he had an unlimited reserve of energy and tremendous flexibility in application of the party line and party policy. He was not the least bit afraid of anything. When a veterans’ organization here in town tried to raid a school and destroy it here, Mr. Rappaport had the courage to be among those present when it was attacked, and he caused a great deal of publicity.
That publicity attracted the attention of people who didn’t like invasion of civil rights. Mr. Rappaport capitalized on that quite beautifully.
Mr. Tavenner. What was it about the functioning of the Communist Party in the Northwest which presented unusual problems to the national organization in New York, causing it to send these top functionaries of the party to aid in the solution of its problems in this area?
Mr. Dennett. I think it was because our party had already reached masses of people that were larger proportionately than they found in other places.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you mean that the organizational effort had been so successful in this area that it presented immediate problems to the Communist Party?
Mr. Dennett. It certainly did. As a matter of fact, you see, there is a period, following the national elections in 1932, when the new administration began to take those steps which caused industry to resume functioning, in which there was a change taking place in the composition of our organizations. People were not all unemployed; some were leaving the unemployed organizations. Our problem was: How can we continue to exercise influence on them when they cease to be unemployed. And we were confronted with the necessity of entering the trade unions. We had to get into the trade unions one way or another or we were going to lose completely our influence among these people.
So the problem was, and the national office or central committee was continually asking: What progress are you making entering these unions?
Mr. Foster, of course, was naturally very much concerned because of his prior experience in trade-union work. And our reports were quite unsatisfactory. We were not able to make the progress that they demanded. They thought it was a matter of inadequate leadership here, and when they sent Mr. Rappaport they certainly picked a good one because he did lead us in that direction. He did know what to do.
Mr. Tavenner. How did the arrival of these Communist Party functionaries influence or affect your activities at Bellingham? 351
Mr. Dennett. As soon as Mr. Rappaport got here he used a very simple technique of determining what had to be done by way of shake-up. He started changing section organizers in every section in the area, jarring people loose from their established positions, making them get a new orientation, making them begin to do new things. He was quite pleased with the successes I had in Bellingham, and, feeling that he was in need of a district agitprop director and knowing that I had once been a district agitprop director, knowing also that there was beginning to be a little ground swell of opposition to me in the Bellingham area, he thought it wiser to take me out of there. So he ordered me back to Seattle as district agitprop director, and I was replaced by some of the newer elements which I had recruited in Bellingham.
Mr. Tavenner. I have found among the documents which you have made available to the staff a “Statement Issued by the Communist Party of Bellingham Section on the Immediate Questions Facing the Working Class.” It is signed by V. Haines, section organizer.
Was that your party name?
Mr. Dennett. That is true.
Mr. Tavenner. Examine this document, please, and state whether or not there is anything in it which has a bearing on the organizational setup from the standpoint we are now discussing.
(Document handed to the witness.)
Mr. Dennett. Yes. I have my original copy of that here.
This was an effort on my part to provide orientation to the members, to take the official party line and apply it to the local conditions. It was an effort to give the Communists in the Bellingham area something by way of interpretation so that they would know how to apply the party line and have confidence that they were following the Communist Party line.
I don’t know how much detail you want to go into on that. But that was the general purpose of the statement.
Mr. Tavenner. I desire to introduce the document in evidence, Mr. Chairman, and ask that it be marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 8.”
Dennett Exhibit No. 8
Statement Issued by the Communist Party of Bellingham Section on the Immediate Questions Facing the Working ClassThe present epoch through which the class struggle is now passing is a “Transition period.” It is a period in which the International Proletariat must prepare to embark upon the second round of wars and revolutions. A period in which the working class will definitely settle the conflict between the exploiting class and those who are exploited, in a number of nations, and it is necessary that the workers of all nations unite their efforts in this period so as to conserve the strength of the working people.
The End of Capitalist Stabilization has been reached. There is nothing left for the Capitalist Class except to wage a more vicious attack on the living standards of the Working People. Profits can only be obtained by wringing them from the lifeblood of the toiling masses. The living standards of the workers has reached such a low level that huge masses would suffer extinction should this level be reduced. And yet such is the program of World Imperialism. That is all it has to offer. But the class consciousness of millions and millions of toilers has been awakened to such a degree that they will openly resist any further attack on their living standards. They will burst forth in open rebellion.
To meet this condition of World Revolt, the Ruling Classes throughout the world are turning more and more to Fascism—a system of open dictatorship of the present group of exploiters—a system more brutal, more ruthless, and exceedingly 352 more destructive of the materials needed for the sustenance of human life. Fascism is therefore the main enemy of the Workers of the World.
A system of Fascism will not bring about a stabilization of Capitalism, but will instead bring a whole train of persecutions, and inflict the most abject misery upon the toiling masses. It will mean the continuous lowering of the living standards of the working people, and with them large sections of the petty bourgeoisie. The inexorable laws of Capitalist Development will continue to bring new crises in spite of the repressive measures of Fascism. During the Present Economic Crisis the Fascist nations have suffered along with the other Capitalist Nations, and they are now staggering under the strain, thereby intensifying the present World Crisis of Capitalism. Only in the Soviet Union where there is the open dictatorship of the Workers and Farmers, where Socialism is being definitely planned and organized and put into operation is there any escape from Economic Crises. The experiences of the Soviet Union during the World Crisis of Capitalism stands out as a Beacon Light to the toiling masses throughout the world as a living example of the Working Class way out of the Crisis.
In contrast to the Soviet Union, the Capitalist nations are attempting to introduce Fascism in various forms of FORCED LABOR CAMPS and Peonage systems. A notable example of which is proposed for the United States by the Roosevelt Government in the name of Unemployment Reserves, which in reality are Forced Labor Camps designed as ARMY RESERVES in preparation for a new Bloody Conflict among the Imperialist nations for a re-division of world markets and for a war of intervention against the Workers and Farmers Government, the Soviet Union.
This program is that of Fascism the world over, and it reached such a degree of misery to millions and millions of workers in Germany that the Social-Democratic Parties there appealed to the Communist International to cease its attacks on the Social Democrats and join in a struggle against Fascism.
The Executive Committee of the Communist International answered this appeal by making a statement that, during this period of struggle against Fascism, it will be the policy of the Communist Parties to refrain from attacking the Social Democratic Parties and other Political groups which join the United Front, so long as they actively struggle against Fascism.
In issuing this answer the Communist International called attention to the fact that it has consistently urged a United Front of all working class groups so as to carry on a more powerful resistance to the spread of Fascism. The answer contained an appeal to all sections of the Communist International to take steps to build the United Front of the International Proletariat in their respective nations. Accordingly the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the U. S. A. has further appealed to all districts of the Communist Party to carry out this new policy of the Communist International.
Therefore the Communist Party of the Bellingham Section of District 12, issues this call and appeal to the Socialist Party, and all organizations desiring to enter the Class struggle on the side of the working class in a solid United Front and actively struggle against the forces of Fascism.
To do this the Communist Party proposes that joint meetings be held between the various groups and the Communist Party, from which meetings or conferences, programs of struggle can be adopted which will be designed for the betterment of the conditions of the Working Class.
This appeal is made by the Communist Party with the purpose of arresting the spread of Fascism and pushing forward the cause of the International Proletariat.
Issued by the Section Buro of the Bellingham Section of the Communist Party U. S. A., District 12.
For the Reorganization of the Section
1. The method for reorganizing the Party in the Sections of the Communist Party has been tersely put by stating “turn the face of the Party to mass work.”
In the mass work are to be found the political problems which are facing the workers. There will be found the material which will make possible the “all-sided political exposures” which are a necessary prerequisite to good Party-Mass work. 353
2. In order to accomplish a reorientation of the party in Whatcom County, it is necessary that Party Units be organized in the most natural manner possible at the present time.
This can be done by neighborhood groupings, consequently it will be the policy here to organize the Party on the basis of geographical position. But this will not do away with the orientation to other forms of organization, that is the shop unit, and fractions.
3. The Unit meetings should be at regular times at regular places for the present until the units are closer knit together. But for this policy to be a success, the meetings must be kept secret. Loose talk about unit meetings in the presence of other persons must stop.
4. Each week the Section Committee will discuss the most important political problem before the Section and will issue material which will serve to bring written discussion before the membership and point out the Party line on each question.
5. At each Unit meeting some leading comrade should lead the discussion—that is, bring the report from the Section, open up the subject similar to what was done in the Section Buro.
6. The discussion in the Unit should be organized in such manner that each member of the Unit will participate, raising such problems as suggest themselves to him.
7. The Unit organizer should sum up the discussion at the close. (This is not ironclad. It may sometimes be better for the comrade from the Section Buro or Section Committee to make the summary. The main thing is that a summary is made in which the Party Line is again made clear. This will fix the Party line in each comrade’s mind so as to last.
“The Communist’s ideal should be a tribune of the people, able to react to every manifestation of tyranny and oppression, no matter where it takes place, no matter what stratum of class of the people it affects. He must explain the historical role of the Proletariat” (Lenin).
INSTRUCTIONS FOR UNITS
Hold Meeting on Friday, April 14, to consider the following:
1. The Reorganization Program for the Section—(Special Outline enclosed).
2. Elect Buro—Three most politically and theoretically developed comrades in Unit.
3. Political discussion on the meaning of the New Policy of the Communist Parties in regards to the Socialist Party and other Social-Democratic groups.
NOTE OF EXPLANATION
The Party organization is flexible. Forces can be shifted from place to place, etc. But the Party line is quite well defined and there are sharp differences between that which is approved by the Party Line and that which is disapproved by the Party Line. The Party line does not change except under rare and unusual occasions.
The Sharp change in the International Situation has brought forth a change in the attitude of the Communist Parties to the Social-Democratic Groups, this includes the Socialist Party of America.
The whole membership of the section should have read the statement of the ECCI in the Daily Worker some two to three weeks ago where the change of policy was explained.
The Communist Party will maintain vigilance against those who attempt to break the United Front and thereby betray the position of the working class by complete and ruthless exposure. But there is a truce existing at the present time between the Communist Parties and the Social Democrats. The Bellamy Club should be included with the Social-Democrats.
ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE BURO
Departmentalize the work into the following categories which are indispensable now.
1. Unit Organizer—The most dependable person.—Come to Liberal Club Sat. at 2 P.M. 354
2. Dues Secretary—Know list of membership—Come to Liberal Club Sat. at 1 P. M.
3. Fraction Secretary—Get list of all organizations to which the membership belongs. Come to Liberal Club Sat. at 3 P. M.
Comradely yours,
Mr. Tavenner. Is there any further comment you desire to make concerning that document?
Mr. Dennett. Evidently I only have part of that document in my own copy.
Mr. Tavenner. I believe there is a resolution appearing at the end of the document which you apparently do not have.
Mr. Dennett. There is one note of explanation at the bottom, which reads as follows, and I think it speaks for itself:
The party organization is flexible. Forces can be shifted from place to place, etc. But the party line is quite well defined and there are sharp differences between that which is approved by the party line and that which is disapproved by the party line. The party line does not change except under rare and unusual occasions.
The sharp change in the international situation has brought forth a change in the attitude of the Communist Parties to the social-democratic groups. This includes the Socialist Party of America.
The whole membership of the section should have read the statement of the ECCI in the Daily Worker some 2 or 3 weeks ago——
Mr. Tavenner. What is ECCI?
Mr. Dennett. Executive Committee of the Communist International—
where the change of policy was explained.
The Communist Party will maintain vigilance against those who attempt to break the united front and thereby betray the position of the working class by complete and ruthless exposure. But there is a truce existing at the present time between the Communist Parties and the Social-Democrats. The Bellamy Club should be included with the Social-Democrats.
That was a local organization in the Bellingham area which I had not mentioned before. It was a group who had studied Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward and his other Socialist books and pamphlets.
I believe that statement sufficiently illustrates what we were undertaking to do, and it is consistent with what was going on all over the country. The only thing is we met with more success than others did.
Mr. Tavenner. You described the activities of the unemployed councils in Bellingham, and you have told us that they were Communist-organized groups. Will you tell the committee, please, who the Communist Party members were who took the lead in that work, in addition to yourself, of course?
Mr. Dennett. Well, I think I mentioned earlier—if I didn’t, I should at this time—that there was a young woman by the name of Helen Quist who represented the Young Communist League, who went to Bellingham at approximately the same time I did, and who gave invaluable help in the organization of both the Young Communist League and the Communist Party. She was a member of both, and she was my closest and ablest assistant for quite a period of time in Bellingham.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell the name, please?
Mr. Dennett. Q-u-i-s-t, Helen Quist. 355
When I arrived, the local leadership of the Communist Party consisted of a person by the name of Martin Olson. And I hope that if there are any Martin Olsons who hear of that that they will not worry too much because there are so many Martin Olsons in this area.
But this particular Martin Olson was an unemployed logger at that time.
Mr. Tavenner. In light of your statement then, can you give further identifying information in regard to Mr. Olson so that there will be no confusion as to the “Olson” referred to?
Mr. Dennett. All I can say is that he was a man of small stature, was an unemployed logger at that time. That is about all I can use for description.
There was a person by the name of George Smith in Bellingham. He at that time operated a little hotel which he owned.
Mr. Tavenner. What was his activity?
Mr. Dennett. He was just a member of the sectarian group that just sat around and were satisfied that as long as they had a pure line everything was rosy. The fact that they didn’t do anything about it didn’t seem to disturb them too much. They were satisfied that they were following the straight and narrow path.
Mr. Tavenner. What do you mean by straight and narrow path?
Mr. Dennett. They sat around and agreed among themselves that the Communist Party line was absolutely right.
Mr. Tavenner. I wanted to be sure that the path you mentioned was the Communist Party path.
Mr. Dennett. True. There was another person by the name of Arthur Sinclair. I have heard since that he subsequently was deported to Canada.
There was an older fellow by the name of Engstrom, but I do not recall his first name.
Mr. Tavenner. Let me suggest this to you: If any of the persons whose names you are giving withdrew from the Communist Party, or if you have any facts indicating a change of affiliation, I think you should give those facts to us.
Mr. Dennett. Well, I have no knowledge of any of these people whom I have mentioned having done so.
There were a couple of women who were certainly the most reliable people for us in the sense that—remember we were in difficult times, and eating was a difficult problem. And both of these women did work outside, and they had a loyalty to their neighbors and friends. Bellingham, you have to understand, is a comparatively small town. People in it live much closer together than they do in a larger city. Neighbors are a little better acquainted with each other. Consequently, any suffering in the neighborhood arouses a deeper response among people who are better acquainted than it does among total strangers.
And these women extended themselves greatly to aid those of us who didn’t have any adequate income or any adequate subsistence. I understand that both of these women have since left the Communist Party. Do you want me to name them now?
Mr. Tavenner. Was that in 1932?
Mr. Dennett. Yes; it was.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I suggest we take that testimony an executive session, if he is convinced that they have left the party. 356
Mr. Moulder. I suggest that you withhold the names and not announce them; this information will be given to the committee in executive session.
Mr. Dennett. That answers all about the persons who were there at the time of my arrival.
Before I left the following persons were developed into leadership——
Mr. Tavenner. Before telling us about that, have you given us the names of all others in the Communist Party group who were there when you arrived?
Mr. Dennett. Yes; all of those whom I have named were officers. They held functioning positions.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you proceed, then, with a description of the identity of those who were developed into leadership after you arrived.
Mr. Dennett. I should preface that by remarking that upon my arrival in Bellingham the Ku Klux Klan was very active in Whatcom County. It was a practice for them at that time to burn the fiery cross frequently in various places of the county. And I was informed that they had a very considerable membership in the county.
I learned that some of those Klansmen were quite disillusioned with the activities of the Klan. I made a practice of trying to contact various persons whom I learned had been disillusioned by their activities in the Klan. And I have been trying my level best to think of the name of a particular man who was an officer in the Klan whom I did succeed in recruiting into the Communist Party. But I have been unable to remember that man’s name. I can only give this description, that he was in the Sumas area and that he was a sheet-metal worker. And that is the best that I can recall about him. It is quite possible that if some of the other persons I mention, if they were asked, they probably would remember him because he was a neighbor of theirs.
In this connection 2 very fine young men, one John Brockway and another one, Harold Brockway, were working out on their father’s farm. Nothing to do. And they were quite intrigued by the prospect which we held forth as the new life which would come under a Soviet rule.
There was a young man at that time by the name of Mel Luddington.
There was a very old man by the name of A. A. Johnson. I would expect that because of his advanced age at that time he may not still be alive.
Mr. Tavenner. May I suggest that if you have information as to any of the persons being deceased that you not give us their names, unless they performed some outstanding service for the Communist Party which we should know about.
Mr. Dennett. I do not know.
Then, of course, I have mentioned George Bradley.
Mr. Tavenner. I should have asked you to spell some of these names, the spelling of which may be uncertain. Will you go back, please?
Mr. Dennett. Yes.
Mr. Tavenner. What is the spelling of Brockway?
Mr. Dennett. B-r-o-c-k-w-a-y.
Mr. Tavenner. Luddington? 357
Mr. Dennett. Luddington, L-u-d-d-i-n-g-t-o-n.
Mr. Tavenner. Johnson?
Mr. Dennett. J-o-h-n-s-o-n.
Mr. Tavenner. Bradley? B-r-a-d-l-e-y?
Mr. Dennett. Yes.
Mr. Dennett. There was one other person I see that I have omitted, a fellow by the name of Ed Hanke. I think he had a brother, too, that was in. But I do not recall the brother’s name.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell the name, please.
Mr. Dennett. H-a-n-k-e.
Mr. Tavenner. You mentioned a little earlier that several people from this area were trained in Moscow and attended the Lenin Institute. I believe you named 2 of them from this area. Who were the 2?
Mr. Dennett. One was Alex Noral. The other was Hutchin R. Hutchins.
Mr. Tavenner. Were there any others?
Mr. Dennett. Yes.
James Bourne, B-o-u-r-n-e.
I think there were more than that, but I cannot at this moment place them.
I remember that in 1932 there was an organization known as the Friends of the Soviet Union, which was inspired by and under the leadership of the Communist Party, and its purpose was to take delegations to the Soviet Union to win their support and approval of the Soviet Union and what it was doing. And I recall one experience with a longshoreman from Tacoma. I cannot for the life of me think of his name. But he went to the Soviet Union on one of these Friends-of-the-Soviet-Union tours, came back, made the prepared speeches which the Friends of the Soviet Union asked him to make, and proceeded afterward to go around and make speeches contradicting his original speeches, stating that he did not realize how much harm he was doing by presenting the Soviet Union as the land of paradise, that he was quite disappointed with what he found when he found all the women doing the heavy work. And that seemed to be the chief thing that he objected to.
Mr. Tavenner. What was the date of your transfer back to Seattle?
Mr. Dennett. It was some time late in 1933.
Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain as agitprop, agitation propagandist in Seattle?
Mr. Dennett. Not very long. It seems to be an office in which there are many casualties because one, to fill that position, has to have a broad knowledge of the theoretical works of the party. And I can assure this committee that there is a great deal of written material on the subject which it takes a lifetime to study. I did the best I knew how at mastering a knowledge of it, but I then found out that the things which I had learned in the theoretical sense were not always respected by those who were in the administrative positions of the party, and frequently they would disregard my knowledge of the theoretical work and try to make it appear as though I was far off the line.
And there was constant conflict. Rappaport, when he came into the district, found many practical problems that didn’t lend themselves to the theoretical solutions which I found, and he, being a man 358 of a great deal more experience and much more authority, made short work of me.
Mr. Tavenner. Can you tell us the approximate period of time that you remained in that position? You said not long. But give us a more adequate idea.
Mr. Dennett. It was only a couple of months, I believe. I do not recall the exact circumstances which arose. But there was some conflict, some specific conflict in which Rappaport convinced me that I was completely wrong, and required that I submit a statement to the party in which I admit that I was completely wrong.
I believe that you have a copy of that. I cannot put my finger on a copy now.
I did precisely what I was requested to do as a sign of my obedience.
I have found my own statement. I think I could put it in.
Mr. Tavenner. May I see it, please.
(Document handed to Mr. Tavenner.)
Mr. Tavenner. Will you state to the committee, please, what the error was which you were induced to confess?
Mr. Dennett. I have been trying to think what it is. I can’t even recall now what it was. In fact, I had completely forgotten the incident until Mr. Wheeler ran across it and asked me what it was.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you read it in evidence, please.
Mr. Dennett. (reading):
Statement of V. Haines * * * Eugene Dennett
To the District Buro, District 12, CPUSA:
I have made a political error, in consequence of which I have been removed from the functions of district agitprop director.
I agree with the decision.
It is my responsibility to the party to prove myself by correct rank-and-file activity.
Comradely submitted,
Mr. Tavenner. I desire to introduce the paper in evidence, and ask that it be marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 9.”
Mr. Moulder. The above statement will be identified as “Dennett Exhibit No. 9” in the record.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what the organization setup was of the Communist Party in Seattle during the 2 periods when you served here as agitprop?
Mr. Dennett. Well, the first period the party consisted almost exclusively of what we called a skidroad branch. Almost all the membership of the party was transient workers who lived on or about the skidroad. And when Rappaport came in—speaking now of the second period—Rappaport raised cain over the fact that the membership was all transient, insisting that the party must root itself in the neighborhoods. It must become acquainted with the permanent citizens, not those who were called the boomers or the floaters, those who 359 used Seattle as a mail headquarters and holed up during the winter or off season but left the city during their construction work, which most of them followed.
And he used the technique of developing neighborhood branches out of those who were members of the unemployed citizens leagues or unemployed councils, and from those, as people went to work in industry, he tried to develop shop or factory, what we call nuclei.
Most of the success in that field occurred among the lumber workers because they were among the first to get out and get back to work out in the woods, the loggers.
So we had still the problem of maintaining contact with them. It was very difficult to do.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, who were the functionaries of the Communist Party in Seattle during those two periods.
Mr. Dennett. The first one I think we have covered, when we mention Mr. Alex Noral, Fred Walker, Jim Bourne, B-o-u-r-n-e, Mr. John Lawrie. I think that is L-a-w-r-i-e. John Lawrie, Sr.
There was a Mr. Ed Leavitt, L-e-a-v-i-t-t.
They were the leading functionaries with whom I worked at that time.
Mr. Tavenner. After you were removed as agitprop what was your next activity in the Communist Party?
Mr. Dennett. I had to become a good rank-and-file member and work in the unemployed-citizens leagues. Yes; by that time the Communists had taken over a number of the locals of the unemployed-citizens leagues in the city of Seattle, and were making a strong bid to take over the top leadership, the central UCL. And I was working in the skid-road local of the unemployed-citizens leagues, and was living in the soup line.
Mr. Tavenner. How long did that continue?
Mr. Dennett. That continued until I went into the CCC’s.
Mr. Tavenner. Can you give us the approximate date?
Mr. Dennett. I think it was in April 1934.
Mr. Moulder. In what capacity did you go into the CCC?
Mr. Dennett. As an enlisted man.
Mr. Moulder. Wasn’t that a program where there was a chairman in each community or county? Or section of a city?
Mr. Dennett. No. This is the Civilian Conservation Corps.
Mr. Moulder. Yes; I know. And they were given so much employment in each county or each section of the city, and someone had to pass upon those. Is that the program where you were paid so much and the parents would receive so much?
Mr. Dennett. That is true. That is the program. I think you are correct, sir, in saying there was a quota allotment for each community. I think you are right.
But in this particular case that was not involved in mine because the camps that we were recruited to were known as LEM’s or local experience man camps. We were making new camps. We were doing the heavy construction work and making camps that would 360 later be taken over by the young people that you are thinking of that were assigned by quota. You are quite correct. That is the program. I had forgotten that part of it.
And that evidently is what happened, an allotment had been made as to the number that could come out of the Seattle soup line, and I was one of those that was able to volunteer and got into it.
Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain a member of the Civilian Conservation Corps?
Mr. Dennett. Until July of 1935.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you engage in any Communist Party activities during that period?
Mr. Dennett. That is a question that is open to dispute. I didn’t think that I did. But the company commander thought that I did. So he proceeded to have me expelled from the CCC.
Mr. Tavenner. What was the nature of the activity in which you did engage and which resulted in your expulsion?
Mr. Dennett. When I became a member of the CCC there was provision for the Army to administer the camps, the Forest Service to administer the work, and for an educational director to supervise the training. And there was provision for an educational director to have an assistant who could be selected from among those enlistees who were a part of the company. I was chosen as the assistant educational director.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you advised by the Communist Party to get into the CCC camps for any propaganda purpose?
Mr. Dennett. No; I was not. On the contrary, in my instance, they said, “You had better stay away from that Fascist outfit because it is just a place where they are going to give military training and get ready for the next imperialist war, and we don’t want you to be in it.”
Mr. Moulder. Wasn’t it in the nature of a relief program?
Mr. Dennett. Yes.
Mr. Moulder. And naturally the Communist Party was opposed to the relief program, and wanted people generally to stay in the depression. Wasn’t that the policy or wishes of the Communist Party?
Mr. Dennett. That would be one way of putting it, and probably the way that many people viewed it. I didn’t look at it that way myself at that time. But I can’t dispute that point of view. The point that I started to speak of was that I was selected as the assistant educational director, and, frankly, I took quite seriously the literature which was sent from the United States Office of Education to the camps.
And among the points which were emphasized in this literature was the necessity of teaching the democratic process of government. But it has always been my experience that when you try to carry out the teaching of the democratic process of government and you come in contact with the military, sometimes they don’t quite agree with you. And in this particular instance my efforts to carry out the literature and carry out the educational program which came from John W. Studebaker’s office, the United States Office of Education, met with considerable resistance on the part of the company commander. He just didn’t like the idea. It sounded to him as though it was communistic for people to be talking about democracy and talking about having some way of resolving grievances and difficulties 361 and that sort of thing through the democratic legislative method. And we came into sharp conflict over that.
Of course, I finally gave him the excuse which he was looking for. Some of these workers in the camp were from the soup line with me—most of them were. They knew me around Seattle and they knew that I had been an agitator on the waterfront and on the skidroad. I had held many meetings on the skidroad. So I was well known to these men. And they asked me to conduct a course in sociology. I had some knowledge on the subject, and I had some textbooks of my own which I had used, which I had studied when I was going to the university. One of those was a book entitled “Contemporary Social Movements” by Jerome Davis. I had that book. And, of course, that book attempts to survey all the then current social, political, and economic philosophies that were occupying the attention of various people throughout the world, including the Communists and the Fascists, the Soviet Union and what was going on in Italy, and that sort of thing, and also in Germany. So I proceeded to answer the request of these workers to have a class in contemporary social movements.
The company commander attended two sessions of the class. And he attended those two sessions where I was using this text to describe the Communist system in the Soviet Union and the Fascist system in Italy. And he decided that that was subversive propaganda and should not be conducted, and he accused me of spreading subversive propaganda in the camp.
Mr. Moulder. Then were you expelled?
Mr. Dennett. Yes.
Mr. Tavenner. Wasn’t his accusation correct?
Mr. Dennett. I think that his accusation was misplaced. I was making as honest an effort as I knew how to make an objective study. And there seems to be a great deal of difficulty in these days, as there was then, to determine the difference between an objective presentation of a factual situation with respect to a controversial subject without being accused of propagandizing for it. It is a difficult point.
Mr. Tavenner. In what work after your removal from the Civilian Conservation Corps did you engage?
Mr. Dennett. That is when I was shanghaied on to a boat here on the waterfront in Seattle.
Mr. Tavenner. Now I think, Mr. Chairman, that is a subject that we will reserve discussion for until later. But I would like to ask at this time, if the chairman will issue a subpena duces tecum requiring the witness to present to the staff all of the documents which he now has in his possession. By that I do not mean the committee is going to remove them in such a way that the witness will not have access to them, but in order that we may keep those documents intact until the committee staff has been able to fully examine them.
Mr. Moulder. The subpena will be issued.
Mr. Tavenner. Is there any objection to that on your part?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Dennett. I have just conferred with my counsel, and we wondered whether or not you included books.
Mr. Tavenner. There may be some books which the committee would like to have included. However, the committee would not be interested in those books which it already has in its possession. 362
Mr. Moulder. Whatever counsel will require will be set forth in the subpena.
Mr. Tavenner. I wanted to be certain that the witness is agreeable to it. We could do it without his agreement, but I prefer to find out if he is agreeable.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Dennett. I have conferred with my counsel, and he has raised the question with me: Can I provide adequate protection for the documents which seem to have such importance. And, frankly, I have some misgivings as to whether I can furnish as good protection for them as perhaps the committee can. So I am agreeable to whatever the committee wishes to do.
Mr. Tavenner. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Moulder. The committee will stand in recess. However, I wish to announce that immediately after the recess Mr. Johnston and Mr. Carlson should make themselves available for recall appearances before the committee.
The committee will stand in recess for a period of 10 minutes.
(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order.
The committee is informed that the witness Jerry O’Connell has counsel appearing for him.
Mr. Hatten. Yes.
Mr. Moulder. Please come forward.
Mr. Hatten. I was in attendance all day yesterday. However, I was not authorized to speak for Mr. O’Connell. I understood that he had wired and otherwise contacted the chairman of this committee, Representative Walter, and had expected to receive word from him.
The reason for Mr. O’Connell’s not appearing here is the fact that he has had an acute heart attack, and has had a heart condition for a considerable period of time.
I have with me a letter from Dr. Harry McGregor, Great Falls, Mont., which gives the results of an examination made on March 15, and which concludes that——
Mr. Moulder. Will you read the letter into the record?
Mr. Hatten. I can hand the letter over and make it a part of the record if the chairman wishes. I merely wanted to state that it concludes that he is advised not to attend, or to withhold from the duties set forth in the subpena.
Of course, I appreciate that the committee may want to have him examined by an independent physician, and I am sure that whatever the committee’s desires are in that regard will be agreeable with Mr. O’Connell, or in the event that the committee should desire to examine him in Great Falls, Mont., at some later continued hearing. One of the problems is the distance that he would have to travel under his condition. He would either have to come by plane, or, in the absence of that, travel over the mountain passes, which would seriously affect his health. 363
Mr. Velde. I do not want to violate any of your rights as to attorney-client relationship, but have you talked to Mr. O’Connell personally?
Mr. Hatten. No, I did not.
Mr. Velde. You mentioned that he had previously requested Mr. Walter, the chairman of the full committee——
Mr. Hatten. I understand that he has communicated with Representative Walter, yes.
Mr. Velde. Do you know the date of that?
Mr. Hatten. I do not.
Mr. Velde. Mr. Chairman, I think it should be made a matter of record that Mr. O’Connell was duly subpenaed on—what was the date?
Mr. Moulder. The eighth of March.
Mr. Velde. The 8th day of March and up until this moment we have not received any type of communication from Mr. O’Connell.
While, of course, we always have been very lenient as far as the witnesses who have medical ailments are concerned, however, it has always been the custom—and I think probably Mr. O’Connell knows about this, too—for a medical affidavit to be filed promptly. In this case it certainly hasn’t been prompt.
Mr. Hatten. That depends upon the period of time when he had the attack. He certainly couldn’t advise the committee on the date of the subpena of his inability to attend if the reason why he couldn’t attend was an attack which occurred later.
Mr. Tavenner. Is that the situation?
Mr. Hatten. I couldn’t advise the committee. The committee will undoubtedly go into this further, and the exact dates and situations will be discovered.
I have not been in Great Falls, Mont., and I don’t want to make any representations.
Mr. Moulder. You aren’t making an appearance? You are simply presenting this letter?
Mr. Hatten. That is correct.
Mr. Moulder. Very well.
Will you call Mr. Johnston as a witness?
Mr. Moulder. Mr. Johnston, you were on the stand yesterday to testify in answer to questions propounded to you by Mr. Wheeler, and the Chair asked you the question or a similar question, as to whether or not you approved or disapproved of Communist infiltration, influence, and domination of the labor union of which you are a member. And you said that you hadn’t had time to give the question any thought or consideration. We felt that by giving you sufficient time and recalling you today you could give us an answer to that question.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Johnston. Mr. Chairman, I feel that the wording of that you just now mentioned was not the wording of the question yesterday. It was a little different.
But, in answer to the question you just now raised to me, there is only one thing I can do under that, and that is to—if I answer that 364 either way it would tend to incriminate me, and I have to invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Moulder. We will rephrase the question in this way:
Do you approve or disapprove of Communist domination of any union?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Johnston. Purely as a matter of opinion, I do not approve of any group, whether it be to control the trade-union movement—I feel it should be a free union. Whether it is Communist, Fascist, National Manufacturers Association or what-have-you. That is purely my opinion on it.
Mr. Moulder. Do you object to a Communist holding an official position in any labor union?
Mr. Johnston. On that one I will have to, as in the past, invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Moulder. Would you vote for or against a candidate seeking office in a local laborers’ union if he were a Communist?
Mr. Johnston. Mr. Chairman, I feel that, under our rights—and I know the majority of unions, as I understand them—we vote by secret ballot, the same as in our elections for the honorable representatives elected by your people in your district, by secret ballot. And that is a right that we are able to keep to ourselves.
Mr. Moulder. Any questions?
Mr. Tavenner. No, sir; I have no questions.
Mr. Moulder. The witness is excused.
Mr. Sykes. Can I make a short statement here? I think it might be helpful to the committee. It will take about a half minute.
Mr. Johnston. Is that in regard to me?
Mr. Sykes. No.
Mr. Sykes. Several witnesses here have invoked the fifth amendment upon being asked the question: “Have you ever been a member of a labor union?” And I know that the use of the fifth amendment in answer to that question may have created some misunderstanding in the mind of the public and the mind of the committee.
I would like to make it clear that the invoking of the fifth amendment to this particular question is not meant to imply, nor should it be implied, that I or my clients think there is anything at all incriminating, in itself, in membership in a labor union.
But, as you gentlemen know, there are some labor unions in Seattle that are having what are commonly known as Communist problems. Charges of communism and countercharges are being filed, and members charged with Communist activity——
Mr. Moulder. We were to hear a short statement.
Mr. Sykes. I will shorten the statement by saying that the use of the fifth amendment by these witnesses in answer to the question, “Have you ever been a member of a labor union?” is not meant in any way to incriminate labor unions as such. But the refusal is based solely on legal and technical grounds.
Mr. Moulder. All right, that will be all. 365
At this time I would like to read a letter which was addressed to the committee from the International Association of Machinists:
Dear Sir: Because of repeated reference to the Machinists Union, AFL, before your committee on Thursday, March 17, 1955, we respectfully request that the following information be made part of the record so that all may be aware of the true facts with respect to the attitude of the International Association of Machinists and the participation by its members in the Communist Party, its front organizations, or the giving of support to such organizations.
Since 1925 the International Association of Machinists has had prohibitions in its laws against such activities on the part of any of its members. A diligent and unending effort has constantly been made to rid our organization of persons having Communist or Fascist Party membership or sympathies.
Testimony before your committee in 1954 indicated that several persons, members of our organization, might at the same time be members of, or giving support to, the Communist Party. Our own investigations, since that time, have resulted in the expulsion from our organization of four persons named by witness, Barbara Hartle, before your committee in 1954. Among these four persons, as expelled, was Harold Johnston, witness before your committee on Thursday, March 17, 1955.
Investigations are continuing with respect to others and if it is found that they also are guilty of the conduct charged to them by witnesses before your committee, they likewise will be tried and expelled in accordance with the provisions of our constitution.
The evidence before your committee has been most helpful and we are certain you will find our union in the forefront, cooperatively and aggressively opposed to communism, fascism, or any totalitarian philosophies.
Yours very truly,
Is Mr. Carlson in the hearing room?
Call Mr. Carlson, please.
You have been sworn. Please be seated.
Mr. Moulder. Mr. Carlson, during the course of your testimony yesterday it appeared from your appearance on the witness stand that there was a desire on your part to reconsider and testify in answer to questions which were propounded to you by Mr. Wheeler, and also make more clear an explanation concerning a letter which was addressed to the chairman, Chairman Velde, when he was chairman of the full committee on Un-American Activities, dated June 19, 1954. The letter reads as follows:
Dear Sirs: I see by the paper that Mrs. Hartle names one Ed Carlson as a member of the Communist Party in the machinists union. I presume I am the individual referred to. So that the record is straight, let me insert this into the record for all to see and hear.
It did not take me 20 years to decide that the Communist Party was not the answer to the problems as I see them. In fact, I am very nearly positive it was Mrs. Hartle who tried to persuade me to reconsider my decision to discontinue my affiliations, which is now approximately 5 years ago.
I do believe that my many friends and acquaintances are entitled to this additional clarification of the facts.
Sincerely,
During the course of the testimony yesterday we tried to emphasize clearly it is not the purpose of this committee to try to confuse or entrap anyone in these proceedings, or incriminate them in any way.
We thought after you had given serious consideration to this subject, and being recalled as a witness, that you would answer our questions which are directed to you concerning your past Communist Party affiliations and your association and severance from any connection with the Communist Party.
Do you wish to do so now?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. I would prefer, Mr. Chairman, to have specific questions directed at me, if I may.
Mr. Moulder. Very well.
Are you now a member of the Communist Party?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. No, sir.
Mr. Moulder. Were you a member of the Communist Party a year ago?
Mr. Carson. No, sir.
Mr. Moulder. Were you a member of the Communist Party in 1951?
Mr. Carlson. To the best of my recollection; no, sir.
Mr. Moulder. During the year of 1950 were you a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Carlson. I believe that answer also holds there. I was not, to the best of my recollection.
Mr. Moulder. In the year of 1949 were you a member of the Communist Party?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. That is the time, I am quite sure, that I dropped the party.
Mr. Moulder. That you left the party?
Mr. Carlson. Yes.
Mr. Moulder. Will you tell us the circumstances as to why you left the Communist Party and severed your connections with them?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. Well, to take a certain date or specific period, it is quite impossible.
Mr. Moulder. We don’t expect you to be specific as to the exact date. That is immaterial.
Mr. Carlson. Let me answer that by making probably a comparison with somebody else.
I think we are all acquainted with Senator Morse’s record in Oregon. He was once a Republican, and he has turned Democrat.
I don’t think there is any specific time in his mind that he ever turned from a Republican to a Democrat. It probably took over a period of time. And that, I believe, Mr. Chairman, could be applied to me.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. As a specific time, at the time the Korean war started I certainly didn’t approve of that war starting by anybody. And I might say, likewise, that I didn’t approve of our participation in it either. That is my conviction, sir.
Mr. Moulder. Referring to the Communist Party, it has been decided by the courts that it is not a political party as such; that it is 367 really an international conspiracy. And, therefore, your comparison or reference to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party has no application in comparison to the Communist Party, because it is not, in fact, a political party.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Moulder. Has your philosophy and your opinion concerning the Communist Party, then, changed from what it was at one time?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have a definite idea of my own what things should be, and what my beliefs are. And I believe it might help you to understand what I think, if I could give you an answer here.
The best thing that I could do would be to read it out of the booklet that I have. I believe that it would be helpful to both of us.
Mr. Moulder. How long is it?
Mr. Carlson. It is probably a couple of hundred words, I believe.
Mr. Moulder. What is the title of it?
Mr. Carlson. It is the preamble to our machinists’ constitution.
Mr. Moulder. Yesterday I believe you said you didn’t even know what the Communist Party stood for or what it was all about, and led us to believe that you were maybe innocently hooked into and taken into the Communist Party movement at one time, still not having any opinion toward it or approval of it.
Mr. Carlson. The popular conception of the Communist Party being a subversive organization, an organization looking for the overthrow of the Government, and so on and so forth, I can’t say that I ever believed that. And I don’t think that I know anybody that does, that I think believes that.
Mr. Moulder. Are you a married man, Mr. Carlson?
Mr. Carlson. Yes, I am.
Mr. Moulder. Do you have a family?
Mr. Carlson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Moulder. How many children do you have?
Mr. Carlson. I have two. Two grandchildren, by the way.
Mr. Moulder. Were you born in America?
Mr. Carlson. That is right.
Mr. Moulder. You are desirous, of course, for your children to enjoy the benefits of living in the greatest nation in the world?
Mr. Carlson. That is right.
Mr. Moulder. What I am coming to is, do you approve then, of the Communist Party movement or the international conspiracy of the Communist Party?
Mr. Carlson. I don’t approve of what it is reported to be. Now, to the best of my knowledge, I don’t know that the Communist Party stands for such things.
Mr. Moulder. Any questions, Mr. Velde?
Mr. Velde. I would like to ask the witness to be a little bit more specific about the way in which he got out of the Communist Party. We have heard a lot of witnesses here in the same situation who have told us that it has taken quite a long while for that conversion from communism back to Americanism. While you were in the Communist Party did you attend meetings of the Communist Party?
(The witness confers with his counsel.) 368
Mr. Carlson. Congressman, as to any activity in the Communist Party prior to, say, 1950, I will have to invoke the fifth amendment on the grounds that it might incriminate me.
Mr. Velde. Then you refuse to give us the benefit of the knowledge of the Communist Party which you acquired while you were a member of the party?
Mr. Carlson. On the ground that it may incriminate me, I refuse to answer.
Mr. Velde. Do you think, Mr. Carlson, that is in good faith with Americanism?
Mr. Carlson. Mr. Congressman, if I recollect my history correctly, there have been many, many people in the past that have been convicted and thrown into jail for purely political reasons.
And it’s been proven afterward that they were only political reasons, that they had no real basis for throwing them in jail. That is my understanding of history. And I am not sure but what this is the same thing.
Mr. Velde. No, Mr. Carlson, this is not the same thing at all, and I am sure that you are aware of that.
As a matter of fact, during the entire history of this committee there has not been one single witness who appeared before this committee who answered questions truthfully who has ever been prosecuted in any way, shape, or form. That is all you have to do, in my opinion—to answer questions truthfully—instead of refusing to answer.
Mr. Carlson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert into the record a sort of a statement here that fully covers my beliefs, and I am sure that these have always been my beliefs.
Mr. Moulder. You may file it. It will be made a part of the record.
Mr. Carlson. Could I read that so the public here themselves would know?
Mr. Moulder. If it is not too long. How long is it?
Mr. Carlson. About 1 minute.
Mr. Moulder. Very well. Proceed.
Mr. Carlson. Mr. Chairman, this is the preamble to the constitution of the Machinists Union, IAM:
Believing that the right of those who toil to enjoy to the full extent the wealth created by their labor is a natural right, and realizing that under the changing industrial conditions incident to the enormous growth of syndicates and other aggregations of capital it is impossible for those who toil to obtain the full reward of their labor other than through united action; and recognizing the fact that those who toil should use their rights of citizenship intelligently, through organizations founded upon the class struggle and acting along cooperative, economic, and political lines, using the natural resources, means of production and distribution for the benefit of all the people, with the view of restoring the common wealth to all those performing useful service to society;
Now, therefore, we, the International Association of Machinists, pledge ourselves to labor unitedly in behalf of the principles herein set forth, to perpetuate our association on the basis of solidarity and justice, to expound its objects, to labor for the general adoption of its principles, to consistently endeavor to bring about a higher standard of living among the toiling masses.
Mr. Moulder. Probably you know Mr. Carlson, that the greatest enemy of organized labor would be Communist domination. In Soviet Russia organized labor, as we know it over here where free 369 and collective bargaining is permitted, labor unions and organization are prohibited and not tolerated whatsoever in the Soviet Union.
I was trying to distinguish a moment ago as to your cause for disassociating yourself from the Communist Party. Was it because you thought the party was a failure; or was it because of the necessity, for practical purposes—but still retaining in your mind the beliefs in the Communist Party movement?
I think you should make a clear statement concerning your opposition, as an American citizen, believing in our American way of life, in contrast to and against the Communist Party international conspiracy. Would you care to make any comment on it?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. Mr. Chairman, my only comment on that is that I don’t believe in the current, popular opinion of the Communist Party. I don’t believe in that.
Mr. Moulder. In my opinion, I think it is for your best interests to take a different position than you are taking.
Mr. Carlson. Maybe I misunderstand you or you misunderstand me, Mr. Chairman. I don’t believe in the principle that is commonly accorded to the Communist Party, that they are subversive. I don’t want anything to do with that. That they are ready to overthrow the Government, I don’t believe in that. Certainly not.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. Mr. Chairman, further, if I thought that they did believe in that, or ever believed in that, I certainly never would have had anything to do with them, and I would be most bitterly in opposition.
Mr. Moulder. Mr. Tavenner, proceed with the interrogation of the witness.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Carlson, I understood you to say that in 1950 you were not a member of the Communist Party. Is that correct?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. To the best of my knowledge, that is right.
Mr. Tavenner. But in 1949 you withdrew from the Communist Party? Is that correct?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. There was no formal act of withdrawal.
Mr. Tavenner. You did not hand in a written resignation?
Mr. Carlson. That is right.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you notify any functionary in the Communist Party that you were withdrawing from the Communist Party?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. I failed to reregister.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Tavenner. Did any member of the Communist Party ask you to reregister, and you refused to do it?
Mr. Carlson. That I believe, is correct. I did not reregister purposely; I did not intend to reregister.
But just exactly if that is what happened I am not quite so sure about that. I mean whether somebody came and asked me to reregister; I don’t remember. I am not sure about that.
Mr. Tavenner. Was that in 1949? 370
Mr. Carlson. That was about that time. It was at the time of the——
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. It was right in there, yes.
Mr. Tavenner. What was the date of the last meeting of the Communist Party you attended?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. I have to invoke the fifth amendment on that.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to think that the witness, by the answers he has given, has opened the door for examination of what he knows about Communist Party activities during the period when he was a member. Therefore, I request that the chairman direct the witness to answer.
Mr. Moulder. The Chair directs the witness to answer the question.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. Will you restate the question?
Mr. Tavenner. Will you read the question, please?
(The pending question was read by the reporter.)
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. I invoke the fifth amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tavenner. How many people composed the group or branch of the Communist Party to which you belonged?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. The answer is the same, Mr. Chairman, the fifth amendment.
Mr. Moulder. The Chair directs the witness to answer the question.
(There was no response.)
Mr. Tavenner. What was the name of the unit or group of the Communist Party of which you were a member?
Mr. Carlson. I again invoke my rights under the fifth amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Moulder. The Chair directs the witness to answer the question.
(There was no response.)
Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what the Communist Party was endeavoring to accomplish in the group of the Communist Party with which you were affiliated?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. I again invoke the fifth amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Moulder. The Chair directs the witness to answer the question.
(There was no response.)
Mr. Velde. Just a minute. I don’t think the record shows any answer to that. Do you want the record to show that you do not answer, that you remain silent?
Mr. Carlson. I wish to invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, in what activities did the group of the Communist Party of which you were a member engage?
Mr. Carlson. I again invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Moulder. The Chair directs the witness to answer the question.
(There was no response.)
Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, whether the Communist Party group with which you were affiliated was organized within any industry, within any labor union, or whether it was a street group of the Communist Party, or, sometimes referred to as, a neighborhood group of the Communist Party? 371
Mr. Carlson. Again, on the grounds of possible self-incrimination I refuse to answer.
Mr. Moulder. You are directed to answer the question propounded to you by Mr. Tavenner, counsel for the committee.
Mr. Carlson. On the grounds of the fifth amendment, I refuse to answer.
Mr. Tavenner. Over how long a period of time does your knowledge of Communist Party activities exist?
Mr. Carlson. I again invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Moulder. You are advised and directed to answer the question.
(There was no response.)
Mr. Tavenner. When did you become a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Carlson. The answer is the same as the one previous.
Mr. Moulder. Again the Chair advises and directs you to answer the question.
(There was no response.)
Mr. Tavenner. What methods were used by the Communist Party in order to induce you to become a member?
Mr. Carlson. I again invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Moulder. You are advised and directed to answer the question.
(There was no response.)
Mr. Tavenner. You have told the committee that you withdrew from the Communist Party in 1949. What were the circumstances which led you to the decision to withdraw from the Communist Party?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. I believe, Mr. Chairman, the immediate thing was the outbreak of the Korean war.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, just how the outbreak of the Korean war affected you in your decision?
Mr. Carlson. My opinion, Mr. Chairman, was that that war was uncalled for. I didn’t agree with it, no more than I agreed with our participation in it.
Mr. Tavenner. Do you mean to say that the Communist Party was in favor of the war, and, therefore, inasmuch as you disagreed with it, you got out of the Communist Party?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. I was against the invasion by the North Koreans of South Korea. That is my position. I didn’t approve of that at all. In fact, I don’t approve of war really of any kind.
Mr. Tavenner. I misunderstood your answer entirely.
You believed that the North Koreans invaded South Korea?
Are you assigning the Korean war as your reason for getting out of the Communist Party? What I am getting at is: What was the Communist Party doing about the Korean war with which you disagreed? That is the point I am trying to develop. (The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. I am not really in a position, I don’t think, to say what the Communist Party did about that. Officially. There was a period of time when I suppose I was—Well, I don’t know what word to use—probably losing faith, or disagreeing, or something with the activities. And that was the real change in my mind. That was the thing, the straw that broke the camel’s back, you might say. 372
Mr. Tavenner. Do you mean the Korean war?
Mr. Carlson. Yes.
Mr. Tavenner. What was the Communist Party doing about the Korean war that made this matter so important it affected your decision about breaking your connection with the party?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. My decision was made right then in my own mind when that war broke out.
Mr. Tavenner. I am not talking about the time; I am talking about what the Communist Party did to create such a situation which prevented you from continuing as a member of the Communist Party.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. My impression was that they favored the North Koreans, and I didn’t.
Mr. Tavenner. How did the Communist Party handle that question in its meetings?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Tavenner. Now actually the Korean war began in June 1950, didn’t it?
Mr. Carlson. As near as my recollection, I was thinking it was 1949.
Mr. Tavenner. And you say you withdrew from the Communist Party in 1949?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. I am sure in my mind that it was in the fall of 1949 that I failed to reregister in the Communist Party.
Mr. Tavenner. But the only reason you have assigned for your withdrawal from the Communist Party in 1949 is the Korean war, which did not begin until nearly a year later.
Now it is rather difficult for the committee, I am sure, to understand whether or not your reasons for withdrawing from the Communist Party are being given in good faith.
Mr. Carlson. Mr. Chairman, I was quite active in my union and in my shop as a good trade union member, and, to tie one thing with another, I don’t have anything to go by except that Korean war. I remember that was about the time.
Mr. Tavenner. Then you must have been mistaken as to the year in which you withdrew from the Communist Party.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. That is possible.
Mr. Tavenner. I would much rather believe that you were mistaken than believe you are trying to deceive the committee.
Mr. Carlson. No. That is not the case.
Mr. Tavenner. The committee has been interested for quite a period of time in learning all it can about the method used by the Communist Party to oppose the Korean war. By opposing the Korean war I mean opposing the foreign policy of the United States in connection with that war. What position did the Communist Party take with which you disagreed?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. I think it is quite common knowledge that, even from our daily papers, the Communists did support the North Koreans. 373
Mr. Tavenner. Yes; but the daily papers do not tell us what was done in your particular cell or group of the Communist Party, and that is what we want to know.
Mr. Carlson. Well, after that war broke out, Mr. Chairman, I did not participate. I can’t tell what they done because I don’t know.
Mr. Tavenner. Then why did you disagree with them if you didn’t know what they were doing?
Mr. Carlson. Well, you remember, as history shows—according to the papers, anyway—that in the time before the First World War broke out, I remember—it just comes to my mind—the papers printed that the Communist Party members of France tore up their Communist cards immediately when Russia signed some sort of a pact with Germany. You probably recall that in your own mind. I think that is a historical fact. At least the paper files will show that. I recall it that way. Now the same situation was mine, although I might add, as I have said before, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back as far as I am concerned.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you attend any meeting of the Communist Party after you wrote the letter on June 19, 1954, to this committee?
(The witness confers with his counsel).
Mr. Tavenner. Did you attend any meeting of the Communist Party after the outbreak of the Korean War?
Mr. Carlson. Not to the best of my recollection; I don’t believe so.
Mr. Tavenner. I understand you will not tell this committee anything about the activities of the Communist Party during the period when you were a member. Is that correct?
Mr. Carlson. Because the answer to those questions might tend to incriminate me, and, on advise of my counsel, I refuse to answer those questions.
Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions.
Mr. Moulder. Any questions?
Mr. Velde. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Since the witness is unwilling to give us any of the information which we are certain he has regarding his activities in the Communist Party while he was a member, possibly he would tell us what motivated him to get into the Communist Party, to join the Communist Party in the first place.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. Could I answer that question, Mr. Congressman, and not go into other questions regarding it?
Mr. Velde. Yes, certainly. I would like to have you answer.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. I was looking for an answer to the problems that beset many, many workers besides myself. And I really had a rough time during the depression.
Mr. Velde. Did you join the party, then, during the depression?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carlson. My understanding was that if I answered the previous question there would not be any more regarding that.
Mr. Velde. I did not understand it that way at all. I am sorry if you misinterpreted my question. And I don’t mean to treat you unfairly in any way or try to trap you. It seems to me that if anybody is being trapped you are being trapped by your own unwillingness to answer questions that are put to you about your activities in the Communist Party. I think, Mr. Chairman, the record should show during 374 the course of the examination by Mr. Tavenner and by you that the witness has been conferring with his counsel regarding the answers to the questions.
Mr. Moulder. The record will reflect conferences with counsel in that regard.
Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions.
Mr. Moulder. The witness is excused.
At this time the committee will read a letter which was just received, addressed to myself as chairman. The letter is from the Musicians’ Association of Seattle, Local 76, A. F. of M.
Dear Sir: I am distressed to learn that our member, Mrs. Helen Taverniti, has not made herself available for service of the subpena from the House Un-American Activities Committee.
I wish to point out that since 1940 the American Federation of Musicians has persistently carried on a sustained effort to remove from our membership persons proven to be affiliated with organizations of a subversive nature. In fact, our bylaws specifically provide that membership in the Communist Party or any Communist “front” organization is cause for immediate expulsion from membership.
The executive board of local 76 has deemed it necessary to send a registered letter to Mrs. Helen Taverniti at her last known address, citing her to appear before the board for interrogation relative to this matter.
Very truly yours,
Mr. Tavenner. Mrs. Margaret Elizabeth Gustafson.
Will you come forward, please.
Mr. Moulder. Hold up your right hand and be sworn, please.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mrs. Gustafson. I do.
Mr. Moulder. Be seated.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you state your name please?
Mrs. Gustafson. Margaret Elizabeth Gustafson.
Mr. Tavenner. It is noted that you are accompanied by counsel.
Will counsel please identify himself for the record?
Mr. MacDonald. Kenneth A. MacDonald, a lawyer of the city of Seattle.
Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mrs. Gustafson?
Mrs. Gustafson. I was born February 9, 1912, in the city of Seattle.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell your last name, please?
Mrs. Gustafson. G-u-s-t-a-f-s-o-n.
Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside?
Mrs. Gustafson. In Bremerton, Wash.
Mr. Tavenner. How are you employed?
Mrs. Gustafson. As a schoolteacher.
Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what your formal educational training has been?
Mrs. Gustafson. I graduated from San Diego State College in 1933, attended Mills for graduate work the following year. I have had summer school at the Western Washington College of Education, at the University of Washington, extension courses——
NORTHWEST LABOR SCHOOL
309 2nd Avenue No.
POSTMASTER: If undeliverable for any reason,
notify sender on Form 3547, postage for which
is guaranteed.
Saturday, April 5th
THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
LABOR SCHOOL
Holds
OPEN HOUSE
DANCE—REFRESHMENTS—FUN TO START THE SPRING TERM
VACATION TIME
JUNE 28-JULY 19
Spend your vacation at the Labor School Summer Camp—swim,
fish, rest, play—and learn.
LAKE HATZIC
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Sponsored jointly by the Northwest Labor School and the
British Columbia Workers Education Association. Inexpensive
facilities for youngsters (even babies)—lots of fun
for a week or more of vacation. Get full information and
application blanks at the Labor School office.
YOUTH CANTEEN—Cyril Gius—Once month—(April 11, May 9 and June 6)—with music, entertainment, and food arranged under mature supervision, by and for youth.
JUNIOR TOWN HALL—Cyril Gius—A monthly lively and stimulating discussion on questions of the day of particular interest to youth. Fridays—April 25, May 23, and June 20.
$1.50 for the six sessions or 35c a session.
CHILDREN’S WORKSHOP—Ruth Bitterman—assisted by Celeste Brooks and Martha Smyser. Saturday, 10 a. m.-12 noon. Ages 6-12.
A workshop for children 6-12, encouraging their natural desire to create, to help them find and express the beauty and color in their everyday life, using simple art skills, and to help them to be cooperative individuals in their group.
Fee: $3.00
BOARD OF DIRECTORS: This is the governing body of the School and its decisions are binding upon the school in matters of organization and policy. It is comprised of trade union members and representatives of the city at large, elected on the following basis: Trade unions affiliating to the school through payment of an affiliation fee elect one member to the Board. Trade union councils endorsing the school also elect one member to the Board. These elect additional members from the city at large up to one third of their number. Thus, the Board of Directors, always representative of labor, also includes people who can bring broad educational experience to the school.
Our aim to do what YOU want done. In addition to classes and activities in the center, we will come to you. Does your union need a special course to help in building the union, in developing new forces? Are there fifteen people in your neighborhood who want some special class? Do you need help in planning parties, song-fests, shows, meetings—the Public Affairs Dept. is organized to help you. Give us a call and we’ll work out what you need.
| CLASS______________________ | No______ | Day______ |
| CLASS______________________ | No______ | Day______ |
| Enclosed find $________ for my registration fee. | ||
| NAME____________________________________________ | ||
| ADDRESS_________________________________________ | ||
| UNION____________________________________________ | ||
(Members of the following organizations and their Auxiliaries may attend at the reduced fee.)
Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge No. 751
American Communications Association, Local 130
American Communications Association—Regional Office
American Veterans Committee—Queen Anne Chapter
Building Service Employees International Union No. 6
Cannery Workers and Farm laborers Union—F.T.A. No. 7
International Association of Machinists No. 79
International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union No. 184
International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union Nos 1-9
International Molders & Foundry Workers No. 158
Luggage Workers Union No. 51
Marine Cooks and Stewards Association
National Maritime Union of America
National Negro Congress
Painters Local Union, No. 300
Shipscalers, Drydock and Boatyard Workers, No. 589
The New World
United Office and Professional Workers of America, No. 35
United Public Workers of America
Washington Pension Union
Window Cleaners Union, No. 23
Northern Washington District Council, I.W.A.
Painters District Council No. 5
Seattle CIO Council
Washington State CIO Council
Spring is already with us, so sign up for the course that meets your needs NOW! The tuition fee for a single course is $6.00 for 10 weeks. If your trade union or community organization is affiliated with the Northwest Labor School the fee is $3.00. It’s an investment that will pay off in new satisfactions and practical understanding. This is education to make democracy work.
SPRING TERM OPENS WEEK OF APRIL 7, 1947
104—Union Meeting Procedure
Monday, 8:30-10:00 P.M.
Herman Ott
How to organize and run a union meeting. Discuss and practice rules of order; learn to exercise your rights in a union meeting.
106—History of American Labor
Friday, 1:00-3:00 P.M.
Friday, 8:30-10:00 P.M.
John DeschbachA background for understanding the labor problems of the present. Deals with major developments in the labor movement, special emphasis on events from World War I and on.
108—Trade Union Organizational Problems
Wednesday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
Harvey Jackins
Continuation of last term’s course, but open to new registrants. Covering problems of organizing and operating a local union.
109—Psychology for Unionists
Wednesday, 8:30-10:00 P.M.
Dr. Ralph Gundlach
Problem of making a dues-payer into a union man. Psychological approach to such topics as handling grievances, discrimination, job evaluation and personnel management.
110—Labor’s Experience in Political Action
Friday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
H. Richard Seller
Thomas C. Rabbitt
Analysis of labor, success and failures in political action. Includes practical information on government and how labor can use its strength to safeguard democracy.
115—Labor as Consumer
Monday, 1:00-3:00 P.M.
Mary Salvus
How to buy, what to buy, and what not to buy. Provides “shopping to save” techniques. Class members will cooperate in field work to determine good and bad buys in the Seattle area.
118—The Truth About Unions
Thursday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
Richard Berner
This course is for everyone—but especially for rank and filers who want correct answers on the structure and role of the unions. Here is an opportunity for those outside of organized labor to deal with the facts—rather than the fictions which circulate about unions.
120—Labor News Reporting
Monday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
Terry Pettus
H. Richard Seller
A course for beginners as well as those with some experience in the technique of news reporting for the labor press, with special emphasis on learning-by-doing. It will deal with techniques of journalism and the reporting of news, not views.
204—Facts Behind the News
Thursday. 8:30-10:00 P.M.
Albert M. Ottenheimer
A critical discussion of the news behind the headlines. Analysis of fast moving events in national and international affairs.
205—Science and the Problems of Race
Tuesday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
Dorothy Anderson
Will help supply scientific understanding of backgrounds and contributions of various peoples. Deals with the origin of racial and religious prejudices, and gives facts to combat them.
209—Child Psychology
Tuesday, 8:30-10:00 P.M.
Dr. Sylvia Mac Coll
The job of being a mother—with practical application to everyday problems in rearing healthy, normal children and to the establishment of healthy parent-child relationships.
210—Science of Society
Monday, 1:00-3:00 P.M.
Monday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
Bert MacLeech
A scientific analysis of the basic forces at work in the world today. Covers a study of the origin and development of capitalism, the rise of modern imperialism and theory and practice of socialism.
214—World Politics
Friday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
John Deschbach
This course deals with the major trends in international relations, with special attention to relations between Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States.
215—Development of Socialist Thought II
Wednesday, 8:30-10:00 P.M.
Bert MacLeech
Course continues the winter’s study, but is open to new registrants. Covers major developments of Socialist thought since the turn of the 20th Century.
216—Political Economy I
Monday, 8:30-10:00 P.M.
Harry Fugl
Course deals with basic laws of capitalistic economy. Analyzes relationships of value and price, wages and profits; special emphasis on the role of organized labor’s effect on these relationships.
217—Political Economy II
Monday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
Harry Fugl
Continuation of Political Economy I; a study of the basic laws of capitalist economy.
219—Problems Facing the Negro People
Tuesday, 8:30-10:00 P.M.
Carl Brooks
Concerns present growing crisis in unemployment, housing, and discrimination of the Negro peoples; and how to combat policies which divide and weaken the community and country.
220—What is Philosophy
Thursday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
Prof. H. J. Phillips
Treats philosophy in terms of its relation to the principal needs and interests of men today. Get acquainted with some of the major thinkers of the past and present.
| Monday DAY CLASSES 1:00-3:00 P.M. 115—Labor as Consumer 120—Science of Society |
Tuesday DAY CLASSES 10:00 A.M.-4:00 P.M. Maritime Leadership Training School |
Wednesday DAY CLASSES 1:00-3:00 P.M. 320 Recreation as Leadership |
Thursday DAY CLASSES 12 Noon—Meet and Eat 10:00-12:00 P.M. 322—Crafts Workshop |
Friday DAY CLASSES 1:00-3:00 P.M. 106—History of American Labor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6:45-8:15 P.M. 120—Labors News Reporting 210—Science of Society 217—Political Economy II |
6:45-8:15 P.M. 205—Science and Problems of Race 312—Everyone Can Draw |
6:45-8:15 P.M. 108—Trade Union Organization Problems 323—Recreation as Union Leadership |
6:45-8:15 P.M. 118—Truth About Unions 220—What is Philosophy |
6:45-8:15 P.M 110—Labor and Political Action 214—World Politics 315—Labor Sings |
| 8:30-10:00 P.M. 104—Union Meeting Procedure 216—Political Economy I |
8:30-10:00 P.M. 209—Child Psychology 219—Problems of Negro People |
8:30-10:00 P.M. 109—Psychology for Unionists 215—Development of Socialist Thought II 304—Swing Your Pardner |
8:30-10:00 P.M. 204—Facts Behind the News |
8:30-10:00 P.M. 106—History of American Labor Junior Town Hall and Youth Canteen (Alternate weeks beginning April 11) |
| SATURDAY, 10-12—CHILDREN’S WORKSHOP SUNDAY NIGHT: FORUM NIGHT, 1:00-3:00 P.M. | ||||
304—Swing Your Pardner
Wednesday, 8:30-10:00 P.M.
Ruth MacLeech
The rollicking calls of folk and country dances—some with real labor flavor—will mean real fun for you. So get your pardner—or you’ll find one there—and join in. Individual sessions will be open to all comers.
312—Everyone Can Draw
Tuesday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
John Davis
A class for everyone who wants to learn to draw or paint and enjoy it. The course will cover the fundamentals of freehand drawing, cartoons, designs, etc.
315—Labor Sings
Friday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
Hazel Johnson
Helen Taverniti
If you can carry a tune, come and sing peoples songs—old and new. You do not need to read music or have choral training. Learn songs to use at union, club meetings.
320—Recreation as Leadership
Wednesday, 1:00-3:00 P.M.
Ruth MacLeech
How to plan and arrange recreation for children’s groups. A workshop in simple uses of music, puppetry, crafts. Source material available for planning programs around these skills.
321—Recreation as Union Leadership
Wednesday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
Ruth MacLeech
How recreation can be used to activate the union membership. Deals especially with simple uses of music, crafts and other recreational techniques. Source material available for unionists planning activities in these fields.
322—Craft Workshop
Thursday, 10:00 A.M.-12:00 P.M.
Trudi Hirshman
Simple projects for the home and trade union hall, using inexpensive and salvage materials. A chance to learn new skills and satisfactions while producing what interests you.
Meet and Eat Club (No Fee Charged)
Thursday, Noon to 2:00 P.M.
Edith Coley
Bring a bag lunch and enjoy two hours gaining latest information on Child Development, Home Management, Health and Family Relations. Speakers, specialists in their fields, and films featured. Coffee will be furnished. Child care will be provided. No fee charged.
See Other Side for Announcements on Children and Youth Work.
Mr. Tavenner. When were you at the University of Washington?
Mrs. Gustafson. 1940, the summer session.
Mr. Tavenner. I interrupted you. You were in the course of giving some further extension work.
Mrs. Gustafson. I have had extension courses; I just finished one a few weeks ago.
Mr. Tavenner. How have you been employed since 1940?
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mrs. Gustafson. In 1941 I taught kindergarten. Right after Pearl Harbor I went into the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. And when I left there I organized and supervised the war emergency nursery schools in Bremerton, the after-school-care program for the children of working mothers. Then I worked for the Kitsap County Welfare Department.
Mr. Tavenner. When was that, please? Approximately.
Mrs. Gustafson. My first child was born in 1945. So it was the year of 1945, maybe the latter part of 1944. I don’t recall exactly.
Then in the fall of 1947 I went back to teaching in the Bremerton public schools, and have been there ever since.
Mr. Tavenner. Mrs. Gustafson, do you have any knowledge of the operation of the Northwest Labor School in Seattle?
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mrs. Gustafson. I shall have to avail myself of the privilege granted me by the fifth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which protects me from giving testimony which might incriminate me.
Mr. Moulder. The question asked was: Do you possess any information or knowledge concerning the school referred to by counsel?
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mr. Moulder. He did not ask you for any specific information. He just asked you if you had such information, if you knew about the school. Do you refuse or decline to answer?
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mrs. Gustafson. I shall have to avail myself of the privilege of invoking the fifth amendment for the reasons given before.
Mr. Tavenner. Did you attend the Pacific Northwest Labor School at any time?
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mrs. Gustafson. I refuse to answer on the grounds previously given.
Mr. Tavenner. Quite apparently, Mr. Chairman, it would be a useless waste of time to ask any further questions regarding the operation of the school.
(The Spring 1947 Catalogue of the Pacific Northwest Labor School is hereby made a part of the transcript, and appears herewith.)
Mr. Tavenner. During the period of time that you have been engaged in teaching have you been a member of the American Federation of Teachers unions?
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mr. Tavenner. And I should add, for your information, that the American Federation of Teachers unions has never been cited as a communist front organization.
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mrs. Gustafson. Yes; I have been. 376
Mr. Tavenner. Over what period of time have you been a member?
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mrs. Gustafson. Off and on since I became eligible in 1937, whenever I was in the public schools.
Mr. Tavenner. The investigation which this committee has conducted within the past few years has developed information in several different parts of the country, and I refer particularly to New York, to Harvard University, to the general area of Los Angeles, and, I believe, also in Michigan, that the Communist Party made a very strong effort to get in a position to control the activities of the teachers unions affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers. Do you have any knowledge as to whether or not the Communist Party made an effort to infiltrate the American Federation of Teachers union here?
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mr. Tavenner. I think I should say, and it may be of some help to you in answering the question, that I have no information of any Communist Party activities within the American Federation of Teachers union here. But I want to know whether there were.
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mrs. Gustafson. My counsel advises me that I must say “No.” I am sorry but I have to answer.
Mr. Tavenner. And what is your answer?
Mrs. Gustafson. My answer is “No.”
Mr. Tavenner. That you do not have any such knowledge?
Mrs. Gustafson. Absolutely not.
Mr. Tavenner. Have you held any office or position in the American Federation of Teachers unions?
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mrs. Gustafson. Yes. I held the office of treasurer.
Mr. Tavenner. Over what period of time?
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mrs. Gustafson. I think it was a portion of 1948 and a good share of 1949.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party at any time during the years 1948 and 1949?
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mrs. Gustafson. No; I was not.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party at any time while you were a member of the American Federation of Teachers unions?
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mrs. Gustafson. I shall have to invoke the fifth amendment, for the reasons previously given.
Mr. Tavenner. Are you a member of the Communist Party now?
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mrs. Gustafson. No.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party in 1947?
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mrs. Gustafson. I shall have to invoke the fifth amendment to the Constitution, for the reasons previously given. 377
Mr. Tavenner. According to your testimony, you were at the University of Washington for 1 year in 1940.
Mrs. Gustafson. I beg your pardon. That was the summer session.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party at that time?
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mrs. Gustafson. I shall have to invoke the fifth amendment for the reasons previously given.
Mr. Tavenner. Were Communist Party meetings held at any time in your home during the year 1947?
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mrs. Gustafson. I shall have to invoke the fifth amendment, for the reasons previously given.
Mr. Tavenner. Were you at any time a member of the Victory Club of the Communist Party in Bremerton?
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mrs. Gustafson. I shall have to invoke, for the reasons previously given.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the witness refuses to answer as to the period 1940-47, it is hardly necessary to ask any further questions. So that is all I have.
Mr. Moulder. Mr. Velde?
Mr. Velde. Do you intend to invoke the fifth amendment on any question we might ask you touching upon your activities as a member of the Communist Party?
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mrs. Gustafson. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds previously given.
Mr. Velde. It is obvious to me that we cannot get any information whatsoever from this witness. So I have nothing further to ask.
Mr. Moulder. Would you answer a question concerning any information or knowledge you may have of Communist Party or subversive activities in which you yourself were in no way whatsoever personally connected? If you had such knowledge and information, would you answer the question concerning such information or knowledge?
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mrs. Gustafson. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I have to invoke the fifth amendment, for the reasons previously given.
Mr. Moulder. I want to make myself clear, that I am not proposing to ask you questions concerning any matter or any fact which would tend to incriminate you personally.
I say would you answer any question concerning any fact or information you may have concerning subversive, communistic, or un-American activities which you yourself were not related to, but which you have knowledge of concerning someone else. Would you answer such a question?
(The witness confers with her counsel.)
Mrs. Gustafson. I am sorry, sir, but I shall have to invoke the fifth amendment.
Mr. Moulder. You are excused as a witness.
The committee will stand in recess until 1:30.
(Whereupon, at 12:03 p. m., the subcommittee was recessed, to be reconvened at 1:30 p. m., this same day. Remainder of this hearing is printed in pt. 2 of this series.)
1 Also known as Rapport, Morris.
Page 298, “The First Objective was approached mainly from the class in Theory which dealt with 1. The Materialist Conception of History, 2. Dialectics, 2. Surplus Value, 3. The Class Struggle, 4. Orientation in Organization, 5. Proletarian, 6. Discipline as Social Control.” changed to read: “The First Objective was approached mainly from the class in Theory which dealt with 1. The Materialist Conception of History, 2. Dialectics, 3. Surplus Value, 4. The Class Struggle, 5. Orientation in Organization, 6. Proletarian, 7. Discipline as Social Control.”
Obvious printer errors corrected silently.
Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.