  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. TESTIMONY OF EUGENE VICTOR DENNETT, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, KENNETH A. MacDONALD—ResumedMr. 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 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 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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 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. 15. QUESTIONS OF COMMUNICATIONSThe 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. 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 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 COMMITTEEEvery 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 17. MOBILIZATION OF THE FORCES OF FACTORY CELLSWe 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, 18. STREET CELLSThe 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 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 GROUPSThe 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 20. WORK OF THE FACTORY CELLS IN THE ENTERPRISESWhen 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. 21. THE SHOP CELLThe 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 ORGANIZATIONSMass 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 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:
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. 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. 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. 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.
Mr. Tavenner. I would like to read into the record one or two sentences from this advertisement:
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. 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. 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. Dennett Exhibit No. 3-A
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. 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? 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? Dennett Exhibit No. 4 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. TESTIMONY OF OIVA R. HALONEN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, JAY G. SYKESMr. 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. 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.) 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? (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:
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.) 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 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. 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. TESTIMONY OF EUGENE FRANK ROBEL, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, JAY G. SYKESMr. 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. 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.) 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.ofL.? (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.ofL. 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:
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:
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. STATEMENT OF JAY G. SYKESMr. 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:
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. 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. TESTIMONY OF HAROLD JOHNSTON, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, JAY C. SYKESMr. 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? 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.ofL.? (The witness confers with his counsel.) 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.ofL.? 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:
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? 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. 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. TESTIMONY OF JACK LAWRIE, JR., ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, C.T. HATTENMr. 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? (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 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. 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.) 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.) 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. TESTIMONY OF EDWARD BROOK CARMICHAEL, JR., ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, SARAH H. LESSERMr. 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. 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. 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.) 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? (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. TESTIMONY OF EDWIN A. CARLSON, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, JAY G. SYKESMr. 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.ofL.? (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.
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. 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. TESTIMONY OF EDMUND D. KROENER, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, C. CALVERT KNUDSENMr. 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.ofL.? 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. 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? 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:
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. 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.) |
|
