Produced by Richard Hulse, Bryan Ness, Wayne Hammond and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive/American
Libraries.)









  INVESTIGATION OF COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES
  IN THE SEATTLE, WASH., AREA--Part 1


  HEARINGS
  BEFORE THE
  COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES
  HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
  EIGHTY-FOURTH CONGRESS
  FIRST SESSION

  MARCH 17 AND 18, 1955

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Un-American Activities

  (Index in part 3 of these hearings)

  [Illustration]

  UNITED STATES
  GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
  62222      WASHINGTON: 1955


  COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES

  UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

            FRANCIS E. WALTER, Pennsylvania, _Chairman_
  MORGAN M. MOULDER, Missouri       HAROLD H. VELDE, Illinois
  CLYDE DOYLE, California           BERNARD W. KEARNEY, New York
  JAMES B. FRAZIER, JR., Tennessee  DONALD L. JACKSON, California
  EDWIN E. WILLIS, Louisiana        GORDON H. SCHERER, Ohio
                 THOMAS W. BEALE, Sr., _Chief Clerk_




CONTENTS


  March 17, 1955: Testimony of--                                  Page

      Eugene Victor Dennett                                        249

    Afternoon session:

      Eugene Victor Dennett (resumed)                              274

      Oiva R. Halonen                                              302

      Eugene Frank Robel                                           309

      Harold Johnston                                              313

      John (Jack) Lawrie, Jr.                                      317

      Edward Brook Carmichael, Jr.                                 322

      Edwin A. Carlson                                             327

      Edmund D. Kroener                                            330

  March 18, 1955: Testimony of--

      Eugene Victor Dennett (resumed)                              335

      Harold Johnston (resumed)                                    363

      Edwin A. Carlson (resumed)                                   365

      Margaret Elizabeth Gustafson                                 374

(Testimony of Robert Krahl, Robert Miller, Eugene V. Dennett, Lawrence
Earl George, and Harriett Pierce, also heard on March 18, 1955, is
printed in pt. 2 of this series.)




PUBLIC LAW 601, 79TH CONGRESS


The legislation under which the House Committee on Un-American
Activities operates is Public Law 601, 79th Congress [1946], chapter
753, 2d session, which provides:

    _Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    United States of America in Congress assembled_, * * *


PART 2--RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

RULE X

SEC. 121. STANDING COMMITTEES

       *       *       *       *       *

17. Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine members.


RULE XI

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES

       *       *       *       *       *

(q) (1) Committee on Un-American Activities.

(A) Un-American activities.

(2) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by
subcommittee, is authorized to make from time to time investigations
of (i) the extent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda
activities in the United States, (ii) the diffusion within the United
States of subversive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from
foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks the principle of
the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and (iii)
all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any
necessary remedial legislation.

The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or
to the Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results
of any such investigation, together with such recommendations as it
deems advisable.

For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American
Activities, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and
act at such times and places within the United States, whether or
not the House is sitting, has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold
such hearings, to require the attendance of such witnesses and the
production of such books, papers, and documents, and to take such
testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under the
signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by
any member designated by any such chairman, and may be served by any
person designated by any such chairman or member.


RULES ADOPTED BY THE 84TH CONGRESS

House Resolution 5, January 5, 1955

       *       *       *       *       *


RULE X


STANDING COMMITTEES

    1. There shall be elected by the House, at the commencement of
    each Congress, the following standing committees:

           *       *       *       *       *

    (q) Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine
    members.

       *       *       *       *       *


RULE XI

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES

       *       *       *       *       *

    17. Committee on Un-American Activities.

    (a) Un-American activities.

    (b) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or
    by subcommittee, is authorized to make from time to time,
    investigations of (i) the extent, character, and objects of
    un-American propaganda activities in the United States, (ii) the
    diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American
    propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of
    a domestic origin and attacks the principle of the form of
    government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and (iii) all other
    questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any
    necessary remedial legislation.

    The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House
    (or to the Clerk of the House if the House is not in session)
    the results of any such investigation, together with such
    recommendations as it deems advisable.

    For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on
    Un-American Activities, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized
    to sit and act at such times and places within the United
    States, whether or not the House is sitting, has recessed, or
    has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance
    of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and
    documents, and to take such testimony, as it deems necessary.
    Subpenas may be issued under the signature of the chairman of the
    committee or any subcommittee, or by any member designated by such
    chairman, and may be served by any person designated by any such
    chairman or member.




INVESTIGATION OF COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN THE SEATTLE, WASH., AREA--Part
I


THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 1955

  UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
  SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
  COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES,
  _Seattle, Wash._

PUBLIC HEARING

A subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met, pursuant
to call, at 9:30 a. m., in room 402, County-City Building, Seattle,
Wash., Hon. Morgan M. Moulder (chairman) presiding.

Committee members present: Representatives Morgan M. Moulder (chairman)
and Harold H. Velde.

Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel, and William A.
Wheeler, staff investigator.

Mr. MOULDER. The subcommittee will be in order.

Let the record show that the Hon. Francis E. Walter, chairman of the
Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives
of the Congress, pursuant to the provisions of law creating this
committee, appointed Hon. Clyde Doyle of California, Hon. Harold H.
Velde of Illinois, with myself, Morgan M. Moulder of Missouri as
chairman, a subcommittee to conduct hearings in Seattle, Wash.

The membership of the subcommittee, with the exception of Mr. Doyle,
is present. Mr. Doyle has asked that I express his regret that a
legislative assignment by the Speaker of the House makes it impossible
for him to leave Washington at this time.

Following an extensive investigation by the staff, the Committee on
Un-American Activities held hearings here during June 1954, and also
in Portland during that same period. These hearings were productive of
outstanding results in that the committee was furnished by numerous
witnesses with facts reflecting the extent of Communist Party
activities in the great Pacific Northwest, and the infiltration methods
used in this area by the Communist Party.

Mrs. Barbara Hartle will be remembered as a witness whose knowledge of
the Communist movement in the Pacific Northwest was very extensive, and
the careful and intelligent consideration she gave to her testimony has
been excelled by few if any other witnesses which this committee has
heard.

In the time allotted for that hearing the committee could not hear all
the witnesses who had been summoned, and could not hear fully some of
the witnesses who testified. The committee desires at this time to
continue with the hearings begun in June of 1954, last year.

Before calling the first witness I desire to recognize the Hon.
Charles P. Moriarty, United States attorney for the Western District
of Washington, whose office has rendered outstanding service to
the Congress of the United States in matters of importance to this
committee which have been referred by the Congress to him.

I also desire to extend the committee’s thanks to Mayor Pomeroy and the
board of county commissioners who made it possible for us to use this
room as a hearing room, United States Marshal William B. Parsons, also
Sheriff Tim McCullough and Chief of Police H. J. Lawrence, and members
of their respective staffs for their great assistance to this committee.

I also desire to announce at this time--and I trust that it will
not be necessary to repeat it at any time during the course of the
hearing--that a disturbance of any kind or audible comment on the part
of persons other than witnesses during the course of the testimony,
whether favorable or unfavorable to the committee or any witness
appearing before it, will not be tolerated by the committee. For any
infraction of this rule the offender will be ejected from the hearing
room.

I also wish to announce that Congressman Velde and I have conferred
with respect to the use of cameras and the taking of pictures in the
hearing room. Each House of the Congress has its own rules. The rules
of the House prohibit the use of cameras, the taking of pictures and
televising proceedings of the Congress in the House while it is in
session. The Speaker has ruled that that applies to committee hearings
wherever they may be held in any part of the United States. However,
Congressman Velde and I have decided that it would not be in conflict
with the ruling and the interpretation placed upon the rules by the
Speaker of the House to permit photographs to be taken at any time in
the hearing room except when a witness is testifying, and in the course
of his testimony.

Therefore, photographs will be permitted to be taken of the witness
while he is being sworn in and after that. While he is testifying no
additional photographs will be permitted to be taken.

Mr. VELDE. I certainly want to say, Mr. Moulder, that I concur
with you in the statement you have just made about the matter of taking
photographs. However, I do feel that we should also protect the freedom
of the press as much as possible, instead of merely protecting the
so-called rights of some of the witnesses who will appear here.

It is very important in my opinion, and I think the Chair will concur
with me in this, that we do give the public, especially in the great
Northwest area of our country, the benefit of all the information we
are able to obtain. And I do feel that within the rules of the House of
Representatives we should do everything we can to give that information
to the public here in Seattle.

I also want to say that it is great to be back here. I enjoyed very
much being here last June for at least 3 days, as chairman of the full
committee at that time.

Mr. MOULDER. I am in complete agreement with you as to the
committee televising and giving the public all information possible as
to those who have proved to be active in the Communist Party. However,
the rules of the House and the ruling of the Speaker of the House
prohibit the televising of the hearings we are going to hold today.

Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Counsel?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes.

Mr. MOULDER. Call your first witness.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Eugene V. Dennett, please come forward.

Mr. MOULDER. Hold up your right hand.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you are about to give
before this committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you, God?

Mr. DENNETT. I do.




TESTIMONY OF EUGENE VICTOR DENNETT, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, KENNETH
A. MacDONALD


Mr. TAVENNER. What is your name, please, sir?

Mr. DENNETT. Eugene Victor Dennett.

Mr. TAVENNER. Are you accompanied by counsel, Mr. Dennett?

Mr. DENNETT. I am, sir.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will counsel please identify himself for the
record.

Mr. MACDONALD. Kenneth A. MacDonald, attorney at law, of
Seattle, Wash.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Dennett, you were subpenaed as a witness
before this committee in June of 1954, and you were called on the first
day of that hearing, which was June 14.

Mr. DENNETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAVENNER. At that time you stated some special
considerations you had in mind under which you felt that you desired
not to testify and, as a result, you refused to testify on the ground
of the fifth amendment.

Mr. DENNETT. Correct.

Mr. TAVENNER. Later on during the hearings, in fact on the
next to the last day of the hearings, you and your counsel came to me
and stated that after further considering the matter, you desired to
appear as a witness.

Is that correct?

Mr. DENNETT. That is correct.

Mr. TAVENNER. As a result of that you were again called before
the committee.

Mr. DENNETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAVENNER. The record of the hearing at that time reflects
that neither you nor your counsel was approached by any member of the
committee or the staff, or any representative of either the committee
or the staff in an effort to get you to change your testimony.

Mr. DENNETT. That is absolutely correct.

Mr. TAVENNER. That is true, is it not?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAVENNER. As a result of that the committee proceeded to
ask you a few questions. However, the record also shows that counsel
was of the opinion that your knowledge of Communist Party activities
in the Northwest was so extensive that at that late point in the
hearing it would be impractical to try to take your testimony unless
the committee would cancel the rest of its hearings, and there were
a number of witnesses waiting to be heard at that time. Consequently
the committee decided that it would have to interrogate you at another
time. So you are here this morning for that purpose.

Mr. DENNETT. That is correct, sir. As a result of that
decision I conferred with the then subcommittee chairman--who was at
that time Mr. Jackson--following that session, and Mr. Jackson was
unable to advise me when I might be called again. He referred me to Mr.
Wheeler. I asked Mr. Wheeler at that time when I might be called again.
I anticipated some problem of preparation. I wanted to look at some of
my old material and refresh my knowledge. But Mr. Wheeler was unable to
give me any information at that time.

Later, on January 28, I wrote to the new chairman of the committee
asking him what I might expect from the committee by way of further
interrogation. He did not reply directly. Instead, later I received
a letter from Mr. Wheeler advising that they expected to hold the
hearings in June.

The day after that I received another letter advising that they were
going to hold the hearings at this date. So I still was unable to do
the preparation that I wanted to do.

Mr. TAVENNER. You have a great wealth of Communist Party
literature and documents in your possession, do you not?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, I saved them over a period of 20 years. I
have quite a few.

Mr. TAVENNER. In the limited time that we have here this week,
have you made some of that material available to the staff?

Mr. DENNETT. That is correct.

When Mr. Wheeler came to town he left word in his letter to me that he
wanted to reach me at a certain time. I called the hotel and saw him,
asked him what he wanted to know. He wasn’t too certain what he wanted
specifically, but he wanted to know what I knew.

So I said, “Well, the simplest way to find that out is to come up to my
house, and you can look at everything I have got.” So Mr. Wheeler came
out to my house and he looked at everything I had.

Mr. TAVENNER. During the course of the hearing in June 1954
you were asked a number of questions regarding your background. But the
present chairman of the subcommittee was not present with the committee
on that occasion, and I think it would be well to begin as if we had
taken no testimony whatever.

Will you tell the committee, please, when and where you were born?

Mr. DENNETT. I was born in Revere, Mass., April 26, 1908.

Mr. TAVENNER. Where do you now reside?

Mr. DENNETT. 7324 34th Avenue SW., Seattle 6, Wash.

Mr. TAVENNER. When did you move to the general area of
Seattle, or may I say to the State of Washington?

Mr. DENNETT. In 1932.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you give the committee, please, a brief
outline of your formal educational training?

Mr. DENNETT. I graduated from high school in Rickreall, Oreg.
I was out of school a year, unable to raise the finances to go on to
college. The second year I made arrangements to finance going to normal
school by carrying a paper route.

I graduated from the Oregon Normal School in 1928, and started teaching
school. That was a 2-year college at that time, or 2-year normal
school. It has since been changed to a college of education, and it is
a 4-year school now. That was at Monmouth, Oreg.

After receiving my teaching certificate and starting to teach, I
carried on extension work with the University of Oregon, and later,
at a later year, I took a couple more quarters of advanced work at
the University of Oregon in the School of Education, Sociology, and
Philosophy. I did not graduate.

Mr. TAVENNER. When did you complete your work at the
university?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, the work that I took, which was not
sufficient for a degree or graduation, ended in 1931.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, briefly,
what your employment record has been since that time.

Mr. DENNETT. Well, after I left teaching I was unemployed for
quite a long period of time. The great depression had started, and I
became active in the unemployed work.

Later on when the CCC’s were organized, that is, the Civilian
Conservation Corps, since I was in a soup line here in Seattle and saw
an announcement that it was possible for us to leave the soup line and
go out in the woods in the CCC’s, I chose to do so, and spent a year
there, about 15 months, in fact.

When I came out of the CCC’s one of the fellows whom I had worked
with in the CCC shanghaied me onto a boat here in the sound. And,
unbelievable as it may sound, I actually was shanghaied to work on
the waterfront, working on one of the Puget Sound freight boats. I
didn’t know a thing about it. And that is how I got started, a fellow
just shoved me on and fed me, and the boat pulled away from the dock
without my knowing what was going on. Then I got started working in the
waterfront work and continued.

Mr. TAVENNER. What year was that?

Mr. DENNETT. 1935. I continued at that work off and on
practically until the beginning of the Second World War, doing various
kinds of work, deckhand and freight handling, and some longshore work.
I also worked on some of the tugboats and some of the barges.

Mr. TAVENNER. You say that type of employment continued until
the war. Were you a member of our Armed Forces?

Mr. DENNETT. I was. There was an intervening period there,
however. I was screened off the waterfront in 1942. After being
screened off the waterfront in 1942 I was searching for work again, and
I saw a big advertisement in the paper that Bethlehem Steel Co. was
hiring everybody and anybody. So I went out there to work.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee what you mean by
screened off the waterfront? Briefly, not in detail.

Mr. DENNETT. There was an intelligence unit of the Army which
seemed to have information which convinced them that I was some sort
of a dangerous person, and they were convinced that I should not be
permitted to work on the waterfront. So my passes were lifted and I was
denied opportunity to do any further work longshoring or work anywhere
on the waterfront. By the way, according to my information, I am the
only one who never did get his pass back that was lifted at that time.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did the lifting of your pass have anything to do
with Communist Party activities on your part?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, I was asked to go down to the security
office at that time. It was in charge of a Mr. John J. Sullivan, I
believe. And he put it to me rather bluntly. He said, “We think that
you are still a Communist. And so we just don’t think we should have
Communists on the waterfront. That is why we are lifting your pass.”

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you continue with your narrative of
employment?

Mr. DENNETT. I went to work at Bethlehem Steel Co.

Mr. TAVENNER. What year was that?

Mr. DENNETT. In 1942, October 19.

And after being employed there for some little time I was classified
I-A in the draft. I didn’t know until after it was all over, but
the company evidently thought enough of my work to get at least two
deferments for me unbeknownst to myself. You remember there was
something of a manpower shortage at that time.

I was finally inducted into service on the 27th of August 1943, took my
3-week furlough which was permitted to married men at that time, and
reported to the service. I think it was the 17th of September of 1943,
reported for active duty.

I remained in the service until, I think it was about October 10 of
1945, at which time I received an honorable discharge. But I was in
somewhat broken health. So upon my return to Seattle I had to take
some little time to recuperate, and spent a little time at the naval
hospital which was conducted by the Navy at that time. It is now known
as Firlands.

By the time I got out of the hospital the steelworkers were in their
famous 1946 strike. So I couldn’t return to work until the strike was
over. I did, however, return to work shortly after the strike was over.
I think it was in April of 1946. And I have been working continuously
there ever since.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee whether or not you
were a member of the Communist Party at the time that your pass was
lifted?

Mr. DENNETT. I was.

Mr. TAVENNER. How long had you been a member?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, originally I joined the Communist Party in
1931.

Mr. TAVENNER. 1931?

Mr. DENNETT. I was in active membership in the Communist Party
until the time I went into the Civilian Conservation Corps. During
the year I was in the CCC I was not an active member of the Communist
Party. As a matter of fact, I was under some cloud. The leadership of
the party at that time disapproved of some of my activities and some of
my policies, and I certainly disapproved of some of theirs. It was sort
of a mutual disagreement. And they were satisfied to leave me alone
while I was in the CCC, and I was satisfied that they did.

However, upon my return from the CCC, as soon as I went to work on
the waterfront, the conditions under which we were working at that
time were so repulsive that it was no wonder that the workers there
were seriously contemplating strike action. With my prior knowledge
about trade unions and some knowledge of political activity, it was
only natural that I should assume a position of leadership among those
workers. And when the strike was called I was elected to leadership in
that strike committee. It was at that moment that the Communist Party
found it very convenient to make new approaches to me and to try to
enlist my efforts in their behalf. I was willing and I did cooperate
and I became a member again in good standing.

Mr. TAVENNER. What date was that?

Mr. DENNETT. 1935.

Mr. TAVENNER. I think it may be well at this point, before I
ask you any detail about your knowledge of Communist Party activities,
as a matter of general background for the committee, you should state
briefly the various positions you have held in the Communist Party, and
the opportunity you have had to know of Communist Party activities.

Mr. DENNETT. I have held nearly all the organizational
positions in the lower ranks of the party. That is, I have been a
branch organizer, sometimes called branch, sometimes called unit. I
have been an educational director in a branch, I have been a section
organizer, I have been a fraction secretary, I have been a district
agitprop director. That is a combination of two words--agitation and
propaganda. I doubt that the term is used very much any more. It would
be comparable to educational work now.

I have been a member of the district bureau of the Communist Party. I
was a member of the secretariat of the Communist Party in district 12
on 2 different occasions. The secretariat is a group of perhaps 2 or 3
persons who are responsible for the daily activities of the Communist
Party and the way in which the various branches and sections are
carrying out the Communist Party policy program. I think that covers it.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the last position you held in the
Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. I think the last position was that of an
educational director in a branch.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the date?

Mr. DENNETT. I think that would be in 1946 or 1947.

Mr. TAVENNER. Are you a member of the Communist Party now?

Mr. DENNETT. I am not.

Mr. TAVENNER. Over what period of time were you an active
member in the Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. With the 2 exceptions of the CCC and the term of
service in the Army, from 1931 to 1947.

Mr. TAVENNER. I believe in 1947 you were expelled from the
Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. That is correct.

Mr. TAVENNER. With that general background I would like to go
back, Mr. Dennett, to the inception of your membership in the Communist
Party.

You have said that that was in 1931. And the committee would be
interested to learn what the circumstances were under which you
became a member of the Communist Party. By that I mean why you joined
the Communist Party as well as the mechanics that were used in your
becoming a member.

Mr. DENNETT. Well, I would remind the committee and those who
have read the record of a statement I made at the other hearing. I
was named after Eugene V. Debs. I am very proud of that. It should be
remembered that Eugene V. Debs was the leading Socialist in the United
States of America for a great many years.

I was virtually born into the Socialist movement. My parents admired
Debs very much, and my father was an active leading Socialist.
Therefore, I had a great deal of knowledge of the Socialist movement
as a child. In fact, I had the honor of appearing on the same platform
with Eugene V. Debs in Old Peoples Hall in Boston. He was making a
political speech. I had a great admiration for the man and I felt
greatly honored to be named after him.

In the period following the First World War after my mother’s death,
my father and I moved to the farm in the West. That was in 1919.
Those who may have some knowledge of the history of that period will
remember that following the First World War there was a depression in
agriculture. Those who farmed suffered a continuing crisis, and we were
trying to farm.

So we were confronted daily with the problem of how in the world do you
get out of a depression. And, frankly, we did not find any solution to
it.

I went on to school being firmly convinced, as a result of what I
had seen as a child, having seen workers defeated time after time in
strikes and in disputes, I became thoroughly convinced that the most
priceless thing that anyone could obtain would be a full and complete
education. And I hoped to receive one. I don’t think I ever received as
much as I wanted.

Finally, after obtaining my teaching certificate and beginning to
teach--you remember the year was 1928. And in 1929 the stock market
crashed. And it wasn’t very long before the effects of that economic
interruption began to be felt throughout the land. And among the first
to feel it were the teachers, at least in the State of Oregon with
which I was then familiar.

The teachers were required to accept great discounts in order to cash
their warrants--15, 20, and in some cases 25 percent discounts were
taken by the banks to cash the teachers’ warrants. And teachers were
generally receiving at that time about $100 per month.

I was fortunate. I was teaching in a district which was a rather
wealthy district, and they were not on a warrant basis.

But I began to have great apprehension because most of the teachers I
knew were suffering this way. And this was in 1931.

Of course, I had been concerned about economic problems over most of my
life. And when I was a high school boy I read Marx’s Das Kapital, and I
was somewhat acquainted with his theory of economics. And I was quite
disturbed at this economic crash which began with the stock market
crash of 1929.

So I was looking for some organization which might give some kind of
an answer. In fact, I think that I told some of my friends that I was
actually looking for the Communist Party for 2 years before I found it.

In 1931 my father sent me a notice of a Civil Rights Conference to be
held in Portland, Oreg. This conference was being called to organize a
defense for some people in Portland who had been accused of violating
the criminal syndicalism law in the State of Oregon. They were
alleged to be Communists. Some of them I later learned actually were
Communists. My father was unable to attend the conference. So he asked
me to go. I went. There I met the first Communists. The first one that
I met was Mr. Fred Walker, and a person by the name of Paul Munter.

Mr. MOULDER. May I interrupt? Is that the Civil Rights
Congress?

Mr. DENNETT. It wasn’t a congress, it was a conference.

Mr. MOULDER. Civil Rights Conference?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. MOULDER. Was it an organization?

Mr. DENNETT. No. It was certainly a temporary organization for
that particular case.

Mr. MOULDER. Who was the leadership of that?

Mr. DENNETT. It was organized under the auspices of the
International Labor Defense, better known as the ILD.

And they had their attorney at this conference who gave an explanation
of the case, an explanation of the law, and outlined the program of the
International Labor Defense for the purpose of trying to win that case.

I was very much impressed by his presentation. Later on, years later,
I was still more impressed when I learned that he actually had met
with success, because after the persons who were charged then had been
convicted he appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court, and
the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case
of Dirk De Jonge which held that the criminal syndicalism statute in
the State of Oregon was invalid. And the decision was reversed. Those
convictions were reversed that way.

So you see that my interest and introduction was of a twofold
character: One, I was impressed with the economic problems that were
not being solved. I was also impressed with what appeared to me to be
an invasion of the civil rights of individuals to think and act as they
pleased in political matters.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you state the first person you knew as a
Communist was a man by the name of Walker?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes, Fred Walker.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you know whether Mr. Fred Walker held any
position in the Communist Party at that time?

Mr. DENNETT. At that time he was the section organizer of the
Communist Party in Portland, Oreg.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee whether or not, as a
result of your attendance at that conference and your discussions with
Mr. Fred Walker, you became a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. It was not immediate, but it was soon after that
that I became a member of the Communist Party. Actually I wanted to
become a member of the Communist Party, and they were a little bit
fearful that since I was a teacher that maybe there was some kind of
bourgeois corruption there that they were afraid of. And they insisted
that if I wanted to join the ranks of the Communist Party it would be
necessary for me to take a little schooling.

So they offered me an opportunity to attend some classes which they had
organized, classes in labor history, classes in analyzing the role and
functions of the Communist Party? And they had other classes. I do not
recall exactly what they were. But these 2 were the 2 main groups.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was this a recognized school of the Communist
Party or what was it?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, it was a school that was organized by the
section in Portland under Fred Walker’s leadership. It had the approval
of the district leadership.

Mr. TAVENNER. Of the Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. And they were following the outlines which were
sent out by the Workers School of New York, which was the center of the
Communist Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was it unquestionably a Communist Party function
that was being performed?

Mr. DENNETT. Very distinctly so. We used 2 important
textbooks, 1 by Bimba, and 1 by Forner, in those schools. Both of them
on labor history.

Mr. TAVENNER. Who were the teachers in that school?

Mr. DENNETT. Fred Walker taught some of them. Munter taught
some of them.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you know his first name?

Mr. DENNETT. Paul Munter, I believe.

And then there was another fellow by the name of Rodney. His last name
was Rodney, R-o-d-n-e-y.

My recollection of him is due to the fact that at that time he was some
kind of under secretary or employed by the YMCA in Portland. I did not
then know him as a member of the Communist Party either. I heard later
that he did join the Communist Party. But at the moment or at the time
that he was teaching this class in labor history I did not understand
him to be a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was your attendance at this school prior to your
becoming a member or after you had become a member?

Mr. DENNETT. It was prior; it was before joining.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were there others in this school besides
yourself?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. How many?

Mr. DENNETT. My recollection is between 15 and 20.

Mr. TAVENNER. Due to the fact that you have told us that you,
yourself were not a member at that time, is it possible that others in
attendance likewise were in a similar category and not actual members
of the Communist Party at that time?

Mr. DENNETT. I am quite sure that was true, that most of them
who attended that class were not members of the Communist Party, but
they were curious, and their curiosity had been aroused because of what
appeared to all of us was an attempt at oppression by the use of the
criminal syndicalism statute against unemployed veterans and unemployed
workers and other people, and particularly some foreign-born people.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, to what
extent did this training that you had in this particular school prepare
you for the role you later played in the Communist Party? Did it amount
to anything? Was the instruction effective? Did it serve to instill the
spirit of the Communist Party in you?

Mr. DENNETT. I certainly felt that it did. As a matter of
fact, I was one of those teachers who considered that most of our
teaching methods were quite inappropriate for the best benefit to the
child. I felt that what is characterized as the lock-step system of
education is inadequate to our modern needs. And I finally despaired of
ever hoping to be able to do what I felt should be done as a teacher.

Mr. MOULDER. Just what do you refer to there? I mean in what
respect?

Mr. DENNETT. The rigidity with which big school systems are
straitjacketed. Courses of study are laid out in an ironclad fashion,
and there is no opportunity for teachers to attempt to satisfy the
needs or the growing needs of the child.

Now remember this was in 1932. There have been a great many changes
in most of the school systems since then. And while I was personally
not under that kind of restraint, I knew many teachers in the city of
Portland who felt that they were at that time. And I was an active
member of the Classroom Teachers Association in Portland--or not in
Portland, but in the State of Oregon.

We were always concerned with this problem, and we felt that it was
very difficult, almost hopeless to expect to make the improvement which
needed to be made.

The Communists introduced me to some of the writings of Frederick
Engels and Nicolai Lenin, and I found these writings to be very
illuminating. I found them to throw a great deal of light on the
development of economic and political crises. And they intrigued me
by showing me a set of what is known as the Lenin library. I believe
there were about 8 or 10 volumes of it published at that time. And
I purchased the whole business. I think it cost me about $15. And I
proceeded to read voraciously. I read everything there was in it, and
I was very much impressed by the analysis, the penetrating analysis
which Lenin made of all of the various political movements that existed
way back at the turn of the century in 1900. All these things caused
me to feel that there was more here than the average person realized,
and I hoped that I was finding the solution to the problems which beset
mankind.

Mr. TAVENNER. Inasmuch as all persons in attendance were not
members of the Communist Party, I am not going to ask you to give me
the names of all who participated in that school. But I will ask you to
give us the names of any of those who participated in that school who
later became functionaries in the Communist Party during the period of
time that you were a member.

Mr. DENNETT. That is an awfully long time ago, and I did not
keep any record of those persons.

Frankly, outside of Fred Walker and Paul Munter and this fellow Rodney,
I do not recall distinctly enough to be certain in my own mind. I think
that a couple of persons attended there whose names would come up at
a later period. But I couldn’t be certain of identifying them in that
period.

Mr. TAVENNER. How long did you attend this course of training?

Mr. DENNETT. I think it was about 3 months.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was it an intensive training course?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes; it was. I believe the classes were at least
twice a week, and there was a great deal of reading and study to be
done with it. And they found that I was a ready and willing subject. So
they assigned reports to me very frequently. And I made many of them.

Mr. TAVENNER. How soon after the completion of that work, or
was it during the period of that course of training that you became a
member of the Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. It was during that time. I think within 6 weeks
after I started they satisfied themselves that I was sincerely trying
to be a good Communist.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, what
mechanics were used for bringing you into the party?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, at that time the party was what is
generally referred to as underground. They were very much afraid of
their own existence and their own identity. And they were particularly
fearful of agents of the police entering their ranks. And they viewed
all persons with great suspicion, especially these foreign-born
workers. And they used to spend a great deal of time talking with
me, inquiring into every phase of my life and my background and my
existence, giving me in their own way the third degree to determine
whether or not I was trustworthy and whether or not I was worth being a
member of the ranks.

Mr. TAVENNER. Now as you look back upon it, do you think that
that careful study of your past and your capabilities was rather in the
way of choosing you for future leadership in the party as distinguished
from membership in the Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. No. I think that so far as they were concerned,
they looked upon all persons entering the party as equals. That is,
they did not predetermine who was going to be a leader and who wasn’t
going to be a leader. But they were determined to work each new member
to the utmost until they got the most out of each one that they could.
And in my case I responded by studying very intensely, and they had
great hopes that I would develop into the kind of leader which they
needed.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you proceed, please, to tell us about your
induction into the Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. Some of that is rather indistinct at this period.
There are only snatches of it that are vivid.

One thing that is quite vivid is one of the foreign-born workers
warning me that they had to deal rather vigorously with traitors. That
seemed to be their chief obsession.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you mean traitors to the cause of communism?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes. That seemed to be their chief concern.

Mr. MOULDER. In what period of time are we now?

Mr. DENNETT. That is still in 1931.

Finally they told me that my name had been submitted to the party as
a candidate for membership. And after--I think it was about a month
delay--they informed me that the membership had passed upon my name,
and that I had been accepted. And they invited me to party meetings.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you become a member under your own name or
were you given a pseudonym?

Mr. DENNETT. I was given what is known as a party name. All
the party records and documents were kept in that name. However, it
always seemed rather ridiculous to me because alongside of the party
name there was always my real name anyway.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was your party name?

Mr. DENNETT. Victor Haines, H-a-i-n-e-s.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you have anything to do with the selection
of it, or was it selected for you?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes; I had something to do with selecting it.
When they told me that I had to choose a party name I asked for help
on it, and the only help they could offer was to use the name of J. P.
Morgan or John D. Rockefeller or Henry Ford or something like that.
They were always suggesting the most prominent capitalists as the party
pseudonym.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, what your
first activity was in the Communist Party after becoming a member?

Mr. DENNETT. I believe that I was first assigned to carry on
this classwork in Portland, to keep this school going that was started.
But that didn’t last very long because at that time the district
organizer of the party was a man by the name of Alex Noral, who was
here in Seattle.

And Noral was troubled because they were unable to get someone to fill
the function of a district agitprop director here in Seattle. So he
was asking Fred Walker to come to Seattle to be the agitprop director
because Fred Walker had organized such a successful school in Portland
and had done such splendid work which met with the district approval.

Walker, however, had personal reasons for not wanting to leave
Portland. So he requested me to accept the assignment to Seattle. And
I was perplexed as to what to do. I was in the middle of a school
teaching year, but I was becoming more convinced all the time that
there was no future in teaching--at least the way I wanted to do it.
So I accepted, under a great deal of pressure, the assignment to come
to Seattle. And that was, I say, under a great deal of pressure, too,
because the way I was approached on it was that “Well, now you are a
member of the party. You do what the party tells you to do, and you go
where the party wants you to “go.”

Mr. MOULDER. May I interrupt at that point before you start on
your Seattle testimony?

I am curious to know, during that period of time when there were no
laws prohibiting membership in the Communist Party, why there was
direction that you operate underground or under false names?

Mr. DENNETT. You remember I spoke about the criminal
syndicalism prosecutions in Oregon. The members of the party were being
accused of violating the criminal syndicalism statute.

Mr. MOULDER. A statute?

Mr. DENNETT. In Oregon, yes. And they considered that they
were under attack for illegality.

Mr. VELDE. May I ask a question?

Mr. VELDE. I would like to know at the time you joined the
Communist Party, I believe it was in 1931, if you had any idea at that
time that the policy of the Communist Party of the United States of
America was being dictated by Soviet Russia?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, there is a sort of mixed answer to that.

I had been reading the Daily Worker. I had been reading the Butte Daily
Bulletin. I was somewhat familiar with the international politics
in which there was conflicting interest between the United States
and the Soviet Union. But it was reconciled in my thinking with the
firm conviction that the Communist Party was attempting to serve the
interests of the working class all over the world and that in doing so
there would be no conflict so far as we were concerned. Now that was
the way it was resolved in my mind at that time.

Mr. VELDE. I think that is true of many early Communist Party
members.

Mr. TAVENNER. Without going into detail, did your views
continue to be the same or were they altered as time went on in the
course of your Communist Party work?

Mr. DENNETT. It didn’t take very long after I reached Seattle
before I had my first rude awakening. I was naive enough to believe
that it was proper for anyone to ask any question at any time in a
party meeting. But after coming to Seattle and being assigned as the
district agitprop director, believing that my duty required that I
should supervise the production of leaflets and propaganda which was
being issued, I was naive enough to ask what were my various duties.
And the answer I got from Mr. Noral was to the effect that anybody
knows what that is, which left me completely in the dark.

So I turned to the nearest associate who, at that time was Mr. John
Lawrie, Sr., who more or less agreed with me that it was time to get
some clear definition as to what the function was. Later on when I
insisted upon criticizing a leaflet which Noral had issued he accused
me of being some kind of a deviationist. I had only been in the party
about 3 months. I didn’t know what the term meant.

Later on he accused me of being a Trotskyite. I think he used the
term “Trotskyite,” which was a term of derision. And that conflict
led ultimately to my being removed as district agitprop director. As
a matter of fact, if Noral had carried out his wishes at that time I
would have been liquidated.

I didn’t know what he meant by liquidation then, and I think the term
was used rather loosely. But he did declare that liquidation was the
proper thing to do with deviators such as I at that time.

However, there was another leader in the district by the name of Ed
Leavitt, L-e-a-v-i-t-t, who was the organizational secretary, and
Leavitt felt that it was improper to deal with me in that fashion,
and he felt that since I was a young man at that time that I should
be given an opportunity to prove my worth and prove myself. And he
prevailed upon the district secretariat, namely, himself, Noral, and
Lawrie, to assign me to section organizer in Bellingham. It wasn’t very
long before I was banished from the district headquarters and sent to
Bellingham to prove myself, which I think I did.

Mr. MOULDER. Were you then being compensated?

Mr. DENNETT. No, sir.

Mr. MOULDER. Or reimbursed for your travels?

Mr. DENNETT. I was not. We just bummed our way around.

Mr. MOULDER. Were you employed then?

Mr. DENNETT. I was unemployed. But we were just living as best
we could, from hand to mouth.

I never was on the payroll of the Communist Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. I think you should define more specifically what
was meant by the term “liquidate.”

Mr. DENNETT. Well, in that connection, I believe it occurred
during a meeting of the district bureau, in which I had insisted that
the grammar of one of Mr. Noral’s leaflets was in need of repair. He
insisted that he knew what he was saying and that if anybody else
didn’t know it was just too bad. And he proceeded to describe the
importance of party discipline.

And in a very boastful way remarked that he was in the Fosterite
faction that went to the Soviet Union in 1928 to the Sixth World
Congress of the Comintern, and that following the decision of the
Sixth World Congress to liquidate factionalism in the American section
of the Communist Party, that the Comintern set up a special commission
to deal with the American section delegates, dealing with the Foster
faction, the Lovestone faction, and the Cannon faction. And he said
that since he was in the Foster faction that they, being the largest
faction, were called up first.

And when they were called before the commission the chairman of that
commission was Josef Stalin, and that Stalin leaned over the rostrum,
shook his finger at them, and demanded to know, “Do you or do you not
submit to the authority of the Comintern and its decisions?”

Noral said that he very proudly was the first to arise and say that he
did submit to it. And he gave that to us as an illustration of the kind
of discipline that we must expect and that we must follow.

Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Dennett and Mr. Tavenner, would you like to
have a recess at this time?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes.

Mr. MOULDER. The committee will stand in recess for a period
of 5 minutes.

(Whereupon a short recess was taken.)

Mr. MOULDER. The committee will be in order.

Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to call
the witness, Mr. Jerry O’Connell.

Mr. Jerry O’Connell. Is he present?

(There was no response.)

Mr. TAVENNER. May I ask that he be called in the corridor?

Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Officer, would you call the witness Jerry
O’Connell in the corridor?

Is there anyone here, an attorney representing the witness Mr.
O’Connell?

(There was no response.)

Mr. MOULDER. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

Is there any announcement you wish to make on that, Mr. Tavenner?

Mr. VELDE. May I inquire of Mr. Tavenner or Mr. Wheeler, was
Jerry O’Connell served with a subpena?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes, sir; he was.

Mr. MOULDER. For appearance here today?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. VELDE. I think it would be appropriate at this point to
have the subpena and the return thereon entered in the record.

Mr. TAVENNER. I would like to interrupt the course of this
testimony and produce to the committee a copy of the subpena served on
Mr. Jerry O’Connell, and call the committee’s attention to the return
which shows that it was served at 12 minutes to 9 p. m., March 8, 1955,
at his residence, 3415 Central Avenue, Great Falls, Mont., signed
Harold Mady, chief of police.

I desire to offer the document in evidence and ask that it be marked as
“O’Connell Exhibit No. 1,” for identification purposes only and to be
made a part of the committee files.

Mr. MOULDER. It is so ordered.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Dennett, you were asked a question by one of
the members of the subcommittee with reference to your knowledge at the
time you became a member of the Communist Party as to what control,
if any, that a foreign power had, over the Communist Party in this
country, and you explained that.

I would like to carry that point a little further at this time.

While you were a member of the Communist Party were you acquainted with
an organization known as the Trade Union Unity League?

Mr. DENNETT. I was.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, briefly,
what that organization was?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, it was an effort on the part of the
Communist leadership in this country to bring about the organization of
unorganized workers. It had the idea that they should be organized in
industrial unions. This is because its leader was William Z. Foster,
and William Z. Foster had been an active leader in A. F. of L. unions.
As a matter of fact, he was the leader of the great steel strike of
1919, and in the course of that strike he drew certain conclusions
about the way it was conducted, namely, that it was next to impossible
for the workers to obtain the kind of solidarity they needed to win
when they were divided into so many different craft organizations.

So it was Foster who gave the greatest attention to this question of
getting the maximum strength through organization of the workers in
unions. And the Trade Union Unity League was an effort to organize
these unorganized workers.

Now to the best of my knowledge some of the greatest success of the
Trade Union Unity League occurred right here in the Northwest.

When I came into the district in 1932 there was a comparatively young
fellow by the name of James Murphy who was the head of the Trade Union
Unity League here. He was a lumberworker. He was a bona fide worker. He
knew the language, he knew the habits, and he was able to get around
the same as any “bindle stiff.”

For fear some might not understand the use of the term, in the old days
loggers had to carry their own blankets when they went from place to
place. And the way they carried them caused them to be called bindle
stiffs.

These fellows were very adaptable. They were very skillful at
traveling under adverse conditions, overcoming all kinds of physical
difficulties. The stories of Paul Bunyon are not something out of the
figment of the imagination entirely; they grew out of the huge efforts
that the Northwest lumberworkers had to make in order to live.

So Murphy was a very successful organizer. He organized a very large
number of people in the National Lumberworkers Union. He had an
assistant by the name of Roy Brown who was almost equally successful.
I do not recall the names of the others who were active in that
organization, but I do know that they met with great success organizing
miners here in the Northwest. They organized fishermen.

Mr. TAVENNER. What connection did those organizations have
with the Trade Union Unity League?

Mr. DENNETT. They were all national unions in the Trade Union
Unity League. And one of the greatest successful organizing drives was
conducted among fishermen here in the Northwest.

A person who is now deceased, by the name of Emil Linden, was
profoundly successful in organizing fishermen on the Columbia River and
here in Puget Sound.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was he successful in the organization of groups
affiliated with the Trade Union Unity League?

Mr. DENNETT. That is right.

The fishermen’s unions, as a matter of fact, had the distinction
of having been organized and affiliated directly with the Red
International of Labor Unions, which had a headquarters in Prague at
that time.

Mr. TAVENNER. What do you mean by saying that the Trade Union
Unity League was affiliated with or a part of the Red International of
Labor Unions?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, they paid dues to an international
organization, and this particular fishermen’s group which originated
here were affiliated directly with the Red International of Labor
Unions, and they paid dues directly to the headquarters in Prague.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did that make them virtually a part of the Red
International of Labor Unions?

Mr. DENNETT. They were.

Mr. MOULDER. What period of time was that?

Mr. DENNETT. That was way back in about 1931 or 1932, or 1932
or 1933.

Mr. TAVENNER. Where was the seat of the headquarters of the
Red International of Labor Unions?

Mr. DENNETT. At that time it was in Prague.

Mr. TAVENNER. Among the documents which you have turned
over to the staff of the committee and which we have examined is
one entitled “The Trade Union Unity League, Affiliated to the Red
International of Labor Unions.”

Will you examine it and state whether or not you can identify it as one
of the documents which you turned over to us?

(Document handed to the witness.)

Mr. DENNETT. If it has got my initials on it is mine; and it
has.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you return it, please?

Mr. Chairman, I think I should read into the record at this point
several paragraphs which I see in this document.

Mr. MOULDER. Very well.

Mr. TAVENNER (reading):

    The national center of the revolutionary industrial union movement
    in the United States is the Trade Union Unity League, organized in
    Cleveland, August 31, 1929. The TUUL coordinates and binds all the
    revolutionary union forces into one united organization. It leads
    and directs the general struggle of the new union movement. It is
    the American section of the Red International of Labor Unions.

Is that just what you have been telling us, Mr. Witness?

Mr. DENNETT. Correct.

Mr. TAVENNER. I desire to read again from page 35 of this
document.

    In the event of an imperialist war it will mobilize the workers to
    struggle against American imperialism and to transform this war
    into a class war against the capitalist system itself.

Do you recall that as one of the objectives of the Trade Union Unity
League?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes, of course, I do. It is very plain. It is in
black and white. I think that it has to be admitted by anyone with any
knowledge of the subject that that was the objective, that was the
policy. That goes back a long way. That goes back to Lenin’s teaching.
It goes back to the teachings of Marx. In fact, it goes back to the
teachings of almost any of the philosophers, the idea that when a
given set of circumstances becomes impossible to withstand it is to be
expected that somebody is going to break the bonds somewhere.

Mr. TAVENNER. I find this following paragraph on the same page
under the title “Defend Soviet Union”:

    The Trade Union Unity League especially organizes and educates
    the masses to fight in defense of the Soviet Union. The Soviet
    Union is the stronghold of the world’s working class. It is the
    cause of the workers in all countries. The overthrow of the Soviet
    Union by the capitalists would mean not only the slaughter of
    tens of thousands of Russian workers but would mark the beginning
    of the worst period of reaction internationally that the world
    has ever known. It would lead to widespread Fascist terrorism,
    and wholesale destruction of workers’ economic, political, and
    cultural organizations and the wiping out of conditions won by
    the workers through a century of sacrifice and struggle. It would
    throw back for decades the development of the world labor movement.

    The workers must fight to the end in defense of the Soviet Union.

Is that paragraph in accord with what you understood at the time to be
the objectives of the Trade Union Unity League?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, shortly after my induction into the
Communist Party I, as recounted earlier this morning, became the
district agitprop director. In that position at that time we had the
special privilege of receiving the first issues of all new pamphlets or
magazines or anything like that that were issued. At that time there
came into my possession a document with the title “The 21 Conditions
for Affiliation With the Communist International,” and among those
conditions these points that are set forth in this document you have
just read cover some of those conditions.

Mr. TAVENNER. In other words, was there a strict linking
together through this organization and through the action of the
Comintern, of the control of the Communist Party in this country by the
international organization?

Mr. DENNETT. I think that has to be acknowledged by anyone who
is familiar with the record at all.

However, there is one little addendum that should be inserted at this
point, that at a later point in the history of the Communist Party in
the United States--I believe it was about the time the Voorhis Act was
passed--under the leadership of Earl Browder the Communist Party in the
United States took steps by formal resolution adopted at convention
to completely disassociate itself legally from any of this previous
material. They attempted to satisfy and comply with the provisions of
the Voorhis Act.

And in their effort to do so they adopted a resolution in which they
repudiated all of this political statement and line that we are now
talking about. That was a formal act.

Mr. TAVENNER. There was considerable testimony before this
committee at the time it attempted to interrogate Max Granich and
his wife, who were connected with a news facility which transmits
from Europe to this country decisions of the Communist Party on an
international level, and we heard a number of witnesses, including
Louis Budenz, who was connected with the Daily Worker.

The testimony is very clear that that action you have spoken of was
a device, not in good faith a severance or a disavowal of what had
happened before. But it was a device, to keep the Communist Party from
being liable under provisions of the Voorhis Act to which you have
referred, of representing a foreign country.

Mr. DENNETT. Browder visited here in the Northwest during the
time this action was being taken, and he explained it to our district
bureau in this fashion, that the law was clearly aimed at putting the
Communist Party out of business, and that the Communist Party was
determined to not be put out of business, and it was going to comply
with the act to the best of its ability, but that certainly did not
mean that the Communist Party was going to disavow its sympathy with
the working class throughout the world and the various sections of the
Communist Party throughout the world.

There was great apprehension on the part of our district bureau about
the action. We feared that perhaps the Communist Party was going
nationalist on us, and we thought that was a heinous crime, that you
should always be internationalists. And Browder was reassuring us that
the Communist philosophy was still internationalist and would continue
to be internationalist, but that the formal connection and the formal
affiliations would have to be dispensed with.

He felt that the party was strong enough to travel along the road, as
it needed to, without the direct intervention of the Comintern.

And, of course, it was shortly after that the Comintern itself was
dissolved.

Mr. TAVENNER. How long did this organization, the Trade Union
Unity League, remain in effect in this area? And when I say in effect,
I mean in existence.

Mr. DENNETT. Until the organization of the CIO.

As the organization of the CIO approached or became clear that it
was going to come in, the policy of the Red International of Labor
Unions was modified by the international headquarters in Prague. It
was modified because the 12th Plenum of the Executive Committee of the
Communist International had reviewed the developing world situation,
had noted with alarm the rise of fascism in Germany, and resolved that
somewhere their policies were not being too effective and, therefore,
they must make certain modifications and allow for a little more
flexibility than they had before.

You must understand that one of the conditions which existed as a
condition for organizing these Red trade unions was that those workers
so organized were virtually obliged to declare their loyalty to the
cause of the Communist Party. Now that did not mean that they had to
be members of it, but it meant that they had to express their sympathy
with the efforts of the Soviet people and they had to accept the idea
that the objectives of the working class and of the Communist Party
were the same.

Therefore, they didn’t meet with much success in the United States
in organizing these Red trade unions because the average worker who
was confronted with this choice would say, “The devil with you.” He
wouldn’t make a choice of that kind.

Mr. TAVENNER. In other words, they realized they could not
sell communism to the rank and file of American labor if it knew what
they were buying.

Mr. DENNETT. They certainly couldn’t sell it under that label
to the American worker. They rejected it.

Mr. TAVENNER. A label is for the purpose of describing an
item; is it not?

Mr. DENNETT. I can accept your statement; I think you are
right. I think that confirms our experience.

Mr. MOULDER. This was in a period, the conditions and
circumstances of which offered a ripe opportunity for the exploitation
of labor in this country by the Communist organizations.

Mr. DENNETT. That is very true. And you must understand that
we met with an uneven success.

I have described to you that in the Northwest we did meet with great
success among the lumber workers, among the miners, and among the
fishermen. We did meet with great success there because a very large
number of those workers originally had been with the Industrial Workers
of the World. And they weren’t afraid of a Red label. Wherever you
found workers who were not afraid of a Red label they could accept such
organization in good faith. But in most of the industrial centers in
the East except in places where desperation was at the breaking point
they did not meet with success.

I am thinking now of the situation which obtained in the textile mills
of Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill following the First World War. In
those places the Industrial Workers of the World were successful in
offering leadership to those workers. And it is true that in some parts
of the South, contrary to the usual idea, in some parts of the South
the Red leaders were quite successful in organizing.

I remember vividly the Gastonia strike, and that was completely Red
leadership. There is no question about it. They were the only ones that
had the tenacity to stay with it under such adverse circumstances. But
they stayed with it and they met with great success. They organized
thousands and thousands and thousands of workers.

Mr. TAVENNER. Would you say, generally speaking, the rank and
file of labor would not accept the Communist Party if the Communist
Party label were on it?

Mr. DENNETT. That is true. They wouldn’t accept even the red
cards which were used.

It was a peculiar thing. It seemed as though it was a badge of honor
to some people, but something of a shock and surprise to others that
the membership cards very often were printed in a very deep red color
in the various unions of the Trade Union Unity League. And, of course,
some of the membership cards of the Communist Party at that time were
in identically the same color. The only addition was the hammer and
sickle was imposed upon it as well. And it would be a very easy matter
to become mixed up or confused if you didn’t look carefully at some of
those cards in that period of time.

But to complete the point that you are concerned with at this moment,
it is true that the program as set forth by the Red International of
Labor Unions did not meet with the uniform success which they hoped
for in the United States. So in 1935--I believe it was in 1935, it may
have been a little bit earlier than that--following the 12th Plenum of
the Executive Committee of the Communist International’s decision that
a sharp turn must be made in the mass work, that they must combat the
rise of fascism by allowing greater flexibility to organize masses to
resist the onrush of fascism, they took note of the situation in the
United States and concluded that they could not prescribe the exact
conditions under which to organize the workers in the United States.

That gave the opening which permitted the top leadership of the
Communist Party in the United States to grant the request of most
of the organizers in the Trade Union Unity League to dissolve their
organizations and permit them to join the new rising organizations
which were developing as industrial unions, and also to join the
appropriate American Federation of Labor unions.

In other words, at the time of the split between the A. F. of L. and
the CIO in the United States of America the Communist movement declared
that it was logical and necessary to give up its own identity, which it
did when it sacrificed the industrial unions that it had organized. And
by 1935 they issued instructions that the industrial unions under the
Trade Union Unity League must dissolve.

And I recall the regret which some of the fishermen had in having
to give up their affiliation with the Red International of Labor
Unions and go into what they call the “finky” organization, the
International Seamen’s Union. They didn’t like it. They resented it.
But nevertheless, as good soldiers, they obeyed the order. Later on it
didn’t take them more than a couple of years when they were embarrassed
whenever I would remind them that they had a Red origin. And the
leadership there came to dislike me with a very firm resolve because
I would never permit them to forget that they did have a Red origin
and that I was ashamed of them being backward about taking progressive
steps.

They caused me no end of concern because they were trying to be as
conservative as the stanchest Republican when, in fact, they had a
very, very Red origin.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Dennett, would it be correct to analyze
the situation you have described generally in this way: Beginning in
1935, and from then on, when the Red international of labor unions
gave up the idea of having its own organizations within labor under
its own label in this country, was the principal problem in dealing
with the question of communism a matter of infiltration or attempted
infiltration by the Communists into the leadership of all the unions in
which they had a chance to gain leadership?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, I recognize that the term infiltration
is used to imply generally that somebody did something with a secret
purpose.

Now that may have been true. So far as my own knowledge is concerned,
we took it in stride. We didn’t think that there was anything special
about it. We declared our objective to be the organization of all the
workers. And, of course, we were part of all the workers. And as long
as we could maintain that philosophy we were satisfied that we were
part of the organization.

Mr. TAVENNER. When you say part of the organization, what do
you mean?

Mr. DENNETT. I mean that those members that were organized by
the Communist Party in the Trade Union Unity League, when they gave up
their identity as members of a Trade Union Unity League organization,
such as the national lumberworker’s union or the fishermen’s union or
the miner’s union or something of that kind, they had the opportunity
to become members of the appropriate union which was organizing in that
field. In the case of the Northwest it was at that time the woodworkers
federation, which was organized, in part, under the leadership of the
carpenters and joiners, but against the wishes of the top leadership of
the carpenters and joiners.

The top leadership, especially Mr. Hutcheson (William), was fearful
of these rebels from the Northwest. He was afraid that if they became
organized strong that they might cause him some trouble in his
organization. And he put in a great deal of effort to see to it that
they didn’t succeed in that.

Well, it is true that these rough-and-ready lumberworkers were willing
to take on all comers so far as opposition was concerned. And Mr.
Hutcheson seemed to be no bother to them, no more than anyone else
would be. They didn’t fear anyone. They just proceeded to organize as
best they could. But they were so thoroughly indoctrinated with the old
Wobbly notions, that is, the Industrial Workers of the World ideas,
they were very strong individualists, and they didn’t take kindly to
the kind of discipline which doesn’t explain why it gives an order,
and, consequently, the Communists in the woodworkers had a great deal
of trouble.

As a matter of fact, the organization of the woodworkers federation
was punctuated with stormy upheavals at every convention. The various
caucuses which were led by the Communists and led by some of the old
Industrial Workers of the World and led by some of those who wanted
their loyalty to the carpenters and joiners and some who wanted their
loyalty to the new organization of the CIO, these various groups
were unable to compose and resolve their differences. It was never
completely resolved. To this day it is not completely resolved.

The result of it today is that, well, of course, I realize there is a
new merger in prospect, but the lumber workers in the Northwest were
divided between the A. F. of L. and the CIO to such an extent that
they were unable to use their full strength to bring it to bear during
negotiations with their employers, and they have suffered very, very
much here in the Northwest.

Mr. VELDE. You are making a very fine story of the methods
used by the Communist Party in infiltrating labor unions.

I want to ask you this: from your experience as a member of the
Communist Party, which of the unions in this area were most
successfully infiltrated by the Communist Party?

Mr. MOULDER. May I ask during what period of time?

Mr. VELDE. During the whole period of time since the
Communists started infiltrating.

Mr. DENNETT. I think it would have to be said that it was
lumber. Actually, to begin with, it was the marine unions. The
organization of the Maritime Federation of the Pacific was something
that was inspired by the Communist Party because the Communist
Party called for the organization of industrial unions, industrial
organization. And that was a result of Foster’s leadership.

Mr. VELDE. You think they were more successful in lumber than
in the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes, I do. I do for the reason that in the
maritime unions at the outset the Communists furnished the aggressive
leadership which initiated the organization of all of the maritime
unions, but it didn’t take very long before those workers, upon getting
together, found that they had differences with those leaders. And the
sailors union particularly made a sharp break with the Communists early
in 1935, not over the issue of Communists but over tactical application
of policy.

The Communists at that time were opposed to Harry Lundeberg’s
organization of the tanker strike. And Mr. Lundeberg felt that he had
the right to go out and improve the conditions of a contract by a
process known as job action.

Now the Communists couldn’t possibly condone a thing like that because
that permits individual action, and the Communist philosophy and theory
did not permit variations of that kind.

It is also true that the old conservative leaders in the labor movement
likewise frowned upon such an action. So you will find that if you have
familiarity with it you will very often find that the most conservative
people and the most radical people, if you go to the point of referring
to the Communists, you very often will find that they are in agreement
more on policy and on discipline than other people in between. Because
both extremes depend upon centralized authority in order to maintain
their positions, whereas the other people in between are a little bit
more apt to make their decision on the basis of the merits of the given
situation--a little more flexibility.

Mr. VELDE. Before you get back to your story, let me ask you
this:

The distinguished chairman was not present at our hearings here last
June, but I am sure that counsel and our investigator and Mr. Dennett,
too, recognize the fact that the great majority of the loyal labor
unions in this area cooperated with this committee 100 percent last
June. While our gratitude was expressed at that time, I again want to
express gratitude to these local labor unions who cooperated with this
committee and did everything within the bounds of reason to eliminate
the Communist movement from this area.

Mr. DENNETT. Mr. Chairman, may I be privileged to just make
one comment about that?

Mr. MOULDER. Yes.

Mr. DENNETT. I have conferred with Mr. Wheeler, and I have
expressed the idea to Mr. Tavenner that I think that it is a mistaken
idea to refer to me as a cooperative witness or to refer to another
witness as an uncooperative witness. I am here to testify to facts
that I know. And I think that the question of cooperation is sometimes
subject to misconstruction.

And the reason I say that, is because the other day while I was
conferring with Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Tavenner and my counsel, I received
a phone call, and this phone call had a conversation of two words that
came from the other end. A person said, “Rat--stool pigeon.”

I am sorry that people who have been my friends over the years cannot
see that I feel that it is my duty and my obligation to testify as to
facts. I am sorry that they feel as embarrassed or bitter as they do.

I suppose before these hearings are over I will probably have as many
people hate me as people even know me. That is not my concern.

I recognize that we do have some major problems to resolve, and I am
fully aware that the Congress of the United States has made efforts in
many different directions, many of which I am not in agreement with.

But I think that I do owe the obligation to you gentlemen and to the
Congress and to my fellow Americans, that to the best of my knowledge,
I will give you the benefit of my knowledge and my experience, and we
will just let the chips fall where they may.

Mr. VELDE. I don’t want to become involved in an argument with
you.

Mr. DENNETT. I don’t either.

I wanted to take an opportunity to say that, so I said it.

Mr. VELDE. In my use of the word cooperate, and saying that
the great majority of the labor unions cooperated with us, possibly I
did misuse the term, but I wanted to again express my appreciation for
the way they responded, let us say, to the evidence we produced here at
the last hearings.

Mr. MOULDER. I would like to say I think you are entitled
to be complimented, and to the respect of the Congress of the United
States and fellow American citizens, for the sincere and conscientious
manner in which you are now testifying as to the facts.

Mr. DENNETT. Thank you, sir.

Mr. VELDE. I think you will find, Mr. Dennett, that you will
have a lot more friends now after you get through testifying in this
area than you had when you relied on the fifth amendment and refused to
answer questions at a previous hearing.

Mr. DENNETT. Without trying to prolong this, I would just say
that I feel a keen obligation to one group of people, and that is the
fellows that I work with on the job. The fellows that I have worked
closest with have always had confidence in my integrity, and even when
I have been under the sharpest attacks they have remained confident
that my integrity would stand up.

Mr. MOULDER. You should have more of them now.

Mr. DENNETT. To them I feel the greatest obligation. And it
is mainly for them that I am testifying here today, and I hope that it
will be of satisfactory use to you.

Mr. Tavenner, for your benefit, during the recess I found something
which I did not know that I could find, on this question of Mr.
Stalin’s insistence upon iron discipline, and I found it in a little
pamphlet: The Soviets and the Individual. I do not recall the year in
which this was published. I will see if I can find a date on it. Well,
this is an address that he delivered to the Red Army Academy, in the
Kremlin, on May 4, 1935, and in the course of it he makes a remark like
this:

    Of course, it never even occurred to us to leave the Leninist
    road. More, having established ourselves on this road, we pushed
    forward still more vigorously brushing every obstacle from our
    path. It is true that in our course we were obliged to handle
    some of these comrades roughly. But you cannot help that. I must
    confess that I, too, took a hand in this business.

Mr. TAVENNER. I believe that was after the first set of purges
but before the second.

Mr. DENNETT. I read that to corroborate the oral information
which was passed on to me from Alex Noral.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. TAVENNER. Let us return at this point to that period of
your Communist Party experience when you were assigned as agitprop or
agitation propagandist in Seattle.

You have told us that you were relieved from that position. But how
long did you serve in that capacity here?

Mr. DENNETT. My memory is a little indistinct as to how long.
It was only a very few months. It seems to me that it was between April
of 1932 and some time in the summer of 1932 because I am quite sure
that I went to Bellingham as the section organizer late in 1932.

Mr. TAVENNER. The committee would be interested in learning
the nature of your activities while engaged as an agitprop in Seattle.

Mr. DENNETT. Actually in that first assignment no one seemed
to know exactly what my duties were. I was struggling to find out. In
the process of it I learned that the head of an agitprop department
had to do almost all of his work through the organizational apparatus
of the party, and it was his responsibility to see to it that the
organizational structure of the party became thoroughly indoctrinated
with the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism, as it was called.

Now the main thing that they were concerned with was to spread the
knowledge of the theory and tactics of the class struggle. And I
believe from my own study that it must be acknowledged that Lenin
was the greatest master of that because Lenin proclaimed that every
act has a class character to it, and he contended that every act of
the employer is a class-conscious act, every act of the bourgeois
politician is a class-conscious act. That was his contention.

And it was his contention that it was necessary for the workers to
become thoroughly conscious that this is the nature of our present-day
society, and they must learn the methods by which to overcome the
ruling class.

Now this stems from the teachings of Marx. Marx originally stated that
the capitalist state is the executive committee of the ruling class.

That is an abstraction which is very difficult for the average person
to comprehend. I used to think that the reason it was so difficult
was because these people had not come into contact with the material
experiences which would be convincing.

In later years, since my leaving the party, I have had to reflect upon
that a little bit more carefully, and I am rather inclined today to
believe that both Marx and Lenin were in error in trying to apply a
uniform rule.

I think that it is foolhardy for anyone today to deny that there are
many evidences of class warfare which do exist, but I believe that it
is also foolhardy to think that those points of conflict are going to
be resolved by engaging in class warfare because they lead ultimately
to the destruction of either one or both participants in that combat.

Mr. MOULDER. May I interrupt you?

You made a very interesting and impressive statement a while ago, that
both extreme radicals and extreme conservatives are inclined to assume
a position of dictatorship.

In what year are we now on his associations here?

Mr. TAVENNER. We are still in Seattle during the period that
he was agitprop here.

Mr. DENNETT. We are dealing with the question of the theory
and tactics of the Communist Party in which it was the responsibility
of the agitprop to make certain that it spreads through the ranks so
that all the members understand it.

You see, there has been a great deal of effort put in to try to
describe the role and function of the Communist Party. The leaders
from time to time have gone to great lengths to explain it. But under
Stalin’s leadership he resolved that question very firmly and very
positively, that the members of the party were soldiers in the ranks,
and they were obliged to obey the orders of their superiors. And he
enforced that with a determination which I think is unequaled in
history.

Mr. TAVENNER. Throughout your experience in the Communist
Party did you observe instances of iron discipline to which you have
referred?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, I have been told since my expulsion from
the Communist Party that I had the reputation of being one of the
worst offenders in the matter of enforcing that discipline. I was very
vigorous, and I did try to insist that everyone I came in contact with
follow the party line to the very letter. I was among the first to
sense any deviation, and I was among the first to insist that steps be
taken to correct such deviation. In doing so I thought I was following
the party line.

Mr. TAVENNER. Let us proceed now to the period when you were
transferred to another area.

Will you tell us about that?

Mr. DENNETT. I went to Bellingham, Wash., in 1932, and found a
party membership, I believe, there of seven persons.

Unemployment was our greatest problem at that time. Everyone was
unemployed. And, of course, the Communist Party policy then was to
organize unemployment councils. And, of course, we had an unemployment
council, and it consisted of seven members.

It was the exact duplicate of the membership in the Communist Party.

No one else would join it. No one else would have anything to do with
it.

Mr. TAVENNER. In what capacity were you sent to Bellingham?

Mr. DENNETT. As section organizer.

I was in charge of the party. I immediately questioned the wisdom of
the policy that they had been pursuing where they had two organizations
consisting of the same people, doing exactly nothing.

So I began to take rather vigorous steps. I contacted people in the
district center and advised them that this was a ridiculous situation
and was very unrealistic.

Mr. TAVENNER. What do you mean by district center?

Mr. DENNETT. Seattle was the district headquarters of the
party, and I was trying to win the agreement of Alex Noral to permit
me to do something to get more members, at least in the unemployed
council, in the hope that if I got them in the unemployed council
I might be able to work upon them to win them to membership in the
Communist Party.

But Noral was very adamant. He insisted that I must follow the exact
directions which the national leader, Herbert Benjamin, had issued with
respect to the policy of unemployment councils. And, of course, Herbert
Benjamin had earlier outlined that the organization of the unemployed
was one of the most important political tasks confronting the party
because he called attention to the fact that the Russian revolution had
obtained its greatest strength because it had organized the unemployed
prior to the 1905 revolt, and that during the course of the 1905 revolt
these unemployed organizations became Soviets, they became councils,
and that when the 1917 revolution broke out these soviets had been
reconstituted and the unemployed had comprised a very essential part of
the organization to begin with, and therefore the masses of unemployed
in the United States were looked upon as the elementary core around
which it might be possible to develop a Soviet power in the United
States.

Mr. MOULDER. To what period of time are you now referring?

Mr. DENNETT. That was in 1932.

We had another situation in Bellingham at that time. Noral had been
there prior to my assignment. He wasn’t their section organizer, but
he had been there on a visit as the district representative, and he
had taken part in disciplining some people who apparently, prior to my
arrival, had had ideas similar to my own, namely, that the people who
were unemployed should be organized for the purpose of getting some
assistance to solve their problems of hunger and housing and clothing,
and that that should be the center of our attention.

But Noral was adamant with my predecessor as he was with me and had
brought about the expulsion of a person there. A person who is known by
the name of M. M. London.

Mr. London had adopted this name of London in honor of Jack London. It
was not his real name at all.

But Mr. London was a very sharp-thinking person and very devoted to
his neighbors and associates, and felt that the unemployed, the people
who were suffering should be fighting for immediate relief whereas the
unemployment councils had offered the slogan that the solution must be
in the form of unemployment insurance.

Well, to the person who is hungry the hope of unemployment insurance,
which required the adoption of legislation, which would take a longer
period of time, wasn’t a very realistic thing.

But the demand for immediate relief was a very realistic thing. And
the people in Bellingham flocked to the banner of London, and London
organized what was known as the people’s councils.

He had as his able assistant a man by the name of George Bradley.
George Bradley had had no connection with the Communist Party at
that time or prior to that time. George Bradley at that time was an
unemployed railroad worker. London, I believe, was an unemployed seaman
at that time, who was actually living on a farm.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was London’s real name?

Mr. DENNETT. I do not know. I never have known. I think he
took legal steps to have London established as his proper name. I think
that is his legal name.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you know in what court and at what time he
took that action?

Mr. DENNETT. I have no knowledge of that. I say that I think
that is true.

Mr. TAVENNER. Proceed.

Mr. DENNETT. In a county with a population of, at that time,
about 40,000--there were, I guess, about 60,000 in the county, and
there were about 40,000 in the city. London had succeeded, London
and Bradley had succeeded in organizing the people’s councils until
it actually had a dues-paying membership of over 60,000, and we were
stewing around with 7 people. And we were trying to contend that our
program was a better program than his.

I finally violated district discipline and joined the people’s councils
myself. It caused great consternation in the district. The district
leader, Mr. Alex Noral, threatened to have me expelled because I had
violated discipline. The leaders of the people’s councils were fearful
that I had joined to infiltrate their ranks.

So I was damned on both sides. It seems to have been my lot through the
biggest part of my life.

It is immaterial to me, however. I think that my decision was correct
because before the year was over we changed the situation until we had
approximately 150 members in the Communist Party, and the unemployed
movement was under the leadership of the people’s councils, and
practically all of our people were in those people’s councils exerting
an influence in them. It was not a decisive influence but it was an
influence, and it did have a lasting effect because we recruited some
people who later rose to great heights in the party, and they served
the party very well and ably and as devotedly as they knew how.

Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Tavenner, we will resume the hearings after
the noon recess. It is now 12 o’clock.

Congressman Velde, do you wish to make a statement before taking the
noon recess?

Mr. VELDE. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think that most of us remember our hearings last June as a result of
which two witnesses who appeared before us were cited for contempt.

I was very pleased and happy to learn that both of these witnesses, who
were unanimously cited for contempt by the House of Representatives,
were found guilty.

I want at this point to express my appreciation to Judge Bolt, to
United States Attorney Moriarty, and United States Attorney C. E.
Luckey for the promptness and efficiency and fairness exhibited during
the trial of these two cases.

We all remember that the witness, George Tony Starkovich, was one of
the most contumacious witnesses who has ever appeared before this
committee in my experience.

I certainly hope that the Supreme Court, upon his appeal--while he
certainly has the right of appeal--will affirm the decision of the
United States district court.

Mr. MOULDER. Thank you, Mr. Velde.

Mr. Dennett, you will return promptly at 1:30. The committee will stand
in recess until 1:30 o’clock.

(Whereupon, at 12 o’clock noon, the subcommittee was recessed, to
reconvene at 1:30 p. m.)


AFTERNOON SESSION, MARCH 17, 1955

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--Resumed

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Dennett, you were describing to the
committee the formation of the unemployed councils in Bellingham and
the success which the Communist Party had in having its members become
members of that organization. You also described for us in a general
way the extent of influence that the Communist Party had in those
organizations, in those councils, by reason of having its own members
become members of the councils.

I ask you why the Communist Party was interested, and why it made a
fight to get its own members into these unemployed councils. What was
the purpose of it?

Mr. DENNETT. Our purpose was at that time to find some way of
prevailing upon the unemployed organizations to adopt a program we were
advocating.

At that particular time it consisted mainly in fighting for the
adopting of the slogan of demanding unemployment insurance. And I think
that that is a point which must be remembered by everyone.

Many people accept unemployment insurance today as a principle, but
they don’t know that its origin in the United States, at least, came
because the Communists seized upon that as a means of winning the
support of the masses of unemployed people.

And any ordinary person should have known in that period, if you look
back from now, they should have known that that was a necessary step to
be taken. But at that time the resistance to it was terrific.

Mr. TAVENNER. Are you saying it was the desire of the
Communist Party, by these methods, to win support of the masses?

Mr. DENNETT. Correct.

Mr. TAVENNER. To win support in what way?

Mr. DENNETT. To win them to an interest--I should say, first,
an interest in the Communist Party; then to lead them along the path of
struggling against the capitalist system which would ultimately, they
hoped, result in the replacement of the capitalist organization of a
Soviet form of society.

Mr. TAVENNER. Would you say that the Communist Party made that
type of effort in almost every form of our society?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, the leaders were held responsible to see to
it that they did make such an effort. It wasn’t so easy to do so among
the ranks of the members who didn’t hold any official position, but any
person who held an official position, such as a unit organizer or a
section organizer or an agitprop director or a trade-union organizer or
a fraction secretary, in any of those positions a person was expected
to carry the Communist Party line. If he didn’t, he was certainly
subject to discipline.

Mr. TAVENNER. The committee from time to time has heard a
great deal of evidence about the organization of Communist Party cells
or branches or units which have been variously termed neighborhood
groups and street groups. There has been an effort made in some
instances to make it appear that such groups had very little part to
play or very little function in the overall picture and purposes of the
Communist Party, although they testified that in the instances where
Communist Party branches were organized within factories and within
industry generally that they had a more definite purpose.

Will you tell the committee about the formation of neighborhood groups
of the Communist Party, or what we call sometimes street groups, and
explain what part those organizations played in the overall Communist
Party program?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, first of all, it is necessary to understand
one principle of organization that the Communist Party adopted, and
that is, that the form of the organization had to satisfy a need, and
that the form itself was subordinate, the form was not the principal
question.

The principal question was the function that they were to serve.

So the Communist Party adopted a very flexible attitude on this.
In some of the early Communist Party literature it refers almost
exclusively to Communist cells. And cells are generally thought of
as some very small unit that is sort of hidden away. Actually it was
Lenin’s instruction to the party that they should make every factory a
fortress for Communist activity.

And the directives of the Red International of Labor Unions always held
forth that as an objective.

Now they found that in some countries such factory cells were
impractical forms of organization. They just didn’t work out. And it
was particularly true in the United States of America because most
workers in most of the factories had very little opportunity to discuss
political business while they were at work.

In some of the other countries workers did engage in that kind of
effort and activity. So shop units and shop cells were possible of
organization and were effected. In fact, they were openly known.

In the united States the Communist Party adopted the practice
of adapting its basic organization, the elementary part of the
organization, to whatever circumstances they found themselves in.

In the period of great unemployment people weren’t working in
the factories. So we found them in the neighborhoods. And in the
neighborhoods where we could recruit a half dozen Communists we made a
neighborhood branch.

At first we called them units. In later years I understand they were
called branches. But at the time when I was most active we always
referred to them as units. And we would try to get each neighborhood
branch to assume some responsibility for some factory or some industry,
to carry on agitation and propaganda among the workers of a particular
factory or plant for the purpose of trying to recruit those workers
into the party and establish a shop unit or what later became known as
a branch.

So the point that is of importance here, as I see it, is that the party
was flexible in adopting forms of organization, but it was inflexible
as to the purpose of those organizations. And their purpose certainly
was always as far as I knew--and I was one of those who insisted that
it must be kept foremost--to lead the working class to overthrow the
capitalist class in political power.

Now I think that there is a great deal of misconception and
misunderstanding as to just what that may involve.

The Communist Party went to great length to try to draw a distinction,
particularly in the United States, between overthrowing the rule
of a particular class and overthrowing the form of the particular
government. And it was always the party’s claim in the United States
that what they were trying to accomplish was to unseat the robber
barons and the big business interests who had seized the seats of
government in the United States, and the Communist Party always played
down the problem of changing the form of government because nearly all
liberal persons you come across will raise the point that one thing
that America contributed which the rest of the world has never enjoyed
is the right to individual freedom.

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 or armed
guards or police or something of that sort, and that the violence is
started against the workers to begin with.

And then he taught that the workers must defend themselves.

Mr. VELDE. Did you have the feeling while you were in the
Communist Party that the ultimate goal in case all peaceful methods
fail was to use force and violence?

Mr. DENNETT. It is hard to give you a direct answer to the
question as you are posing it.

Let me say it this way and see if this answers you:

This is the most delicate question that is before everyone on the
subject, and I think that I would be unfaithful to myself if I were to
give you a snap answer because a snap answer, I think, is inappropriate.

I think we have to get at the facts as they exist. And my own feeling
and the thing that I was impressed with was, again, the teachings of
Lenin wherein he proclaimed that never did any autocracy willingly
yield up its power. Never did any tyranny willingly yield up its power,
and that necessarily any group who sought to obtain political power
under those circumstances would be confronted with solving a problem of
force and violence. They would be met with force and they would have to
answer it with force.

Mr. VELDE. That substantiates the testimony that Barbara
Hartle gave us here last June. I am satisfied.

Mr. DENNETT. I think that is fundamental teaching of the
Communist Party, and anyone who reads Lenin’s works very carefully will
find that is there.

The point that is germane to us is: Does the United States come in the
category that Lenin was speaking of?

Now the Communist Party went through a terrific amount of theoretical
argument on this question, and some resolved the question as meaning,
yes; the United States comes in that category.

Some questioned whether that were true, and I think that is why you
will find a divergence of testimony from different Communists.

Mr. VELDE. I take it then you feel that the methods used in
the United States were different than the methods used by the Comintern
in other parts of the world, in countries that are now Communist
countries.

Mr. DENNETT. I was referring in what I was discussing to the
difference between the form of government in the United States and the
form of government as exists in other countries, particularly comparing
it with old Czarist Russia.

Something most people don’t realize is the extent of the oppression
which existed under the old Czar. And it was only natural that people
who sought to accomplish a change, after finding that no amount of
effort could bring about a rational or reasonable change, finally came
to the conclusion the only thing they could do was to eliminate the
Czarist regime. That was an autocracy.

Now the question theoretically arises: Does such a situation obtain
in the United States? Or is it possible for the people, by legitimate
political organization, to bring about the changes that they consider
to be desirable?

There was a great dispute raging in the ranks of the Communist Party
over that question.

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
for one of the committees in the executive committee of the Communist
International. I do not recall much else about him. And this document
doesn’t establish much more. But I believe that the document originally
came into my possession while I was an agitprop director, and it was in
a mimeographed form. It came from the central committee.

Mr. TAVENNER. Of the Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. Of the Communist Party.

It was sending forth to the districts direct information as to the
policy which had been laid down by the executive committee of the
Communist International, and it was detailed information because many
people had been complaining that nowhere was there anything in a
detailed form describing organizational methods and practices.

Vassiliev came forth with a document which outlines it, spells it out
in every detail. It spells out how to work under illegal conditions, it
spells out how to work under legal conditions. It also spells out how
to combine legal and illegal work.

This, by the way, for those who have been in the Army, you can readily
recognize a similarity of military training with party organization
because there is the method of the emphasis upon maintaining
communication lines between various parts of the organization at all
times, the necessity of having secondary lines of communication in
case the primary lines are destroyed. And there is also the question
of use of passwords. It is all described. The description of how to
use code is also contained here. And I think that some people attach
more significance to it than I do for the reason that I saw military
organization practice virtually the same things.

Of course, that brings up a subject which may be unpleasant to reflect
upon, and I suspect that the average member of the Communist Party
is quite unaware of the similarity of his position as a member of
the Communist Party to that of a person who is a member of the Armed
Forces. He is under discipline. His directions come from above. He has
to obey or suffer the consequences.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, this is a very unusual document.
I wish the committee had time right now to go into every phase of
Communist Party organization that is referred to in it.

I think all that we can do now is to offer it as an exhibit and have
it made a part of the record with the view of giving it more detailed
study later. So I offer it in evidence and ask that it be marked
“Dennett Exhibit No. 1,” and that it be incorporated in the transcript
of the record.

Mr. MOULDER. The exhibit offered in evidence, marked “Dennett
Exhibit No. 1” for identification, will be admitted as a part of the
record.


    DENNETT EXHIBIT NO. 1

    HOW THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL FORMULATES AT PRESENT THE
    PROBLEM OF ORGANIZATION

    (By B. Vassiliev)

    The Enlarged Presidium of the E. C. C. I. (February 1930), summing
    up the international situation, called upon all Communist Parties
    to fundamentally change the methods and pace of their work by
    concentrating their chief attention on the problems of the
    preparation and the carrying out of mass REVOLUTIONARY ACTIONS OF
    THE PROLETARIAT--strikes, demonstrations, etc., while at the same
    time continuing as far as possible to promote their agitational
    and propaganda work. Consequently, in the present conditions, the
    Party apparatus, in response to the demands which the direction of
    the Comintern puts forward, should in the first place be fitted
    for the organization of demonstrations, strikes and other mass
    actions of the proletariat. Party leaders who are not capable of
    organizing demonstrations and strikes do not answer to the demands
    which the circumstances of the class struggle are now placing
    before the Communist Parties, and therefore should be replaced by
    others who have shown these qualities in the course of the class
    battles of the most recent period.

    Why did the Enlarged Presidium put the question in this way? The
    political resolution of the Enlarged Presidium states that the
    growing new economic crisis is hastening the process of upsetting
    capitalist stabilization (it has already led to the beginning of
    the collapse of capitalist stabilization) and the growth of class
    contradictions, thus accelerating the rise of a new revolutionary
    wave. The resolution further states that the working class
    movement in the period since the 10th Plenum of the E. C. C. I.
    had been raised to a higher stage. The revolutionary activity
    of the proletarian masses has grown stronger, the fighting
    capabilities of the Communist Parties have been heightened.
    The whole position of the class struggle has placed before the
    Communist Parties and the Communist International as a whole, a
    number of new fighting tasks. In the process of the growth of a
    new revolutionary upsurge there are present already in certain
    capitalist countries elements of a gathering political crisis
    and of a revolutionary situation, as for example, in Poland,
    Italy, Spain, partly in Rumania, in Yugoslavia, and in Greece.
    A deep political crisis is present in China and India, being
    the starting point of a revolutionary situation. In Germany the
    process of the radicalization of the masses of the working class
    is proceeding at a swift pace. In France, another country of
    powerful capitalism, the number of strikers grew from 222,000 in
    1928 to 431,000 in 1929, whilst these strikes assumed a more and
    more clearly expressed political character and were characterized
    by the growing tenacity of the workers. In England, in spite
    of extraordinary difficult conditions for the growth of a
    revolutionary movement, in spite of the extraordinary weakness of
    the Communist Party (on the 1st January 1930, 2,800 Party members
    and 120 members in the Y. C. L.), the number of strikers in 1929
    compared with 1928 grew from 124,000 to 534,000 comprising the
    most important sections of industry, such as mining and textiles.

    At the same time, the gigantic successes of socialist construction
    in the U. S. S. R. are sharpening in the most extreme way the
    contradictions between U. S. S. R. and the entire capitalist world
    and are forcing the leaders of the capitalist world to strengthen
    and hasten to the highest degree their military preparations of
    a new armed attack on the U. S. S. R. The 10th Plenum of the E.
    C. C. I. showed that the danger of new Imperialist wars and of
    new attacks of the imperialists on the U. S. S. R. never was so
    imminent from the time of the imperialist war of 1914-18 as it was
    at the moment of the 10th Plenum. By March 1930 that danger had
    increased still more.

    In these conditions of growing economic crisis and heightened
    threat of war against the U. S. S. R. all measures will be taken
    by the ruling classes of the capitalist countries to guarantee
    their rear before declaring war, that is, everything will be done
    by them to weaken, disorganize and, as far as possible, liquidate
    completely all revolutionary proletarian organizations, and in the
    first place the Communist Parties.

    Moreover, the elections themselves in illegal Parties must, as
    a rule, take place in such a way that even the members of the
    conference do not know who is elected on to the Party Committee.
    At the present time two methods of electing leading organs in
    illegal Parties are practised. The first method. The Party
    Conference elects a special commission for counting the votes
    cast for candidates for members of the Party Committee. Then the
    candidates are named and the election of the Party Committee
    proceeds by secret vote. The commission checks the results of the
    voting, whilst it does not report to the conference as to the
    personnel elected. Another method of election. The conference
    elects a narrow commission in which a representative of the higher
    Party Committee takes part and this narrow committee elects the
    new Party Committee. In strictly illegal Parties, as for example,
    the Italiana Communist Party, the latter method of election is
    the only one which more or less guarantees strict conspirative
    conditions.

    Self-criticism of the mistakes of the Party direction in illegal
    Parties must also be organized through narrow conferences and
    must take place in such a way that the names of the Party leaders
    and the functioning of the Party apparatus, do not lose their
    conspirative character.


    15. QUESTIONS OF COMMUNICATIONS

    The most important element of successful working of the Party
    Committee--the one on which during the checking of its work the
    most serious attention must be concentrated--is the question of
    connections of the Party Committee with the higher and lower
    Party organizations, especially with the factory cells and the
    fractions of the mass non-Party organizations. This question now
    has a decisive importance, especially in the legal and semi-legal
    Communist Parties. The illegal Communist Parties have already
    worked out a whole number of measures and methods in order to
    keep their communications with the lower organizations and with
    separate members of the Party, in spite of the severest police
    repression. But with the legal and semi-legal Parties there is
    bad work all the time along this line. In Austria during the
    last Fascist rising, the C. C. lost connection with the Vienna
    Committee, and the Vienna Committee lost connection with the
    enterprises. In Paris on the 6th March 1930, the C. C. lost
    connection with the Paris organization for six days. Such a state
    of affairs is absolutely impossible and the most important task
    of each of our Party organizers, of every instructor going to the
    locals to check the work of the Party Committee is above all to
    check how the connections between the Party Committee and other
    Party organizations are organized, and especially these with the
    lower Party organizations, and the factory cells. It is perfectly
    clear that the Communist Parties will not be in a position to
    organize any mass actions of the Proletariat or mass strikes,
    or mass street demonstrations, if the Party Committees at sharp
    moments of struggle lose connection with the factory cells and
    mass non-Party organizations.

    Which are the most important methods of communication it is
    essential to foresee? It is essentially important to have a
    well-laid out live communication. Live communication is kept going
    by the help of the system of so-called appearing or reporting
    places. What is a reporting point. A reporting point is this: the
    Party Committee establishes special addresses of flats or other
    places where on certain days and at certain times representatives
    of the cells and fractions of the mass organizations must appear.
    There also representatives of the Party Committees appear. The
    representative of the cells and fractions makes reports on what
    has happened in the factory, what the cell has done, what it
    proposes to do and so on, and the representatives of the Party
    Committee, having received the report, advises the cell how it
    should act, passes on to it the directions of the higher Party
    organs and so on. This system of appearing places must without
    fail be established in all Parties without exception, legal and
    illegal whilst in the legal Parties a double system of reporting
    places must without fail be established--a system of legal and
    illegal appearing points. Legal reporting places in the legal
    premises of the Party Committee and illegal appearing places in
    case the legal premises of the Party Committee are closed, or a
    police ambush is sitting there, in order quickly to re-establish
    connection with the lower Party cell in another way through the
    illegal reporting place. For the latter, appearing points should
    therefore be prepared beforehand. In Germany, in Belgium, in
    France, Party meetings in cafes were at one time very widespread.
    This is a very bad habit because there are always spies in cafes
    in countless numbers and it is difficult to get rid of them. It
    is necessary to go over more quickly to the establishment of
    appearing places in safer localities. If the Party has already
    more or less seriously and fundamentally gone over to underground
    positions, and the shadowing of leading active Party members has
    begun, and Party members are being arrested in the streets, then
    it is very important that special signals should be established
    for the appearing flats, showing; in the first place, the safety
    of the flat, second, showing that exactly those people have
    come who were expected and that these comrades who have come
    are talking with exactly those comrades whom the observer is
    coming to see. In order to show that the reporting places are in
    working order, in Russian conditions, for example, a flowerpot
    was placed in the window, the comrade came, saw that the flowers
    are there, knew that it is safe, and entered. It is necessary to
    say that these reception signals were very quickly learned by the
    police and that they therefore, when visiting any flat, carefully
    searched for signals before fixing an ambush. If they saw that
    flowers are in the window and the person whom they have come to
    arrest has tried by all means possible to take these flowers away,
    the police insisted on putting them back in the place where they
    were. So, when arranging safety signals for reporting places, it
    is necessary to arrange them in such a way that they don’t strike
    the eyes of the police and that they can be taken away without
    being noticed by the police.

    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 of cipher is
    the system of cipher by the help of a book. Some book or other is
    agreed upon beforehand and then the cipher is made in this way:
    simple fractions or decimals are ciphered. The first figure of
    the first fraction shows the page of the book. Then further comes
    the actual cipher. For the numerator of the fraction we must take
    a line counting from above or below; for the denominator that
    counting from the left or from the right which it is necessary
    to put into cipher. For example, we need to put into cipher the
    letter “A”. We look in the book and we see that this letter is in
    the third line from the top, the fourth letter from the left to
    the right. Then we cipher 3 over 4 (3/4), that is the third line
    from the top, fourth letter from left to right. You can agree also
    on this method; for example, counting the line not from above but
    from below, then the 3 will not be the third line from above but
    the third line from below. You can agree to count the letter in
    the line not from left to right but from right to left. Finally,
    for greater complexity in order to keep the sense from the police,
    you can also add to the fraction some figure or other. Let us say
    the numerator is increased by 3 and the denominator by 4. In this
    case in order to decipher, it will be necessary first to subtract
    in the numerator and denominator of every fraction. A whole number
    of similar complications can be thought out in order to complicate
    the cipher. The advantage of such a cipher is that it is not only
    very simple but also that each letter can be designated by a
    great number of different signs and in such a way that the cipher
    designation of the letters are not repeated. The book cipher can
    be used without a book. In place of a book some poem or other can
    be chosen, learned by heart and the ciphering done according to
    it. When it is necessary to cipher or decipher, the poem must be
    written out in verses and then the ciphering or deciphering done
    and the poem destroyed.

    The third requisite which is also recommended should be observed
    in correspondence, is writing in chemical inks, that is, with
    such inks that it is impossible to read them without special
    adaptations. If a secret Party letter falls into the hands of the
    police written in invisible ink they must first of all guess that
    it is written in invisible ink; the open text of such letters must
    be made perfectly blameless, for example, a son is writing to his
    mother that he is alive and well and of the good things he wishes
    her. Not a word about revolution. The police must guess first
    of all that under this apparent innocent text there is a hidden
    text. Having discovered this secret the police tumble against the
    cipher. If they succeed in deciphering the cipher, they stumble up
    against a code and they have still to decipher that code. But all
    this takes time in the course of which the police can do nothing.
    If the police succeed in reading it in the course of two or three
    weeks, then by that time the Party organization has been able to
    cover up all the consequences of the question which was written
    about in the letter.

    What kind of invisible ink should be used? Invisible inks exist
    in a very great number. They can be bought in any chemist’s shop.
    Finally, comrades must use the latest inventions of chemistry
    in this direction. The simplest invisible ink which can be
    recommended and which can be found everywhere, is, for example,
    onion juice and pure water.


    16. PLAN OF WORK OF THE PARTY COMMITTEE

    Every Party Committee must have a definite plan of work for the
    period immediately ahead. In the conditions of the capitalist
    countries Party Committees cannot work out the same complicated
    calendar plans as the Party organizations of the C. P. S. U. The
    C. P. S. U. is a Party in power, the plans of the C. P. S. U.
    regulate the whole social and political life of the country. In
    capitalist countries the Communist Parties are the parties of an
    oppressed class. The bourgeoisie in power uses the whole apparatus
    of the State power and the full help of the Social-Fascist and
    other reactionary organizations in order to smash the plans of
    the Communist Parties. In these conditions the committees of the
    Communist Parties must systematically reconsider and reconstruct
    the plans of their work; accordingly, these plans must be very
    pliable. But plans there must be, without fail. Every Party
    Committee must have an approximate plan of its work for the
    period immediately ahead and must group the forces of the Party
    organization according to that plan, fit the forms of the Party
    structure to it and also the methods of Party work. The essence
    of the plan of work of the Party Committee is the adequate
    catering for the needs of the masses in the largest enterprises,
    playing a more important role in the territory of the given Party
    organization. The structure of the local Party organization must
    be such that the organizations can above all serve these big
    enterprises. That is to say, that in the first place the Party
    Committee must interest itself in questions of the work of the
    factory cells at these big enterprises, must help in the work of
    these factory cells, seeking to attain that these Party cells
    should become really strong political and organizational organs
    of the Party, that they should be in practice connecting organs
    between the Party and the masses of workers at these enterprises.
    This idea can best of all be made clear by a concrete example,
    say as follows: in a town there are two or three big enterprises;
    railway workshops, a metal factory, a textile factory. Besides
    these three big enterprises there are two or three dozen small
    enterprises, and in addition scattered Party members, individual
    workers, artisans, representatives of the so-called liberal
    professions,--lawyers, writers, a doctor and so on, as well as a
    few students. The Party Committee of this town should interest
    itself above all in what is happening in the big enterprises--in
    the railway workshops, in the metal factory and the textile
    factory, how the factory cells are working there and in the first
    place help the factory cells of these enterprises by all and every
    means possible, concentrating all their attention and all their
    forces on this task. In the lawyer’s office and the doctor’s
    surgery there are no masses which the Party must win over and
    organize for revolutionary struggle. It is another matter with
    the big enterprises. Therefore the central question in the work
    of every Party Committee is the question of systematically coming
    to the assistance of the factory cells in the big enterprises. A
    Party Committee which cannot provide serious daily help to such
    factory cells, a Party Committee which cannot organize factory
    cells capable of working in the enterprises, is a bad Party
    Committee and the leading organs of the Party and the mass of
    Party members should hasten to draw from this state of affairs the
    necessary conclusions and as quickly as possible make a change so
    far as such a Party Committee is concerned.


    17. MOBILIZATION OF THE FORCES OF FACTORY CELLS

    We must bear in mind with regard to the internal organization of
    the work of factory cells that in all countries some members of
    the Party working in the enterprises, do not wish to be members
    of factory cells and do not wish to carry on Party work in the
    factory. For example, in the documents of the Central Committee of
    the Czechoslovakian Party on the preparation for the campaign for
    the 6th March 1930 there is information from all districts that
    when practical questions of the preparation for the demonstration
    for the 6th March were put before the meetings of factory cells,
    in many factory cells voices were raised to the effect that it was
    impossible to do any work in the factory, and at a place called
    Laza in Moravia, one responsible worker of a factory cell even put
    the question in this way: “If the Party will guarantee material
    help after I have been thrown out of the factory for taking
    part in the demonstration, but if the Party cannot guarantee my
    family and myself then I will not carry on Party work in the
    factory.” Such moods among Communists working in the factory are
    to be observed on all sides. There are Party members who agree
    to pay membership dues, agree to come to a meeting once every
    fortnight or once a month, in order to hear a report on the world
    proletarian revolution, and vote for the platform of the Comintern
    against the liquidators, the Trotskyists and all other renegades,
    but are not willing to carry on recruiting work among the workers
    of their enterprise, do not wish to prepare strikes in their
    own enterprises, do not wish to call out the workers of their
    enterprises to demonstrations, and so on. Every Party Committee
    has to fight with such Party members in their enterprises. What
    should we do with them? The most important task of the Party
    committee consists in organizing all Party members working in
    enterprises into factory cells and drawing them into the day to
    day work of the factory. With regard to Party members who do not
    wish to take part in the work of factory cells, the most attentive
    and stubborn explanatory work must be carried out. But if somebody
    or other all the same, categorically refuses to work in a factory
    cell, that comrade must be told that nobody is keeping him in
    the party. (The Communist Party is a voluntary organization, but
    every worker who voluntarily joins the ranks of the Communist
    Party accepts iron party discipline. If that discipline seems
    very hard to him, even unbearable, then the Party should not shut
    its doors upon him.) In this regard we must bear in mind that
    Party members who do not wish to work in factory cells are not
    necessarily traitors to the working class. In some organizations
    Party workers, proletarians, who have refused to carry out
    difficult tasks in their enterprises, have been cleaned out of
    the Party as alien elements. There are alien elements in the ranks
    of the Communist Party, including direct provocators, agents of
    the police and the employers, who specially creep into the Party
    for the purpose of carrying on disruptive work in the ranks of the
    Party. The Party must strictly observe each one of its members,
    verify in the most careful way every suspicious Party member, and
    if it is established that he is an alien element and even more a
    provocative agent, then of course, there is absolutely no reason
    to beat about the bush with him. But in the ranks of the Communist
    Parties there are a large number of proletarians who sincerely
    sympathize with Communism but who at the same time are not strong
    enough to fulfill all the demands of Communist discipline. With
    regard to such proletarians, if they are not capable of being
    members of the Communist Party there is no need to keep them
    in the Communist Party, but at the same time there is no need
    to throw them out of the Party like a dirty rag; they must be
    organized round the Party as sympathizers as members of non-Party
    mass organizations, in the Red Trade Unions, in the I. L. D., the
    W. I. R. and so on. In these organizations no such discipline is
    demanded as in the ranks of the Communist Party and they can work
    here in a suitable manner. At the present stage of development of
    the Communist movement, when the Communist Parties are ceasing to
    be organizations for propaganda and agitation of the Communist
    idea, and are turning into fighting organizations, preparing
    and leading revolutionary actions of the proletarian masses
    against the organized forces of the employers, police, State and
    Social-Fascists, some members of the Party are showing themselves
    incapable of fulfilling the new fighting tasks of the Communist
    Party. But without doubt such Party members can be useful to the
    Party as sympathetic elements, and even as leading active elements
    in different mass organizations, as for example, in the ILD,
    Tenants’ Organizations, W. I. R., and so on. Factory cells must be
    composed of proletarians who are really the advance guard of the
    workers of a given enterprise, devoted to the cause of Communism,
    ready to carry out the directions of the Party, grudging neither
    health nor strength, nor life, not being afraid if Party
    interests demand it to carry out such work in the enterprise as
    may cause the employer to throw them out of the factory, perhaps
    the police to arrest them, and the courts to condemn them to
    heavy punishment. In fact, only factory cells composed of such
    proletarians can do great revolutionary work even though they
    be very small. In one of the mining districts of Czechoslovakia
    in 1930 there was such a case. The Social-Democrats organized a
    meeting of miners. Only one Communist took part in the meeting.
    Different questions which the Social Democrats brought forward
    were considered. After a discussion in which the Party member
    present at the meeting took the most active part, the meeting
    decided to join up in the Red Trade Union. The Czechoslovakian
    comrades will remember another case which took place in 1930 in
    Prague. When the famous social traitor Vandervelde came there, the
    Social-Democrats organized a big meeting at which about 30 active
    Party members were present. Vandervelde delivered a long speech
    pouring dirty water on the Communist International, the U. S. S.
    R., and the Czechoslovakian Communist Party, nevertheless, not
    one of the 30 Party members present at the meeting and there were
    members of the C. C. amongst them, opened his mouth in protest
    against the counter-revolutionary speech of the Social-Fascist
    leader. It is perfectly clear that with activists like the
    “activists” of the Prague organization, who were present at
    Vandervelde’s meeting, the Czechoslovakian proletariat will not
    win power but the Communist Party will be a shameful laughing
    stock in the eyes of the proletariat and the proletariat, quite
    rightly, will not listen to such “activists” and will not support
    Party organizations which keep such “activists” in leading Party
    work.


    18. STREET CELLS

    The organization of a factory cell in a big enterprise in the
    present conditions is a very difficult affair, demanding very
    long and stubborn work by the Party members, both those working
    in the enterprise as well as those who are employed elsewhere. It
    is the business of the Party Committee to secure the essential
    co-ordination of the work of the Communists who are working inside
    the enterprise, with that of the Communists who are outside
    the boundaries of the enterprise. And here a very important
    question presents itself with regard to the form of organization
    of Party members who are not workers in enterprises; artisans,
    housewives, etc. According to the decisions of the International
    Organizational Consultations, and according to the constitution
    of the Communist Parties, such Party members are organized in
    street cells. But how should these street cells be organized? The
    practice of the Parties of the different countries shows that
    the street cells are often organized without any plan. Street
    cells are organized according to place of residence, those Party
    members who live in the territory of a definite district or around
    some street or other, being brought into the street cells. But
    what should these street cells do? The practice of street cells
    in many countries shows that as a rule they meet from time to
    time, discuss various general questions, but do not carry on
    any practical day to day work. Street cells as a rule come to
    life only during big campaigns at the time of various elections,
    etc., when they are called upon to distribute leaflets, collect
    signatures, canvass flats, etc.

    In future Party Committees must see to it that street cells
    are constructed so that in their day to day work they should
    help the Party Committee to strengthen its connection with the
    workers in big enterprises, strengthen the work of factory cells
    and so on. This should be the fundamental practical rule for
    the organization and work of street cells. At the same time it
    must be firmly borne in mind that along with the development of
    the class struggle Party Committees must not fail to carry out
    changes in the composition and structure of the street cells
    which may become necessary, make a re-grouping of the forces of
    the members of street cells, in order at a given moment to have
    a concentration of forces on the most important sectors of the
    front of the class struggle. For example, if some unrest should
    arise in a textile factory, the Party Committee must at once
    consider the possibility of developing that unrest into a strike
    inside the factory. But a strike can only be organized provided
    good preparatory work has been carried out. Who must carry it
    out? In the first place Party members and sympathizers working in
    the textile factory, but on the other hand, the Party Committee
    must organize the maximum assistance for these comrades, drawing
    on Party members working in other factories, and also members
    of street cells. There can be all kinds of combinations here.
    For example, it might be advisable and practicable that a Party
    member working as a fitter in a metal factory, a member of the
    factory cell of the metal factory should apply for a job in the
    textile factory where a fitter may be needed. Everything must be
    done in order by such means to strengthen the cell of the textile
    factory from within. Further, let us suppose that near the textile
    factory a street cell is working and that in this street cell
    there are, let us say, five more or less weak comrades living
    in the district. It is essential to strengthen this street cell
    by including in it a number of other comrades who live nearby,
    or even at the other end of the town, in order with the help of
    this street cell to strengthen the agitation among the workers of
    the textile factory on their way to and from work, to strengthen
    through this street cell the distribution among the workers of a
    textile factory paper, leaflets, and other literature which may
    be issued by the Party with the aim of preparing and organizing
    a strike, in this textile factory. Let us suppose that after the
    strike is finished a movement begins in another factory; the Party
    Committee must at once regroup its forces in order to concentrate
    them again on another fighting sector of the Party work. And so
    all the time. It is impossible to regard the Party structure or
    any local organization as something unshakably firm and not liable
    to undergo changes. The Party Committee must systematically check
    the distribution of members between different cells, check the
    expediency of the organization of the cell, carry out regrouping
    of the members of the cell in order in each separate case and
    at each concrete moment, to concentrate the best forces of the
    Party round the most important sectors of the front of the class
    struggle. In this lies the fundamental art of the Party organizer.
    His general task consists in seeing that every Party member as
    well as sympathizer should be constantly drawn into day to day
    work, attention being concentrated upon the most important sectors
    of the class struggle.


    19. SHOCK GROUPS

    The practice of the Y. C. L. has recently given rise to the method
    of so-called shock groups or brigades. This method of shock
    brigades could be usefully carried over into the practice of the
    Party. The term “shock brigade” is not in itself very good. Shock
    brigades are organized in the factories in the U. S. S. R., the
    Communists working in the factories organizing shock groups around
    which non-Party workers are gathered. But the Communist Party is
    the advance guard of the working class, i. e., it is in itself
    _the_ shock group of the working class; to create within this
    shock advance guard of the working class yet other shock brigades
    is of course at bottom not correct. But this is what IS correct.
    In the Party organizations of capitalist countries, numbers of
    Party members are not drawn into the everyday work. Every Party
    member belongs to a cell, which meets once a fortnight or once a
    month, and in between these meetings Party members do not perform
    much Party work, in many cases, in fact, have no Party tasks at
    all. This happens because in the given cells at the given time,
    there is not much internal work, while other sectors of Party work
    may at the same moment have important militant tasks before them.
    It is for the Party Committee to keep on combining Party members
    into different groups for the concentration of forces upon the
    most important sectors. Having performed a given task such groups
    or brigades are broken up or reconstructed into other groups
    for taking up new work. The general aim in creating such groups
    should be the strengthening of Party work in the big enterprises
    of the most important sections of industry. Here, on this problem
    the full attention of the leading Party organs must be sharply
    directed in the near future.


    20. WORK OF THE FACTORY CELLS IN THE ENTERPRISES

    When we approach the study of the work of the factory cells in
    capitalist countries we are often struck by the great passivity
    of the members of the cell. A further examination of the reasons
    for this passivity will reveal, as a rule, a complete ignorance
    on the part of the Party members as to what they should do in the
    factory in their everyday work. The task of the Party organizer,
    his most important task, consists in teaching every Party member
    working in the factory what he should do every day. Every Party
    member working in the factory should begin with the workshop in
    which he is working, organizing the Party work there. He should
    first of all find out who his fellow workers in the shop are.
    That is his first Party duty. He should establish who is the
    Fascist agent in order to know whom to avoid, and in his presence
    not talk about Party affairs or carry on Communist agitation;
    next he should find out which workers are so narrow-minded that
    they are not interested in politics at all, either Communist or
    Social-Democratic; he should know which of his neighbors in the
    shop is a member of the Social Democratic Party, but still an
    honest proletarian, capable of fighting for the interests of the
    working class even though against his Party leaders. Finally, what
    is specially important, every member of a factory cell should
    know which of his neighbors at the bench is revolutionary minded
    even though non-Party, and ready to take or has already taken,
    active part in strikes and revolutionary demonstrations. When a
    Party member working in a workshop has a clear picture of what
    each worker there represents, it will be much easier for him
    to carry on his everyday work. He will then know whom he is to
    avoid, whom he will have to fight, with whom to become acquainted
    and establish closer relations with the aim of bringing them
    into active revolutionary work. As to the latter, he must have
    systematic chats with them in the intervals of work, preferably
    during working hours, also on the way to and from work, or
    arrange special walks with them in the town on holidays; he must
    patiently, unceasingly, from day to day, using every hour, every
    minute, agitate them into the spirit of Communism, of course not
    in a general abstract way, but on questions of everyday struggle
    in the given enterprise and in the given workshop, organizing
    them around himself and thus creating a revolutionary kernel in
    the shop, and in consequence a workshop factory cell. Next, the
    most important everyday task of the comrade in the workshop is to
    carry on discussions with the Social-Democratic workers, winning
    over the Social-Democratic workers to his side, bringing the
    more revolutionary minded of them and members of reformist trade
    unions into every kind of action against the employer, against the
    Social-Democratic and reformist leaders. His third task should
    consist of getting the Fascist agents, police spies, etc., driven
    out of the shop and factory. This last task is forgotten most
    often of all. However, it is evident that so long as there are
    among the workers in the shop police agents who are following
    every movement of the revolutionary minded workers, and informing
    the boss about their actions every day, it will be very difficult
    to organize work in that shop. But if by pressure of the workers
    he should succeed in ridding the shop of these agents, Party work
    will be greatly facilitated. Among those who should be thrown out
    it will now be necessary to include individual Social-Democrats
    who show themselves Fascist police agents, but the general line
    in relation to Social-Democratic workers must remain, i. e., they
    must be drawn into the general class channel of the revolutionary
    struggle of the proletariat by means of the organization of the
    united front from below.

    Thus the foundation of the factory cell must definitely be the
    workshop of dept. cell. The general factory cell can work well
    only when it has strong support points in the workshops and
    separate departments.


    21. THE SHOP CELL

    The most important task of the shop cell is to concentrate the
    non-Party active workers in the shop compactly around itself. To
    organize the shop, the dept.--this is the task of the shop cell,
    so that every shop of a factory may act as an organized force. How
    can this be done? It can be done only provided the shop cell works
    on the foundation of the defense of the everyday interests of the
    working class, that every Communist in every shop organizes the
    mass of the workers of that shop around every question of everyday
    struggle of the working class. For example, there is a foreman in
    the shop who behaves very roughly to the workers. The cell must
    organize the whole mass of the workers around the demand that this
    foreman should be dismissed. The cell should create a committee
    of action, organize elections of shop stewards who should be
    delegate-representatives of all the workers in the shop, in order
    to effect the driving out of the foreman. Active Communists among
    these shop stewards should form the leading core, but non-Party
    workers who are respected by the mass of the workers, should also
    be drawn in, including even individual Social-Democratic workers
    who have declared their readiness to fight for the removal of this
    foreman, in spite of all orders and threats from their leaders. If
    the shop cell succeeds in creating such a directing center around
    concrete tasks affecting the interests of all the workers of the
    factory, then we can say that this shop cell has worked well: it
    has become the revolutionary leader of the workers of a given
    shop. A cell which is every day closely bound up with the working
    masses on questions of the defense of their closest interests
    and which enjoys the full confidence of the workers in the cause
    of the defense of their interest, will retain that confidence in
    the future, in more responsible actions and at most responsible
    moments of the struggle for power.

    The question of the creation of such support points for
    revolutionary class struggle in the shops and also on a general
    factory scale is the most important question in the work of our
    factory cells. In the first place the question of the so-called
    revolutionary shop stewards is bound up with this. This slogan was
    issued by the Communist Party of Germany in 1929. At present it is
    extremely real for all capitalist countries. Revolutionary shop
    stewards--that means those workers elected by the revolutionary
    section of the workers of the factory at their workshop of general
    factory meetings, who are the organizers of the united front from
    below in the struggle for the defense of the closest interests
    of the workers of the given factory against the attacks of the
    employers and against the leaders of the Social Democratic and
    reformist trade unions.

    So the factory cell can only become a strong Party organization
    capable of acting efficiently, and connected with the masses,
    when it operates on the basis of strong shop cells. Therefore the
    strong shop cell is the most important organizational guarantee
    for the good working of the general factory cell. The shop cell in
    its turn will only work well when it is able to organize the whole
    mass of the workers of its shop around the issues of the class
    struggle, which are near to and understood by all the workers of
    the shop, including non-Party workers and members of the reformist
    unions and members of the Social-Democratic Party. Shop cells
    should carry on their mass work within the shop on the basis of
    the tactic of the united front from below through revolutionary
    shop stewards. Revolutionary shop stewards in their turn most
    include among their number the most active Communists, members of
    the shop cells, but in addition individual revolutionary-minded
    Social-Democratic workers and non-Party advanced workers must be
    drawn into this work who are ready not to listen to their leaders
    in the struggle against the employers and their agents. When the
    shop cell succeeds in creating the institution of revolutionary
    shop stewards leading their everyday struggle, then no police can
    drive the Party organization from the factory, then, in order
    to drive the Party organization out of the factory it will be
    necessary to shut the factory down, to dismiss all the workers and
    recruit a new staff of workers.


    22. ON WORK IN THE MASS ORGANIZATIONS

    Mass organizations must be divided into two large groups: mass
    organizations supporting the Communist parties and other mass
    organizations fighting the Communist Parties. To the first
    category belong the revolutionary trade unions. ILD, WIR, etc.
    Organizations of the second kind are in their turn divided
    into two groups: 1) formerly non-Party mass organizations like
    reformist christian and other reactionary trade unions, sport
    organizations, etc. and 2) all kinds of organizations politically
    hostile to us, such as the Social-Democratic Party, various
    Fascist political unions, etc.

    In all non-Party mass proletarian organizations, such as trade
    unions, sport organizations, tenants’ organizations, etc.
    the Party should form fractions embracing all Communists and
    sympathizers. There are thousands of decisions about fractions
    in mass organizations, but up to now the position in all Parties
    with regard to fractions is bad. In the first place fractions
    are far from being organized everywhere. In the second place,
    organized fractions in the majority of cases work without the
    direction of the Party Committee. So, the Party Committees should
    before all find out whether fractions exist everywhere, where they
    should be established, and in the second place it is essential
    that Party Committees should direct the work of the fractions
    and that the fractions should in the strictist way carry out
    all the directions of the corresponding Party Committees. In
    the constitution of the Communist Party it is laid down that a
    fraction has the right to appeal against the decision of a Party
    Committee. A Party Committee is bound to examine the protest of a
    fraction against its decision in the presence of a representative
    of a fraction. The decision of a Party Committee is binding on a
    fraction and there is no appeal against it: it should be accepted
    without argument and put into the life without delay. At present
    in practice directions of the Party Committee are frequently not
    carried out by fractions. The task of the Party is to see that
    every fraction carries out these directions in the strictest way.
    With regard to fraction members who avoid carrying out directions,
    the most serious explanatory work must essentially be undertaken
    and in case of necessity, the strictest Party measures should
    be taken even up to expulsion from the Party, for otherwise the
    Party will be completely unable to direct the work of a fraction.
    There may be cases when swift interference of the Party Committee
    is called for, while it may be impossible to convene a full
    meeting of the Party Committee to give out such a new direction.
    For example, some trade union Congress or other is being held.
    Before the congress the fraction meets, called together by the
    Party Committee and jointly works out instructions. But during the
    Congress questions may come up which have not been foreseen in the
    directions of the Party Committee. What is to be done? Should the
    committee meet immediately? And how can this be arranged, when
    questions may arise at any moment which are absolutely unexpected
    and which must be reacted to at once? For such cases the Party
    Committee must nominate a special group of three comrades or a
    plenipotentiary representative, who could decide in the name of
    the Party Committee. At the meeting of the fraction it should be
    explained that for the leadership of the work of the fraction the
    Party Committee has nominated a group of three comrades consisting
    of such and such comrades, or such a plenipotentiary, and that
    the intervention of these comrades, their propositions, should be
    looked upon by all fraction members as official directions of the
    Party Committee and carried out without any argument. In this way
    uninterrupted guidance of the Party Committee is guaranteed in the
    work of the fraction.

Mr. DENNETT. I would only say that the existence of a
document of that kind probably was more responsible for Mr. Browder’s
insisting that the central committee disavow all previous documents
which had been issued prior to, I think, 1938. That one was issued
much earlier. This was issued in the period just as the depression was
starting. In fact, the depression had not reached its maximum at the
time that document came out, and it anticipated the depression was
coming, and laid out plans how to take advantage of the depression for
revolutionary purposes.

Mr. TAVENNER. I notice under section 17 of this document a
reference to the voluntary character of the person’s membership in the
Communist Party. This reference reads:

    The Communist Party is a voluntary organization, but every worker
    who voluntarily joins the ranks of the Communist Party accepts
    iron party discipline. If that discipline seems very hard to him,
    even unbearable, then the party should not shut its doors upon him.

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.


    DENNETT EXHIBIT NO. 2

    PIONEER’S SUMMER CAMP

    On the other side of this page are the questions which will have
    to be filled out in detail by all the children who wish to go to
    the camp, or by their parents. The Pioneer Summer Camp this year
    will be held at Pine Lake, 30 miles outside of Seattle. The camp
    will open on July 10, and will last for a period of one month
    unless too many children who wish to go cannot be accommodated
    during this time. If such is the case, the camp will last for 6
    instead of 4 weeks. Each child will remain for a period of two
    weeks.

    The charge will be $5 for the two weeks, if possible the parents
    pay this amount. If not, then the sponsoring organization is
    to make arrangements to raise the money. By the sponsoring
    organization is meant the organization that recommends the child
    for the summer camp and assists the camp project in every way
    possible. Every child coming to the camp must be O. K.’d by some
    such organization, so that we are sure that the children at the
    camp are worth while elements to work with. 50 children will
    be accommodated during each shift. The transportation will be
    provided by the sponsoring organization. Parents, if they like,
    will be able to visit the camp during week ends.

    The camp will provide swimming, boxing, boating, dancing, music,
    dramatics, educational and organizational training along working
    class lines. A lot of fun and real training for every worker’s
    child. The location is great, right on the shore of Pine Lake,
    pine trees on the grounds, good beach, swings and teeter-totters
    for the children. The children will be taken good care of, there
    will be a nurse at the camp the full time, good meals will be
    served and the children will be watched all the time they are
    swimming, so parents need have no fear that their children will
    not be properly cared for.

    For further information, phone Main 9850, Seattle, or write to
    Lila Walker, Secretary Pioneer Camp Committee, 1421½ Eighth
    Avenue, Seattle.

    All children who have filled out their application blanks and
    have been accepted by the executive committee of the summer camp
    conference in Seattle should bring the following equipment with
    them:

    1. A sheet blanket, to be used instead of sheets, or sheets if the
    parents prefer them; also pillow case (pillows will be provided.)

    2. Sufficient blankets and quilts for covering.

    3. Three or four towels.

    4. Toothbrush, toothpaste, comb, soap.

    5. Bathing suit, several pairs of stockings or socks, several
    changes of underwear, play clothes, tights for boys, some kind of
    sun suit for girls, if possible.

    6. Balls, bats, checkers, dominoes, puzzles, books, paints, etc.,
    should be brought by the children if they have any and would like
    to put them into the camp library while they are at camp.


    THESE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS WHICH EVERY CHILD MUST PASS

    1. The child must be sponsored by some working class organization.

    2. The child must be examined by a physician furnished by the
    sponsoring organization.

    3. The signature of either or both of the child’s parents must be
    obtained before the child will be considered for the camp.

    4. The child must be between the ages of 10 and 15. (Inclusive.)

    5. The registration fee of $5 must be brought with each child to
    the camp when he or she comes, this fee to be paid by the parents
    or by the sponsoring organization.

    6. The child must be of a working class family and his parents
    must thoroughly understand the purpose of the camp.

    7. Each child must fill out one of the registration blanks sent
    out from the Pioneer Camp Committee, 1421½ Eighth Avenue,
    Seattle.


    REGISTRATION BLANK FOR PIONEER SUMMER CAMP AT PINE LAKE

    (Please read the instructions on the other side carefully before
    filling out this blank.)

  Organization sponsoring-----------------------------------------
  Name------------------------------------------------------------
  Address-------------------- City--------------- State-----------
  Age----------- School attending------------------ Grade---------
  Occupation, if any------------------------------ Wages----------
  Where employed--------------------------------------------------
  Member of what organizations------------------------------------
  Did you ever attend a Pioneer camp before?----------------------
  If so, when and where-------------------------------------------
  Did you ever attend a summer camp for Boy Scouts, Girl Reserves,
  Girl Scouts, etc.?------------ If so, when----------------------
  Mother’s name---------------------------------------------------
  Occupation---------------------- Working?---------- Wages-------
  Are you willing that your child go to a working-class children’s
  camp for the purposes of recreation, physical development, and
  working-class training?-----------------------------------------
                                         (Yes)

                               -----------------------------------
                                        Mother’s Signature

  Father’s name---------------------------------------------------
  Occupation---------------------- Working?---------- Wages-------
  Are you willing that your child go to a working-class children’s
  camp for the purposes of recreation, physical development,
  and working-class training?-------------------------------------
                                           (Yes)

                                     -----------------------------
                                           Father’s Signature

  Fee of $5 for two weeks being paid by organization
  sponsoring------------------------------------------------------
  Fee of $5 for two weeks being paid by parents-------------------
  This is to certify that I have examined-------------------------
  and have found him, her, with no physical disabilities and
  free of communicable disease. Signed
                                       ---------------------------
                                       Examining physician

  The------------------------------ Feels that--------------------
     Name of sponsoring organization            child’s name

  --------------------------------answers all the requirements for
  admission to the Pioneer Summer Camp and is sponsoring him, her.

                              ------------------------------------
                            _Secretary of sponsoring organization._

                              ------------------------------------
                            _Chairman of sponsoring organization._

Mr. TAVENNER. I would like to read into the record one or two
sentences from this advertisement:

    Every child coming to the camp must be O. K.’d by some such
    organization, so that we are sure that the children at the camp
    are worthwhile elements to work with.

What was meant by that?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, I cannot recall exactly at this time except
to say that it was our purpose then to find young people who would have
at least enough knowledge and understanding to be possible leadership
material. It was our hope and purpose to develop more leaders. We
needed them very much.

Mr. TAVENNER. To develop them for leadership in the Communist
Party?

Mr. DENNETT. True.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you conduct any courses at the camp yourself?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes; I did.

Mr. TAVENNER. We find among the documents that you turned
over to us what apparently is a questionnaire submitted to a number
of members of the class, with their names appearing on them and with
questions relating to their plans for the future, what they consider
about class struggle, surplus value, materialist conception of history,
and so forth.

I do not want you to mention in the testimony the names of any of
these individuals at this moment, but I would like you to examine the
questionnaire.

Mr. DENNETT. I have my own copy.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you examine the group and state whether any
child attending these classes was as young as 15 years of age?

Mr. DENNETT. I have one 19, I have one 16. Yes; here is one 15.

Mr. TAVENNER. In fact, there are several as young as 15 years
of age, are there not?

Mr. DENNETT. 21, 20, 15, 17, 17. Yes; 18, 17, 17.

Mr. TAVENNER. Am I correct in stating that this is in the form
of a questionnaire to determine the success of the training at this
camp?

Mr. DENNETT. Well it must be remembered that I was just fresh
from teaching, and one of the things that a teacher has to learn is
whether or not their teaching is successful. The way you determine that
is to devise a test. So I devised a test to determine whether or not my
efforts had been successful. So this is in the form of a test.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, what
reaction you get from reading the test papers of some of the younger of
the group? Say, 15, 16, and 17 years of age.

Mr. DENNETT. I have picked out those 2 that were 15 years of
age.

I had something here in which I asked this kind of question: What
organizations they belonged to. I asked them to list them. And this one
said: “YPA,” which was the Young Pioneers of America. And a workers’
youth club.

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

    The Pioneer Leader’s Camp had two objectives: One to equip those
    in the Camp with the necessary theoretical foundation to do
    effective work in the Revolutionary Movement in general; and
    second to equip and train them to do Pioneer Work in particular.

    The First Objective was approached mainly from the class in
    Theory which dealt with 1. The Materialist Conception of History,
    2. Dialectics, 3. Surplus Value, 4. The Class Struggle, 5.
    Orientation in Organization, 6. Proletarian, 7. Discipline as
    Social Control.

    The Second Objective was approached from the very organization
    of the camp itself. Study circles were arranged in the subjects
    of Revolutionary Art, Revolutionary Music, Study of Science,
    Woodcraft--practical work, gathering wood etc.--sewing--practical
    work, sewing badges for Pioneer Leaders, organized
    sports--learning games which have been organized with a view
    to adaptation to use with workers children in a way to take
    chauvinism out of them, etc., and still retain the benefits of
    physical exercise contained therein.

Mr. VELDE. I presume, Mr. Chairman, that some of those members
of the Young Pioneers are still in the area.

Mr. DENNETT. I think some of them probably are, although it is
very difficult to keep track of young women because of their changing
names.

Mr. MOULDER. It might result in an injustice to reveal them at
this time.

Mr. DENNETT. Right.

Mr. MOULDER. May I ask, Are you going into the conduct of the
classes, how you proceeded to teach them, what they were taught, and
whether or not you felt the answers to the questions were the result of
your teaching at that time?

Mr. DENNETT. I think I could answer that briefly, that they
certainly were the result of my teaching.

Mr. TAVENNER. I have a few other questions, Mr. Chairman, to
finish this subject.

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?

[Illustration: 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. SYKES

Mr. TAVENNER. What is your full name, Mr. Halonen?

Mr. HALONEN. Oiva R. Halonen.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you spell it, please.

Mr. HALONEN. The first name is O-i-v-a; the initial is R; the
last name is Halonen, H-a-l-o-n-e-n.

Mr. TAVENNER. It is noted you are accompanied by counsel. Will
counsel please identify himself for the record?

Mr. SYKES. Jay, J-a-y, G. Sykes, S-y-k-e-s.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Halonen, when and where were you born?

Mr. HALONEN. In Minnesota, in 1912.

Mr. TAVENNER. Where do you now reside?

Mr. HALONEN. In Seattle.

Mr. TAVENNER. What is your occupation?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. HALONEN. I am a machinist.

Mr. TAVENNER. How long have you worked as a machinist in
Seattle?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. HALONEN. The last 12 years.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, briefly,
what your educational training has been?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. HALONEN. Merely a high-school graduate.

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:

    Oiva Halonen was a member of the Communist Party in the central
    region; lived in that area; and was connected with the national
    group’s work of the district.

Do you desire to explain her testimony in any way or to deny it? Or do
you confirm it as being true?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. HALONEN. I decline under the grounds of the fifth
amendment, on possible self-incrimination.

Mr. TAVENNER. Are you now a member of the Communist Party?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. HALONEN. I decline to answer that question under the fifth
amendment for the reasons stated before.

Mr. TAVENNER. Have you ever been a member of the Communist
Party?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. HALONEN. I decline to answer that question for the same
reasons.

Mr. TAVENNER. Have you engaged in various activities of the
Communist Party within mass organizations in the area of Seattle?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. HALONEN. I decline to answer that question for the reasons
stated previously, under the fifth amendment.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you at any time affiliated with the Joint
Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

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
any position he or she may take regarding any bill before Congress, but
if a certain bill before Congress is being opposed by the Communist
Party and the Communist Party is instrumental in creating opposition to
it, then the committee would be interested in that fact.

Now I am not attempting to criticize any opposition you may have
registered to the Walter-McCarran Act, but, if you did oppose it, I
want to know whether or not the Communist Party had anything to do with
the position that you took in the matter.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. HALONEN. I decline to answer that question on the grounds
of the fifth amendment, as previously stated.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Velde?

Mr. VELDE. Were you born in Minnesota?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. HALONEN. Yes.

Mr. VELDE. I note you took refuge in the fifth amendment when
questioned about your acquaintanceship with Mr. Eugene Dennett.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. HALONEN. That is correct.

Mr. VELDE. You were here in the hearing room while he was
testifying about your activities at the youth camp at Pine Lake, were
you not?

Mr. HALONEN. I so testified earlier.

Mr. VELDE. You did see him here, didn’t you?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. HALONEN. Yes, I did.

Mr. VELDE. Had you ever met him before? Did you recognize him
when he was testifying?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. HALONEN. I invoke the fifth amendment and decline to
answer that question on the grounds of possible self-incrimination.

Mr. VELDE. You might have some misunderstanding about what
acquaintanceship is. I wanted to know if you ever saw him before. I can
see no reason why you shouldn’t answer that question or why that would
tend to incriminate you in any way.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. HALONEN. Not being too sharp on the legal aspects, I am
afraid of waiving my rights under the fifth amendment, and, for that
reason, I am invoking the fifth amendment.

Mr. VELDE. I am not trying to trap you. Seriously, I can see
no reason for not identifying him or anyone else you may have seen
before. A lot of people in this room are acquainted with people who
have been incriminated and have served jail sentences. I see no reason
why an acquaintanceship of that type with a person should incriminate
you or me or anyone else.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. HALONEN. Well, I respectfully invoke the fifth amendment
again on the question asked for the reasons previously stated.

Mr. VELDE. Have you ever known any member of the Communist
Party?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. HALONEN. I again must decline to answer that question
under the fifth amendment, as previously stated.

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.
SYKES

Mr. WHEELER. Will you state your name, please.

Mr. ROBEL. E-u-g-e-n-e F-r-a-n-k R-o-b-e-l, Eugene Frank Robel.

Mr. WHEELER. When and where were you born, Mr. Robel?

Mr. ROBEL. I was born in Kit Carson County, Colo., on a
homestead.

Mr. WHEELER. In what year?

Mr. ROBEL. 1911.

Mr. WHEELER. You are represented by counsel. Will he please
identify himself for the record?

Mr. SYKES. Jay G. Sykes, Seattle.

Mr. WHEELER. Would you briefly advise the committee as to your
education?

Mr. ROBEL. I have a high-school education and 2 years of
university.

Mr. WHEELER. What university is that?

Mr. ROBEL. Moscow, Idaho--not Russia.

Mr. WHEELER. The University of Idaho?

Mr. ROBEL. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHEELER. How long have you lived in the city of Seattle?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. ROBEL. I came here the latter part of 1937, I believe. I
have been here since.

Mr. WHEELER. Have you ever served in the Armed Forces of the
United States?

Mr. ROBEL. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHEELER. In what branch?

Mr. ROBEL. United States Navy.

Mr. WHEELER. At what period of time were you in the United
States Navy?

Mr. ROBEL. From 1933 to 1937.

Mr. WHEELER. Were you honorably discharged?

Mr. ROBEL. Yes, sir. I had a good-conduct discharge. I have
the medal at home.

Mr. WHEELER. What is your employment record for the last 10
years?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. ROBEL. I worked for an oil company for my first 4 years in
Seattle, General Petroleum Corp.

Mr. WHEELER. That would be 1937 to 1941?

Mr. ROBEL. I think that is approximately the figures. Then I
worked as a machinist at various jobs.

Mr. WHEELER. Specifically, what jobs have you held as a
machinist?

Mr. ROBEL. Mostly outside machinist, but at times maintenance.

Mr. WHEELER. For what companies have you worked?

Mr. ROBEL. I have worked for Todd’s, Pacific Iron Foundry,
Isaacson Iron Works, and Sahlberg Equipment Co.

Mr. WHEELER. Where are you employed now?

Mr. ROBEL. Todd’s.

Mr. WHEELER. Todd Shipyards?

Mr. ROBEL. Yes, sir.

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. of L.?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. ROBEL. I must invoke the fifth amendment, as previously,
and refuse to answer that.

Mr. MOULDER. I wish to say that for as long as I have served
on this committee, a period of approximately 7 years, I have never
heard anyone invoke the fifth amendment in response to a question as to
whether or not he was a member of an A. F. of L. union.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. MOULDER. Proceed.

Mr. WHEELER. Are you acquainted or have you been acquainted in
the past with Mrs. Barbara Hartle.

Mr. ROBEL. For the same reasons as previously given, that
I might tend to incriminate myself, I will have to invoke the fifth
amendment and refuse to answer that question.

Mr. WHEELER. Quoting her testimony before this committee,
appearing on page 6094 of volume 2 of the hearings held in June 1954:

    The Communist Party has always had a number of members in the
    machinists Union. Some of them that I can remember are Glenn
    Kinney, Ray Campbell, Frank Kerr, Gene Robel.

Was Mrs. Hartle advising the committee of the truth when she testified
to that?

Mr. ROBEL. I must again invoke the fifth amendment for the
previously stated reasons, and not admit or deny anything that any
stool pigeon you may bring out says about me.

Mr. MOULDER. To whom do you refer as a stool pigeon?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. ROBEL. I apologize for that statement, sir, and withdraw
it.

Mr. MOULDER. Ordinarily a person referred to as a stool pigeon
is one who is an accuser of some fact against someone else, and that
person ordinarily retorts that they are a stool pigeon.

You do withdraw that reference.

Mr. WHEELER. Mrs. Hartle also testified--and this reference to
her testimony can be found on page 6173 of volume 3 of the hearings:

    Gene Robel, whom I have mentioned before, and Glenn Kinney were
    also members of this industrial section.

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. SYKES

Mr. SYKES. I would like to hand to Mr. Wheeler a statement
from Dr. Beattie, and ask that the committee consider Mr. Kerr’s
physical condition, and if it sees fit to have him examined by a county
doctor.

Mr. MOULDER. I notice that this is a letter written by Dr.
John F. Beattie wherein he says that:

    Mr. Frank Kerr has been under my care since January 12, 1954,
    because of coronary artery disease.

The letter does not state the patient was hospitalized in connection
with his examination. It does not state he is now in the hospital. It
is not very specific as to his exact illness, as to whether or not
he is capable of appearing here as a witness without endangering his
health or life.

Mr. SYKES. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. There was serious
doubt in my mind, without knowing anything about the specific details
of his illness, to be absolutely sure whether or not he should be
examined by a doctor here, and if the doctor here should rule that he
can testify I would have no objection. I thought that I should protect
Mr. Kerr.

Mr. MOULDER. This is very vague.

Mr. SYKES. That is correct.

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. SYKES

Mr. WHEELER. Will the witness state his name, please?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Harold Johnston.

Mr. WHEELER. Are you represented by counsel? Will counsel
identify himself for the record?

Mr. SYKES. Jay G. Sykes, Seattle.

Mr. WHEELER. When and where were you born, Mr. Johnston?

Mr. JOHNSTON. 1907, Yakima, Wash.

Mr. WHEELER. And what is your educational background?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Very little, less than grammar; didn’t finish
grammar school.

Mr. WHEELER. How long have you lived in the Seattle district?

Mr. JOHNSTON. By Seattle district you mean King County?

Mr. WHEELER. Yes; or the periphery.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I don’t live in Seattle.

Mr. WHEELER. I understand that.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I have been there 15 years.

Mr. WHEELER. What is your employment record?

Mr. JOHNSTON. For the last 10 years it’s been machinist.

Mr. WHEELER. And prior to that?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Oh, odd jobs.

Mr. WHEELER. Are you presently employed?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, I am.

Mr. WHEELER. Where are you presently employed?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. Chairman, the subpena was served on me.
First, they went to my home and my wife told them where I worked. And
they went to the shop and were very courteous and called up my foreman,
and I went out and they served me. And I am sure the committee has
a record. And I don’t feel that it would do myself any good or the
company to make it a part of the official record as to where I work.
And I would like to not answer this question on that basis.

Mr. MOULDER. Do you decline to answer the question?

Mr. JOHNSTON. No. I definitely--I would like to be excused
from answering it. I am not taking a position that I--but inasmuch as
the deputy sheriff served me on the job, very courteous about it--met
me at the gate and did not come in; told me he would be there--and I
went out and looked him up--the committee knows where I work and I
don’t feel it should become a record here of the company I work for.

Mr. MOULDER. Do you mean that answering the question as to
where you are employed would reflect unfavorably upon the company which
employs you?

Mr. JOHNSTON. It is possible with publicity in the paper. No
use to bring unnecessary publicity on it. I feel that the committee
should take that into consideration. They know where I work. Their man
served a subpena on me. I would not like to answer that question.

Mr. VELDE. Mr. Chairman, I feel I must insist that the witness
answer the question as to where he is employed.

Throughout the history of this committee every witness who has appeared
before the committee has been required to give his place of residence
and his place of employment, or take refuge under the fifth amendment.
It would be grossly unfair to all the witnesses who have previously
appeared before this committee to allow you to escape answering that
question.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Inasmuch as you already know----But I will
answer then if you insist that I answer. I work at Lake Union Shipyards
as of today--I don’t know about tomorrow.

Mr. WHEELER. What type of work do you do for the Lake Union
Shipyards?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Machinist.

Mr. WHEELER. Is that company engaged upon classified matters,
security work for the United States Government?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. JOHNSTON. Well, we do a lot of fishing boat work. We do
work on all types of ships. It is a small yard. So it is small boats we
have there. We don’t have large ones like other yards do. It is mostly
small boats. There is some Government work there, naturally.

Mr. WHEELER. Do you have a security clearance?

Mr. JOHNSTON. No, I do not.

Mr. WHEELER. Have you ever requested one?

Mr. JOHNSTON. No, I haven’t.

Mr. WHEELER. Have you ever been denied one?

Mr. JOHNSTON. No, I haven’t.

Mr. WHEELER. Are you acquainted with Mrs. Barbara Hartle?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. JOHNSTON. Because the answer is liable to have a tendency
to incriminate me, at this time I invoke the fifth amendment and
decline to answer that question.

Mr. MOULDER. In future replies along that line, do I
understand you decline to answer on the grounds of the fifth amendment
for the reason that your answers might tend to incriminate you?

Mr. JOHNSTON. That is right, sir.

Mr. WHEELER. Being a machinist, are you a member of any union?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. JOHNSTON. Well, I will have to decline on the same reason,
of the fifth amendment.

Mr. VELDE. I suggest that the Chair instruct the witness to
answer the question.

Mr. MOULDER. The Chair directs you to answer the question.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. JOHNSTON. I respectfully decline to answer that on the
grounds that it will tend to incriminate me, and ask the privilege.

Mr. WHEELER. Are you a member of the International Association
of Machinists, A. F. of L.?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. JOHNSTON. For the same reason, again I invoke the fifth
amendment.

Mr. MOULDER. You are directed to answer the question. I think
it is a very unfair reflection upon that union, a legitimate, highly
respected labor organization, and you should answer that question.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. JOHNSTON. There is a very particular problem on that in
my case, and for that reason I don’t want to waive any rights under
the fifth amendment. So I respectfully again have to invoke the fifth
amendment.

Mr. MOULDER. Proceed.

Mr. WHEELER. Have you held any position in any union?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. JOHNSTON. The same--the fifth amendment. I will have to
invoke the fifth amendment again on that question.

Mr. WHEELER. Is it not a fact that you at one time were
business agent for the International Association of Machinists, A. F.
of L.?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Again I will have to invoke the fifth amendment.

Mr. WHEELER. To refer to the testimony of Barbara Hartle, page
6094, part 2 of the hearings held in June 1954:

    The business agent for several years of the machinists union
    during this time was Harold Johnston, who was a member also of the
    district committee of the Communist Party of which I was a member.

Was Mrs. Hartle correct in making that statement?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I will have to again invoke the fifth amendment
in that it is liable to incriminate me.

Mr. WHEELER. Were you ever at any time a member of the
district committee of the Communist Party of King County?

Mr. JOHNSTON. I will again have to invoke the fifth amendment
on the grounds it will possibly incriminate me.

Mr. WHEELER. Were you a member of the district committee
of the Communist Party of King County while business agent for the
machinists union?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. JOHNSTON. I will again have to invoke the fifth amendment
on the ground possibly to incriminate me.

Mr. WHEELER. Is it not a fact that there was a group of
machinists of 8 or 10 who were members of the Communist Party within
that union?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Again will I have to invoke the fifth amendment
for the same reason.

Mr. MOULDER. Let me understand that question, Mr. Wheeler.

Mr. WHEELER. I will repeat it.

Is it not a fact that there was a branch or cell of the Communist Party
within the machinists union of which you were a member?

Mr. MOULDER. Can you specify the date?

Mr. WHEELER. The date, sir, runs during the war years and
before, a continuing date.

Mr. MOULDER. Do you have any knowledge or information
concerning the question propounded to you by Mr. Wheeler?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. JOHNSTON. I didn’t get that complete. I am a little bit
hard of hearing. Would you read it over again?

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. HATTEN

Mr. WHEELER. Will the witness state his name, please.

Mr. LAWRIE. My name is Jack Lawrie, Jr.

Mr. WHEELER. Will you spell the last name.

Mr. LAWRIE. L-a-w-r-i-e.

Mr. WHEELER. When and where were you born, Mr. Lawrie?

Mr. LAWRIE. I was born in 1921 in the city of Casper, Wyo.,
July 12.

Mr. WHEELER. And what is your educational background?

Mr. LAWRIE. My education background is one of having graduated
from grade school in the city of Seattle, and also Franklin High School
in the city of Seattle.

And at this point I would like to raise a point of order.

Mr. MOULDER. I would like to ask you a question.

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. LAWRIE. I would still have a point of order here that is
in the rules of procedure, and I think the committee would certainly be
interested in their own rules of procedure. And I would like to read
article No. 10, which deals----

Mr. MOULDER. Will you answer my question first?

Mr. LAWRIE. Deals with rights of a person affected by a
hearing. I am certainly affected by the hearing.

Mr. MOULDER. I asked you a question if you are now or have
ever been a member of the Communist Party. You may answer. Then you may
have a point of order to raise when you answer to that question.

Mr. VELDE. If he answers the question instead of refusing to
answer.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. LAWRIE. I am going to have to decline to answer that
question. And the reason I am declining to answer that question is
that, due to the many oppressive and repressive laws, both on the
Federal and State level, I am going to invoke the first amendment and
also the fifth amendment.

I would like to be able to read the first and fifth amendments from
the Constitution of the United States. I believe we have a good
Constitution, and I am sure--or at least this committee claims they are
interested in the Constitution, and upholding the rights.

So I would like to read from the Constitution of the United States at
this time.

Mr. MOULDER. That won’t be necessary. We are familiar with
the provisions of the Constitution. You have declined to answer on the
first and fifth amendment.

Do you have any questions, Mr. Wheeler?

Mr. WHEELER. Would you relate briefly to the committee your
employment record?

(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
not going to be permitted to enter into a soapbox argument with this
committee.

Proceed, Mr. Wheeler.

Mr. WHEELER. Would you briefly relate your employment record
for the last 10 years?

Mr. LAWRIE. I don’t see any basis for the honorable
gentleman’s statement. I still think that I have the right to raise my
point of order.

Mr. MOULDER. You are directed to answer the question
propounded to you.

Mr. LAWRIE. I still think I have----

Mr. MOULDER. Ask the next question.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. LAWRIE. What was the question?

Mr. MOULDER. You haven’t answered it.

Mr. LAWRIE. I am asking the question.

Mr. MOULDER. You made a statement you were refusing to answer
without giving the legal reason for refusing to answer. I am directing
the examiner to proceed with the next question because you have refused
to answer it without cause.

Mr. WHEELER. Are you acquainted with Mrs. Barbara Hartle?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. LAWRIE. I will have to state that I didn’t understand the
previous question.

Mr. MOULDER. Do you understand the present question?

Mr. WHEELER. I think the record will show that my question was
asked three times.

The question now is: Are you acquainted with Mrs. Barbara Hartle?

Mr. LAWRIE. Well, with reference to the last two questions, I
am----

Mr. MOULDER. We are not making reference to the last two
questions. He has asked you a simple question now, and you are directed
to answer.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. LAWRIE. With reference to that question on Barbara Hartle
and the previous question, I am going to invoke both the first and the
fifth amendment which states that an individual is not compelled to
be a witness against himself and shall not be deprived of liberty or
property without due process of law.

Mr. MOULDER. The next question, please, Mr. Wheeler.

Mr. WHEELER. Where are you presently employed?

Mr. LAWRIE. I am going to answer that question in this way:
During the time the committee was here--I believe it was last June--I
read in the newspapers where a number of workers, men and women, lost
their jobs.

Mr. MOULDER. You are not responding to the question. You must
be responsive to the question and not take the question as an excuse
for making a speech.

Now the question is: Where are you now employed? Do you decline to
answer?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. MOULDER. Give him a reasonable time to decline or answer,
and proceed with the next question.

Mr. LAWRIE. At this time I am going to request that I be
allowed to talk to my attorney.

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. LESSER

Mr. WHEELER. Will the witness state his full name, please?

Mr. CARMICHAEL. Edward Brook Carmichael, Jr.

Mr. WHEELER. And where do you reside, Mr. Carmichael?

Mr. CARMICHAEL. At Monroe.

Mr. WHEELER. Monroe, Wash.?

Mr. CARMICHAEL. Monroe, Wash.

Mr. WHEELER. Where were you born and when?

Mr. CARMICHAEL. In Washington.

Mr. WHEELER. What date?

Mr. CARMICHAEL. 1917.

Mr. MOULDER. Are you represented by counsel who appears now
before the committee?

Mr. CARMICHAEL. Yes.

Mr. MOULDER. Would your attorney please state her name?

Miss LESSER. My name is Sarah H. Lesser, and I am a member of
the Seattle bar.

Mr. WHEELER. Where are you presently employed?

Mr. CARMICHAEL. Washington State Reformatory at Monroe.

Mr. WHEELER. What is your position there?

Mr. CARMICHAEL. Supervisory cook.

Mr. WHEELER. How long have you been so employed?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARMICHAEL. Four years.

Mr. WHEELER. Would you advise the committee of your
educational background?

Mr. CARMICHAEL. High-school graduate.

Mr. WHEELER. Of what school, please?

Mr. CARMICHAEL. Sultan Union High School.

Mr. WHEELER. How were you employed prior to your employment by
the Washington State Reformatory at Monroe?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARMICHAEL. By the privilege granted me under the fifth
amendment, I decline to answer that question.

Mr. WHEELER. On all employment prior to the time you went to
work with the State or for the State of Washington?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARMICHAEL. For the same reason, I decline to answer.

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.

[Illustration: 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.)

[Illustration]

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. SYKES

Mr. WHEELER. Will you state your full name.

Mr. CARLSON. Edwin A. Carlson.

Mr. WHEELER. I see you are represented by counsel. Will
counsel identify himself for the record?

Mr. SYKES. Jay G. Sykes.

Mr. WHEELER. When and where were you born, Mr. Carlson?

Mr. CARLSON. I was born in Grantsburg, Wis., 1909.

Mr. WHEELER. How long have you lived in the State of
Washington?

Mr. CARLSON. Since 1940.

Mr. WHEELER. And where did you live prior to 1940?

Mr. CARLSON. At Cloverton, Minn.

Mr. WHEELER. And what is your occupation?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. I am a machinist.

Mr. WHEELER. Being a machinist, are you affiliated with any
union, or are you a member of any union?

Mr. CARLSON. Because the answer to that question may tend
to incriminate me, I invoke the fifth amendment of the United States
Constitution, and refuse to answer it.

Mr. WHEELER. Is it not true that you are it member of the
machinists union, A. F. of L.?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain that there
are 3 branches of the machinists union in the city of Seattle.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. Which one do you mean?

Mr. WHEELER. Any one of the three.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. I must invoke the fifth amendment to that
question, and refuse to answer.

Mr. WHEELER. Are you presently employed?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. I am unemployed at the present time.

Mr. WHEELER. I would like to read a telegram. This telegram
was sent by one Ed Carlson, member of the machinists union, is so
identified, and appears in part 11 (appendix), page 6748, of the
hearings held here in June 1954. It is dated Seattle, Wash., June 19,
1954, and addressed to the Velde committee, Seattle.

    DEAR SIRS: I see by the paper that Mrs. Hartle names one
    Ed Carlson as a member of the Communist Party in the machinists
    union. I presume I am the individual referred to. So that the
    record is straight, let me insert this into the record for all to
    see and hear.

    It did not take me 20 years to decide that the Communist Party was
    not the answer to the problems as I see them. In fact, I am very
    nearly positive it was Mrs. Hartle who tried to persuade me to
    reconsider my decision to discontinue my affiliations, which is
    now approximately 5 years ago.

    I do believe that my many friends and acquaintances are entitled
    to this additional clarification of the facts.

  Sincerely,

  ED CARLSON,
  _Member of Machinists Union_.

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
KNUDSEN

Mr. WHEELER. Will you state your full name, please?

Mr. KROENER. Edmund D. Kroener.

Mr. WHEELER. Will counsel for the witness identify himself for
the record?

Mr. KNUDSEN. C. Calvert Knudsen. And may the record show that
I am, Mr. Chairman, if you please, the treasurer of the Seattle Bar
Association, and, at the request of that association and at the request
of this gentleman, I am undertaking to represent him at this hearing
inasmuch as he is financially unable to obtain other counsel.

Mr. MOULDER. The record will so reflect the statement made by
counsel.

Mr. VELDE. May I make this remark?

In connection with our hearings last June it was mentioned several
times that the mere fact that an attorney represents a witness who
might be a fifth amendment witness should be no reflection whatsoever
on the attorney. And I am sure that is true of all the attorneys who
have appeared here today.

Mr. MOULDER. It is your duty to be here in the capacity in
which you appear here today, in the honor of your own profession.

Mr. KNUDSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHEELER. Will you spell your name, please?

Mr. KROENER. K-r-o-e-n-e-r.

Mr. WHEELER. Do you presently reside in Seattle?

Mr. KROENER. Yes.

Mr. WHEELER. What is your occupation, Mr. Kroener?

Mr. KROENER. Work as a machinist.

Mr. WHEELER. Are you presently employed?

Mr. KROENER. No; I am not.

Mr. WHEELER. Being a machinist, are you a member of any union?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. KROENER. I wish to invoke, on answering that, the fifth
amendment, on the grounds that it may incriminate me.

Mr. WHEELER. Are you a member of the International Association
of Machinists, A. F. of L.?

Mr. KROENER. Again I wish to invoke the fifth amendment.

Mr. WHEELER. Have they instituted charges against you to
remove you from membership in the union?

Mr. KROENER. Again I wish to invoke the fifth amendment.

Mr. WHEELER. What has been your educational background, Mr.
Kroener?

Mr. KROENER. First half year of the eighth grade of grammar
school.

Mr. WHEELER. In Seattle?

Mr. KROENER. Yes.

Mr. WHEELER. How have you been employed?

Mr. KROENER. When I was younger I worked in logging camps and
did odd jobs in the steel mills, and as a welder. And, oh, since about
1941 and 1942 I have worked in the machine trade.

Mr. WHEELER. In the machine trade?

Mr. KROENER. Yes.

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:

    Will you tell the committee, please, whether or not there was any
    important function that Elmer Thrasher performed in the industrial
    section of the party?

    Mrs. HARTLE. He was chairman of a branch in the
    industrial section, in the building trades. He was a member of one
    of the building-trades unions--the carpenters union.

    Another one whom I recall is Ed Kroener. He lived in the Duwamish
    Bend area, in the Duwamish Bend housing project, with his wife,
    Donna Kroener, who was a member of the south King region and the
    Duwamish Bend Club, but he was a member of the industrial section
    inasmuch as he was a member of the Machinists Union, Local No. 79.

Do you wish to comment on that testimony, Mr. Kroener?

Mr. KROENER. No.

Mr. VELDE. To what period of time was Mrs. Hartle referring?

Mr. WHEELER. To what period of time, Mr. Kroener, was she
referring?

Mr. KROENER. Again I wish to invoke the fifth amendment on the
grounds of self-incrimination.

Mr. WHEELER. Mr. Kroener, did you at any time participate as
an individual within the Progressive Party in 1948 in the State of
Washington?

Mr. KROENER. Again I wish to invoke the fifth amendment on the
grounds of self-incrimination.

Mr. WHEELER. Are you a member of the Communist Party today?

Mr. KROENER. Again I wish to invoke the fifth amendment on the
grounds of self-incrimination.

Mr. WHEELER. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Velde?

Mr. VELDE. I have just one brief question. How could your
acquaintanceship with Mrs. Hartle or Mr. Johnston or the other
witnesses whom you were asked about tend to incriminate you?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. KROENER. The answer to that question may open up a whole
field of other questions, and, therefore, I wish to invoke the fifth
amendment on the grounds of self-incrimination.

Mr. MOULDER. Do you have anything else you wish to say in
explanation of your presence or your appearance here?

Are you married?

Mr. KROENER. Yes.

Mr. MOULDER. Do you have a family?

Mr. KROENER. Yes.

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.) [Blank Page]




INVESTIGATION OF COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN THE SEATTLE, WASH., AREA




FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 1955

  UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
  SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
  COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES,

  _Seattle, Wash._

PUBLIC HEARING


A subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met, pursuant
to recess, at 9 a. m., in Room 402, County-City Building, Seattle,
Wash., Hon. Morgan M. Moulder (chairman) presiding.

Committee members present: Representatives Morgan M. Moulder (chairman)
and Harold H. Velde (appearance as noted).

Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel; William A.
Wheeler, staff investigator.

Mr. MOULDER. The subcommittee will be in order.

Mr. Counsel, call the witness you wish to examine.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recall Mr. Dennett
at this time.


TESTIMONY OF EUGENE VICTOR DENNETT, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, KENNETH
A. MacDONALD--Resumed

Mr. TAVENNER. It is noted, Mr. Dennett, that your counsel is
not with you. Do you prefer to wait until he arrives before proceeding?

Mr. DENNETT. It doesn’t make any particular difference. I am
sure my counsel intends to be here as soon as he can get here, but
there is no need to delay.

Mr. TAVENNER. I understand he is in the corridor, so we will
wait until he arrives.

(At this point Kenneth A. MacDonald, counsel to the witness, entered
the hearing room.)

Mr. TAVENNER. When you left the stand yesterday, Mr. Dennett,
we were speaking of your experience in the Communist Party at
Bellingham. Will you please describe to the committee what additional
activities of the Communist Party you engaged in while at Bellingham.

Mr. DENNETT. I believe, sir, that I recounted that the
Communist Party was active in the unemployed movement, and our
membership grew from 7 to approximately 160 in the course of a year’s
time, and that we had proceeded to reorient that membership in the
party from exclusive work in the unemployment councils to working in
an organization known as the People’s Councils, which was organized by
non-party people.

The two leaders of that organization at that time were Mr. M. M. London
and Mr. George Bradley.

The Communist Party was quite disturbed that there was such an
effective organization in existence which was not directly under our
leadership.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the name of that organization?

Mr. DENNETT. The People’s Councils. Consequently, one of
our major objectives was to win that leadership to support the party
position one way or another. We had had previous experience with Mr.
London and we considered that it was not possible to win Mr. London
back to--or to support the party. Therefore, we concentrated our
attention on Mr. Bradley, and ultimately won him to support the party
and the party position in opposition to Mr. London.

Mr. TAVENNER. When you say you won Mr. Bradley to the support
of the Communist Party position, do you mean to indicate that he became
a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes; he did. He became a member of the Communist
Party after my constant agitation with him had convinced him that the
Communist Party program was a sounder program and a better program than
the one that they were pursuing in the People’s Councils.

And Mr. Bradley was unable to convince Mr. London, and they became at
some conflict in point of view on that.

Mr. TAVENNER. The organization there known as the
Unemployed Councils, if I understood your testimony correctly, was a
Communist-organized group?

Mr. DENNETT. That is true. The Unemployed Council was
organized by the Communist Party, and it was our policy throughout that
entire period to insist that all unemployed organizations, if they were
to truly represent the unemployed, had to affiliate with the Unemployed
Councils.

Now in the case of the People’s Councils, we tried to get them to
affiliate with the National Unemployed Councils. They never did. Even
after we won Bradley to our support the rest of the membership still
would not agree to direct affiliation with the National Unemployed
Council. Instead, they felt that they had a greater kinship and
association with the Unemployed Citizens Leagues, which had been
organized in the city of Seattle and in various parts of the State of
Washington under the leadership of anti-Communists who had originally
come from the labor movement in the city of Seattle.

There were three particular leaders of the Unemployed Citizens League
who organized it at the outset.

And I am not sure that I related yesterday how serious the unemployment
problem was in the city of Seattle, but I am sure that if anyone would
take the trouble to look up the records they would find that at one
time there were over 90,000 families in the city of Seattle who were
dependent upon public assistance to maintain themselves and their
families.

There was no private employment in the city. The only persons who were
receiving paychecks were those who were working for either the State,
Federal, or city governments. And under those circumstances the problem
was very, very acute. The tax rolls were overtaxed. I mean by that that
the tax burden was greater than the city was able to bear. The city
treasury was soon exhausted trying to maintain the citizens who were
unemployed through no fault of their own.

Soon the county budget was exhausted, and they were perplexed. The
problem was far more serious and far more acute than the average person
today can possibly comprehend unless he looks at the statistics, which
are available, I am sure, in some of the research libraries.

I speak of that about the city of Seattle because I have some knowledge
of it from personal experience. The same situation existed in nearly
every small city in the State of Washington at that time. I cannot
testify as to what the condition was in other parts of the country.

But it was that condition which opened the door for widespread
organization on the part of workers and unaffiliated and disaffiliated
people, and it was when they came into these organizations that it
became possible for the Communists to begin to hammer away with the
class-struggle line of tactics and the insistence that a relentless
fight must be waged against the capitalist system and blame the
capitalist system for this condition of unemployment.

It created a problem, too, for those who held public office because
they did not know what to do about it. And, frankly, it wasn’t possible
for any local people to solve the problem. It had to be dealt with on a
national scale, on a national basis.

It was not until after the new administration took office in 1933 that
steps were taken which made it possible to start the wheels of industry
in motion again. And as those wheels of industry got started in motion
it was possible for these workers to find jobs. And when they started
finding jobs they left the unemployed organizations. When they left
the unemployed organizations they got out from under the immediate
influence of the Communists who had entered those organizations, and,
in many instances, obtained control.

I am speaking specifically of the Unemployed Citizens League, the
People’s Councils, and I think that there were some other organizations
around here that I have forgotten the names of.

I think that there was one called the United Producers of Washington
that was created over in Pierce County which was affiliated with the
Unemployed Citizens League.

There were many different names of these organizations, and they
assumed different forms. But essentially they all performed the same
function. They provided a center around which people could begin to
develop their own ideas and listen to other people’s ideas.

I would certainly like to make certain that everyone understands that
that kind of problem has to be dealt with also with ideas.

Mr. TAVENNER. You made reference to unemployment citizens’
leagues. Were there such organizations in Bellingham?

Mr. DENNETT. No, there were not. The People’s Councils
performed all the functions which the Unemployed Citizens Leagues
would do, plus the fact that the People’s Councils also developed some
political aspirations. I mean they did embark upon an independent
political campaign, and they did run candidates for public office. That
was largely due to the influence of the Communist Party there. Remember
1932? We were insistent that they not support either the Democratic or
Republican Parties because we branded them as capitalist parties, and
we insisted that the only way it was possible for the workers to obtain
what they wanted was through their own party.

We succeeded in prevailing upon the People’s Councils to run their
independent candidates, and some of them came very close to election to
office. They didn’t quite make it.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Dennett, I think it would be of value to
the committee to understand as fully as possible the methods used by
the Communist Party in that period in causing the Unemployed Councils
to take various courses of action in Bellingham and Seattle, and to
understand to what extent the Communist Party was successful in using
other organizations which it did not control.

Mr. DENNETT. I can think of two very graphic illustrations of
that.

One occurred in the city of Seattle at the time the unemployed occupied
this building for 3 solid days. The Unemployed Citizens Leagues
in the city of Seattle were anti-Communist; their leadership was
anti-Communist. But they were confronted with the budget running low,
the city funds exhausted, and the county commissioners were confronted
with the dilemma of what to do with their funds diminishing.

The county commissioners at that time ordered a cut in the amount
of relief which would be allowed. When they did that it placed the
anti-Communist leadership in the Unemployed Citizens Leagues in a most
embarrassing position because we in the Communist Party and in the
Unemployed Councils had been very critical of everything which the
Unemployed Citizens Leagues had been doing and which their leaders had
been doing.

When this cut occurred we blamed the leaders of the Unemployed Citizens
Leagues for permitting it. We didn’t know that these leaders had been
opposing the cut. We didn’t know what their actual attitude was. But
we very soon found out because these leaders were so desperate that
they decided to make a march on the County-City Building where the
commissioners were to meet in a room similar to this one. And it was
their intention to demand at that time that the cuts not be put into
effect.

However, the demonstration proved to be much larger and had much
more support than the leaders of the Unemployed Citizens Leagues
anticipated, and the Communists--I remember it very well because I was
on the district bureau at that time--and we found ourselves not in the
leadership of a militant action, and we were embarrassed and fearful
that if we didn’t get into the act that we would be blamed by the
national leadership.

And we didn’t have any contacts in the Unemployed Citizens League
leadership, and we didn’t know what to do. So we debated the question
for about 30 hours in 1 continuous bureau meeting. Following that
meeting we decided that it was best for us to join the demonstration
regardless, whether we had contact or not, and we issued leaflets and
called upon our members to join in the demonstration.

(At this point Representative Harold H. Velde entered the hearing room).

Mr. DENNETT. In the process of doing so we received a bigger
response than we expected. In other words, the need was more acute
than even the most closest observers realized. Consequently, there
were about 6,000 people down here in this building. They couldn’t all
get into the chambers. They crowded the hallways, they crowded several
floors of the building. And some of the commissioners got so scared
of the demonstration that they tried to run out. They tried to avoid
meeting the leaders.

As a result, the demonstrators decided they would stay until they did
meet the leaders, until they met the commissioners. And it took over 3
days before the commissioners finally agreed to meet with the committee
of this group.

I happened to be the secretary of that committee at that time, and I am
sorry that those records that I kept of that demonstration are records
which I do not have today. They would be quite valuable to understand
all the things that happened, the chronology of why one thing followed
another.

But I am quite convinced and I am quite certain that the account I have
just given you can be verified by checking the newspaper files of that
period.

Mr. TAVENNER. Now is it correct to say that the general
objectives of the Unemployed Councils, which was organized by the
Communist Party, and the general objectives of the Unemployed Citizens
Leagues, which were anti-Communist in character, were the same in that
their purpose was to alleviate suffering from unemployment? Is that
true?

Mr. DENNETT. I think that is generally true with this possible
exception, that the Communist Party was never satisfied to resolve the
alleviation of immediate suffering. That was a tactic to win wider
support and to pursue their further objective of political control.

But, on the other hand, the Unemployed Citizens Leagues were concerned
only with the question of getting some relief for the immediate
situation and not fundamentally altering the economic system.

The Unemployed Councils did strive to change the economic system.

Mr. TAVENNER. That is the point I wanted made clear. This
appears to be an excellent example of the Communist Party using a
situation in which all people were interested from the humanity
standpoint and endeavoring to turn it to its own advantage in
developing its general objectives.

Mr. DENNETT. I think that is true.

And while we speak of that point I think that all political parties do
the same thing. They try to turn things to their own advantage. That is
the way the Communists try to do it.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was there any other development at that period
of time which would demonstrate how the Communist Party by its
organizational efforts turned unfortunate situations of this character
to its own advantage?

Mr. DENNETT. There was another example which seems rather
devious when you look at it from this perspective, but at that time we
thought it was quite skillful.

In the city of Seattle after this embarrassing financial crisis arose
it became quite clear to everyone that to finance the relief load was a
problem greater than cities or counties could bear. It required State
and Federal assistance. But the State was not helping at that time. The
State was not doing anything. And the Communists conceived the idea of
hunger marches. I remember there were national hunger marches. There
were also State hunger marches. There were county hunger marches. There
were hunger marches within cities. Wherever the need was acute there
were hunger marches.

And we had more than our share of them here.

In one, in particular, on one occasion, the Communists raised a demand
for a march on Olympia to demand that the State finance the relief load
for localities. Our request was for a big bond issue.

The unemployed councils in the city of Seattle did not have a very
large following, and it was a hopeless task unless some means could be
found to prevail upon the unemployed citizens’ leagues to take part
in such a march. But the Unemployed Citizens’ League leadership was
hostile to the Communist leadership in the unemployed councils. But
through the people’s councils we were able to exert some influence
because we had a considerable Communist leadership developing in the
ranks of the people’s councils in Whatcom County. Strangely enough,
that organization was in a position where its top leadership was
friendly with and collaborated with the unemployed citizens’ leagues
in Seattle while those of us in the Communist Party, in the ranks
of the organization, naturally were following the leadership of the
national unemployed councils and were friendly with and working with
the unemployed councils in the city of Seattle.

Consequently, when the unemployed councils in the city of Seattle
issued a call for a march on Olympia, that call was transmitted to
Bellingham where we entered into the people’s councils and won a
majority vote in support of such a march, and with the further request
that they call upon the unemployed citizens’ leagues in Seattle to join
the march, which they did. They prevailed upon the unemployed citizens’
leagues to join in the march.

Consequently, we had two somewhat hostile groups participating in the
same event, marching on Olympia.

But when they got to Olympia there was a split. There were two
demonstrations. And there is a gentleman in this room who suffered as a
casualty of one of those demonstrations because at that particular time
he was a leader in the unemployed citizens leagues.

The unemployed councils people wanted to chase the leadership of the
unemployed citizens leagues and the people’s councils away from the
head of that demonstration. And Mr. Jess Fletcher was a casualty on
that occasion. He was pulled down off of one of the--I forget what you
would call it--one of those approaches to the steps. And he had a badly
crushed ankle as a result of that occasion.

I was called upon by the district leadership of the party at that
time to make a speech. I was instructed to expose Mr. London and to
otherwise denounce the Social-Fascist leaders of those organizations.
And, of course, being a thoroughly disciplined Communist, I did
precisely what I was instructed.

It had some repercussions because when we returned to Bellingham I had
some other unfortunate experiences about it.

I should say that in this demonstration in Olympia the Unemployed
Citizens League people did wait out the Governor and did get a
committee in to see the Governor, whereas the unemployed councils
people left Olympia without seeing the Governor and without
accomplishing their objective.

Mr. TAVENNER. If I correctly understand these two
illustrations which you have described, in one instance the Communist
Party occupied this very building, joined in the activity of the
unemployed citizens leagues, and attempted to obtain for its own credit
whatever credit could be obtained, whereas in the other instance, by
devious means, they got the other organizations to cooperate with the
unemployed councils in the march on Olympia.

Mr. DENNETT. That is true.

Mr. TAVENNER. The Communist Party reversed its tactics.

Mr. DENNETT. That is true. We were very flexible people. We
could do almost anything with our tactics.

Mr. TAVENNER. Therefore, the Communist Party’s objectives were
accomplished in both instances.

Mr. DENNETT. That is right. And what was even more important
to the party was to be able to carry a great big newspaper story in the
Daily Worker to the effect that the revolution was starting because the
workers had seized the County-City Building in King County, State of
Washington, and held it for 3 days.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was that used as Communist propaganda over the
entire United States?

Mr. DENNETT. It was.

Mr. TAVENNER. Up until the time you made that speech at the
direction of the Communist Party it appears to me that this was a
cooperative effort between the unemployed councils and the unemployed
citizens leagues in the march on Olympia. Am I correct in that?

Mr. DENNETT. It was; through the people’s councils.

Mr. TAVENNER. But manipulated through the people’s councils
where you had influence?

Mr. DENNETT. Correct.

Mr. TAVENNER. Then after arriving on the scene, you, at the
direction of the Communist Party, made this attack on the leadership of
the unemployed citizens leagues.

Mr. DENNETT. And the people’s councils.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was the purpose of this attack to utterly
destroy any effectiveness of those organizations in the accomplishment
of the general purpose of the march?

Mr. DENNETT. Looking back on it from this distance, it
certainly appears to me that that was its objective.

Mr. TAVENNER. When you returned to Bellingham what reception
did you receive from these organizations which had in good faith
supported this march on Olympia?

Mr. DENNETT. There was a great deal of tension; open threats
were made that if I showed my head around anywhere I would have my head
knocked off.

However, I was not so easily scared as that. So I showed my head. The
people’s councils had a practice of, which I considered to be most
democratic, reporting to their membership.

Following the hunger march they called a mass meeting for the purpose
of reporting what had been happening, what their success was. And these
very leaders of the people’s councils whom I had denounced in Olympia
presented themselves and reported to their membership. In the process
of reporting naturally they reported my part in the affair, and their
report aroused a great deal of bitterness among the members of the
organization.

When I appeared in attendance at the meeting those who were present
near me moved about 6 or 8 feet away, leaving me a conspicuous figure
out in the open spaces. And some of the remarks were directed toward me
in that meeting.

I felt at the time that something was wrong with the situation, of what
I had done. But I wasn’t sure what. I knew, however, that if I didn’t
face it all would be lost. So I chose to face it and take whatever
consequences might happen.

The consequences came very soon. When the meeting adjourned, as I
attempted to leave the building four members of the organization
surrounded me and marched me around behind the building where they
proceeded to give me a physical beating.

I never have been much of a fighter as such. Physically I am not
equipped to do so. So I merely rolled up into a ball and let them do as
best they could.

In the meantime some of my friends came to my assistance, and the
police intervened to stop anything from proceeding too far.

However, I did surprise everyone by appearing and I did unnerve them
because they didn’t believe that I had the nerve to show up after what
I had done in Olympia. And as a total consequence of it all, I finally
recruited most of the people who beat me up into the Communist Party.

I felt they were good, militant people, and they were the kind of
people we wanted.

Mr. TAVENNER. How long was that before you left Bellingham?

Mr. DENNETT. Right now I can’t fix a real date on that. I
would have to look at the newspaper files to be certain of the date.
It wasn’t too long, however, because our influence had grown, and it
wasn’t very long after that.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was there any other activity of the Communist
Party while you were at Bellingham which would be of value to this
committee as far as you know in making the committee aware of the
tactics and methods used by the Communist Party to advance its
objectives?

Mr. DENNETT. Offhand, right now I think of nothing further
with respect to Bellingham.

Mr. TAVENNER. I see before me several pamphlets which
apparently relate to the various hunger marches which are among the
documents which you made available to the staff. Will you examine
these, please, and state whether or not they were used in any
connection with the matters you have been describing?

(Documents handed to the witness.)

Mr. DENNETT. Yes. These were what we called popular pamphlets,
to popularize the hunger marches. They were brief penny pamphlets which
we tried to sell in mass lots. In other words, if we could find someone
who would contribute a dollar we would make a hundred of these things
available and try to hand them out in large numbers. They were given to
nearly all persons who participated in hunger marches, and they were an
elementary introduction to the orientation which the Communist Party
had to the whole economic situation.

Mr. TAVENNER. The purpose is not clear of the use of those
documents by the Communist Party.

Here were those members who had agreed to take part in the hunger
marches. Why was it necessary for them to have such material?

Mr. DENNETT. Because in many instances people would
participate in these events because they were in need of relief
themselves, but they had no conception of what the economic problems
were, and they had no conception of the political objectives that we
had.

And we were quite anxious to take that occasion, when they were rubbing
elbows with us, to make certain that they took some elementary steps of
understanding in our direction.

[Illustration: DENNETT EXHIBIT NO. 5

  THE MARCH
  AGAINST
  HUNGER

  _By_ I. AMTER
]

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce in
evidence three pamphlets entitled “The March Against Hunger,” by I.
Amter, “The Highway of Hunger,” by Dave Doran, and “Our Children Cry
for Bread,” by Sadie Van Veen, and ask that they be marked “Dennett
Exhibits 5, 6, and 7” respectively, with the understanding that only
the front cover and the back cover of each be incorporated in the
transcript of the record.

[Illustration:

  _Read!_       _Subscribe!_

  Daily Worker

  Central Office Communist Party U.S.A.

  50 East Thirteenth Street
  New York, N. Y.

  “_The Only English Daily Working
  Class Newspaper in America_”

  Brings you the truth about all vital and dramatic
  developments in the class struggle in America and
  throughout the world.

  SPECIAL CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE
  SOVIET UNION. The only authoritative news
  accounts and features of the life and accomplishments
  in the First Workers Republic.

  Address All Subscriptions and Communications to:

  DAILY WORKER
  50 East 13th Street       New York, N. Y.

  SUBSCRIPTION RATES:

  In Boros of Manhattan
  and Bronx, N.Y.C.:

  One year      $9.00
  Six months     5.00
  Three months   3.00
  One month      1.00

  In the Rest of the
  United States:

  One year      $6.00
  Six months     3.50
  Three months   2.00
  One month       .75
]

Mr. MOULDER. They will be so marked and admitted.

Mr. TAVENNER. In other words, you were going beyond the real
immediate purposes of the hunger march, and were trying to sell the
participants a bill of goods through these pamphlets.

Mr. DENNETT. That is true.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you hurriedly look through these documents,
please, and call the committee’s attention to a few items which would
substantiate your testimony on that point?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, here is this one on the March Against
Hunger, by Israel Amter, in which some of the subheadings tell the
story.

There is one, “Struggles Force Relief.” The implication is very
plain that the only way they can get the relief is to engage in mass
struggles. And in too many instances that was true from their own
experience.

[Illustration: DENNETT EXHIBIT NO. 6

  THE
  HIGHWAY _OF_ HUNGER

  STORY OF
  AMERICA’S
  HOMELESS
  YOUTH

  BY DAVE DORAN

  1¢
]

“Large Bodies of Workers Represented”: There was always a tendency to
exaggerate the number who actually participated.

“Marchers Enter Washington”: the inference that the workers could get
to Washington and be represented by marching on Washington; not by
trying to be elected.

“Marchers Hold Conference Surrounded by Police”: referring to the
attempt to thwart the efforts of the workers.

“Workers’ Congress v. Bankers’ Congress”: the meeting of the unemployed
representatives in Washington, trying to hold a comparison between
their efforts and that of the Congress itself.

“Mass Action, Basis of Struggle”: a repeat of an earlier point.

[Illustration:

  _Read and Subscribe to_

  _The_
  YOUNG WORKER

  THE YOUNG WORKER,
  as the official paper of the
  =YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE=
  exposes all of the boss-class
  attacks of the working youth,
  and rallies the young workers,
  jobless youth and students for
  the only way out--

  ORGANIZATION and
  MASS STRUGGLE.

  _Subscription Rates_:

  $1.00 per year, 60c for six months.      Single Copy, 2c

  YOUNG WORKER
  Box 28, Station D,       New York, N. Y.
]

“Workers’ Demands Can Be Realized.”

“Crisis Deepens.”

“Broadest United Front Must Be Set Up.”

“No Unemployment in the Soviet Union.”

“Our Next Step.”

“Expose Starvation Conditions.”

“Unemployment Insurance Will Be Won.”

Those are some of the subheads in this pamphlet.

There is another pamphlet here, The Highway of Hunger, Story of
America’s Homeless Youth, by Dave Doran. There is a subhead, “Why the
Boss Class ‘Worries’ About the Starving Youth”: their point being that
the only interest the Government had in the youth was to make soldiers
of them, not to feed them or educate them.

Another subhead: “Unemployment Cannot Be Abolished Under Capitalism.”

[Illustration: DENNETT EXHIBIT NO. 7

  _OUR CHILDREN
  CRY FOR
  BREAD_

  _=by
  SADIE VAN VEEN=_ Price 1c
]

“The Young Communist League Leads the Fight.”

“The Only Way Out for the Unemployed Youth.”

“For Cash Relief! Not Military Camps!” They branded the CCC’s as
military camps at the outset. Unfortunately, later on some people tried
to make military camps of them, and that did not succeed either.

Here is another pamphlet: Our Children Cry for Bread. And it was
certainly true. Children did cry for bread when their families didn’t
have it to give them. And they have a subhead on “The Homeless Youth.”

[Illustration:

  MISSOURI
    1243 Garrison St.
    St. Louis, Mo.
    910 W. 21st St.
    Kansas City, Mo.

  MONTANA
    P. O. Box 33
    Butte, Mont.

  NEBRASKA
    1410 W. 20th St.
    Omaha, Neb.

  NEW JERSEY
    385 Springfield Ave.
    Newark, N. J.

  NEW MEXICO
    P. O. Box 143
    Rosswell, N. M.

  NEW YORK
    10 East 17th St.
    New York City
    476 William St.
    Buffalo, N. Y.

  NORTH CAROLINA
    P. O. Box 654
    Charlotte, N. C.

  OHIO
    1426 W. 3rd St.
    Cleveland, O.

  OKLAHOMA
    7 Broadway
    Oklahoma City, Okla.

  OREGON
    245½ Alder St.
    Portland, Ore.

  PENNSYLVANIA
    919 Locust St.
    Philadelphia, Pa.
    2203 Center St.
    Pittsburgh, Pa.

  RHODE ISLAND
    15 Snow St.
    Providence, R. I.

  SOUTH DAKOTA
    P. O. Box 13
    Frederick, S. D.

  TENNESSEE
    P. O. Box 219
    Chattanooga, Tenn.

  TEXAS
    1310 Walker St.
    Houston, Tex.

  UTAH
    225 Ness Bldg.
    Salt Lake City, Utah

  VIRGINIA
    200 E. Main St.
    Richmond, Va.

  WASHINGTON
    617 University
    Seattle, Wash.

  WISCONSIN
    1207 N. 6th St.
    Milwaukee, Wis.

  WYOMING
    P. O. Box 354
    Torrington, Wyo.

Unemployment Series No. 2

Issued by National Committee Unemployed Councils, Room 436, 80 East
11th Street, New York City. Published by Workers Library Publishers, P.
O. Box 148. Sta. D (50 East 13th St.), New York City, March, 1933.]

Remember, if you please, there were more than a million young people
in their ‘teens who were wandering around this Nation of ours, just
hoboes. They had no homes; they had no food; they had no jobs. So such
a heading has great appeal to them because it holds for the hope that
some other form of existence would provide a better life for them, and
the inference always being the Soviet Union was doing that. The Soviet
Union had solved that problem. Little did the people know how they
solved it. And now, of course, there is a great deal of evidence coming
into public attention which indicates that many of those young people
in the Soviet Union, while some of them certainly did receive education
as a way out, others also wound up in prison camps, vast prison camps,
enormous prison camps. And we must not forget that that did actually
happen.

Here these pamphlets try to present the idea that the children in
the Soviet Union live in a paradise. And at that time there was no
contravening or contradicting evidence to change anyone’s knowledge
about it. Today I think there is.

Mr. TAVENNER. Apparently the Communist Party did not lose any
opportunities it had to promote its own objectives.

Mr. DENNETT. That certainly is true.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, the
circumstances under which you were transferred away from Bellingham.

Mr. DENNETT. Yes.

I referred to Mr. Alex Noral as the district organizer at the time I
came into the district. He was fresh from the Soviet Union, and it was
presumed that he would give the most astute leadership because he had
spent considerable time in the Lenin School in Moscow between 1928
and 1931. However, Mr. Noral’s attitude and methods of work were so
arbitrary that the average person could not stand them, not even the
most devoted Communists here. And he ran into political difficulties
with them.

Reports of these difficulties reached the central committee in New York
City, and they decided that Mr. Noral had to have some help. So they
sent some more people out here to help him.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you mean Communist Party functionaries were
sent from New York to this area?

Mr. DENNETT. Communist Party functionaries, people who fall
into the category of professional revolutionists, people who devote
their lives and dedicate themselves to the Communist cause and do as
they are told without question.

At that particular time 2 outstanding people came to the Northwest. In
fact, 3 came at one time. One of them was another person who had just
returned from the Soviet Union having spent 2 years’ study at the Lenin
Institute. His name was Hutchin R. Hutchins, a Negro who had done some
outstanding work here before going to the Soviet Union. But when he
returned here he ran into difficulty.

Then there was Mr. Lowell Wakefield, who had achieved national
prominence for having discovered the Scottsboro case in the South,
and had carried a large part of the responsibility of conducting the
organization of the defense of the Scottsboro boys.

It was Lowell Wakefield who got hold of the mothers of these boys and
prevailed upon them to go on national speaking tours in behalf of their
boys under the auspices of the Communist Party.

Mr. Lowell Wakefield was an especially able man because he could raise
finances and organize mass meetings and do almost impossible tasks, at
least tasks which the rest of us seemed to be very inept at. He was
very skillful.

Another person who came at that time was Mr. Alan Max. I noticed from
the masthead of the Daily Worker a couple of years ago that Mr. Alan
Max was the editor of the Daily Worker. Mr. Alan Max spent considerable
time here then.

I became very well acquainted with each of the men. However, they were
unable to solve the problems that were rising here in this district,
and the central committee was not satisfied with even their efforts.

Following a national hunger march some time in 1933 a Mr. Morris
Rappaport,[1] better known to us as Rapp or Rapport.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you spell his last name, please.

Mr. DENNETT. Our use of it was R-a-p-p-o-r-t, and I believe
the full spelling is R-a-p-p-a-p-o-r-t or something like that.

Mr. Rappaport came into the district with a great deal of suspicion
and alarm on the part of us local people because we thought he was an
easterner who didn’t understand the ways of the West. We were quite
surprised to find that he had originally come from the West. He came
from California. And he, like Mr. Noral, had been a part of the Foster
delegation or a part of the Foster faction. Although he had not been a
delegate to the Sixth World Congress in Moscow, he learned a great deal
more about it than Mr. Noral did because when he came here he had an
unlimited reserve of energy and tremendous flexibility in application
of the party line and party policy. He was not the least bit afraid of
anything. When a veterans’ organization here in town tried to raid a
school and destroy it here, Mr. Rappaport had the courage to be among
those present when it was attacked, and he caused a great deal of
publicity.

That publicity attracted the attention of people who didn’t like
invasion of civil rights. Mr. Rappaport capitalized on that quite
beautifully.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was it about the functioning of the
Communist Party in the Northwest which presented unusual problems to
the national organization in New York, causing it to send these top
functionaries of the party to aid in the solution of its problems in
this area?

Mr. DENNETT. I think it was because our party had already
reached masses of people that were larger proportionately than they
found in other places.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you mean that the organizational effort had
been so successful in this area that it presented immediate problems to
the Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. It certainly did. As a matter of fact, you see,
there is a period, following the national elections in 1932, when the
new administration began to take those steps which caused industry
to resume functioning, in which there was a change taking place in
the composition of our organizations. People were not all unemployed;
some were leaving the unemployed organizations. Our problem was: How
can we continue to exercise influence on them when they cease to be
unemployed. And we were confronted with the necessity of entering the
trade unions. We had to get into the trade unions one way or another or
we were going to lose completely our influence among these people.

So the problem was, and the national office or central committee was
continually asking: What progress are you making entering these unions?

Mr. Foster, of course, was naturally very much concerned because of
his prior experience in trade-union work. And our reports were quite
unsatisfactory. We were not able to make the progress that they
demanded. They thought it was a matter of inadequate leadership here,
and when they sent Mr. Rappaport they certainly picked a good one
because he did lead us in that direction. He did know what to do.

Mr. TAVENNER. How did the arrival of these Communist Party
functionaries influence or affect your activities at Bellingham?

Mr. DENNETT. As soon as Mr. Rappaport got here he used a
very simple technique of determining what had to be done by way of
shake-up. He started changing section organizers in every section
in the area, jarring people loose from their established positions,
making them get a new orientation, making them begin to do new things.
He was quite pleased with the successes I had in Bellingham, and,
feeling that he was in need of a district agitprop director and knowing
that I had once been a district agitprop director, knowing also that
there was beginning to be a little ground swell of opposition to me
in the Bellingham area, he thought it wiser to take me out of there.
So he ordered me back to Seattle as district agitprop director, and I
was replaced by some of the newer elements which I had recruited in
Bellingham.

Mr. TAVENNER. I have found among the documents which you have
made available to the staff a “Statement Issued by the Communist Party
of Bellingham Section on the Immediate Questions Facing the Working
Class.” It is signed by V. Haines, section organizer.

Was that your party name?

Mr. DENNETT. That is true.

Mr. TAVENNER. Examine this document, please, and state
whether or not there is anything in it which has a bearing on the
organizational setup from the standpoint we are now discussing.

(Document handed to the witness.)

Mr. DENNETT. Yes. I have my original copy of that here.

This was an effort on my part to provide orientation to the members, to
take the official party line and apply it to the local conditions. It
was an effort to give the Communists in the Bellingham area something
by way of interpretation so that they would know how to apply the party
line and have confidence that they were following the Communist Party
line.

I don’t know how much detail you want to go into on that. But that was
the general purpose of the statement.

Mr. TAVENNER. I desire to introduce the document in evidence,
Mr. Chairman, and ask that it be marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 8.”


    DENNETT EXHIBIT NO. 8

    STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF BELLINGHAM SECTION
    ON THE IMMEDIATE QUESTIONS FACING THE WORKING CLASS

    The present epoch through which the class struggle is now
    passing is a “Transition period.” It is a period in which the
    International Proletariat must prepare to embark upon the second
    round of wars and revolutions. A period in which the working class
    will definitely settle the conflict between the exploiting class
    and those who are exploited, in a number of nations, and it is
    necessary that the workers of all nations unite their efforts in
    this period so as to conserve the strength of the working people.

    The End of Capitalist Stabilization has been reached. There is
    nothing left for the Capitalist Class except to wage a more
    vicious attack on the living standards of the Working People.
    Profits can only be obtained by wringing them from the lifeblood
    of the toiling masses. The living standards of the workers has
    reached such a low level that huge masses would suffer extinction
    should this level be reduced. And yet such is the program of
    World Imperialism. That is all it has to offer. But the class
    consciousness of millions and millions of toilers has been
    awakened to such a degree that they will openly resist any further
    attack on their living standards. They will burst forth in open
    rebellion.

    To meet this condition of World Revolt, the Ruling Classes
    throughout the world are turning more and more to Fascism--a
    system of open dictatorship of the present group of exploiters--a
    system more brutal, more ruthless, and exceedingly more
    destructive of the materials needed for the sustenance of human
    life. Fascism is therefore the main enemy of the Workers of the
    World.

    A system of Fascism will not bring about a stabilization of
    Capitalism, but will instead bring a whole train of persecutions,
    and inflict the most abject misery upon the toiling masses. It
    will mean the continuous lowering of the living standards of
    the working people, and with them large sections of the petty
    bourgeoisie. The inexorable laws of Capitalist Development will
    continue to bring new crises in spite of the repressive measures
    of Fascism. During the Present Economic Crisis the Fascist nations
    have suffered along with the other Capitalist Nations, and they
    are now staggering under the strain, thereby intensifying the
    present World Crisis of Capitalism. Only in the Soviet Union
    where there is the open dictatorship of the Workers and Farmers,
    where Socialism is being definitely planned and organized and
    put into operation is there any escape from Economic Crises.
    The experiences of the Soviet Union during the World Crisis of
    Capitalism stands out as a Beacon Light to the toiling masses
    throughout the world as a living example of the Working Class way
    out of the Crisis.

    In contrast to the Soviet Union, the Capitalist nations are
    attempting to introduce Fascism in various forms of FORCED LABOR
    CAMPS and Peonage systems. A notable example of which is proposed
    for the United States by the Roosevelt Government in the name of
    Unemployment Reserves, which in reality are Forced Labor Camps
    designed as ARMY RESERVES in preparation for a new Bloody Conflict
    among the Imperialist nations for a re-division of world markets
    and for a war of intervention against the Workers and Farmers
    Government, the Soviet Union.

    This program is that of Fascism the world over, and it reached
    such a degree of misery to millions and millions of workers in
    Germany that the Social-Democratic Parties there appealed to
    the Communist International to cease its attacks on the Social
    Democrats and join in a struggle against Fascism.

    The Executive Committee of the Communist International answered
    this appeal by making a statement that, during this period of
    struggle against Fascism, it will be the policy of the Communist
    Parties to refrain from attacking the Social Democratic Parties
    and other Political groups which join the United Front, so long as
    they actively struggle against Fascism.

    In issuing this answer the Communist International called
    attention to the fact that it has consistently urged a United
    Front of all working class groups so as to carry on a more
    powerful resistance to the spread of Fascism. The answer contained
    an appeal to all sections of the Communist International to take
    steps to build the United Front of the International Proletariat
    in their respective nations. Accordingly the Central Committee of
    the Communist Party of the U. S. A. has further appealed to all
    districts of the Communist Party to carry out this new policy of
    the Communist International.

    Therefore the Communist Party of the Bellingham Section of
    District 12, issues this call and appeal to the Socialist Party,
    and all organizations desiring to enter the Class struggle on the
    side of the working class in a solid United Front and actively
    struggle against the forces of Fascism.

    To do this the Communist Party proposes that joint meetings be
    held between the various groups and the Communist Party, from
    which meetings or conferences, programs of struggle can be adopted
    which will be designed for the betterment of the conditions of the
    Working Class.

    This appeal is made by the Communist Party with the purpose of
    arresting the spread of Fascism and pushing forward the cause of
    the International Proletariat.

    Issued by the Section Buro of the Bellingham Section of the
    Communist Party U. S. A., District 12.

  V. HAINES,
  _Section Organizer_.


    FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF THE SECTION

    1. The method for reorganizing the Party in the Sections of the
    Communist Party has been tersely put by stating “turn the face of
    the Party to mass work.”

    In the mass work are to be found the political problems which are
    facing the workers. There will be found the material which will
    make possible the “all-sided political exposures” which are a
    necessary prerequisite to good Party-Mass work.

    2. In order to accomplish a reorientation of the party in Whatcom
    County, it is necessary that Party Units be organized in the most
    natural manner possible at the present time.

    This can be done by neighborhood groupings, consequently it
    will be the policy here to organize the Party on the basis
    of geographical position. But this will not do away with the
    orientation to other forms of organization, that is the shop unit,
    and fractions.

    3. The Unit meetings should be at regular times at regular places
    for the present until the units are closer knit together. But for
    this policy to be a success, the meetings must be kept secret.
    Loose talk about unit meetings in the presence of other persons
    must stop.

    4. Each week the Section Committee will discuss the most important
    political problem before the Section and will issue material which
    will serve to bring written discussion before the membership and
    point out the Party line on each question.

    5. At each Unit meeting some leading comrade should lead the
    discussion--that is, bring the report from the Section, open up
    the subject similar to what was done in the Section Buro.

    6. The discussion in the Unit should be organized in such manner
    that each member of the Unit will participate, raising such
    problems as suggest themselves to him.

    7. The Unit organizer should sum up the discussion at the close.
    (This is not ironclad. It may sometimes be better for the comrade
    from the Section Buro or Section Committee to make the summary.
    The main thing is that a summary is made in which the Party
    Line is again made clear. This will fix the Party line in each
    comrade’s mind so as to last.

    “The Communist’s ideal should be a tribune of the people, able
    to react to every manifestation of tyranny and oppression, no
    matter where it takes place, no matter what stratum of class of
    the people it affects. He must explain the historical role of the
    Proletariat” (Lenin).


    INSTRUCTIONS FOR UNITS

    Hold Meeting on Friday, April 14, to consider the following:

    1. The Reorganization Program for the Section--(Special Outline
    enclosed).

    2. Elect Buro--Three most politically and theoretically developed
    comrades in Unit.

    3. Political discussion on the meaning of the New Policy of the
    Communist Parties in regards to the Socialist Party and other
    Social-Democratic groups.


    NOTE OF EXPLANATION

    The Party organization is flexible. Forces can be shifted from
    place to place, etc. But the Party line is quite well defined and
    there are sharp differences between that which is approved by the
    Party Line and that which is disapproved by the Party Line. The
    Party line does not change except under rare and unusual occasions.

    The Sharp change in the International Situation has brought
    forth a change in the attitude of the Communist Parties to the
    Social-Democratic Groups, this includes the Socialist Party of
    America.

    The whole membership of the section should have read the statement
    of the ECCI in the Daily Worker some two to three weeks ago where
    the change of policy was explained.

    The Communist Party will maintain vigilance against those who
    attempt to break the United Front and thereby betray the position
    of the working class by complete and ruthless exposure. But there
    is a truce existing at the present time between the Communist
    Parties and the Social Democrats. The Bellamy Club should be
    included with the Social-Democrats.


    ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE BURO

    Departmentalize the work into the following categories which are
    indispensable now.

    1. Unit Organizer--The most dependable person.--Come to Liberal
    Club Sat. at 2 P.M.

    2. Dues Secretary--Know list of membership--Come to Liberal Club
    Sat. at 1 P. M.

    3. Fraction Secretary--Get list of all organizations to which the
    membership belongs. Come to Liberal Club Sat. at 3 P. M.

  Comradely yours,

  SEC. ORG.

Mr. TAVENNER. Is there any further comment you desire to make
concerning that document?

Mr. DENNETT. Evidently I only have part of that document in my
own copy.

Mr. TAVENNER. I believe there is a resolution appearing at the
end of the document which you apparently do not have.

Mr. DENNETT. There is one note of explanation at the bottom,
which reads as follows, and I think it speaks for itself:

    The party organization is flexible. Forces can be shifted from
    place to place, etc. But the party line is quite well defined and
    there are sharp differences between that which is approved by the
    party line and that which is disapproved by the party line. The
    party line does not change except under rare and unusual occasions.

    The sharp change in the international situation has brought
    forth a change in the attitude of the Communist Parties to the
    social-democratic groups. This includes the Socialist Party of
    America.

    The whole membership of the section should have read the statement
    of the ECCI in the Daily Worker some 2 or 3 weeks ago----

Mr. TAVENNER. What is ECCI?

Mr. DENNETT. Executive Committee of the Communist
International--

    where the change of policy was explained.

    The Communist Party will maintain vigilance against those who
    attempt to break the united front and thereby betray the position
    of the working class by complete and ruthless exposure. But there
    is a truce existing at the present time between the Communist
    Parties and the Social-Democrats. The Bellamy Club should be
    included with the Social-Democrats.

That was a local organization in the Bellingham area which I had not
mentioned before. It was a group who had studied Edward Bellamy’s
Looking Backward and his other Socialist books and pamphlets.

I believe that statement sufficiently illustrates what we were
undertaking to do, and it is consistent with what was going on all over
the country. The only thing is we met with more success than others did.

Mr. TAVENNER. You described the activities of the unemployed
councils in Bellingham, and you have told us that they were
Communist-organized groups. Will you tell the committee, please, who
the Communist Party members were who took the lead in that work, in
addition to yourself, of course?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, I think I mentioned earlier--if I didn’t,
I should at this time--that there was a young woman by the name of
Helen Quist who represented the Young Communist League, who went
to Bellingham at approximately the same time I did, and who gave
invaluable help in the organization of both the Young Communist League
and the Communist Party. She was a member of both, and she was my
closest and ablest assistant for quite a period of time in Bellingham.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you spell the name, please?

Mr. DENNETT. Q-u-i-s-t, Helen Quist.

When I arrived, the local leadership of the Communist Party consisted
of a person by the name of Martin Olson. And I hope that if there are
any Martin Olsons who hear of that that they will not worry too much
because there are so many Martin Olsons in this area.

But this particular Martin Olson was an unemployed logger at that time.

Mr. TAVENNER. In light of your statement then, can you give
further identifying information in regard to Mr. Olson so that there
will be no confusion as to the “Olson” referred to?

Mr. DENNETT. All I can say is that he was a man of small
stature, was an unemployed logger at that time. That is about all I can
use for description.

There was a person by the name of George Smith in Bellingham. He at
that time operated a little hotel which he owned.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was his activity?

Mr. DENNETT. He was just a member of the sectarian group that
just sat around and were satisfied that as long as they had a pure
line everything was rosy. The fact that they didn’t do anything about
it didn’t seem to disturb them too much. They were satisfied that they
were following the straight and narrow path.

Mr. TAVENNER. What do you mean by straight and narrow path?

Mr. DENNETT. They sat around and agreed among themselves that
the Communist Party line was absolutely right.

Mr. TAVENNER. I wanted to be sure that the path you mentioned
was the Communist Party path.

Mr. DENNETT. True. There was another person by the name of
Arthur Sinclair. I have heard since that he subsequently was deported
to Canada.

There was an older fellow by the name of Engstrom, but I do not recall
his first name.

Mr. TAVENNER. Let me suggest this to you: If any of the
persons whose names you are giving withdrew from the Communist Party,
or if you have any facts indicating a change of affiliation, I think
you should give those facts to us.

Mr. DENNETT. Well, I have no knowledge of any of these people
whom I have mentioned having done so.

There were a couple of women who were certainly the most reliable
people for us in the sense that--remember we were in difficult times,
and eating was a difficult problem. And both of these women did work
outside, and they had a loyalty to their neighbors and friends.
Bellingham, you have to understand, is a comparatively small town.
People in it live much closer together than they do in a larger city.
Neighbors are a little better acquainted with each other. Consequently,
any suffering in the neighborhood arouses a deeper response among
people who are better acquainted than it does among total strangers.

And these women extended themselves greatly to aid those of us who
didn’t have any adequate income or any adequate subsistence. I
understand that both of these women have since left the Communist
Party. Do you want me to name them now?

Mr. TAVENNER. Was that in 1932?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes; it was.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I suggest we take that testimony
an executive session, if he is convinced that they have left the party.

Mr. MOULDER. I suggest that you withhold the names and not
announce them; this information will be given to the committee in
executive session.

Mr. DENNETT. That answers all about the persons who were there
at the time of my arrival.

Before I left the following persons were developed into leadership----

Mr. TAVENNER. Before telling us about that, have you given us
the names of all others in the Communist Party group who were there
when you arrived?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes; all of those whom I have named were
officers. They held functioning positions.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you proceed, then, with a description of
the identity of those who were developed into leadership after you
arrived.

Mr. DENNETT. I should preface that by remarking that upon
my arrival in Bellingham the Ku Klux Klan was very active in Whatcom
County. It was a practice for them at that time to burn the fiery cross
frequently in various places of the county. And I was informed that
they had a very considerable membership in the county.

I learned that some of those Klansmen were quite disillusioned with the
activities of the Klan. I made a practice of trying to contact various
persons whom I learned had been disillusioned by their activities in
the Klan. And I have been trying my level best to think of the name of
a particular man who was an officer in the Klan whom I did succeed in
recruiting into the Communist Party. But I have been unable to remember
that man’s name. I can only give this description, that he was in the
Sumas area and that he was a sheet-metal worker. And that is the best
that I can recall about him. It is quite possible that if some of
the other persons I mention, if they were asked, they probably would
remember him because he was a neighbor of theirs.

In this connection 2 very fine young men, one John Brockway and another
one, Harold Brockway, were working out on their father’s farm. Nothing
to do. And they were quite intrigued by the prospect which we held
forth as the new life which would come under a Soviet rule.

There was a young man at that time by the name of Mel Luddington.

There was a very old man by the name of A. A. Johnson. I would expect
that because of his advanced age at that time he may not still be alive.

Mr. TAVENNER. May I suggest that if you have information as
to any of the persons being deceased that you not give us their names,
unless they performed some outstanding service for the Communist Party
which we should know about.

Mr. DENNETT. I do not know.

Then, of course, I have mentioned George Bradley.

Mr. TAVENNER. I should have asked you to spell some of these
names, the spelling of which may be uncertain. Will you go back, please?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. What is the spelling of Brockway?

Mr. DENNETT. B-r-o-c-k-w-a-y.

Mr. TAVENNER. Luddington?

Mr. DENNETT. Luddington, L-u-d-d-i-n-g-t-o-n.

Mr. TAVENNER. Johnson?

Mr. DENNETT. J-o-h-n-s-o-n.

Mr. TAVENNER. Bradley? B-r-a-d-l-e-y?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes.

Mr. DENNETT. There was one other person I see that I have
omitted, a fellow by the name of Ed Hanke. I think he had a brother,
too, that was in. But I do not recall the brother’s name.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you spell the name, please.

Mr. DENNETT. H-a-n-k-e.

Mr. TAVENNER. You mentioned a little earlier that several
people from this area were trained in Moscow and attended the Lenin
Institute. I believe you named 2 of them from this area. Who were the 2?

Mr. DENNETT. One was Alex Noral. The other was Hutchin R.
Hutchins.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were there any others?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes.

James Bourne, B-o-u-r-n-e.

I think there were more than that, but I cannot at this moment place
them.

I remember that in 1932 there was an organization known as the Friends
of the Soviet Union, which was inspired by and under the leadership of
the Communist Party, and its purpose was to take delegations to the
Soviet Union to win their support and approval of the Soviet Union and
what it was doing. And I recall one experience with a longshoreman from
Tacoma. I cannot for the life of me think of his name. But he went to
the Soviet Union on one of these Friends-of-the-Soviet-Union tours,
came back, made the prepared speeches which the Friends of the Soviet
Union asked him to make, and proceeded afterward to go around and make
speeches contradicting his original speeches, stating that he did not
realize how much harm he was doing by presenting the Soviet Union as
the land of paradise, that he was quite disappointed with what he found
when he found all the women doing the heavy work. And that seemed to be
the chief thing that he objected to.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the date of your transfer back to
Seattle?

Mr. DENNETT. It was some time late in 1933.

Mr. TAVENNER. How long did you remain as agitprop, agitation
propagandist in Seattle?

Mr. DENNETT. Not very long. It seems to be an office in
which there are many casualties because one, to fill that position,
has to have a broad knowledge of the theoretical works of the party.
And I can assure this committee that there is a great deal of written
material on the subject which it takes a lifetime to study. I did the
best I knew how at mastering a knowledge of it, but I then found out
that the things which I had learned in the theoretical sense were not
always respected by those who were in the administrative positions of
the party, and frequently they would disregard my knowledge of the
theoretical work and try to make it appear as though I was far off the
line.

And there was constant conflict. Rappaport, when he came into the
district, found many practical problems that didn’t lend themselves
to the theoretical solutions which I found, and he, being a man of a
great deal more experience and much more authority, made short work of
me.

Mr. TAVENNER. Can you tell us the approximate period of time
that you remained in that position? You said not long. But give us a
more adequate idea.

Mr. DENNETT. It was only a couple of months, I believe. I do
not recall the exact circumstances which arose. But there was some
conflict, some specific conflict in which Rappaport convinced me that
I was completely wrong, and required that I submit a statement to the
party in which I admit that I was completely wrong.

I believe that you have a copy of that. I cannot put my finger on a
copy now.

I did precisely what I was requested to do as a sign of my obedience.

I have found my own statement. I think I could put it in.

Mr. TAVENNER. May I see it, please.

(Document handed to Mr. Tavenner.)

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you state to the committee, please, what
the error was which you were induced to confess?

Mr. DENNETT. I have been trying to think what it is. I can’t
even recall now what it was. In fact, I had completely forgotten the
incident until Mr. Wheeler ran across it and asked me what it was.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you read it in evidence, please.

Mr. DENNETT. (reading):


    STATEMENT OF V. HAINES * * * EUGENE DENNETT

  _To the District Buro, District 12, CPUSA_:

    I have made a political error, in consequence of which I have been
    removed from the functions of district agitprop director.

    I agree with the decision.

    It is my responsibility to the party to prove myself by correct
    rank-and-file activity.

  Comradely submitted,

  V. HAINES * * * EUGENE DENNETT.

Mr. TAVENNER. I desire to introduce the paper in evidence, and
ask that it be marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 9.”

Mr. MOULDER. The above statement will be identified as
“Dennett Exhibit No. 9” in the record.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, what the
organization setup was of the Communist Party in Seattle during the 2
periods when you served here as agitprop?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, the first period the party consisted
almost exclusively of what we called a skidroad branch. Almost all
the membership of the party was transient workers who lived on or
about the skidroad. And when Rappaport came in--speaking now of the
second period--Rappaport raised cain over the fact that the membership
was all transient, insisting that the party must root itself in the
neighborhoods. It must become acquainted with the permanent citizens,
not those who were called the boomers or the floaters, those who used
Seattle as a mail headquarters and holed up during the winter or off
season but left the city during their construction work, which most of
them followed.

And he used the technique of developing neighborhood branches out of
those who were members of the unemployed citizens leagues or unemployed
councils, and from those, as people went to work in industry, he tried
to develop shop or factory, what we call nuclei.

Most of the success in that field occurred among the lumber workers
because they were among the first to get out and get back to work out
in the woods, the loggers.

So we had still the problem of maintaining contact with them. It was
very difficult to do.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, who were
the functionaries of the Communist Party in Seattle during those two
periods.

Mr. DENNETT. The first one I think we have covered, when we
mention Mr. Alex Noral, Fred Walker, Jim Bourne, B-o-u-r-n-e, Mr. John
Lawrie. I think that is L-a-w-r-i-e. John Lawrie, Sr.

There was a Mr. Ed Leavitt, L-e-a-v-i-t-t.

They were the leading functionaries with whom I worked at that time.

Mr. TAVENNER. After you were removed as agitprop what was your
next activity in the Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. I had to become a good rank-and-file member
and work in the unemployed-citizens leagues. Yes; by that time
the Communists had taken over a number of the locals of the
unemployed-citizens leagues in the city of Seattle, and were making a
strong bid to take over the top leadership, the central UCL. And I was
working in the skid-road local of the unemployed-citizens leagues, and
was living in the soup line.

Mr. TAVENNER. How long did that continue?

Mr. DENNETT. That continued until I went into the CCC’s.

Mr. TAVENNER. Can you give us the approximate date?

Mr. DENNETT. I think it was in April 1934.

Mr. MOULDER. In what capacity did you go into the CCC?

Mr. DENNETT. As an enlisted man.

Mr. MOULDER. Wasn’t that a program where there was a chairman
in each community or county? Or section of a city?

Mr. DENNETT. No. This is the Civilian Conservation Corps.

Mr. MOULDER. Yes; I know. And they were given so much
employment in each county or each section of the city, and someone had
to pass upon those. Is that the program where you were paid so much and
the parents would receive so much?

Mr. DENNETT. That is true. That is the program. I think you
are correct, sir, in saying there was a quota allotment for each
community. I think you are right.

But in this particular case that was not involved in mine because
the camps that we were recruited to were known as LEM’s or local
experience man camps. We were making new camps. We were doing the heavy
construction work and making camps that would later be taken over by
the young people that you are thinking of that were assigned by quota.
You are quite correct. That is the program. I had forgotten that part
of it.

And that evidently is what happened, an allotment had been made as to
the number that could come out of the Seattle soup line, and I was one
of those that was able to volunteer and got into it.

Mr. TAVENNER. How long did you remain a member of the Civilian
Conservation Corps?

Mr. DENNETT. Until July of 1935.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you engage in any Communist Party activities
during that period?

Mr. DENNETT. That is a question that is open to dispute. I
didn’t think that I did. But the company commander thought that I did.
So he proceeded to have me expelled from the CCC.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the nature of the activity in which you
did engage and which resulted in your expulsion?

Mr. DENNETT. When I became a member of the CCC there was
provision for the Army to administer the camps, the Forest Service
to administer the work, and for an educational director to supervise
the training. And there was provision for an educational director to
have an assistant who could be selected from among those enlistees who
were a part of the company. I was chosen as the assistant educational
director.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you advised by the Communist Party to get
into the CCC camps for any propaganda purpose?

Mr. DENNETT. No; I was not. On the contrary, in my instance,
they said, “You had better stay away from that Fascist outfit because
it is just a place where they are going to give military training and
get ready for the next imperialist war, and we don’t want you to be in
it.”

Mr. MOULDER. Wasn’t it in the nature of a relief program?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes.

Mr. MOULDER. And naturally the Communist Party was opposed
to the relief program, and wanted people generally to stay in the
depression. Wasn’t that the policy or wishes of the Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. That would be one way of putting it, and probably
the way that many people viewed it. I didn’t look at it that way
myself at that time. But I can’t dispute that point of view. The point
that I started to speak of was that I was selected as the assistant
educational director, and, frankly, I took quite seriously the
literature which was sent from the United States Office of Education to
the camps.

And among the points which were emphasized in this literature was the
necessity of teaching the democratic process of government. But it has
always been my experience that when you try to carry out the teaching
of the democratic process of government and you come in contact with
the military, sometimes they don’t quite agree with you. And in this
particular instance my efforts to carry out the literature and carry
out the educational program which came from John W. Studebaker’s
office, the United States Office of Education, met with considerable
resistance on the part of the company commander. He just didn’t like
the idea. It sounded to him as though it was communistic for people
to be talking about democracy and talking about having some way of
resolving grievances and difficulties and that sort of thing through
the democratic legislative method. And we came into sharp conflict over
that.

Of course, I finally gave him the excuse which he was looking for. Some
of these workers in the camp were from the soup line with me--most of
them were. They knew me around Seattle and they knew that I had been
an agitator on the waterfront and on the skidroad. I had held many
meetings on the skidroad. So I was well known to these men. And they
asked me to conduct a course in sociology. I had some knowledge on the
subject, and I had some textbooks of my own which I had used, which I
had studied when I was going to the university. One of those was a book
entitled “Contemporary Social Movements” by Jerome Davis. I had that
book. And, of course, that book attempts to survey all the then current
social, political, and economic philosophies that were occupying
the attention of various people throughout the world, including the
Communists and the Fascists, the Soviet Union and what was going on in
Italy, and that sort of thing, and also in Germany. So I proceeded to
answer the request of these workers to have a class in contemporary
social movements.

The company commander attended two sessions of the class. And he
attended those two sessions where I was using this text to describe the
Communist system in the Soviet Union and the Fascist system in Italy.
And he decided that that was subversive propaganda and should not be
conducted, and he accused me of spreading subversive propaganda in the
camp.

Mr. MOULDER. Then were you expelled?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. Wasn’t his accusation correct?

Mr. DENNETT. I think that his accusation was misplaced. I
was making as honest an effort as I knew how to make an objective
study. And there seems to be a great deal of difficulty in these days,
as there was then, to determine the difference between an objective
presentation of a factual situation with respect to a controversial
subject without being accused of propagandizing for it. It is a
difficult point.

Mr. TAVENNER. In what work after your removal from the
Civilian Conservation Corps did you engage?

Mr. DENNETT. That is when I was shanghaied on to a boat here
on the waterfront in Seattle.

Mr. TAVENNER. Now I think, Mr. Chairman, that is a subject
that we will reserve discussion for until later. But I would like to
ask at this time, if the chairman will issue a subpena duces tecum
requiring the witness to present to the staff all of the documents
which he now has in his possession. By that I do not mean the committee
is going to remove them in such a way that the witness will not have
access to them, but in order that we may keep those documents intact
until the committee staff has been able to fully examine them.

Mr. MOULDER. The subpena will be issued.

Mr. TAVENNER. Is there any objection to that on your part?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. DENNETT. I have just conferred with my counsel, and we
wondered whether or not you included books.

Mr. TAVENNER. There may be some books which the committee
would like to have included. However, the committee would not be
interested in those books which it already has in its possession.

Mr. MOULDER. Whatever counsel will require will be set forth
in the subpena.

Mr. TAVENNER. I wanted to be certain that the witness is
agreeable to it. We could do it without his agreement, but I prefer to
find out if he is agreeable.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. DENNETT. I have conferred with my counsel, and he has
raised the question with me: Can I provide adequate protection for the
documents which seem to have such importance. And, frankly, I have some
misgivings as to whether I can furnish as good protection for them as
perhaps the committee can. So I am agreeable to whatever the committee
wishes to do.

Mr. TAVENNER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. MOULDER. The committee will stand in recess. However, I
wish to announce that immediately after the recess Mr. Johnston and Mr.
Carlson should make themselves available for recall appearances before
the committee.

The committee will stand in recess for a period of 10 minutes.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

Mr. MOULDER. The committee will be in order.

The committee is informed that the witness Jerry O’Connell has counsel
appearing for him.

Mr. HATTEN. Yes.

Mr. MOULDER. Please come forward.


STATEMENT OF C. T. HATTEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, SEATTLE, WASH.

Mr. HATTEN. I was in attendance all day yesterday. However,
I was not authorized to speak for Mr. O’Connell. I understood that
he had wired and otherwise contacted the chairman of this committee,
Representative Walter, and had expected to receive word from him.

The reason for Mr. O’Connell’s not appearing here is the fact that he
has had an acute heart attack, and has had a heart condition for a
considerable period of time.

I have with me a letter from Dr. Harry McGregor, Great Falls, Mont.,
which gives the results of an examination made on March 15, and which
concludes that----

Mr. MOULDER. Will you read the letter into the record?

Mr. HATTEN. I can hand the letter over and make it a part of
the record if the chairman wishes. I merely wanted to state that it
concludes that he is advised not to attend, or to withhold from the
duties set forth in the subpena.

Of course, I appreciate that the committee may want to have him
examined by an independent physician, and I am sure that whatever the
committee’s desires are in that regard will be agreeable with Mr.
O’Connell, or in the event that the committee should desire to examine
him in Great Falls, Mont., at some later continued hearing. One of
the problems is the distance that he would have to travel under his
condition. He would either have to come by plane, or, in the absence of
that, travel over the mountain passes, which would seriously affect his
health.

Mr. VELDE. I do not want to violate any of your rights as to
attorney-client relationship, but have you talked to Mr. O’Connell
personally?

Mr. HATTEN. No, I did not.

Mr. VELDE. You mentioned that he had previously requested Mr.
Walter, the chairman of the full committee----

Mr. HATTEN. I understand that he has communicated with
Representative Walter, yes.

Mr. VELDE. Do you know the date of that?

Mr. HATTEN. I do not.

Mr. VELDE. Mr. Chairman, I think it should be made a matter of
record that Mr. O’Connell was duly subpenaed on--what was the date?

Mr. MOULDER. The eighth of March.

Mr. VELDE. The 8th day of March and up until this moment we
have not received any type of communication from Mr. O’Connell.

While, of course, we always have been very lenient as far as the
witnesses who have medical ailments are concerned, however, it has
always been the custom--and I think probably Mr. O’Connell knows about
this, too--for a medical affidavit to be filed promptly. In this case
it certainly hasn’t been prompt.

Mr. HATTEN. That depends upon the period of time when he had
the attack. He certainly couldn’t advise the committee on the date of
the subpena of his inability to attend if the reason why he couldn’t
attend was an attack which occurred later.

Mr. TAVENNER. Is that the situation?

Mr. HATTEN. I couldn’t advise the committee. The committee
will undoubtedly go into this further, and the exact dates and
situations will be discovered.

I have not been in Great Falls, Mont., and I don’t want to make any
representations.

Mr. MOULDER. You aren’t making an appearance? You are simply
presenting this letter?

Mr. HATTEN. That is correct.

Mr. MOULDER. Very well.

Will you call Mr. Johnston as a witness?


TESTIMONY OF HAROLD JOHNSTON, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, JAY G.
SYKES--Resumed

Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Johnston, you were on the stand yesterday
to testify in answer to questions propounded to you by Mr. Wheeler,
and the Chair asked you the question or a similar question, as to
whether or not you approved or disapproved of Communist infiltration,
influence, and domination of the labor union of which you are a member.
And you said that you hadn’t had time to give the question any thought
or consideration. We felt that by giving you sufficient time and
recalling you today you could give us an answer to that question.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. Chairman, I feel that the wording of that
you just now mentioned was not the wording of the question yesterday.
It was a little different.

But, in answer to the question you just now raised to me, there is only
one thing I can do under that, and that is to--if I answer that either
way it would tend to incriminate me, and I have to invoke the fifth
amendment.

Mr. MOULDER. We will rephrase the question in this way:

Do you approve or disapprove of Communist domination of any union?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. JOHNSTON. Purely as a matter of opinion, I do not approve
of any group, whether it be to control the trade-union movement--I feel
it should be a free union. Whether it is Communist, Fascist, National
Manufacturers Association or what-have-you. That is purely my opinion
on it.

Mr. MOULDER. Do you object to a Communist holding an official
position in any labor union?

Mr. JOHNSTON. On that one I will have to, as in the past,
invoke the fifth amendment.

Mr. MOULDER. Would you vote for or against a candidate seeking
office in a local laborers’ union if he were a Communist?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. Chairman, I feel that, under our rights--and
I know the majority of unions, as I understand them--we vote by secret
ballot, the same as in our elections for the honorable representatives
elected by your people in your district, by secret ballot. And that is
a right that we are able to keep to ourselves.

Mr. MOULDER. Any questions?

Mr. TAVENNER. No, sir; I have no questions.

Mr. MOULDER. The witness is excused.

Mr. SYKES. Can I make a short statement here? I think it might
be helpful to the committee. It will take about a half minute.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Is that in regard to me?

Mr. SYKES. No.


STATEMENT OF JAY G. SYKES, ATTORNEY AT LAW, SEATTLE, WASH.

Mr. SYKES. Several witnesses here have invoked the fifth
amendment upon being asked the question: “Have you ever been a member
of a labor union?” And I know that the use of the fifth amendment in
answer to that question may have created some misunderstanding in the
mind of the public and the mind of the committee.

I would like to make it clear that the invoking of the fifth amendment
to this particular question is not meant to imply, nor should it
be implied, that I or my clients think there is anything at all
incriminating, in itself, in membership in a labor union.

But, as you gentlemen know, there are some labor unions in Seattle that
are having what are commonly known as Communist problems. Charges of
communism and countercharges are being filed, and members charged with
Communist activity----

Mr. MOULDER. We were to hear a short statement.

Mr. SYKES. I will shorten the statement by saying that the use
of the fifth amendment by these witnesses in answer to the question,
“Have you ever been a member of a labor union?” is not meant in any way
to incriminate labor unions as such. But the refusal is based solely on
legal and technical grounds.

Mr. MOULDER. All right, that will be all.

At this time I would like to read a letter which was addressed to the
committee from the International Association of Machinists:

    DEAR SIR: Because of repeated reference to the Machinists
    Union, AFL, before your committee on Thursday, March 17, 1955,
    we respectfully request that the following information be made
    part of the record so that all may be aware of the true facts
    with respect to the attitude of the International Association of
    Machinists and the participation by its members in the Communist
    Party, its front organizations, or the giving of support to such
    organizations.

    Since 1925 the International Association of Machinists has had
    prohibitions in its laws against such activities on the part of
    any of its members. A diligent and unending effort has constantly
    been made to rid our organization of persons having Communist or
    Fascist Party membership or sympathies.

    Testimony before your committee in 1954 indicated that several
    persons, members of our organization, might at the same time be
    members of, or giving support to, the Communist Party. Our own
    investigations, since that time, have resulted in the expulsion
    from our organization of four persons named by witness, Barbara
    Hartle, before your committee in 1954. Among these four persons,
    as expelled, was Harold Johnston, witness before your committee on
    Thursday, March 17, 1955.

    Investigations are continuing with respect to others and if it is
    found that they also are guilty of the conduct charged to them by
    witnesses before your committee, they likewise will be tried and
    expelled in accordance with the provisions of our constitution.

    The evidence before your committee has been most helpful and
    we are certain you will find our union in the forefront,
    cooperatively and aggressively opposed to communism, fascism, or
    any totalitarian philosophies.

  Yours very truly,

  R. H. POWELL,
  I. A. PECK,

  _Grand Lodge Representatives,
  International Association of Machinists, AFL_.

Is Mr. Carlson in the hearing room?

Call Mr. Carlson, please.

You have been sworn. Please be seated.


TESTIMONY OF EDWIN A. CARLSON, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, JAY G.
SYKES--Resumed

Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Carlson, during the course of your testimony
yesterday it appeared from your appearance on the witness stand that
there was a desire on your part to reconsider and testify in answer
to questions which were propounded to you by Mr. Wheeler, and also
make more clear an explanation concerning a letter which was addressed
to the chairman, Chairman Velde, when he was chairman of the full
committee on Un-American Activities, dated June 19, 1954. The letter
reads as follows:

    DEAR SIRS: I see by the paper that Mrs. Hartle names one
    Ed Carlson as a member of the Communist Party in the machinists
    union. I presume I am the individual referred to. So that the
    record is straight, let me insert this into the record for all to
    see and hear.

    It did not take me 20 years to decide that the Communist Party was
    not the answer to the problems as I see them. In fact, I am very
    nearly positive it was Mrs. Hartle who tried to persuade me to
    reconsider my decision to discontinue my affiliations, which is
    now approximately 5 years ago.

    I do believe that my many friends and acquaintances are entitled
    to this additional clarification of the facts.

  Sincerely,

  ED CARLSON,
  _Member of Machinists Union_.

During the course of the testimony yesterday we tried to emphasize
clearly it is not the purpose of this committee to try to confuse or
entrap anyone in these proceedings, or incriminate them in any way.

We thought after you had given serious consideration to this subject,
and being recalled as a witness, that you would answer our questions
which are directed to you concerning your past Communist Party
affiliations and your association and severance from any connection
with the Communist Party.

Do you wish to do so now?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. I would prefer, Mr. Chairman, to have specific
questions directed at me, if I may.

Mr. MOULDER. Very well.

Are you now a member of the Communist Party?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. No, sir.

Mr. MOULDER. Were you a member of the Communist Party a year
ago?

Mr. CARSON. No, sir.

Mr. MOULDER. Were you a member of the Communist Party in 1951?

Mr. CARLSON. To the best of my recollection; no, sir.

Mr. MOULDER. During the year of 1950 were you a member of the
Communist Party?

Mr. CARLSON. I believe that answer also holds there. I was
not, to the best of my recollection.

Mr. MOULDER. In the year of 1949 were you a member of the
Communist Party?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. That is the time, I am quite sure, that I dropped
the party.

Mr. MOULDER. That you left the party?

Mr. CARLSON. Yes.

Mr. MOULDER. Will you tell us the circumstances as to why you
left the Communist Party and severed your connections with them?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. Well, to take a certain date or specific period,
it is quite impossible.

Mr. MOULDER. We don’t expect you to be specific as to the
exact date. That is immaterial.

Mr. CARLSON. Let me answer that by making probably a
comparison with somebody else.

I think we are all acquainted with Senator Morse’s record in Oregon. He
was once a Republican, and he has turned Democrat.

I don’t think there is any specific time in his mind that he ever
turned from a Republican to a Democrat. It probably took over a period
of time. And that, I believe, Mr. Chairman, could be applied to me.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. As a specific time, at the time the Korean war
started I certainly didn’t approve of that war starting by anybody. And
I might say, likewise, that I didn’t approve of our participation in it
either. That is my conviction, sir.

Mr. MOULDER. Referring to the Communist Party, it has been
decided by the courts that it is not a political party as such; that it
is really an international conspiracy. And, therefore, your comparison
or reference to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party has no
application in comparison to the Communist Party, because it is not, in
fact, a political party.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. MOULDER. Has your philosophy and your opinion concerning
the Communist Party, then, changed from what it was at one time?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have a definite idea of
my own what things should be, and what my beliefs are. And I believe
it might help you to understand what I think, if I could give you an
answer here.

The best thing that I could do would be to read it out of the booklet
that I have. I believe that it would be helpful to both of us.

Mr. MOULDER. How long is it?

Mr. CARLSON. It is probably a couple of hundred words, I
believe.

Mr. MOULDER. What is the title of it?

Mr. CARLSON. It is the preamble to our machinists’
constitution.

Mr. MOULDER. Yesterday I believe you said you didn’t even know
what the Communist Party stood for or what it was all about, and led us
to believe that you were maybe innocently hooked into and taken into
the Communist Party movement at one time, still not having any opinion
toward it or approval of it.

Mr. CARLSON. The popular conception of the Communist Party
being a subversive organization, an organization looking for the
overthrow of the Government, and so on and so forth, I can’t say that
I ever believed that. And I don’t think that I know anybody that does,
that I think believes that.

Mr. MOULDER. Are you a married man, Mr. Carlson?

Mr. CARLSON. Yes, I am.

Mr. MOULDER. Do you have a family?

Mr. CARLSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. MOULDER. How many children do you have?

Mr. CARLSON. I have two. Two grandchildren, by the way.

Mr. MOULDER. Were you born in America?

Mr. CARLSON. That is right.

Mr. MOULDER. You are desirous, of course, for your children to
enjoy the benefits of living in the greatest nation in the world?

Mr. CARLSON. That is right.

Mr. MOULDER. What I am coming to is, do you approve then, of
the Communist Party movement or the international conspiracy of the
Communist Party?

Mr. CARLSON. I don’t approve of what it is reported to be.
Now, to the best of my knowledge, I don’t know that the Communist Party
stands for such things.

Mr. MOULDER. Any questions, Mr. Velde?

Mr. VELDE. I would like to ask the witness to be a little bit
more specific about the way in which he got out of the Communist Party.
We have heard a lot of witnesses here in the same situation who have
told us that it has taken quite a long while for that conversion from
communism back to Americanism. While you were in the Communist Party
did you attend meetings of the Communist Party?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. Congressman, as to any activity in the Communist
Party prior to, say, 1950, I will have to invoke the fifth amendment on
the grounds that it might incriminate me.

Mr. VELDE. Then you refuse to give us the benefit of the
knowledge of the Communist Party which you acquired while you were a
member of the party?

Mr. CARLSON. On the ground that it may incriminate me, I
refuse to answer.

Mr. VELDE. Do you think, Mr. Carlson, that is in good faith
with Americanism?

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Congressman, if I recollect my history
correctly, there have been many, many people in the past that have been
convicted and thrown into jail for purely political reasons.

And it’s been proven afterward that they were only political reasons,
that they had no real basis for throwing them in jail. That is my
understanding of history. And I am not sure but what this is the same
thing.

Mr. VELDE. No, Mr. Carlson, this is not the same thing at all,
and I am sure that you are aware of that.

As a matter of fact, during the entire history of this committee there
has not been one single witness who appeared before this committee who
answered questions truthfully who has ever been prosecuted in any way,
shape, or form. That is all you have to do, in my opinion--to answer
questions truthfully--instead of refusing to answer.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert into the
record a sort of a statement here that fully covers my beliefs, and I
am sure that these have always been my beliefs.

Mr. MOULDER. You may file it. It will be made a part of the
record.

Mr. CARLSON. Could I read that so the public here themselves
would know?

Mr. MOULDER. If it is not too long. How long is it?

Mr. CARLSON. About 1 minute.

Mr. MOULDER. Very well. Proceed.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Chairman, this is the preamble to the
constitution of the Machinists Union, IAM:

    Believing that the right of those who toil to enjoy to the full
    extent the wealth created by their labor is a natural right, and
    realizing that under the changing industrial conditions incident
    to the enormous growth of syndicates and other aggregations of
    capital it is impossible for those who toil to obtain the full
    reward of their labor other than through united action; and
    recognizing the fact that those who toil should use their rights
    of citizenship intelligently, through organizations founded upon
    the class struggle and acting along cooperative, economic, and
    political lines, using the natural resources, means of production
    and distribution for the benefit of all the people, with the view
    of restoring the common wealth to all those performing useful
    service to society;

    Now, therefore, we, the International Association of Machinists,
    pledge ourselves to labor unitedly in behalf of the principles
    herein set forth, to perpetuate our association on the basis of
    solidarity and justice, to expound its objects, to labor for the
    general adoption of its principles, to consistently endeavor to
    bring about a higher standard of living among the toiling masses.

Mr. MOULDER. Probably you know Mr. Carlson, that the greatest
enemy of organized labor would be Communist domination. In Soviet
Russia organized labor, as we know it over here where free and
collective bargaining is permitted, labor unions and organization are
prohibited and not tolerated whatsoever in the Soviet Union.

I was trying to distinguish a moment ago as to your cause for
disassociating yourself from the Communist Party. Was it because you
thought the party was a failure; or was it because of the necessity,
for practical purposes--but still retaining in your mind the beliefs in
the Communist Party movement?

I think you should make a clear statement concerning your opposition,
as an American citizen, believing in our American way of life, in
contrast to and against the Communist Party international conspiracy.
Would you care to make any comment on it?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Chairman, my only comment on that is that I
don’t believe in the current, popular opinion of the Communist Party. I
don’t believe in that.

Mr. MOULDER. In my opinion, I think it is for your best
interests to take a different position than you are taking.

Mr. CARLSON. Maybe I misunderstand you or you misunderstand
me, Mr. Chairman. I don’t believe in the principle that is commonly
accorded to the Communist Party, that they are subversive. I don’t
want anything to do with that. That they are ready to overthrow the
Government, I don’t believe in that. Certainly not.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Chairman, further, if I thought that they
did believe in that, or ever believed in that, I certainly never would
have had anything to do with them, and I would be most bitterly in
opposition.

Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Tavenner, proceed with the interrogation of
the witness.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Carlson, I understood you to say that in
1950 you were not a member of the Communist Party. Is that correct?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. To the best of my knowledge, that is right.

Mr. TAVENNER. But in 1949 you withdrew from the Communist
Party? Is that correct?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. There was no formal act of withdrawal.

Mr. TAVENNER. You did not hand in a written resignation?

Mr. CARLSON. That is right.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you notify any functionary in the Communist
Party that you were withdrawing from the Communist Party?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. I failed to reregister.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. TAVENNER. Did any member of the Communist Party ask you to
reregister, and you refused to do it?

Mr. CARLSON. That I believe, is correct. I did not reregister
purposely; I did not intend to reregister.

But just exactly if that is what happened I am not quite so sure about
that. I mean whether somebody came and asked me to reregister; I don’t
remember. I am not sure about that.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was that in 1949?

Mr. CARLSON. That was about that time. It was at the time of
the----

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. It was right in there, yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the date of the last meeting of the
Communist Party you attended?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. I have to invoke the fifth amendment on that.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to think that
the witness, by the answers he has given, has opened the door for
examination of what he knows about Communist Party activities during
the period when he was a member. Therefore, I request that the chairman
direct the witness to answer.

Mr. MOULDER. The Chair directs the witness to answer the
question.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. Will you restate the question?

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you read the question, please?

(The pending question was read by the reporter.)

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. I invoke the fifth amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAVENNER. How many people composed the group or branch of
the Communist Party to which you belonged?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. The answer is the same, Mr. Chairman, the fifth
amendment.

Mr. MOULDER. The Chair directs the witness to answer the
question.

(There was no response.)

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the name of the unit or group of the
Communist Party of which you were a member?

Mr. CARLSON. I again invoke my rights under the fifth
amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MOULDER. The Chair directs the witness to answer the
question.

(There was no response.)

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, what the
Communist Party was endeavoring to accomplish in the group of the
Communist Party with which you were affiliated?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. I again invoke the fifth amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MOULDER. The Chair directs the witness to answer the
question.

(There was no response.)

Mr. VELDE. Just a minute. I don’t think the record shows any
answer to that. Do you want the record to show that you do not answer,
that you remain silent?

Mr. CARLSON. I wish to invoke the fifth amendment.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, in what activities
did the group of the Communist Party of which you were a member engage?

Mr. CARLSON. I again invoke the fifth amendment.

Mr. MOULDER. The Chair directs the witness to answer the
question.

(There was no response.)

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, whether
the Communist Party group with which you were affiliated was organized
within any industry, within any labor union, or whether it was a
street group of the Communist Party, or, sometimes referred to as, a
neighborhood group of the Communist Party?

Mr. CARLSON. Again, on the grounds of possible
self-incrimination I refuse to answer.

Mr. MOULDER. You are directed to answer the question
propounded to you by Mr. Tavenner, counsel for the committee.

Mr. CARLSON. On the grounds of the fifth amendment, I refuse
to answer.

Mr. TAVENNER. Over how long a period of time does your
knowledge of Communist Party activities exist?

Mr. CARLSON. I again invoke the fifth amendment.

Mr. MOULDER. You are advised and directed to answer the
question.

(There was no response.)

Mr. TAVENNER. When did you become a member of the Communist
Party?

Mr. CARLSON. The answer is the same as the one previous.

Mr. MOULDER. Again the Chair advises and directs you to answer
the question.

(There was no response.)

Mr. TAVENNER. What methods were used by the Communist Party in
order to induce you to become a member?

Mr. CARLSON. I again invoke the fifth amendment.

Mr. MOULDER. You are advised and directed to answer the
question.

(There was no response.)

Mr. TAVENNER. You have told the committee that you withdrew
from the Communist Party in 1949. What were the circumstances which led
you to the decision to withdraw from the Communist Party?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. I believe, Mr. Chairman, the immediate thing was
the outbreak of the Korean war.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, just how
the outbreak of the Korean war affected you in your decision?

Mr. CARLSON. My opinion, Mr. Chairman, was that that war was
uncalled for. I didn’t agree with it, no more than I agreed with our
participation in it.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you mean to say that the Communist Party was
in favor of the war, and, therefore, inasmuch as you disagreed with it,
you got out of the Communist Party?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. I was against the invasion by the North Koreans
of South Korea. That is my position. I didn’t approve of that at all.
In fact, I don’t approve of war really of any kind.

Mr. TAVENNER. I misunderstood your answer entirely.

You believed that the North Koreans invaded South Korea?

Are you assigning the Korean war as your reason for getting out of the
Communist Party? What I am getting at is: What was the Communist Party
doing about the Korean war with which you disagreed? That is the point
I am trying to develop. (The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. I am not really in a position, I don’t think,
to say what the Communist Party did about that. Officially. There was
a period of time when I suppose I was--Well, I don’t know what word
to use--probably losing faith, or disagreeing, or something with the
activities. And that was the real change in my mind. That was the
thing, the straw that broke the camel’s back, you might say.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you mean the Korean war?

Mr. CARLSON. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the Communist Party doing about the
Korean war that made this matter so important it affected your decision
about breaking your connection with the party?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. My decision was made right then in my own mind
when that war broke out.

Mr. TAVENNER. I am not talking about the time; I am talking
about what the Communist Party did to create such a situation which
prevented you from continuing as a member of the Communist Party.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. My impression was that they favored the North
Koreans, and I didn’t.

Mr. TAVENNER. How did the Communist Party handle that question
in its meetings?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. TAVENNER. Now actually the Korean war began in June 1950,
didn’t it?

Mr. CARLSON. As near as my recollection, I was thinking it was
1949.

Mr. TAVENNER. And you say you withdrew from the Communist
Party in 1949?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. I am sure in my mind that it was in the fall of
1949 that I failed to reregister in the Communist Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. But the only reason you have assigned for your
withdrawal from the Communist Party in 1949 is the Korean war, which
did not begin until nearly a year later.

Now it is rather difficult for the committee, I am sure, to understand
whether or not your reasons for withdrawing from the Communist Party
are being given in good faith.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Chairman, I was quite active in my union
and in my shop as a good trade union member, and, to tie one thing
with another, I don’t have anything to go by except that Korean war. I
remember that was about the time.

Mr. TAVENNER. Then you must have been mistaken as to the year
in which you withdrew from the Communist Party.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. That is possible.

Mr. TAVENNER. I would much rather believe that you were
mistaken than believe you are trying to deceive the committee.

Mr. CARLSON. No. That is not the case.

Mr. TAVENNER. The committee has been interested for quite a
period of time in learning all it can about the method used by the
Communist Party to oppose the Korean war. By opposing the Korean war
I mean opposing the foreign policy of the United States in connection
with that war. What position did the Communist Party take with which
you disagreed?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. I think it is quite common knowledge that, even
from our daily papers, the Communists did support the North Koreans.

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes; but the daily papers do not tell us what
was done in your particular cell or group of the Communist Party, and
that is what we want to know.

Mr. CARLSON. Well, after that war broke out, Mr. Chairman, I
did not participate. I can’t tell what they done because I don’t know.

Mr. TAVENNER. Then why did you disagree with them if you
didn’t know what they were doing?

Mr. CARLSON. Well, you remember, as history shows--according
to the papers, anyway--that in the time before the First World War
broke out, I remember--it just comes to my mind--the papers printed
that the Communist Party members of France tore up their Communist
cards immediately when Russia signed some sort of a pact with Germany.
You probably recall that in your own mind. I think that is a historical
fact. At least the paper files will show that. I recall it that way.
Now the same situation was mine, although I might add, as I have said
before, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back as far as I am
concerned.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you attend any meeting of the Communist
Party after you wrote the letter on June 19, 1954, to this committee?

(The witness confers with his counsel).

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you attend any meeting of the Communist
Party after the outbreak of the Korean War?

Mr. CARLSON. Not to the best of my recollection; I don’t
believe so.

Mr. TAVENNER. I understand you will not tell this committee
anything about the activities of the Communist Party during the period
when you were a member. Is that correct?

Mr. CARLSON. Because the answer to those questions might tend
to incriminate me, and, on advise of my counsel, I refuse to answer
those questions.

Mr. TAVENNER. I have no further questions.

Mr. MOULDER. Any questions?

Mr. VELDE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Since the witness is unwilling
to give us any of the information which we are certain he has regarding
his activities in the Communist Party while he was a member, possibly
he would tell us what motivated him to get into the Communist Party, to
join the Communist Party in the first place.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. Could I answer that question, Mr. Congressman,
and not go into other questions regarding it?

Mr. VELDE. Yes, certainly. I would like to have you answer.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. I was looking for an answer to the problems that
beset many, many workers besides myself. And I really had a rough time
during the depression.

Mr. VELDE. Did you join the party, then, during the depression?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. My understanding was that if I answered the
previous question there would not be any more regarding that.

Mr. VELDE. I did not understand it that way at all. I am
sorry if you misinterpreted my question. And I don’t mean to treat you
unfairly in any way or try to trap you. It seems to me that if anybody
is being trapped you are being trapped by your own unwillingness to
answer questions that are put to you about your activities in the
Communist Party. I think, Mr. Chairman, the record should show during
the course of the examination by Mr. Tavenner and by you that the
witness has been conferring with his counsel regarding the answers to
the questions.

Mr. MOULDER. The record will reflect conferences with counsel
in that regard.

Mr. TAVENNER. I have no further questions.

Mr. MOULDER. The witness is excused.

At this time the committee will read a letter which was just received,
addressed to myself as chairman. The letter is from the Musicians’
Association of Seattle, Local 76, A. F. of M.

    DEAR SIR: I am distressed to learn that our member, Mrs.
    Helen Taverniti, has not made herself available for service of the
    subpena from the House Un-American Activities Committee.

    I wish to point out that since 1940 the American Federation
    of Musicians has persistently carried on a sustained effort
    to remove from our membership persons proven to be affiliated
    with organizations of a subversive nature. In fact, our bylaws
    specifically provide that membership in the Communist Party or any
    Communist “front” organization is cause for immediate expulsion
    from membership.

    The executive board of local 76 has deemed it necessary to send
    a registered letter to Mrs. Helen Taverniti at her last known
    address, citing her to appear before the board for interrogation
    relative to this matter.

  Very truly yours,

  LESLIE R. MARTIN, _President_.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mrs. Margaret Elizabeth Gustafson.

Will you come forward, please.

Mr. MOULDER. Hold up your right hand and be sworn, please.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you are about to give
before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. I do.

Mr. MOULDER. Be seated.


TESTIMONY OF MARGARET ELIZABETH GUSTAFSON, ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL,
KENNETH A. MacDONALD

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you state your name please?

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. Margaret Elizabeth Gustafson.

Mr. TAVENNER. It is noted that you are accompanied by counsel.

Will counsel please identify himself for the record?

Mr. MACDONALD. Kenneth A. MacDonald, a lawyer of the city of
Seattle.

Mr. TAVENNER. When and where were you born, Mrs. Gustafson?

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. I was born February 9, 1912, in the city of
Seattle.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you spell your last name, please?

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. G-u-s-t-a-f-s-o-n.

Mr. TAVENNER. Where do you now reside?

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. In Bremerton, Wash.

Mr. TAVENNER. How are you employed?

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. As a schoolteacher.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, what your
formal educational training has been?

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. I graduated from San Diego State College in
1933, attended Mills for graduate work the following year. I have had
summer school at the Western Washington College of Education, at the
University of Washington, extension courses----

[Illustration:

  NORTHWEST LABOR SCHOOL
  309 2nd Avenue No.

  POSTMASTER: If undeliverable for any reason,
  notify sender on Form 3547, postage for which
  is guaranteed.

  Saturday, April 5th

  THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
  LABOR SCHOOL

  Holds

  OPEN HOUSE

  DANCE--REFRESHMENTS--FUN TO START THE SPRING TERM

  VACATION TIME
  JUNE 28-JULY 19

  Spend your vacation at the Labor School Summer Camp--swim,
  fish, rest, play--and learn.

  LAKE HATZIC
  BRITISH COLUMBIA

  Sponsored jointly by the Northwest Labor School and the
  British Columbia Workers Education Association. Inexpensive
  facilities for youngsters (even babies)--lots of fun
  for a week or more of vacation. Get full information and
  application blanks at the Labor School office.


  PACIFIC
  NORTHWEST
  LABOR
  SCHOOL

  SPRING 1947
  309 2nd Avenue North in Seattle

  MAKE SUNDAY NIGHT

  FORUM
  NIGHT

  7:00 P. M.
  Beginning March 23, 1947

  Every Sunday a Forum on an issue of current and
  vital importance to labor and the Seattle community.
  We will tackle the most important developments
  on the local, national and international scene.
  Make the FORUM a weekly habit.

  ADMISSION FREE

  SEATTLE LABOR FORUM
  309-2nd Ave. N.
]

[Illustration:

    =YOUTH CANTEEN=--Cyril Gius--Once month--(April 11, May 9 and
    June 6)--with music, entertainment, and food arranged under mature
    supervision, by and for youth.

    =JUNIOR TOWN HALL=--Cyril Gius--A monthly lively and
    stimulating discussion on questions of the day of particular
    interest to youth. Fridays--April 25, May 23, and June 20.

$1.50 for the six sessions or 35c a session.

    =CHILDREN’S WORKSHOP=--Ruth Bitterman--assisted by Celeste
    Brooks and Martha Smyser. Saturday, 10 a. m.-12 noon. Ages 6-12.

A workshop for children 6-12, encouraging their natural desire to
create, to help them find and express the beauty and color in their
everyday life, using simple art skills, and to help them to be
cooperative individuals in their group.

Fee: $3.00


WHO RUNS YOUR SCHOOL?

BOARD OF DIRECTORS: This is the governing body of the School and its
decisions are binding upon the school in matters of organization and
policy. It is comprised of trade union members and representatives
of the city at large, elected on the following basis: Trade unions
affiliating to the school through payment of an affiliation fee elect
one member to the Board. Trade union councils endorsing the school also
elect one member to the Board. These elect additional members from
the city at large up to one third of their number. Thus, the Board of
Directors, always representative of labor, also includes people who can
bring broad educational experience to the school.

Our aim to do what YOU want done. In addition to classes and activities
in the center, we will come to you. Does your union need a special
course to help in building the union, in developing new forces? Are
there fifteen people in your neighborhood who want some special class?
Do you need help in planning parties, song-fests, shows, meetings--the
Public Affairs Dept. is organized to help you. Give us a call and we’ll
work out what you need.


  PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABOR SCHOOL
  309-2nd Avenue North
  GArfield 5404


  SPRING TERM
  opens
  Week of April 7, 1947

  Register Now!
  Pacific Northwest Labor School
  309 2nd Ave. North
  GA. 5404

I want to enroll in the NORTHWEST LABOR SCHOOL in (please print plainly)

  CLASS......................  No.....  Day......

  CLASS......................  No.....  Day......

  Enclosed find $....... for my registration fee.

  NAME...........................................

  ADDRESS..................... PHONE.............

  UNION..........................................


AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS

(Members of the following organizations and their Auxiliaries may
attend at the reduced fee.)

  Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge No. 751
  American Communications Association, Local 130
  American Communications Association--Regional Office
  American Veterans Committee--Queen Anne Chapter
  Building Service Employees International Union No. 6
  Cannery Workers and Farm laborers Union--F.T.A. No. 7
  International Association of Machinists No. 79
  International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union No. 184
  International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union Nos 1-9
  International Molders & Foundry Workers No. 158
  Luggage Workers Union No. 51
  Marine Cooks and Stewards Association
  National Maritime Union of America
  National Negro Congress
  Painters Local Union, No. 300
  Shipscalers, Drydock and Boatyard Workers, No. 589
  The New World
  United Office and Professional Workers of America, No. 35
  United Public Workers of America
  Washington Pension Union
  Window Cleaners Union, No. 23


 FRATERNAL AFFILIATES

  Northern Washington District Council, I.W.A.
  Painters District Council No. 5
  Seattle CIO Council
  Washington State CIO Council


REGISTER NOW

Spring is already with us, so sign up for the course that meets your
needs NOW! The tuition fee for a single course is $6.00 for 10 weeks.
If your trade union or community organization is affiliated with the
Northwest Labor School the fee is $3.00. It’s an investment that will
pay off in new satisfactions and practical understanding. This is
education to make democracy work.

SPRING TERM OPENS WEEK OF APRIL 7, 1947]


TRADE UNIONISM

=104--Union Meeting Procedure=

  Monday, 8:30-10:00 P.M.
  Herman Ott

    How to organize and run a union meeting. Discuss and practice
    rules of order; learn to exercise your rights in a union meeting.

=106--History of American Labor=

  Friday, 1:00-3:00 P.M.
  Friday, 8:30-10:00 P.M.
  John Deschbach

    A background for understanding the labor problems of the present.
    Deals with major developments in the labor movement, special
    emphasis on events from World War I and on.

=108--Trade Union Organizational Problems

  Wednesday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
  Harvey Jackins

    Continuation of last term’s course, but open to new registrants.
    Covering problems of organizing and operating a local union.

=109--Psychology for Unionists=

  Wednesday, 8:30-10:00 P.M.
  Dr. Ralph Gundlach

    Problem of making a dues-payer into a union man. Psychological
    approach to such topics as handling grievances, discrimination,
    job evaluation and personnel management.

=110--Labor’s Experience in Political Action=

  Friday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
  H. Richard Seller
  Thomas C. Rabbitt

    Analysis of labor, success and failures in political action.
    Includes practical information on government and how labor can use
    its strength to safeguard democracy.

=115--Labor as Consumer=

  Monday, 1:00-3:00 P.M.
  Mary Salvus

    How to buy, what to buy, and what not to buy. Provides “shopping
    to save” techniques. Class members will cooperate in field work to
    determine good and bad buys in the Seattle area.

=118--The Truth About Unions=

  Thursday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
  Richard Berner

    This course is for everyone--but especially for rank and filers
    who want correct answers on the structure and role of the unions.
    Here is an opportunity for those outside of organized labor to
    deal with the facts--rather than the fictions which circulate
    about unions.

=120--Labor News Reporting=

  Monday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
  Terry Pettus
  H. Richard Seller

    A course for beginners as well as those with some experience in
    the technique of news reporting for the labor press, with special
    emphasis on learning-by-doing. It will deal with techniques of
    journalism and the reporting of news, not views.


SOCIAL SCIENCES

=204--Facts Behind the News=

  Thursday. 8:30-10:00 P.M.
  Albert M. Ottenheimer

    A critical discussion of the news behind the headlines. Analysis
    of fast moving events in national and international affairs.

=205--Science and the Problems of Race=

  Tuesday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
  Dorothy Anderson

    Will help supply scientific understanding of backgrounds and
    contributions of various peoples. Deals with the origin of racial
    and religious prejudices, and gives facts to combat them.

=209--Child Psychology=

  Tuesday, 8:30-10:00 P.M.
  Dr. Sylvia Mac Coll

    The job of being a mother--with practical application to
    everyday problems in rearing healthy, normal children and to the
    establishment of healthy parent-child relationships.

=210--Science of Society=

  Monday, 1:00-3:00 P.M.
  Monday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
  Bert MacLeech

    A scientific analysis of the basic forces at work in the world
    today. Covers a study of the origin and development of capitalism,
    the rise of modern imperialism and theory and practice of
    socialism.

=214--World Politics=

  Friday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
  John Deschbach

    This course deals with the major trends in international
    relations, with special attention to relations between Britain,
    the Soviet Union, and the United States.

=215--Development of Socialist Thought II=

  Wednesday, 8:30-10:00 P.M.
  Bert MacLeech

    Course continues the winter’s study, but is open to new
    registrants. Covers major developments of Socialist thought since
    the turn of the 20th Century.

=216--Political Economy I=

  Monday, 8:30-10:00 P.M.
  Harry Fugl

    Course deals with basic laws of capitalistic economy. Analyzes
    relationships of value and price, wages and profits; special
    emphasis on the role of organized labor’s effect on these
    relationships.

=217--Political Economy II=

  Monday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
  Harry Fugl

    Continuation of Political Economy I; a study of the basic laws of
    capitalist economy.

=219--Problems Facing the Negro People=

  Tuesday, 8:30-10:00 P.M.
  Carl Brooks

    Concerns present growing crisis in unemployment, housing, and
    discrimination of the Negro peoples; and how to combat policies
    which divide and weaken the community and country.

=220--What is Philosophy=

  Thursday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
  Prof. H. J. Phillips

    Treats philosophy in terms of its relation to the principal needs
    and interests of men today. Get acquainted with some of the major
    thinkers of the past and present.


SCHEDULE OF CLASSES--PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABOR SCHOOL

  +-------------------+--------------------+------------------+-------------------+---------------------+
  |      Monday       |      Tuesday       |     Wednesday    |     Thursday      |      Friday         |
  |    DAY CLASSES    |    DAY CLASSES     |    DAY CLASSES   |    DAY CLASSES    |    DAY CLASSES      |
  |  1:00-3:00 P.M.   |10:00 A.M.-4:00 P.M.|   1:00-3:00 P.M. | 12 Noon--Meet     |   1:00-3:00 P.M.    |
  |115--Labor as      |Maritime Leadership |320 Recreation as |    and Eat        |   106--History of   |
  |  Consumer         |  Training School   |  Leadership      |   10:00-12:00 P.M.|    American Labor   |
  |120--Science of    |                    |                  |322--Crafts        |                     |
  |  Society          |                    |                  |  Workshop         |                     |
  +-------------------+--------------------+------------------+-------------------+---------------------+
  |6:45-8:15 P.M.     |6:45-8:15 P.M.      |6:45-8:15 P.M.    |6:45-8:15 P.M.     |6:45-8:15 P.M        |
  |120--Labors News   |205--Science and    |108--Trade Union  |118--Truth About   |110--Labor and       |
  |  Reporting        |  Problems of Race  |  Organization    |  Unions           |  Political          |
  |210--Science of    |312--Everyone Can   |  Problems        |220--What is       |  Action             |
  |  Society          |  Draw              |323--Recreation as|  Philosophy       |214--World Politics  |
  |217--Political     |                    |  Union Leadership|                   |315--Labor Sings     |
  |  Economy II       |                    |                  |                   |                     |
  +-------------------+--------------------+------------------+-------------------+---------------------+
  |8:30-10:00 P.M.    |8:30-10:00 P.M.     |8:30-10:00 P.M.   |8:30-10:00 P.M.    |8:30-10:00 P.M.      |
  |104--Union Meeting |209--Child          |109--Psychology   |204--Facts Behind  |106--History of      |
  |  Procedure        |  Psychology        |  for Unionists   |  the News         |  American Labor     |
  |216--Political     |219--Problems of    |215--Development  |                   |Junior Town Hall and |
  |  Economy I        | Negro People       |  of Socialist    |                   |  Youth Canteen      |
  |                   |                    |  Thought II      |                   |(Alternate weeks     |
  |                   |                    |304--Swing Your   |                   |  beginning April 11)|
  |                   |                    |  Pardner         |                   |                     |
  |  SATURDAY, 10-12--CHILDREN’S WORKSHOP                    SUNDAY NIGHT: FORUM NIGHT, 1:00-3:00 P.M.  |
  +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+


WORKSHOPS

=304--Swing Your Pardner=

  Wednesday, 8:30-10:00 P.M.
  Ruth MacLeech

    The rollicking calls of folk and country dances--some with real
    labor flavor--will mean real fun for you. So get your pardner--or
    you’ll find one there--and join in. Individual sessions will be
    open to all comers.

=312--Everyone Can Draw=

  Tuesday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
  John Davis

    A class for everyone who wants to learn to draw or paint and enjoy
    it. The course will cover the fundamentals of freehand drawing,
    cartoons, designs, etc.

=315--Labor Sings=

  Friday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
  Hazel Johnson
  Helen Taverniti

    If you can carry a tune, come and sing peoples songs--old and new.
    You do not need to read music or have choral training. Learn songs
    to use at union, club meetings.

=320--Recreation as Leadership=

  Wednesday, 1:00-3:00 P.M.
  Ruth MacLeech

    How to plan and arrange recreation for children’s groups. A
    workshop in simple uses of music, puppetry, crafts. Source
    material available for planning programs around these skills.

=321--Recreation as Union Leadership=

  Wednesday, 6:45-8:15 P.M.
  Ruth MacLeech

    How recreation can be used to activate the union membership.
    Deals especially with simple uses of music, crafts and other
    recreational techniques. Source material available for unionists
    planning activities in these fields.

=322--Craft Workshop=

  Thursday, 10:00 A.M.-12:00 P.M.
  Trudi Hirshman

    Simple projects for the home and trade union hall, using
    inexpensive and salvage materials. A chance to learn new skills
    and satisfactions while producing what interests you.

=Meet and Eat Club (No Fee Charged)=

  Thursday, Noon to 2:00 P.M.
  Edith Coley

    Bring a bag lunch and enjoy two hours gaining latest information
    on Child Development, Home Management, Health and Family
    Relations. Speakers, specialists in their fields, and films
    featured. Coffee will be furnished. Child care will be provided.
    No fee charged.

See Other Side for Announcements on Children and Youth Work.


NOTE: REGISTRATION IS OPEN NOW FOR CLASSES

BEGINNING APRIL 7, 1947

       *       *       *       *       *

Mr. TAVENNER. When were you at the University of Washington?

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. 1940, the summer session.

Mr. TAVENNER. I interrupted you. You were in the course of
giving some further extension work.

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. I have had extension courses; I just finished
one a few weeks ago.

Mr. TAVENNER. How have you been employed since 1940?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. In 1941 I taught kindergarten. Right after
Pearl Harbor I went into the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. And when I
left there I organized and supervised the war emergency nursery schools
in Bremerton, the after-school-care program for the children of working
mothers. Then I worked for the Kitsap County Welfare Department.

Mr. TAVENNER. When was that, please? Approximately.

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. My first child was born in 1945. So it was the
year of 1945, maybe the latter part of 1944. I don’t recall exactly.

Then in the fall of 1947 I went back to teaching in the Bremerton
public schools, and have been there ever since.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mrs. Gustafson, do you have any knowledge of the
operation of the Northwest Labor School in Seattle?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. I shall have to avail myself of the privilege
granted me by the fifth amendment of the Constitution of the United
States, which protects me from giving testimony which might incriminate
me.

Mr. MOULDER. The question asked was: Do you possess any
information or knowledge concerning the school referred to by counsel?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mr. MOULDER. He did not ask you for any specific information.
He just asked you if you had such information, if you knew about the
school. Do you refuse or decline to answer?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. I shall have to avail myself of the privilege
of invoking the fifth amendment for the reasons given before.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you attend the Pacific Northwest Labor
School at any time?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. I refuse to answer on the grounds previously
given.

Mr. TAVENNER. Quite apparently, Mr. Chairman, it would be
a useless waste of time to ask any further questions regarding the
operation of the school.

(The Spring 1947 Catalogue of the Pacific Northwest Labor School is
hereby made a part of the transcript, and appears herewith.)

Mr. TAVENNER. During the period of time that you have been
engaged in teaching have you been a member of the American Federation
of Teachers unions?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mr. TAVENNER. And I should add, for your information, that
the American Federation of Teachers unions has never been cited as a
communist front organization.

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. Yes; I have been.

Mr. TAVENNER. Over what period of time have you been a member?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. Off and on since I became eligible in 1937,
whenever I was in the public schools.

Mr. TAVENNER. The investigation which this committee has
conducted within the past few years has developed information in
several different parts of the country, and I refer particularly to New
York, to Harvard University, to the general area of Los Angeles, and, I
believe, also in Michigan, that the Communist Party made a very strong
effort to get in a position to control the activities of the teachers
unions affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers. Do you have
any knowledge as to whether or not the Communist Party made an effort
to infiltrate the American Federation of Teachers union here?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mr. TAVENNER. I think I should say, and it may be of some help
to you in answering the question, that I have no information of any
Communist Party activities within the American Federation of Teachers
union here. But I want to know whether there were.

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. My counsel advises me that I must say “No.” I
am sorry but I have to answer.

Mr. TAVENNER. And what is your answer?

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. My answer is “No.”

Mr. TAVENNER. That you do not have any such knowledge?

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. Absolutely not.

Mr. TAVENNER. Have you held any office or position in the
American Federation of Teachers unions?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. Yes. I held the office of treasurer.

Mr. TAVENNER. Over what period of time?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. I think it was a portion of 1948 and a good
share of 1949.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you a member of the Communist Party at any
time during the years 1948 and 1949?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. No; I was not.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you a member of the Communist Party at any
time while you were a member of the American Federation of Teachers
unions?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. I shall have to invoke the fifth amendment,
for the reasons previously given.

Mr. TAVENNER. Are you a member of the Communist Party now?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. No.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you a member of the Communist Party in 1947?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. I shall have to invoke the fifth amendment to
the Constitution, for the reasons previously given.

Mr. TAVENNER. According to your testimony, you were at the
University of Washington for 1 year in 1940.

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. I beg your pardon. That was the summer session.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you a member of the Communist Party at that
time?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. I shall have to invoke the fifth amendment for
the reasons previously given.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were Communist Party meetings held at any time
in your home during the year 1947?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. I shall have to invoke the fifth amendment,
for the reasons previously given.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you at any time a member of the Victory
Club of the Communist Party in Bremerton?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. I shall have to invoke, for the reasons
previously given.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the witness refuses
to answer as to the period 1940-47, it is hardly necessary to ask any
further questions. So that is all I have.

Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Velde?

Mr. VELDE. Do you intend to invoke the fifth amendment on any
question we might ask you touching upon your activities as a member of
the Communist Party?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds
previously given.

Mr. VELDE. It is obvious to me that we cannot get any
information whatsoever from this witness. So I have nothing further to
ask.

Mr. MOULDER. Would you answer a question concerning any
information or knowledge you may have of Communist Party or subversive
activities in which you yourself were in no way whatsoever personally
connected? If you had such knowledge and information, would you answer
the question concerning such information or knowledge?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I have to invoke
the fifth amendment, for the reasons previously given.

Mr. MOULDER. I want to make myself clear, that I am not
proposing to ask you questions concerning any matter or any fact which
would tend to incriminate you personally.

I say would you answer any question concerning any fact or information
you may have concerning subversive, communistic, or un-American
activities which you yourself were not related to, but which you have
knowledge of concerning someone else. Would you answer such a question?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. I am sorry, sir, but I shall have to invoke
the fifth amendment.

Mr. MOULDER. You are excused as a witness.

The committee will stand in recess until 1:30.

(Whereupon, at 12:03 p. m., the subcommittee was recessed, to be
reconvened at 1:30 p. m., this same day. Remainder of this hearing is
printed in pt. 2 of this series.)




FOOTNOTES:

[1] Also known as Rapport, Morris.


[Transcriber’s Note:

Page 298, “_The First Objective was approached mainly from the class
in Theory which dealt with 1. The Materialist Conception of History,
2. Dialectics, 2. Surplus Value, 3. The Class Struggle, 4. Orientation
in Organization, 5. Proletarian, 6. Discipline as Social Control._”
changed to read: “_The First Objective was approached mainly from
the class in Theory which dealt with 1. The Materialist Conception of
History, 2. Dialectics, 3. Surplus Value, 4. The Class Struggle, 5.
Orientation in Organization, 6. Proletarian, 7. Discipline as Social
Control._”

Obvious printer errors corrected silently.

Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.]