Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order.
Is Mr. Jerry O’Connell in the hearing room?
(There was no response.)
Mr. Moulder. Will the officer standing at the door call for Jerry
O’Connell in the corridor.
(There was no response.)
Mr. Moulder. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dennett, you were describing to the committee
the formation of the unemployed councils in Bellingham and the
success which the Communist Party had in having its members become
members of that organization. You also described for us in a general
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.
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 (¾), that is the third line
from the top, fourth letter from left to right. You can agree also on this method;
for example, counting the line not from above but from below, then the 3 will
not be the third line from above but the third line from below. You can agree
to count the letter in the line not from left to right but from right to left.
Finally, for greater complexity in order to keep the sense from the police, you
can also add to the fraction some figure or other. Let us say the numerator is
increased by 3 and the denominator by 4. In this case in order to decipher, it
will be necessary first to subtract in the numerator and denominator of every
fraction. A whole number of similar complications can be thought out in order
to complicate the cipher. The advantage of such a cipher is that it is not only
very simple but also that each letter can be designated by a great number of
different signs and in such a way that the cipher designation of the letters
are not repeated. The book cipher can be used without a book. In place of
a book some poem or other can be chosen, learned by heart and the ciphering
done according to it. When it is necessary to cipher or decipher, the poem must
be written out in verses and then the ciphering or deciphering done and the
poem destroyed.
The third requisite which is also recommended should be observed in correspondence,
is writing in chemical inks, that is, with such inks that it is
impossible to read them without special adaptations. If a secret Party letter falls
into the hands of the police written in invisible ink they must first of all guess
that it is written in invisible ink; the open text of such letters must be made
perfectly blameless, for example, a son is writing to his mother that he is alive
and well and of the good things he wishes her. Not a word about revolution.
The police must guess first of all that under this apparent innocent text there
is a hidden text. Having discovered this secret the police tumble against the
cipher. If they succeed in deciphering the cipher, they stumble up against a
code and they have still to decipher that code. But all this takes time in the
course of which the police can do nothing. If the police succeed in reading it in
the course of two or three weeks, then by that time the Party organization has
been able to cover up all the consequences of the question which was written
about in the letter.
What kind of invisible ink should be used? Invisible inks exist in a very great
number. They can be bought in any chemist’s shop. Finally, comrades must
use the latest inventions of chemistry in this direction. The simplest invisible
ink which can be recommended and which can be found everywhere, is, for
example, onion juice and pure water.
16. PLAN OF WORK OF THE PARTY COMMITTEE
Every Party Committee must have a definite plan of work for the period
immediately ahead. In the conditions of the capitalist countries Party Committees
cannot work out the same complicated calendar plans as the Party organizations
of the C. P. S. U. The C. P. S. U. is a Party in power, the plans of the
C. P. S. U. regulate the whole social and political life of the country. In capitalist
countries the Communist Parties are the parties of an oppressed class. The bourgeoisie
in power uses the whole apparatus of the State power and the full help
of the Social-Fascist and other reactionary organizations in order to smash the
plans of the Communist Parties. In these conditions the committees of the Communist
Parties must systematically reconsider and reconstruct the plans of their
work; accordingly, these plans must be very pliable. But plans there must be,
without fail. Every Party Committee must have an approximate plan of its
work for the period immediately ahead and must group the forces of the Party
organization according to that plan, fit the forms of the Party structure to it
and also the methods of Party work. The essence of the plan of work of the
Party Committee is the adequate catering for the needs of the masses in the
largest enterprises, playing a more important role in the territory of the given
Party organization. The structure of the local Party organization must be such
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Carmichael Exhibit No. 1
(The document above referred to, marked “Carmichael Exhibit
No. 1,” for identification, is filed herewith and made a part of the
record.)
Carmichael Exhibit No. 1
Mr. Moulder. Is that a picture of you on that document?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. I decline to answer on the grounds stated before.
Mr. Wheeler. Have you ever been expelled from a union for Communist
Party affiliations?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. I decline to answer for the same reasons.
Mr. Wheeler. Our records show that you were a member of the
regional committee, Northwest Region, 12th District, Communist
Party, as late as 1950. Is that correct?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. I decline to answer under the protection of the
fifth amendment.
Mr. Wheeler. Also a member of the Sultan Section 51. Is that
correct?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. I decline to answer for the same reason.
Mr. Wheeler. Also that you have been a member of the Communist
Party in this area, and a functionary on many occasions for the
past 18 years. Is that correct?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. I decline to answer for the same reason.
Mr. Wheeler. When you became employed by the State of Washington
did you sign a loyalty oath of any kind?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. I decline to answer for the same reason.
Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.
Mr. Moulder. Any questions, Mr. Velde?
Mr. Velde. You have declined to answer whether or not you were
a member of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. Is that right?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. I declined to answer for the same reason.
Mr. Velde. Did you ever know Steve Nelson?
Steve Nelson, for your information, was a member of the Abraham
Lincoln Brigade and one of the Communist Party organizers from
Alameda County, Calif.
Mr. Carmichael. I decline to answer for the same reasons.
Mr. Velde. Are you now a member of the Communist Party?
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. Carmichael. I decline to answer for the same reason.
Mr. Velde. No further questions.
Mr. Moulder. The witness will be excused.
(Whereupon the witness was excused.)
Call the next witness, Mr. Wheeler.
Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Ed Carlson, please.
Mr. Carlson. Mr. Chairman, because I do have quite a headache,
and it bothers me very badly, I wish to refrain from those snapping
pictures.
Mr. Moulder. The photographers will not take pictures while he is
testifying.
Hold up your right hand and be sworn.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you are about to
give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Carlson. I do.
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.
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.)
