Chapter VII: Part 7

7. The Unit organizer should sum up the discussion at the close.
(This is not ironclad. It may sometimes be better for the comrade
from the Section Buro or Section Committee to make the summary.
The main thing is that a summary is made in which the Party
Line is again made clear. This will fix the Party line in each
comrade’s mind so as to last.

“The Communist’s ideal should be a tribune of the people, able
to react to every manifestation of tyranny and oppression, no
matter where it takes place, no matter what stratum of class of
the people it affects. He must explain the historical role of the
Proletariat” (Lenin).

INSTRUCTIONS FOR UNITS

Hold Meeting on Friday, April 14, to consider the following:

1. The Reorganization Program for the Section--(Special Outline
enclosed).

2. Elect Buro--Three most politically and theoretically developed
comrades in Unit.

3. Political discussion on the meaning of the New Policy of the
Communist Parties in regards to the Socialist Party and other
Social-Democratic groups.

NOTE OF EXPLANATION

The Party organization is flexible. Forces can be shifted from
place to place, etc. But the Party line is quite well defined and
there are sharp differences between that which is approved by the
Party Line and that which is disapproved by the Party Line. The
Party line does not change except under rare and unusual occasions.

The Sharp change in the International Situation has brought
forth a change in the attitude of the Communist Parties to the
Social-Democratic Groups, this includes the Socialist Party of
America.

The whole membership of the section should have read the statement
of the ECCI in the Daily Worker some two to three weeks ago where
the change of policy was explained.

The Communist Party will maintain vigilance against those who
attempt to break the United Front and thereby betray the position
of the working class by complete and ruthless exposure. But there
is a truce existing at the present time between the Communist
Parties and the Social Democrats. The Bellamy Club should be
included with the Social-Democrats.

ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE BURO

Departmentalize the work into the following categories which are
indispensable now.

1. Unit Organizer--The most dependable person.--Come to Liberal
Club Sat. at 2 P.M.

2. Dues Secretary--Know list of membership--Come to Liberal Club
Sat. at 1 P. M.

3. Fraction Secretary--Get list of all organizations to which the
membership belongs. Come to Liberal Club Sat. at 3 P. M.

Comradely yours,

SEC. ORG.

Mr. TAVENNER. Is there any further comment you desire to make concerning that document?

Mr. DENNETT. Evidently I only have part of that document in my own copy.

Mr. TAVENNER. I believe there is a resolution appearing at the end of the document which you apparently do not have.

Mr. DENNETT. There is one note of explanation at the bottom, which reads as follows, and I think it speaks for itself:

The party organization is flexible. Forces can be shifted from
place to place, etc. But the party line is quite well defined and
there are sharp differences between that which is approved by the
party line and that which is disapproved by the party line. The
party line does not change except under rare and unusual occasions.

The sharp change in the international situation has brought
forth a change in the attitude of the Communist Parties to the
social-democratic groups. This includes the Socialist Party of
America.

The whole membership of the section should have read the statement
of the ECCI in the Daily Worker some 2 or 3 weeks ago----

Mr. TAVENNER. What is ECCI?

Mr. DENNETT. Executive Committee of the Communist International--

where the change of policy was explained.

The Communist Party will maintain vigilance against those who
attempt to break the united front and thereby betray the position
of the working class by complete and ruthless exposure. But there
is a truce existing at the present time between the Communist
Parties and the Social-Democrats. The Bellamy Club should be
included with the Social-Democrats.

That was a local organization in the Bellingham area which I had not mentioned before. It was a group who had studied Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward and his other Socialist books and pamphlets.

I believe that statement sufficiently illustrates what we were undertaking to do, and it is consistent with what was going on all over the country. The only thing is we met with more success than others did.

Mr. TAVENNER. You described the activities of the unemployed councils in Bellingham, and you have told us that they were Communist-organized groups. Will you tell the committee, please, who the Communist Party members were who took the lead in that work, in addition to yourself, of course?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, I think I mentioned earlier--if I didn’t, I should at this time--that there was a young woman by the name of Helen Quist who represented the Young Communist League, who went to Bellingham at approximately the same time I did, and who gave invaluable help in the organization of both the Young Communist League and the Communist Party. She was a member of both, and she was my closest and ablest assistant for quite a period of time in Bellingham.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you spell the name, please?

Mr. DENNETT. Q-u-i-s-t, Helen Quist.

When I arrived, the local leadership of the Communist Party consisted of a person by the name of Martin Olson. And I hope that if there are any Martin Olsons who hear of that that they will not worry too much because there are so many Martin Olsons in this area.

But this particular Martin Olson was an unemployed logger at that time.

Mr. TAVENNER. In light of your statement then, can you give further identifying information in regard to Mr. Olson so that there will be no confusion as to the “Olson” referred to?

Mr. DENNETT. All I can say is that he was a man of small stature, was an unemployed logger at that time. That is about all I can use for description.

There was a person by the name of George Smith in Bellingham. He at that time operated a little hotel which he owned.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was his activity?

Mr. DENNETT. He was just a member of the sectarian group that just sat around and were satisfied that as long as they had a pure line everything was rosy. The fact that they didn’t do anything about it didn’t seem to disturb them too much. They were satisfied that they were following the straight and narrow path.

Mr. TAVENNER. What do you mean by straight and narrow path?

Mr. DENNETT. They sat around and agreed among themselves that the Communist Party line was absolutely right.

Mr. TAVENNER. I wanted to be sure that the path you mentioned was the Communist Party path.

Mr. DENNETT. True. There was another person by the name of Arthur Sinclair. I have heard since that he subsequently was deported to Canada.

There was an older fellow by the name of Engstrom, but I do not recall his first name.

Mr. TAVENNER. Let me suggest this to you: If any of the persons whose names you are giving withdrew from the Communist Party, or if you have any facts indicating a change of affiliation, I think you should give those facts to us.

Mr. DENNETT. Well, I have no knowledge of any of these people whom I have mentioned having done so.

There were a couple of women who were certainly the most reliable people for us in the sense that--remember we were in difficult times, and eating was a difficult problem. And both of these women did work outside, and they had a loyalty to their neighbors and friends. Bellingham, you have to understand, is a comparatively small town. People in it live much closer together than they do in a larger city. Neighbors are a little better acquainted with each other. Consequently, any suffering in the neighborhood arouses a deeper response among people who are better acquainted than it does among total strangers.

And these women extended themselves greatly to aid those of us who didn’t have any adequate income or any adequate subsistence. I understand that both of these women have since left the Communist Party. Do you want me to name them now?

Mr. TAVENNER. Was that in 1932?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes; it was.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I suggest we take that testimony an executive session, if he is convinced that they have left the party.

Mr. MOULDER. I suggest that you withhold the names and not announce them; this information will be given to the committee in executive session.

Mr. DENNETT. That answers all about the persons who were there at the time of my arrival.

Before I left the following persons were developed into leadership----

Mr. TAVENNER. Before telling us about that, have you given us the names of all others in the Communist Party group who were there when you arrived?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes; all of those whom I have named were officers. They held functioning positions.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you proceed, then, with a description of the identity of those who were developed into leadership after you arrived.

Mr. DENNETT. I should preface that by remarking that upon my arrival in Bellingham the Ku Klux Klan was very active in Whatcom County. It was a practice for them at that time to burn the fiery cross frequently in various places of the county. And I was informed that they had a very considerable membership in the county.

I learned that some of those Klansmen were quite disillusioned with the activities of the Klan. I made a practice of trying to contact various persons whom I learned had been disillusioned by their activities in the Klan. And I have been trying my level best to think of the name of a particular man who was an officer in the Klan whom I did succeed in recruiting into the Communist Party. But I have been unable to remember that man’s name. I can only give this description, that he was in the Sumas area and that he was a sheet-metal worker. And that is the best that I can recall about him. It is quite possible that if some of the other persons I mention, if they were asked, they probably would remember him because he was a neighbor of theirs.

In this connection 2 very fine young men, one John Brockway and another one, Harold Brockway, were working out on their father’s farm. Nothing to do. And they were quite intrigued by the prospect which we held forth as the new life which would come under a Soviet rule.

There was a young man at that time by the name of Mel Luddington.

There was a very old man by the name of A. A. Johnson. I would expect that because of his advanced age at that time he may not still be alive.

Mr. TAVENNER. May I suggest that if you have information as to any of the persons being deceased that you not give us their names, unless they performed some outstanding service for the Communist Party which we should know about.

Mr. DENNETT. I do not know.

Then, of course, I have mentioned George Bradley.

Mr. TAVENNER. I should have asked you to spell some of these names, the spelling of which may be uncertain. Will you go back, please?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. What is the spelling of Brockway?

Mr. DENNETT. B-r-o-c-k-w-a-y.

Mr. TAVENNER. Luddington?

Mr. DENNETT. Luddington, L-u-d-d-i-n-g-t-o-n.

Mr. TAVENNER. Johnson?

Mr. DENNETT. J-o-h-n-s-o-n.

Mr. TAVENNER. Bradley? B-r-a-d-l-e-y?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes.

Mr. DENNETT. There was one other person I see that I have omitted, a fellow by the name of Ed Hanke. I think he had a brother, too, that was in. But I do not recall the brother’s name.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you spell the name, please.

Mr. DENNETT. H-a-n-k-e.

Mr. TAVENNER. You mentioned a little earlier that several people from this area were trained in Moscow and attended the Lenin Institute. I believe you named 2 of them from this area. Who were the 2?

Mr. DENNETT. One was Alex Noral. The other was Hutchin R. Hutchins.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were there any others?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes.

James Bourne, B-o-u-r-n-e.

I think there were more than that, but I cannot at this moment place them.

I remember that in 1932 there was an organization known as the Friends of the Soviet Union, which was inspired by and under the leadership of the Communist Party, and its purpose was to take delegations to the Soviet Union to win their support and approval of the Soviet Union and what it was doing. And I recall one experience with a longshoreman from Tacoma. I cannot for the life of me think of his name. But he went to the Soviet Union on one of these Friends-of-the-Soviet-Union tours, came back, made the prepared speeches which the Friends of the Soviet Union asked him to make, and proceeded afterward to go around and make speeches contradicting his original speeches, stating that he did not realize how much harm he was doing by presenting the Soviet Union as the land of paradise, that he was quite disappointed with what he found when he found all the women doing the heavy work. And that seemed to be the chief thing that he objected to.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the date of your transfer back to Seattle?

Mr. DENNETT. It was some time late in 1933.

Mr. TAVENNER. How long did you remain as agitprop, agitation propagandist in Seattle?

Mr. DENNETT. Not very long. It seems to be an office in which there are many casualties because one, to fill that position, has to have a broad knowledge of the theoretical works of the party. And I can assure this committee that there is a great deal of written material on the subject which it takes a lifetime to study. I did the best I knew how at mastering a knowledge of it, but I then found out that the things which I had learned in the theoretical sense were not always respected by those who were in the administrative positions of the party, and frequently they would disregard my knowledge of the theoretical work and try to make it appear as though I was far off the line.

And there was constant conflict. Rappaport, when he came into the district, found many practical problems that didn’t lend themselves to the theoretical solutions which I found, and he, being a man of a great deal more experience and much more authority, made short work of me.

Mr. TAVENNER. Can you tell us the approximate period of time that you remained in that position? You said not long. But give us a more adequate idea.

Mr. DENNETT. It was only a couple of months, I believe. I do not recall the exact circumstances which arose. But there was some conflict, some specific conflict in which Rappaport convinced me that I was completely wrong, and required that I submit a statement to the party in which I admit that I was completely wrong.

I believe that you have a copy of that. I cannot put my finger on a copy now.

I did precisely what I was requested to do as a sign of my obedience.

I have found my own statement. I think I could put it in.

Mr. TAVENNER. May I see it, please.

(Document handed to Mr. Tavenner.)

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you state to the committee, please, what the error was which you were induced to confess?

Mr. DENNETT. I have been trying to think what it is. I can’t even recall now what it was. In fact, I had completely forgotten the incident until Mr. Wheeler ran across it and asked me what it was.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you read it in evidence, please.

Mr. DENNETT. (reading):

STATEMENT OF V. HAINES * * * EUGENE DENNETT

_To the District Buro, District 12, CPUSA_:

I have made a political error, in consequence of which I have been
removed from the functions of district agitprop director.

I agree with the decision.

It is my responsibility to the party to prove myself by correct
rank-and-file activity.

Comradely submitted,

V. HAINES * * * EUGENE DENNETT.

Mr. TAVENNER. I desire to introduce the paper in evidence, and ask that it be marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 9.”

Mr. MOULDER. The above statement will be identified as “Dennett Exhibit No. 9” in the record.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, what the organization setup was of the Communist Party in Seattle during the 2 periods when you served here as agitprop?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, the first period the party consisted almost exclusively of what we called a skidroad branch. Almost all the membership of the party was transient workers who lived on or about the skidroad. And when Rappaport came in--speaking now of the second period--Rappaport raised cain over the fact that the membership was all transient, insisting that the party must root itself in the neighborhoods. It must become acquainted with the permanent citizens, not those who were called the boomers or the floaters, those who used Seattle as a mail headquarters and holed up during the winter or off season but left the city during their construction work, which most of them followed.

And he used the technique of developing neighborhood branches out of those who were members of the unemployed citizens leagues or unemployed councils, and from those, as people went to work in industry, he tried to develop shop or factory, what we call nuclei.

Most of the success in that field occurred among the lumber workers because they were among the first to get out and get back to work out in the woods, the loggers.

So we had still the problem of maintaining contact with them. It was very difficult to do.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, who were the functionaries of the Communist Party in Seattle during those two periods.

Mr. DENNETT. The first one I think we have covered, when we mention Mr. Alex Noral, Fred Walker, Jim Bourne, B-o-u-r-n-e, Mr. John Lawrie. I think that is L-a-w-r-i-e. John Lawrie, Sr.

There was a Mr. Ed Leavitt, L-e-a-v-i-t-t.

They were the leading functionaries with whom I worked at that time.

Mr. TAVENNER. After you were removed as agitprop what was your next activity in the Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. I had to become a good rank-and-file member and work in the unemployed-citizens leagues. Yes; by that time the Communists had taken over a number of the locals of the unemployed-citizens leagues in the city of Seattle, and were making a strong bid to take over the top leadership, the central UCL. And I was working in the skid-road local of the unemployed-citizens leagues, and was living in the soup line.

Mr. TAVENNER. How long did that continue?

Mr. DENNETT. That continued until I went into the CCC’s.

Mr. TAVENNER. Can you give us the approximate date?

Mr. DENNETT. I think it was in April 1934.

Mr. MOULDER. In what capacity did you go into the CCC?

Mr. DENNETT. As an enlisted man.

Mr. MOULDER. Wasn’t that a program where there was a chairman in each community or county? Or section of a city?

Mr. DENNETT. No. This is the Civilian Conservation Corps.

Mr. MOULDER. Yes; I know. And they were given so much employment in each county or each section of the city, and someone had to pass upon those. Is that the program where you were paid so much and the parents would receive so much?

Mr. DENNETT. That is true. That is the program. I think you are correct, sir, in saying there was a quota allotment for each community. I think you are right.

But in this particular case that was not involved in mine because the camps that we were recruited to were known as LEM’s or local experience man camps. We were making new camps. We were doing the heavy construction work and making camps that would later be taken over by the young people that you are thinking of that were assigned by quota. You are quite correct. That is the program. I had forgotten that part of it.

And that evidently is what happened, an allotment had been made as to the number that could come out of the Seattle soup line, and I was one of those that was able to volunteer and got into it.

Mr. TAVENNER. How long did you remain a member of the Civilian Conservation Corps?

Mr. DENNETT. Until July of 1935.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you engage in any Communist Party activities during that period?

Mr. DENNETT. That is a question that is open to dispute. I didn’t think that I did. But the company commander thought that I did. So he proceeded to have me expelled from the CCC.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the nature of the activity in which you did engage and which resulted in your expulsion?

Mr. DENNETT. When I became a member of the CCC there was provision for the Army to administer the camps, the Forest Service to administer the work, and for an educational director to supervise the training. And there was provision for an educational director to have an assistant who could be selected from among those enlistees who were a part of the company. I was chosen as the assistant educational director.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you advised by the Communist Party to get into the CCC camps for any propaganda purpose?

Mr. DENNETT. No; I was not. On the contrary, in my instance, they said, “You had better stay away from that Fascist outfit because it is just a place where they are going to give military training and get ready for the next imperialist war, and we don’t want you to be in it.”

Mr. MOULDER. Wasn’t it in the nature of a relief program?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes.

Mr. MOULDER. And naturally the Communist Party was opposed to the relief program, and wanted people generally to stay in the depression. Wasn’t that the policy or wishes of the Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. That would be one way of putting it, and probably the way that many people viewed it. I didn’t look at it that way myself at that time. But I can’t dispute that point of view. The point that I started to speak of was that I was selected as the assistant educational director, and, frankly, I took quite seriously the literature which was sent from the United States Office of Education to the camps.

And among the points which were emphasized in this literature was the necessity of teaching the democratic process of government. But it has always been my experience that when you try to carry out the teaching of the democratic process of government and you come in contact with the military, sometimes they don’t quite agree with you. And in this particular instance my efforts to carry out the literature and carry out the educational program which came from John W. Studebaker’s office, the United States Office of Education, met with considerable resistance on the part of the company commander. He just didn’t like the idea. It sounded to him as though it was communistic for people to be talking about democracy and talking about having some way of resolving grievances and difficulties and that sort of thing through the democratic legislative method. And we came into sharp conflict over that.

Of course, I finally gave him the excuse which he was looking for. Some of these workers in the camp were from the soup line with me--most of them were. They knew me around Seattle and they knew that I had been an agitator on the waterfront and on the skidroad. I had held many meetings on the skidroad. So I was well known to these men. And they asked me to conduct a course in sociology. I had some knowledge on the subject, and I had some textbooks of my own which I had used, which I had studied when I was going to the university. One of those was a book entitled “Contemporary Social Movements” by Jerome Davis. I had that book. And, of course, that book attempts to survey all the then current social, political, and economic philosophies that were occupying the attention of various people throughout the world, including the Communists and the Fascists, the Soviet Union and what was going on in Italy, and that sort of thing, and also in Germany. So I proceeded to answer the request of these workers to have a class in contemporary social movements.

The company commander attended two sessions of the class. And he attended those two sessions where I was using this text to describe the Communist system in the Soviet Union and the Fascist system in Italy. And he decided that that was subversive propaganda and should not be conducted, and he accused me of spreading subversive propaganda in the camp.

Mr. MOULDER. Then were you expelled?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. Wasn’t his accusation correct?

Mr. DENNETT. I think that his accusation was misplaced. I was making as honest an effort as I knew how to make an objective study. And there seems to be a great deal of difficulty in these days, as there was then, to determine the difference between an objective presentation of a factual situation with respect to a controversial subject without being accused of propagandizing for it. It is a difficult point.

Mr. TAVENNER. In what work after your removal from the Civilian Conservation Corps did you engage?

Mr. DENNETT. That is when I was shanghaied on to a boat here on the waterfront in Seattle.

Mr. TAVENNER. Now I think, Mr. Chairman, that is a subject that we will reserve discussion for until later. But I would like to ask at this time, if the chairman will issue a subpena duces tecum requiring the witness to present to the staff all of the documents which he now has in his possession. By that I do not mean the committee is going to remove them in such a way that the witness will not have access to them, but in order that we may keep those documents intact until the committee staff has been able to fully examine them.

Mr. MOULDER. The subpena will be issued.

Mr. TAVENNER. Is there any objection to that on your part?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. DENNETT. I have just conferred with my counsel, and we wondered whether or not you included books.

Mr. TAVENNER. There may be some books which the committee would like to have included. However, the committee would not be interested in those books which it already has in its possession.

Mr. MOULDER. Whatever counsel will require will be set forth in the subpena.

Mr. TAVENNER. I wanted to be certain that the witness is agreeable to it. We could do it without his agreement, but I prefer to find out if he is agreeable.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. DENNETT. I have conferred with my counsel, and he has raised the question with me: Can I provide adequate protection for the documents which seem to have such importance. And, frankly, I have some misgivings as to whether I can furnish as good protection for them as perhaps the committee can. So I am agreeable to whatever the committee wishes to do.

Mr. TAVENNER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. MOULDER. The committee will stand in recess. However, I wish to announce that immediately after the recess Mr. Johnston and Mr. Carlson should make themselves available for recall appearances before the committee.

The committee will stand in recess for a period of 10 minutes.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

Mr. MOULDER. The committee will be in order.

The committee is informed that the witness Jerry O’Connell has counsel appearing for him.

Mr. HATTEN. Yes.

Mr. MOULDER. Please come forward.

STATEMENT OF C. T. HATTEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, SEATTLE, WASH.

Mr. HATTEN. I was in attendance all day yesterday. However, I was not authorized to speak for Mr. O’Connell. I understood that he had wired and otherwise contacted the chairman of this committee, Representative Walter, and had expected to receive word from him.

The reason for Mr. O’Connell’s not appearing here is the fact that he has had an acute heart attack, and has had a heart condition for a considerable period of time.

I have with me a letter from Dr. Harry McGregor, Great Falls, Mont., which gives the results of an examination made on March 15, and which concludes that----

Mr. MOULDER. Will you read the letter into the record?

Mr. HATTEN. I can hand the letter over and make it a part of the record if the chairman wishes. I merely wanted to state that it concludes that he is advised not to attend, or to withhold from the duties set forth in the subpena.

Of course, I appreciate that the committee may want to have him examined by an independent physician, and I am sure that whatever the committee’s desires are in that regard will be agreeable with Mr. O’Connell, or in the event that the committee should desire to examine him in Great Falls, Mont., at some later continued hearing. One of the problems is the distance that he would have to travel under his condition. He would either have to come by plane, or, in the absence of that, travel over the mountain passes, which would seriously affect his health.

Mr. VELDE. I do not want to violate any of your rights as to attorney-client relationship, but have you talked to Mr. O’Connell personally?

Mr. HATTEN. No, I did not.

Mr. VELDE. You mentioned that he had previously requested Mr. Walter, the chairman of the full committee----

Mr. HATTEN. I understand that he has communicated with Representative Walter, yes.

Mr. VELDE. Do you know the date of that?

Mr. HATTEN. I do not.

Mr. VELDE. Mr. Chairman, I think it should be made a matter of record that Mr. O’Connell was duly subpenaed on--what was the date?

Mr. MOULDER. The eighth of March.

Mr. VELDE. The 8th day of March and up until this moment we have not received any type of communication from Mr. O’Connell.

While, of course, we always have been very lenient as far as the witnesses who have medical ailments are concerned, however, it has always been the custom--and I think probably Mr. O’Connell knows about this, too--for a medical affidavit to be filed promptly. In this case it certainly hasn’t been prompt.

Mr. HATTEN. That depends upon the period of time when he had the attack. He certainly couldn’t advise the committee on the date of the subpena of his inability to attend if the reason why he couldn’t attend was an attack which occurred later.

Mr. TAVENNER. Is that the situation?

Mr. HATTEN. I couldn’t advise the committee. The committee will undoubtedly go into this further, and the exact dates and situations will be discovered.

I have not been in Great Falls, Mont., and I don’t want to make any representations.

Mr. MOULDER. You aren’t making an appearance? You are simply presenting this letter?

Mr. HATTEN. That is correct.

Mr. MOULDER. Very well.

Will you call Mr. Johnston as a witness?

TESTIMONY OF HAROLD JOHNSTON, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, JAY G. SYKES--Resumed

Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Johnston, you were on the stand yesterday to testify in answer to questions propounded to you by Mr. Wheeler, and the Chair asked you the question or a similar question, as to whether or not you approved or disapproved of Communist infiltration, influence, and domination of the labor union of which you are a member. And you said that you hadn’t had time to give the question any thought or consideration. We felt that by giving you sufficient time and recalling you today you could give us an answer to that question.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. Chairman, I feel that the wording of that you just now mentioned was not the wording of the question yesterday. It was a little different.

But, in answer to the question you just now raised to me, there is only one thing I can do under that, and that is to--if I answer that either way it would tend to incriminate me, and I have to invoke the fifth amendment.

Mr. MOULDER. We will rephrase the question in this way:

Do you approve or disapprove of Communist domination of any union?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. JOHNSTON. Purely as a matter of opinion, I do not approve of any group, whether it be to control the trade-union movement--I feel it should be a free union. Whether it is Communist, Fascist, National Manufacturers Association or what-have-you. That is purely my opinion on it.

Mr. MOULDER. Do you object to a Communist holding an official position in any labor union?

Mr. JOHNSTON. On that one I will have to, as in the past, invoke the fifth amendment.

Mr. MOULDER. Would you vote for or against a candidate seeking office in a local laborers’ union if he were a Communist?

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. Chairman, I feel that, under our rights--and I know the majority of unions, as I understand them--we vote by secret ballot, the same as in our elections for the honorable representatives elected by your people in your district, by secret ballot. And that is a right that we are able to keep to ourselves.

Mr. MOULDER. Any questions?

Mr. TAVENNER. No, sir; I have no questions.

Mr. MOULDER. The witness is excused.

Mr. SYKES. Can I make a short statement here? I think it might be helpful to the committee. It will take about a half minute.

Mr. JOHNSTON. Is that in regard to me?

Mr. SYKES. No.

STATEMENT OF JAY G. SYKES, ATTORNEY AT LAW, SEATTLE, WASH.

Mr. SYKES. Several witnesses here have invoked the fifth amendment upon being asked the question: “Have you ever been a member of a labor union?” And I know that the use of the fifth amendment in answer to that question may have created some misunderstanding in the mind of the public and the mind of the committee.

I would like to make it clear that the invoking of the fifth amendment to this particular question is not meant to imply, nor should it be implied, that I or my clients think there is anything at all incriminating, in itself, in membership in a labor union.

But, as you gentlemen know, there are some labor unions in Seattle that are having what are commonly known as Communist problems. Charges of communism and countercharges are being filed, and members charged with Communist activity----

Mr. MOULDER. We were to hear a short statement.

Mr. SYKES. I will shorten the statement by saying that the use of the fifth amendment by these witnesses in answer to the question, “Have you ever been a member of a labor union?” is not meant in any way to incriminate labor unions as such. But the refusal is based solely on legal and technical grounds.

Mr. MOULDER. All right, that will be all.

At this time I would like to read a letter which was addressed to the committee from the International Association of Machinists:

DEAR SIR: Because of repeated reference to the Machinists
Union, AFL, before your committee on Thursday, March 17, 1955,
we respectfully request that the following information be made
part of the record so that all may be aware of the true facts
with respect to the attitude of the International Association of
Machinists and the participation by its members in the Communist
Party, its front organizations, or the giving of support to such
organizations.

Since 1925 the International Association of Machinists has had
prohibitions in its laws against such activities on the part of
any of its members. A diligent and unending effort has constantly
been made to rid our organization of persons having Communist or
Fascist Party membership or sympathies.

Testimony before your committee in 1954 indicated that several
persons, members of our organization, might at the same time be
members of, or giving support to, the Communist Party. Our own
investigations, since that time, have resulted in the expulsion
from our organization of four persons named by witness, Barbara
Hartle, before your committee in 1954. Among these four persons,
as expelled, was Harold Johnston, witness before your committee on
Thursday, March 17, 1955.

Investigations are continuing with respect to others and if it is
found that they also are guilty of the conduct charged to them by
witnesses before your committee, they likewise will be tried and
expelled in accordance with the provisions of our constitution.

The evidence before your committee has been most helpful and
we are certain you will find our union in the forefront,
cooperatively and aggressively opposed to communism, fascism, or
any totalitarian philosophies.

Yours very truly,

R. H. POWELL,
I. A. PECK,

_Grand Lodge Representatives,
International Association of Machinists, AFL_.

Is Mr. Carlson in the hearing room?

Call Mr. Carlson, please.

You have been sworn. Please be seated.

TESTIMONY OF EDWIN A. CARLSON, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, JAY G. SYKES--Resumed

Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Carlson, during the course of your testimony yesterday it appeared from your appearance on the witness stand that there was a desire on your part to reconsider and testify in answer to questions which were propounded to you by Mr. Wheeler, and also make more clear an explanation concerning a letter which was addressed to the chairman, Chairman Velde, when he was chairman of the full committee on Un-American Activities, dated June 19, 1954. The letter reads as follows:

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

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

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

Sincerely,

ED CARLSON,
_Member of Machinists Union_.

During the course of the testimony yesterday we tried to emphasize clearly it is not the purpose of this committee to try to confuse or entrap anyone in these proceedings, or incriminate them in any way.

We thought after you had given serious consideration to this subject, and being recalled as a witness, that you would answer our questions which are directed to you concerning your past Communist Party affiliations and your association and severance from any connection with the Communist Party.

Do you wish to do so now?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. I would prefer, Mr. Chairman, to have specific questions directed at me, if I may.

Mr. MOULDER. Very well.

Are you now a member of the Communist Party?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. No, sir.

Mr. MOULDER. Were you a member of the Communist Party a year ago?

Mr. CARSON. No, sir.

Mr. MOULDER. Were you a member of the Communist Party in 1951?

Mr. CARLSON. To the best of my recollection; no, sir.

Mr. MOULDER. During the year of 1950 were you a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. CARLSON. I believe that answer also holds there. I was not, to the best of my recollection.

Mr. MOULDER. In the year of 1949 were you a member of the Communist Party?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. That is the time, I am quite sure, that I dropped the party.

Mr. MOULDER. That you left the party?

Mr. CARLSON. Yes.

Mr. MOULDER. Will you tell us the circumstances as to why you left the Communist Party and severed your connections with them?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. Well, to take a certain date or specific period, it is quite impossible.

Mr. MOULDER. We don’t expect you to be specific as to the exact date. That is immaterial.

Mr. CARLSON. Let me answer that by making probably a comparison with somebody else.

I think we are all acquainted with Senator Morse’s record in Oregon. He was once a Republican, and he has turned Democrat.

I don’t think there is any specific time in his mind that he ever turned from a Republican to a Democrat. It probably took over a period of time. And that, I believe, Mr. Chairman, could be applied to me.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. As a specific time, at the time the Korean war started I certainly didn’t approve of that war starting by anybody. And I might say, likewise, that I didn’t approve of our participation in it either. That is my conviction, sir.

Mr. MOULDER. Referring to the Communist Party, it has been decided by the courts that it is not a political party as such; that it is really an international conspiracy. And, therefore, your comparison or reference to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party has no application in comparison to the Communist Party, because it is not, in fact, a political party.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. MOULDER. Has your philosophy and your opinion concerning the Communist Party, then, changed from what it was at one time?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have a definite idea of my own what things should be, and what my beliefs are. And I believe it might help you to understand what I think, if I could give you an answer here.

The best thing that I could do would be to read it out of the booklet that I have. I believe that it would be helpful to both of us.

Mr. MOULDER. How long is it?

Mr. CARLSON. It is probably a couple of hundred words, I believe.

Mr. MOULDER. What is the title of it?

Mr. CARLSON. It is the preamble to our machinists’ constitution.

Mr. MOULDER. Yesterday I believe you said you didn’t even know what the Communist Party stood for or what it was all about, and led us to believe that you were maybe innocently hooked into and taken into the Communist Party movement at one time, still not having any opinion toward it or approval of it.

Mr. CARLSON. The popular conception of the Communist Party being a subversive organization, an organization looking for the overthrow of the Government, and so on and so forth, I can’t say that I ever believed that. And I don’t think that I know anybody that does, that I think believes that.

Mr. MOULDER. Are you a married man, Mr. Carlson?

Mr. CARLSON. Yes, I am.

Mr. MOULDER. Do you have a family?

Mr. CARLSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. MOULDER. How many children do you have?

Mr. CARLSON. I have two. Two grandchildren, by the way.

Mr. MOULDER. Were you born in America?

Mr. CARLSON. That is right.

Mr. MOULDER. You are desirous, of course, for your children to enjoy the benefits of living in the greatest nation in the world?

Mr. CARLSON. That is right.

Mr. MOULDER. What I am coming to is, do you approve then, of the Communist Party movement or the international conspiracy of the Communist Party?

Mr. CARLSON. I don’t approve of what it is reported to be. Now, to the best of my knowledge, I don’t know that the Communist Party stands for such things.

Mr. MOULDER. Any questions, Mr. Velde?

Mr. VELDE. I would like to ask the witness to be a little bit more specific about the way in which he got out of the Communist Party. We have heard a lot of witnesses here in the same situation who have told us that it has taken quite a long while for that conversion from communism back to Americanism. While you were in the Communist Party did you attend meetings of the Communist Party?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. Congressman, as to any activity in the Communist Party prior to, say, 1950, I will have to invoke the fifth amendment on the grounds that it might incriminate me.

Mr. VELDE. Then you refuse to give us the benefit of the knowledge of the Communist Party which you acquired while you were a member of the party?

Mr. CARLSON. On the ground that it may incriminate me, I refuse to answer.

Mr. VELDE. Do you think, Mr. Carlson, that is in good faith with Americanism?

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Congressman, if I recollect my history correctly, there have been many, many people in the past that have been convicted and thrown into jail for purely political reasons.

And it’s been proven afterward that they were only political reasons, that they had no real basis for throwing them in jail. That is my understanding of history. And I am not sure but what this is the same thing.

Mr. VELDE. No, Mr. Carlson, this is not the same thing at all, and I am sure that you are aware of that.

As a matter of fact, during the entire history of this committee there has not been one single witness who appeared before this committee who answered questions truthfully who has ever been prosecuted in any way, shape, or form. That is all you have to do, in my opinion--to answer questions truthfully--instead of refusing to answer.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert into the record a sort of a statement here that fully covers my beliefs, and I am sure that these have always been my beliefs.

Mr. MOULDER. You may file it. It will be made a part of the record.

Mr. CARLSON. Could I read that so the public here themselves would know?

Mr. MOULDER. If it is not too long. How long is it?

Mr. CARLSON. About 1 minute.

Mr. MOULDER. Very well. Proceed.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Chairman, this is the preamble to the constitution of the Machinists Union, IAM:

Believing that the right of those who toil to enjoy to the full
extent the wealth created by their labor is a natural right, and
realizing that under the changing industrial conditions incident
to the enormous growth of syndicates and other aggregations of
capital it is impossible for those who toil to obtain the full
reward of their labor other than through united action; and
recognizing the fact that those who toil should use their rights
of citizenship intelligently, through organizations founded upon
the class struggle and acting along cooperative, economic, and
political lines, using the natural resources, means of production
and distribution for the benefit of all the people, with the view
of restoring the common wealth to all those performing useful
service to society;

Now, therefore, we, the International Association of Machinists,
pledge ourselves to labor unitedly in behalf of the principles
herein set forth, to perpetuate our association on the basis of
solidarity and justice, to expound its objects, to labor for the
general adoption of its principles, to consistently endeavor to
bring about a higher standard of living among the toiling masses.

Mr. MOULDER. Probably you know Mr. Carlson, that the greatest enemy of organized labor would be Communist domination. In Soviet Russia organized labor, as we know it over here where free and collective bargaining is permitted, labor unions and organization are prohibited and not tolerated whatsoever in the Soviet Union.

I was trying to distinguish a moment ago as to your cause for disassociating yourself from the Communist Party. Was it because you thought the party was a failure; or was it because of the necessity, for practical purposes--but still retaining in your mind the beliefs in the Communist Party movement?

I think you should make a clear statement concerning your opposition, as an American citizen, believing in our American way of life, in contrast to and against the Communist Party international conspiracy. Would you care to make any comment on it?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Chairman, my only comment on that is that I don’t believe in the current, popular opinion of the Communist Party. I don’t believe in that.

Mr. MOULDER. In my opinion, I think it is for your best interests to take a different position than you are taking.

Mr. CARLSON. Maybe I misunderstand you or you misunderstand me, Mr. Chairman. I don’t believe in the principle that is commonly accorded to the Communist Party, that they are subversive. I don’t want anything to do with that. That they are ready to overthrow the Government, I don’t believe in that. Certainly not.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Chairman, further, if I thought that they did believe in that, or ever believed in that, I certainly never would have had anything to do with them, and I would be most bitterly in opposition.

Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Tavenner, proceed with the interrogation of the witness.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Carlson, I understood you to say that in 1950 you were not a member of the Communist Party. Is that correct?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. To the best of my knowledge, that is right.

Mr. TAVENNER. But in 1949 you withdrew from the Communist Party? Is that correct?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. There was no formal act of withdrawal.

Mr. TAVENNER. You did not hand in a written resignation?

Mr. CARLSON. That is right.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you notify any functionary in the Communist Party that you were withdrawing from the Communist Party?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. I failed to reregister.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. TAVENNER. Did any member of the Communist Party ask you to reregister, and you refused to do it?

Mr. CARLSON. That I believe, is correct. I did not reregister purposely; I did not intend to reregister.

But just exactly if that is what happened I am not quite so sure about that. I mean whether somebody came and asked me to reregister; I don’t remember. I am not sure about that.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was that in 1949?

Mr. CARLSON. That was about that time. It was at the time of the----

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. It was right in there, yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the date of the last meeting of the Communist Party you attended?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. I have to invoke the fifth amendment on that.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to think that the witness, by the answers he has given, has opened the door for examination of what he knows about Communist Party activities during the period when he was a member. Therefore, I request that the chairman direct the witness to answer.

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

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. Will you restate the question?

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you read the question, please?

(The pending question was read by the reporter.)

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. I invoke the fifth amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAVENNER. How many people composed the group or branch of the Communist Party to which you belonged?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. The answer is the same, Mr. Chairman, the fifth amendment.

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

(There was no response.)

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the name of the unit or group of the Communist Party of which you were a member?

Mr. CARLSON. I again invoke my rights under the fifth amendment, Mr. Chairman.

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

(There was no response.)

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, what the Communist Party was endeavoring to accomplish in the group of the Communist Party with which you were affiliated?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. CARLSON. I again invoke the fifth amendment, Mr. Chairman.

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

(There was no response.)

Mr. VELDE. Just a minute. I don’t think the record shows any answer to that. Do you want the record to show that you do not answer, that you remain silent?

Mr. CARLSON. I wish to invoke the fifth amendment.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, in what activities did the group of the Communist Party of which you were a member engage?

Mr. CARLSON. I again invoke the fifth amendment.

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

(There was no response.)

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, whether the Communist Party group with which you were affiliated was organized within any industry, within any labor union, or whether it was a street group of the Communist Party, or, sometimes referred to as, a neighborhood group of the Communist Party?

Mr. CARLSON. Again, on the grounds of possible self-incrimination I refuse to answer.

Mr. MOULDER. You are directed to answer the question propounded to you by Mr. Tavenner, counsel for the committee.

Mr. CARLSON. On the grounds of the fifth amendment, I refuse to answer.

Mr. TAVENNER. Over how long a period of time does your knowledge of Communist Party activities exist?