Chapter III: Part 3

So our insistence upon nonintervention contradicted our prior insistence upon collective security. This presented no end of trouble, especially to those who had to meet the public and had to answer to the public for the consistency of their program and policies from one day to the next. It ultimately led to the disaffection of Mr. Howard Costigan. And the chief reason that Mr. Costigan disaffected at that time was because of his loyalty to Franklin D. Roosevelt as then President of the United States, who came out in bitter denunciation against the Soviets for attacking Finland, which left him in the position of having a consistent policy because he had complained bitterly against Mussolini’s march into Ethiopia. He had also been critical of the Japanese invasion of China. He had also been critical of each military venture where one country had attempted to impose its will upon another by military means.

So Costigan felt that he was on sounder ground to continue his support of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and he did so with as much effort as he dared, without bringing down the wrath of the Communist Party on him at that particular moment. However, the Communist Party sensed that he was beginning to disaffect, and we proceeded to isolate him from everything we could. I mean the Communists proceeded to isolate Mr. Costigan.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was this the period when the Communist Party was crying from the rooftops that the President of the United States was a warmonger?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes, it was. I am a little bit fearful that if anyone looks at the record very carefully they will find that I made a few speeches on that subject myself.

Mr. TAVENNER. In other words, as a result of the international situation the Communist Party had gotten itself into a position which adversely affected its interests locally.

Mr. DENNETT. That is very true.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the result of that adverse effect upon the Communist Party locally?

Mr. DENNETT. The most damaging effect to the Communist Party was that it shook the faith of many of those who were members of the district bureau at that time. I must admit that I tried to present the appearance myself of not losing faith in the integrity of the Soviet foreign policy. However, I must also admit that there was a little bit of deception in that for the reason that I could not completely justify it, no matter how hard I tried, and I found that Mr. Costigan became very bitter about it. I found also that Mr. Ebey had a few misgivings. He didn’t express them at that time too sharply because he is a very mild-mannered sort of person. But those of us who were in the rough and tough political battles put on a case-hardened outward appearance which was intended to inspire the ranks to hold the line.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the final result?

Mr. DENNETT. The final result was that various organizations affiliated to the Washington Commonwealth Federation found their political conviction to be inconsistent with the official policy expressed by disguised Communist leaders in the Washington Commonwealth Federation. So that many of them began to disaffiliate and leave the organization, so that it did not embrace the commanding minority which it had previously had.

Mr. TAVENNER. In other words, your position of control in that organization was weakened, if not virtually destroyed, by this disaffection that had arisen within the Communist Party ranks largely as a result of international problems.

Mr. DENNETT. That is very true.

Those of us who presented what might be referred to as a case-hardened outward appearance did so largely in the hope and faith that our loyalty to the Soviet Union under those circumstances would be rewarded by the Soviet Union remaining loyal and true to the socialist ideals which all of us held.

However, at a later date, after the Second World War, just to make the comment without going into detail at this moment, many began to find out through their experience in the Army and military efforts, and through persons who traveled abroad and came into contact directly with the Russian military effort--many became convinced that there was a considerable difference between the democracy that had been preached about in the Soviet Union and the actual practice which they found.

Also there was a serious disillusionment when large numbers of soldiers learned, to their dismay, that even during the war period the Soviet Union had in labor camps very large numbers of persons who were held in those camps as political prisoners, a policy which we had been led to believe, through all the official propaganda, that the Communist Party in the Soviet Union wouldn’t possibly indulge in such a practice, that only the capitalist countries would practice such a heinous crime.

But it was a terrible shock and disillusionment when large numbers of people found, out of their own direct knowledge, that these huge forced labor camps did in fact exist and that people who were committed to them were committed to them for terms ranging from 25 years to life instead of the official propaganda which has been preached, to the effect that no sentence was over 10 years in length in the Soviet Union. And we found there was a great deal of difference between fact and fancy.

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

Mr. TAVENNER. Is the Washington Commonwealth Federation in existence today?

Mr. DENNETT. It is not. It was liquidated by the Communist Party leadership during the Second World War.

In my records there will be found some correspondence between Hugh DeLacy and myself because I was a vice president of the federation, but I was in the military service at the time this disillusion took place.

Mr. DeLacy had written me something about it, and I disagreed with it. He had also written to me suggesting that since I was in the military service maybe it would be better for me to give up my share of stock which entitled me to be a member of the board of directors of the New World, which was the official newspaper published under the federation at that time.

I found occasion to disagree violently with him over the suggestion for the reason that I felt that those who were in the armed services should not be removed from their official positions because they were in the armed services. I felt that they were more entitled to continue their representation on the organization because they were in the armed services.

We had an exchange of correspondence there which was quite acrimonious at points, and I am amazed when I look back at it and see how it developed.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a satisfactory point to suspend the examination of this witness.

Mr. MOULDER. Yes, Mr. Dennett. We thank you for your patience and the information which you have given the committee. We are endeavoring, whenever possible, to give you a rest so there will not be this long stress upon you for a long period of time.

Mr. DENNETT. I appreciate that. In my younger days I used to have a marathon endurance, but I find I don’t have it any more.

Mr. MOULDER. Do you wish to call another witness?

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Lawrence Earl George.

Mr. MOULDER. Will you 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. GEORGE. I do.

TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE EARL GEORGE, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, PHILIP L. BURTON

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

Mr. GEORGE. My name is Lawrence Earl George.

Mr. WHEELER. Where do you reside?

Mr. GEORGE. Seattle, sir.

Mr. WHEELER. Will counsel identify himself for the record, please?

Mr. BURTON. My name is Philip L. Burton. I am a Seattle attorney.

Mr. WHEELER. Mr. George, what is your occupation?

Mr. GEORGE. I am a warehouseman, sir.

Mr. WHEELER. How long have you been a warehouseman?

Mr. GEORGE. Oh, for 12, 15 years; 12 years anyway.

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

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. Sir, upon advice of counsel, I will invoke my rights and privileges under the first and fifth amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. MOULDER. I didn’t hear your reply. Did you say you decline to answer the question?

Mr. GEORGE. Because of certain insinuations about any union, it is necessary for me to invoke my rights under the first and fifth amendments of the Constitution and decline to answer the question.

Mr. WHEELER. Have you held any positions in the union that we are discussing?

Mr. GEORGE. Again, sir, I shall have to invoke the fifth amendment.

Mr. WHEELER. Is it not a fact that the warehousemen are members of the International Longshoreman’s and Warehousemen’s Union? I am not asking you if you are a member of the ILWU; just a blanket question.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. Yes; that is a fact.

Mr. WHEELER. Are you a member of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. Again, sir, I have to invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment.

Mr. WHEELER. Have you at any time during your residency in Seattle been acquainted with a lady by the name of Barbara Hartle?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. Again, sir, I shall have to invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment.

Mr. WHEELER. Mrs. Hartle testified before this committee last June that she knew you as a member of the waterfront section of the Communist Party. Is that correct?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. Again, Mr. Chairman, I have to invoke the privileges granted me under the fifth amendment of the Constitution.

Mr. WHEELER. Will you also invoke the privilege on all questions relating to the waterfront section of the Communist Party?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. I shall have to invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment in connection with that.

Mr. WHEELER. Were you an official of the union in 1951?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. Again I have to invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment and decline to answer the question.

Mr. WHEELER. Did you sign a Taft-Hartley affidavit?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. I invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment and decline to answer.

Mr. WHEELER. Is it not a fact that the Communist Party advised members of the Communist Party to disassociate themselves from the Communist Party and sign the Taft-Hartley affidavit?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. I shall have to invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment to that.

Mr. WHEELER. Is it not a fact that the members of the Communist Party remained loyal and in the discipline of the Communist Party although they officially did resign?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. I will have to invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment as to that.

Mr. MOULDER. Did I understand you to say that your birthplace was here in Seattle?

Mr. GEORGE. Sir, I didn’t give my place of birth. I wasn’t asked that question.

Mr. MOULDER. Where were you born?

Mr. GEORGE. I was born in Denver, Colo.

Mr. MOULDER. When did you move to Seattle?

Mr. GEORGE. I came to Seattle after the First World War. I think it was in 1918 or thereabouts.

Mr. MOULDER. Have you resided in Seattle ever since?

Mr. GEORGE. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHEELER. Have you ever heard of the Negro and National Groups Commission of the Communist Party of King County?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. I shall have to invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment as to that, sir.

Mr. WHEELER. Mrs. Hartle in her testimony stated you were chairman of that group. Was she correct in this testimony?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. Again, sir, I will have to invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment and decline to answer.

Mr. WHEELER. Are you familiar with an organization called the Interracial Action Committee?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. I will have to invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment.

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

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. GEORGE. I will have to invoke my privileges under the fifth amendment and decline to answer that, sir.

Mr. WHEELER. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MOULDER. The witness is excused.

Mr. WHEELER. Harriet Pierce.

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

Mr. MOULDER. Do you represent Mrs. Pierce? Will you step up?

Mr. TROLSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MOULDER. I want to talk to him.

(Whereupon Mr. Trolson conferred with the chairman.)

Mr. MOULDER. Call the witness again, please.

Mr. WHEELER. Harriet Pierce.

Mr. MOULDER. Would you raise 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?

Mrs. PIERCE. I do.

Mr. TROLSON. May I make a statement before you begin to question the witness?

Mr. MOULDER. Yes; you may.

Mr. TROLSON. My name is Roy Trolson. I am a member of the Board of Trustees of the Seattle Bar Association.

Mrs. Pierce has come to the bar association and rendered a statement that she is unable to secure counsel because she has no funds for that purpose. The president of the Bar Association has asked me to represent Mrs. Pierce, and I want to make it clear that I am representing her without compensation and at the request of the Legal Aid Bureau of the Seattle Bar Association.

Mr. MOULDER. We certainly appreciate your position and wish to say that you should be commended as an attorney when requested by the Bar Association to appear and represent any person who has no funds to employ counsel.

And certainly it should have no reflection, and doesn’t have any reflection, upon you whatsoever.

For a person who is unable to employ counsel, it is the duty of a lawyer under those circumstances to comply with that request, and the burden that has been placed upon you.

Mr. TROLSON. Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF MRS. HARRIET PIERCE, ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL, ROY F. TROLSON

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

Mrs. PIERCE. Mrs. Harriet Pierce.

Mr. WHEELER. Where do you presently reside?

Mrs. PIERCE. In Seattle.

Mr. WHEELER. Are you presently employed?

Mrs. PIERCE. Yes; I am.

Mr. WHEELER. Where are you employed?

Mrs. PIERCE. I am employed at the Tacoma Country and Golf Club.

Mr. WHEELER. Do you have any part-time employment other than your present position?

Mrs. PIERCE. No; I do not.

Mr. WHEELER. Would you advise the committee of your occupational background prior to your present occupation?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. PIERCE. I wish to invoke the fifth amendment on this question.

Mr. WHEELER. On all prior occupation?

Mrs. PIERCE. Yes, sir; that is on all prior occupation.

Mr. WHEELER. Isn’t it a fact that you worked for the United States Government at one time?

Mrs. PIERCE. On this question, too, I wish to invoke the protection of the fifth amendment.

Mr. MOULDER. Do you mean to say that your employment in the United States Government may tend to incriminate you?

Mrs. PIERCE. I have already stated my answer, sir.

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mr. MOULDER. If investigation, Mr. Wheeler, reveals the witness’ employment, then I suggest that you ask the question according to what your investigation has revealed, the specific questions which she can answer.

Mr. WHEELER. Have you ever been employed by the United States Post Office Department?

Mrs. PIERCE. I decline to answer that question for the reasons previously stated, sir. And I would like to explain that I fear that answering these questions may lead to other questions which might tend to incriminate me.

Mr. WHEELER. Were you dismissed from this position because of security reasons?

Mrs. PIERCE. I decline to answer that question for the reasons previously stated.

Mr. WHEELER. Have you been a paid employee of the Civil Rights Congress of the city of Seattle?

Mrs. PIERCE. I decline to answer that question for the reasons previously stated.

Mr. WHEELER. Do you know Mrs. Barbara Hartle?

Mrs. PIERCE. I decline to answer that question, sir, for the reasons previously stated.

Mr. WHEELER. She testified that you were a member of the Georgetown Club of the Communist Party, King County. Is that a statement of fact on the part of Mrs. Hartle?

Mrs. PIERCE. I decline to answer, and invoke my protection under the fifth amendment.

Mr. WHEELER. Were you active in any way with the Progressive Party here in the State of Washington?

Mrs. PIERCE. I decline to answer that for the reasons previously stated, sir.

Mr. WHEELER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite obvious that we are not going to get the information we desire from this witness.

I have no further questions.

Mr. MOULDER. May I ask the witness where you were born?

Mrs. PIERCE. I was born in Martinsburg, W. Va.

Mr. MOULDER. And when did you come to the State of Washington?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. PIERCE. I believe it was in 1942 or possibly 1943. I am not certain.

Mr. MOULDER. Were you married at that time?

Mrs. PIERCE. No, sir.

Mr. MOULDER. Did you come to Washington alone?

Mrs. PIERCE. Yes, sir.

Mr. MOULDER. Did you have employment when you arrived or did you have to seek employment after you arrived?

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. PIERCE. On this question, sir, I wish to invoke my privilege under the fifth amendment.

Mr. VELDE. Mr. Chairman, I fail to see how that could possibly tend to incriminate her or lead to incrimination. I suggest that the witness be directed to answer the question.

Mr. MOULDER. The witness is directed to answer the question.

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

Mrs. PIERCE. Sir, this is a question which I would like very much to answer, and answer fully, but I feel that it might lead either to other questions which might incriminate me or to a waiver of my right to claim the protection of the fifth amendment, and I therefore do claim protection of the fifth amendment.

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

Mrs. PIERCE. Again I claim the protection of the fifth amendment.

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

Mrs. PIERCE. I claim the protection of the fifth amendment on that question, too.

Mr. MOULDER. Are you now employed?

Mrs. PIERCE. I have already answered that question.

Mr. MOULDER. Then would you care to answer again?

Mrs. PIERCE. Well, I could answer it again the same as I did before. I am employed now.

Mr. MOULDER. Where are you now employed?

Mrs. PIERCE. At the Tacoma Country and Golf Club.

Mr. MOULDER. How long have you been employed there?

Mrs. PIERCE. I decline to answer under the privilege of the fifth amendment.

Mr. MOULDER. Do you mean to say the length of time you have been employed there would tend to incriminate you? Is that your reasoning on that?

Mrs. PIERCE. I have already stated my answer, sir.

Mr. MOULDER. Any questions, Mr. Velde?

Mr. VELDE. No questions.

Mr. MOULDER. The witness is excused.

The committee will stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 9 o’clock.

(Whereupon, at 4:50 p. m., the subcommittee was recessed, to be reconvened at 9 a. m., Saturday, March 19, 1955.)

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

SATURDAY, MARCH 19, 1955

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

PUBLIC HEARING

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

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

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

Mr. VELDE. The subcommittee will be in order, and we will proceed, Mr. Counsel.

Mr. TAVENNER. I would like to recall Mr. Eugene V. Dennett to the stand, please.

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

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Dennett, will you come forward, please.

When your testimony was suspended yesterday we were inquiring into the activity of the Washington Commonwealth Federation. In the course of your testimony on that subject no mention was made of the Workers Alliance.

To what extent was the Workers Alliance affiliated with that organization?

Mr. DENNETT. It was one of the principal affiliates in the early days, and it had regular representatives on the Washington Commonwealth Federation board. One of the most prominent of those was a person by the name of Harry C. Armstrong, who was better known as Army Armstrong. He later became a legislator, and I think he was at one time the head of the Workers Alliance.

Mr. TAVENNER. At the time he was head of the Workers Alliance and active in the Washington Commonwealth Federation was he also a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. At first he was not. But the Workers Alliance, of course, was one of the organizations in which the Communist Party worked very actively, and ultimately Mr. Armstrong became a member of the Communist Party. I knew him when he was a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was he active in Communist Party affairs?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes, he was quite active in the Communist Party affairs for a short time. He later had differences with the party over policy, and became too much of a Democrat to suit the Communists, and came to a parting of the ways with the Communist Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. Can you give us the names of any other individuals, active in the work of the Washington Commonwealth Federation or any of its component parts, who were known to you to be members of the Communist Party during that time?

Mr. DENNETT. Well, my random recollection is a little bit too unreliable to go on. I think that I mentioned all of the principal ones yesterday with the exception of Mr. Armstrong, whom I have explained this morning.

Mr. TAVENNER. During the period that the organizational work was being done by the Communist Party within the Washington Commonwealth Federation was there in existence in the State of Washington an organization known as the Washington Pension Union?

Mr. DENNETT. That is correct, there was. That was a organization which came into existence principally because the Governor of the State had ordered some cuts in the pension, or the assistance to the old-age groups. It was prior to the organization of anything.

Mr. TAVENNER. Prior to the organization of what?

Mr. DENNETT. Of the union, of the Old-Age Pension Union.

It seems as though there was an attempt to cut on the relief, and some of the relief authorities thought that they could cut the benefits to the elderly people and there would be little protest for it. But Howard Costigan, being very alert to the political possibilities, spoke about it on the radio and, in response to that speaking, received many, many calls by telephone and by letter asking him to do something about it. He didn’t know what to do.

He came to the party of people and explained to us afterward that he was perplexed but he was going to call a mass meeting and ask these people to come and make their protests in public.

He did exactly that. The meeting was overwhelmingly successful; far more elderly people arrived than he expected. The hall was packed to overflowing, and he had to call more meetings to satisfy their desire to express their protest. During the course of that, Costigan, not knowing what else to do, suggested that they set up a permanent committee to continue their protest against this form of relief cut. The old-age people responded so vigorously that they themselves determined that they must have a union. And they chose the name of Old-Age Pension Union.

At first, I believe, Costigan was not an officer of it. As a matter of fact, he felt that he had more than he could carry handling the work of the Washington Commonwealth Federation. So he asked the party people to find him some help to see if he could carry on this extra work that needed to be done. And, through the efforts of Mr. Lowell Wakefield, they found a person by the name of William J. Pennock who was a very able man. And Bill Pennock assisted Costigan in all of his work when he was in the Washington Commonwealth Federation.

Later when the time came to organize the Old-Age Pension Union, Pennock assisted Costigan in finding people to head up that organization.

(At this point Representative Morgan M. Moulder entered the hearing room and assumed the chair.)

Mr. DENNETT. In the very beginning the original leaders who held the original titles of president and vice president of the Old-Age Pension Union were not members of the Communist Party. They were chosen by these old-age pension people, knowing them to be public-spirited persons, and I don’t know whether it is proper to identify those persons or not at this point.

Mr. TAVENNER. No. The committee would not be interested in going into that phase of the matter.

You mentioned a person by the name of Lowell Wakefield. Will you tell the committee what you know of his activities?

Mr. DENNETT. Lowell Wakefield was a member of the Communist Party. He did come from the East on his assignment by the central committee to work in this district. However, after he had worked here a comparatively short time he came into dispute with the succeeding leader who came, Mr. Morris Rappaport, and ultimately Mr. Wakefield left the Communist Party and I believe that he has had no connection with the Communist Party for a great many years.

Mr. TAVENNER. The point you are making is that in its inception this union, the Old-Age Pension Union, was not of a Communist origin or of a Communist character.

Mr. DENNETT. No; it was not. But the Communist Party recognized that the terrific response that Costigan received meant that here was a potential group of people capable of doing enormous amounts of political work.

Remember, please, their situation: They were retired; they had ceased working daily on a job. Therefore, they had the leisure time to do what they wanted to do in most instances or at least in many instances. The result was that some of these people could go out and peddle leaflets and knock on doors. They constituted an enormous political strength. And the Communist Party conceived the idea that these people certainly would be the most able people to carry on political programs if they could be won to support such a program.

So the Communist Party set about to do exactly that in the pension union.

Among those who were urged to go into the pension union to work vigorously was a person by the name of Thomas C. Rabbitt.

Tom Rabbitt became a very powerful and influential man in that organization. He did so very largely because he succeeded in being elected to the Washington State Legislature as a Democrat, and, in the State legislature as a State senator, was able to embarrass the governor and the administration on their promises to aid the elderly people on the pension program. His efforts were heralded as making a real--well, he was considered to be a real political leader because he had succeeded in a situation where it was vitally important.

My counsel reminds me that Mr. Rabbitt has been before this committee, and he appeared in your executive session last June.

Mr. Rabbitt found that there was an enormous amount of work to be done in that organization, and he had to call for help. And he built up a comparatively important machine with which he worked.

Mr. TAVENNER. You have told us that the Communist Party, upon seeing the great potentialities in this new organization, decided to do something about it. Tell the committee just what it did and the methods it used to gain control of the Old-Age Pension Union.

Mr. DENNETT. It concentrated first at the top levels of the organization. It wanted to get strong leadership there capable of carrying two important points: first, that they carry on a relentless struggle for better and more welfare assistance to the aged people so as to insure their loyalty and support among those members; they wanted, next, to be certain that a large body of people became ardent supporters and friends of the Soviet Union so that it would be possible to defend the political policies of the Communist Party in that respect and to give assistance to the Communist program in this area.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, as indicated by his testimony, the knowledge of this witness is very great concerning the scientific features of communism and how it operates in the Northwest.

Because of the limit of time, we have had to confine ourselves to the high spots. I will ask, if we are to conclude his testimony today, that Mr. Dennett confine his testimony chiefly to his own activities and circumstances surrounding them; otherwise we will be unable to complete what we had planned today.

Mr. MOULDER. Yes. As you say, it is very important testimony. We are grateful to receive it. I believe any additional information which he might wish to submit could be submitted in writing to the committee at a later date. I mean after we have concluded our hearings.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious we will have a great deal of work ahead of us in connection with documentary information which he has at hand, as well as to give this witness time to explain fully the implications of his statements today.

Mr. MOULDER. It may be possible when the hearings are held in Los Angeles in June that additional hearings could be held here to complete the testimony of Mr. Dennett.

Mr. TAVENNER. Certainly further consideration will have to be given to that.

I wanted to make this explanation principally so the committee would understand that I have asked the witness to confine his testimony today principally to his own activities. I did not want the committee to feel that the witness was attempting to relate what he had done alone as a matter of his own choice.

Mr. DENNETT. Thank you.

Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Dennett can be subpenaed to appear in California when hearings are held there; the subcommittee could resume hearings here at a later date if we feel it is necessary to secure his additional information.

Mr. TAVENNER. Continuing with the subject of the old-age pension, were you active in it in your individual capacity?

Mr. DENNETT. No; I was not. I spoke before it on a number of times on invitation of the leaders to indicate some labor support because I was representing the State CIO at that time.

Mr. TAVENNER. Tell us briefly to what extent was the Communist Party successful in the accomplishment of the two purposes you stated the Communists had in interesting the leadership of the old-age pension unit.

Mr. DENNETT. As I indicated at the outset, the first leaders of the pension union--president, vice president, and some of the other officers--were anti-Communist people. And it did not take too long before they came into conflict with those Communists who were trying to make certain that the organization carried out these purposes which I have indicated.

I believe that the first president of the organization left it very quickly. Later on another person took over as a president of the organization, who was a member of the Communist Party, and he remained a leader for quite a long time. Ultimately he got into conflict with the Communist Party, and the Communist Party did what we call a hatchet job on him.

Mr. TAVENNER. Who was he?

Mr. DENNETT. A man by the name of N. P. Atkinson. And Atkinson was expelled from the party. And when he was expelled from the party he was also pushed out of the pension union.

Mr. TAVENNER. After Communist Party overtures to the leadership of the union was any effort made to capture the rank and file?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes. There was a considerable effort made. A person by the name of William J. Pennock, whom I have mentioned before, who is now deceased--Pennock was a very successful figure in this work because he was such a tireless worker.

(Representative Harold H. Velde left the hearing room at this point.)

Mr. DENNETT. He worked day after day, every day, and had a very pleasing personality and was a very successful man in convincing the ordinary person that the program and policies they were pursuing were the best for the organization. And I think it should be recognized that certainly those efforts of the organization to maintain a standard of decency and comfort for public assistance for the elderly people is something which should be recognized as proper. It is something which should not be condemned because the Communists were trying to use that as a basis for successfully planting its other ideas in the ranks of the organization. And I hope no one will condemn the elderly people for trying to improve their own economic position, which they were trying to do in the pension union.

Mr. TAVENNER. How can organizations of this type, which have a very fine purpose in view, be able to accomplish their ends without permitting the Communist Party to take them over and subvert them to the purposes of the Communist Party?

What is the best defense? What defense can they have to the Communist Party which is trying to manipulate them in the manner you have described?

Mr. DENNETT. My own experience leads me to the conclusion that the soundest defense and the soundest practice which can be pursued is that wherein we all insist upon the complete observance of the fundamental principles in the Constitution of the United States and the legal procedure of the court system in the United States, in which we first insist that all persons shall be considered to be innocent until proven guilty when charged with anything which appears to be a violation of either the Constitution of the United States or the principles of the organization that they belong to.

I say that advisedly because I have had a number of experiences, personal ones, where I have been treated as a guilty person until proven so--not in connection with Communist material either. And I observed with a great deal of interest last night’s television report of Mr. Harry Cain’s remarks on that very point.

Mr. Cain comes from the State of Washington. Some of us knew him rather well. And I might say that at one time he certainly impressed the people very strongly in this State because of this precise idea which he was expressing last night on TV.

And I cannot pass up the opportunity to remind all of us that it is a fundamental principle of our form of Government, of our democratic representation system, that we honor and dignify the individual as an individual for his own worth, and not completely subordinate this individual to the purpose of a mass and make him a faceless creature.

I think that each person is entitled to the individual dignity and the recognition of his right as an individual. And when he combines in an organization it is for the purpose of assisting in the further development of these human beings as creatures that are entitled to treatment as human beings.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. MOULDER. What is your next question, Mr. Tavenner?

Mr. TAVENNER. Counsel is consulting the witness.

Mr. DENNETT. Counsel is calling my attention to the nature of your question asking what steps can be recommended, and he is trying to bring me back to that point a little more directly, and I appreciate it. I hope you will bear with us on it.

Mr. TAVENNER. Let me suggest this to you:

My question was not so much directed at what you mentioned as it is to this particular phase of the matter, that here is an organization which had very proper purposes: It apparently had no desire to be controlled or influenced by the Communist Party; but the Communist Party determined it was going to take it over.

Now my point is: How, from your experience in the party, could this group have successfully resisted being taken over by the Communist Party?

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

Mr. DENNETT. I think there is no one single guaranty. I think it requires a number of changes in our behavior and in our attitude in the various democratic organizations. I mean by that democratic in form; I am not referring to a party as such.

In that respect, many people in the union to which I should belong have asked me many times how could they guarantee that some untoward thing would not occur in the organization. And it has been my recommendation to them that the only guarantee anyone has is that he participate fully in the life of his own organization and not delegate and not allow his own responsibilities to be passed on to somebody else.

If you leave it to George, let George do it, you wake up some time and find that George hasn’t done it the way you would have preferred to do it or the way you would have done it had you been there.

And it is my firm conviction that one of the most hazardous parts of our democratic process is the tendency of people to leave it to somebody else to take care of their own responsibility.

If a democracy is to work, if it is to be a democracy or continue to be a democracy, it is essential that each participant, each member be a participant. That is the best recommendation I can make.

Mr. MOULDER. That is very true. In our investigations the committee has found many instances where the Communist Party leaders have been able to infiltrate into, say, a local union in the eastern section of this country because the membership did not attend the elections and did not vote and participate actively in the meetings. If there were other means of voting than to be personally present, that might be avoided.

Mr. DENNETT. I favor referendum votes myself.

Mr. TAVENNER. In other words, the point you are making is: There is a very great responsibility on each individual in his own organization regardless of the organization.

Mr. DENNETT. I would add to that, sir, if I may, please, that it is necessary that members do more than attend meetings. I mean they must have some adequate conception of the purpose of their organization.

Just like in the conduct of the affairs of the Government of the United States, I don’t think it is sufficient for persons to be elected as Congressmen and then just sit there. I think they have got to know what the Constitution of the United States provides, and I think they have to be the guardians to make certain that everybody abides by it, and that they abide by it themselves and insist that their own members abide by it.

I think that the question of a member just being a member of an organization and just being a card-carrying member is not sufficient. Likewise, it is not sufficient to have representatives of government just be present. Being present isn’t enough. They have to understand what they are there for. And pursue their purpose of representing their constituents.

I say that as a comparison because the two things are similar. There is an identity.

Our greatest democratic practice occurs in the organizations which are not directly associated with government as such.

Mr. MOULDER. That applies, as you have said, to unions and organizations social or otherwise, as well as the general election of the United States where probably only 65 percent of the people go to the polls and vote.

Mr. TAVENNER. A very simple way of expressing what you have said is that people should be informed.

Mr. DENNETT. They must be informed.

And I am strictly opposed to secret negotiations, whether it occurs between employers and unions, whether it occurs between heads of organizations, or whether it occurs in international affairs. I think that the only safeguard that we have that the rights of the people will not be trespassed upon is when everything is out in the open.

I am willing to admit that until an agreement is arrived at, until a conclusion is reached, it may be necessary to conduct the negotiations or the conferences with a limited amount of access to public discussion. That may be so. I am not prepared to say that everything must be done in a goldfish bowl. But I am very insistent in my own conviction and in my own practices, at least for the past several years, that anything I do is going to be out in the open where the whole world can take a look at it. If they don’t like it they can say so. And if that is the way they feel about it, fine. I’ll step aside and retire. But if they do approve it, let them go ahead.

Mr. MOULDER. When discussing the Washington Commonwealth Federation yesterday, did you give an estimate of 5,500 as being, in your opinion, the total Communist Party membership in the State of Washington or in this district?

Mr. DENNETT. I said at that time there were approximately 5,500 members at one time in 1 year. I think it was 1938.

Mr. MOULDER. Have you any knowledge or information, whether it be in the form of an opinion or from your experience, as to the total Communist Party membership in this area at the present time?

Mr. DENNETT. No. I have no adequate idea about that. I think that it must be very small. Someone asked me the other day what I thought it was, and I said, “Well, I think the ranks of the Communist Party have been decimated by their own foolish behavior and by the change in public attitude. I think that has resulted in them being reduced to a mere handful, a shell of its former self.”

Mr. MOULDER. Then you would tell us now that you have no knowledge or information of any communistic or Communist Party activity in Seattle at this time?

Mr. DENNETT. No. We are coming to the point of my expulsion, which occurred 7, nearly 8 years ago. So my experience and knowledge would have to break at that point with respect to the Communist Party itself.

Mr. VELDE. I presume you are familiar generally with the testimony Barbara Hartle gave here?

Mr. DENNETT. I listened to it very carefully.

Mr. VELDE. She brought Communist Party activities in this area up to date as nearly as anyone possibly could in her situation.

Would you appraise her testimony as being true as to general matters concerning Communist activities here?

Mr. DENNETT. In all fairness to her and in all fairness to the persons that she mentioned, I would have to say that I think Barbara Hartle was her real self when she was here. She appeared to me to be exactly the same as the person I knew many years before. She was very deliberate and methodical. She always had been. And I think that she gave as accurate an account as she could possibly do. I marvel at the ability that she displayed in doing it, the names that she mentioned.

I have tried to explain to my personal friends--they have asked me about it; how could a person name so many people as she did? I can only say that Barbara was in a position where she had access to those records. It was part of her duty to handle records of the membership. Therefore, she would be required to know those things.

People have asked me, “Well, do you know the same people that she knew?” And I have had to answer, “I certainly knew most of those people.”

But I am not in a position where I could say that, of my own knowledge, I knew those persons as members of the Communist Party.

I knew practically all of those persons in some capacity or another, but in very few instances is it possible for me to say, of my own knowledge, that I knew such and such a person to be a member of the Communist Party.

And that was a very important distinction for me to make.

But I must say that it is my considered judgment that Barbara Hartle gave very valid and very accurate information.

Mr. VELDE. I certainly thank you for that, Mr. Dennett. That was my impression, too. Not being in a position to know as much about it as either of you I did get the impression that she told a very valid story.

Mr. DENNETT. I am sure she was accurate.

Mr. VELDE. I appreciate your verification of her story as to the extent of the Communist Party in this area.

Another thing I would like to get cleared up before we go further, Mr. Counsel and Mr. Chairman, is a matter of your identification of Harry Lundeberg as having attended fraction meetings. I think you probably are as anxious to get that cleared up as we are. We know that Mr. Lundeberg has been a very faithful anti-Communist for a long time.

Would you like to make further comment on that?

Mr. DENNETT. I didn’t expect that that would come up, and I was quite surprised at the furor it has created. I had no idea at the time that I mentioned this that it was of such importance or that such importance would be made of it.

I think perhaps it requires that I give you a little bit more detail of how I had such knowledge so that you may judge for yourselves as to the accuracy or validity of what I had to say.

Mr. VELDE. Actually, of course, back in those days about which you were testifying there was nothing seriously wrong in the minds of most American people with attending fraction meetings of the Communist Party. So I agree with you. I don’t see any reason for all the furor. But I thought possibly you would like to clear it up.

Mr. DENNETT. I certainly would, sir. Thank you for asking me.

The first I heard of the furor, a friend of mine called me on the phone last night and asked me if I had read the morning paper which carried the story of Mr. Lundeberg’s denial. I said I had not. So he read it to me, and he asked me what I had to say about it then. Some of my personal friends did. And I had to remind him, just as I just stated to you, that I had no idea it was going to have that much importance attached to it.

But let me give you the facts as it occurred.

You will recall in my testimony I mentioned going into the Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific, what was then the Ferry Boatmen’s Union. It was in 1936--Well, it was in 1935, the end of 1935 when the first strike occurred against an arbitration award.

At that time the Maritime Federation of the Pacific had been already organized. Mr. Lundeberg was the president of it. Their headquarters were here in Seattle. He had an office here in a building close to the Pioneer Square. I believe it is properly called Pioneer Place. Mr. Lundeberg held an office there as the president of the federation, and his first and able assistant was Mr. Ernest Fox whom I have mentioned before.

When I was elected a delegate to represent the crew of the ship that I was working on, to attend our first strike meeting, on my way to that meeting I stopped at the office of the president of the Maritime Federation of the Pacific, Mr. Harry Lundeberg, and asked him what he thought of the situation that I found myself in; namely, elected as a delegate, representing an organization which I knew practically nothing about. And I asked him further what advice he would give me.

Mr. Lundeberg was very gracious to me, and advised me that the “tule” sailors--by which he referred to our Sound freight-boat men because he didn’t consider us to be genuine sailors at all because we didn’t get outside into deep water; we were always here in the rivers or the harbors, and he called us “tule” sailors.

And he said, “The first thing you have got to do is get rid of your finky leaders.”

And I asked him on what basis he made such a statement.

And he said, “You talk to Ernie. Ernie can tell you the whole story, and I will O. K. and vouch for it.”

So I asked Ernest Fox a little bit more about it. And Ernie explained to me that the maritime leaders at that time had a great hatred for the leaders of the then ferry boatmen’s union because those leaders of the ferry boatmen’s union had not gone along with the general strike plans in San Francisco in 1934. And Mr. Lundeberg was one of the principal supporters of those strike plans at that time.

As a result of Mr. Lundeberg’s attitude at that time, the Communist Party had the utmost confidence in his integrity and in his leadership. And Mr. Fox, Ernest Fox, informed me that Lundeberg had attended fraction meetings, taught fraction meetings where he had met with 1 or 2 party leaders to outline the policy and program to be followed.

Mr. VELDE. When you say “party leaders” are you referring to the Communist Party?

Mr. DENNETT. That is right; I am referring to Communist Party leaders.

But Mr. Fox also warned me at that time that he had a few misgivings about where Mr. Lundeberg was going because Mr. Lundeberg had already begun to show evidence that he was beginning to have differences with the party and that he was resisting attending any more fraction meetings at a very early date.

So it is quite true that Mr. Lundeberg was incensed. He didn’t like the Communist Party.

I simply mention in passing, at the outset, that he had been brought into a fraction meeting, and it was common knowledge.

Mr. MOULDER. In other words, he had been brought into contact with the Communist Party leaders as a result of the work he was performing but not in the capacity of being a Communist himself? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. DENNETT. That is true. Even the most ardent anti-Communist can be drawn into Communist activities.

Mr. MOULDER. Do you mean drawn into contact with Communists?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes.

My counsel cautions me to be certain that you understand I at no time accused Mr. Harry Lundeberg of being a Communist.

Mr. VELDE. I think that is a matter of record. In fact, you have said everything favorable to Mr. Lundeberg’s record. But I suppose it might be presumed that if you and another Communist Party leader had a conference with Mr. Lundeberg some time that that would be a meeting such as you mentioned in your testimony yesterday, or could be considered a fraction meeting; could it not?

Mr. DENNETT. No; that would not be regarded as a top fraction meeting. A top fraction meeting would be only a meeting where the leaders of an organization who were members of the Communist Party met either with themselves or with some official of the Communist Party. And in Mr. Lundeberg’s case----

Mr. VELDE. Is that the type of meeting to which you referred when you said that you had general knowledge, or it was common knowledge that Mr. Lundeberg attended top fraction meetings?

Mr. DENNETT. True.

Mr. TAVENNER. My recollection of your testimony was that you made it clear Mr. Lundeberg was not a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. DENNETT. I thought so; I meant to, certainly.

Mr. TAVENNER. You meant to, and if there is any question about your testimony on that point I understand you now do make it clear that you did not intend, and that you did not characterize Mr. Lundeberg as a member of the Communist Party. Am I correct in that?

Mr. DENNETT. That is correct.

Mr. TAVENNER. And your only information about his attendance at a so-called fraction meeting was the information given to you by his assistant, Mr. Fox?