Chapter VII: Part 7

ARTICLE VI, Section 9, Obligations of Local Union Officers. “...
to perform all your duties as required by the laws of the Union
and the instruction of the membership ... and that you will do
everything in your power to forward the interests of the organized
labor movement.”

We have certain evidence clearly revealing that Harriette Dennett
has made regular reports to the Federal Bureau of Investigation
over a long period of time for which she has received payment. We
are convinced that no honest trade unionist would have connections
with any police body, especially the FBI, and still serve the best
interests of the Union.

Let as examine the role of the FBI. Organized labor recognizes
that law enforcing agencies are absolutely necessary in the
protection of public and private property, prevention of crime,
and safeguarding our welfare. However, various police bodies, both
Federal and local, have always allied themselves with the employers
in economic struggles. In strikes, the U. S. Army and National
Guard have smashed picket lines and arrested union leaders, and, in
conjunction with the courts, have framed them, had them imprisoned,
deported, and even executed.

The FBI especially, acting as the undercover arm of these police
forces, while it has done a commendable job in the apprehension of
criminals, has constantly used its prestige and power in aiding
employers and local police agencies in their efforts to weaken
and destroy unions by hunting down progressive and militant trade
unionists and having them blacklisted from their jobs.

In the Bridges Case, witnesses were either paid or intimidated
by the FBI to testify falsely. They did not hesitate to use
wiretapping, dictographing, and other devices, although illegal. At
the present time, John Santos, long-time leader of the Transport
Workers Union, is undergoing an ordeal very similar to that of
Bridges. Strenuous efforts are being made to deport him because he
has earned the enmity of powerful transit and utility corporations.
He is charged with being an alien “red.” And, once again, the FBI
is playing a key role in this hearing by rounding up questionable
anti-labor characters to testify against him.

According to the La Follette Civil Liberties Committee, the
Pinkerton Detective Agency was found to have 300 operatives
enrolled in unions as members, _of whom at least 100 were union
officials_--of them 14 presidents of locals, one national
vice-president, 14 trustees, and 20 local union secretaries.

We are at present witnessing an attack upon a union in our own city
as a result of the combination of discredited labor leaders, the
un-American Canwell Committee and the Seattle P-I and its FBI agent
and strike-breaker, Fred Niendorff.

Today, Labor is faced with and all-out offensive of the
profit-greedy NAM. They are determined to bring wages down while
continuing to raise the cost of living. This attack on the
peoples’ living standards is most serious to the thousands of
greatly underpaid white-collar workers.

To accomplish this union-busting program, the most vicious
antilabor legislation, such as the Taft-Hartley law has been
passed, and the Un-American Activities Committee, the little
Dies Committees and numerous other government agencies--all in
conjunction with the FBI--are engaged in a witch-hunt against labor.

Let us recall that it was not until trade unions were made impotent
in Germany that Hitler dared to embark on the road to concentration
and extermination camps.

The National CIO has condemned the Department of Justice for
conducting a “gumshoe” probe of CIO political expenditures.
President Philip Murray has reported “furtive operations and
dramatic unearthing of clues by the FBI ... which can have only the
objective of harassing and intimidation.”

Anyone working with the FBI or with any of the above-named
antilabor committees or against the best interests of the union
must clearly be labeled an enemy of labor and removed from
membership in any labor organization to which he may belong.

Therefore, in pursuance of the procedure established by Section
I, ARTICLE XV, which states that any elective or appointive
officers of a local union may be removed from office subject to
provisions of this Article for any violation of this Constitution
“or because of the commission of an act impairing the usefulness of
the organization,” we are presenting these charges, and demanding
the expulsion of Harriette Dennett from UOPWA 35. We call upon
our Union to immediately set up a trial committee to investigate
these charges and report back its findings to a special membership
meeting to be called for action by the membership.

uopwa 35 cio

Mr. TAVENNER. And I would like also to introduce in evidence at this time the expulsion notice that was given you, and ask that it be marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 11.”

Mr. MOULDER. As requested by counsel, without objection, it is so ordered.

(The document above referred to, marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 11,” is filed herewith).

DENNETT EXHIBIT No. 11

NOTICE OF EXPULSION

To All Sections, Clubs, and Members of the
Northwest District Communist Party, U. S. A.:

This is to notify all Sections and Clubs of the expulsion from the
Communist Party of Eugene V. Dennett, Harriet Dennett, and Claude
Smith.

In the case of Eugene Dennett and Harriet Dennett, the expulsion
is based upon violation of the conditions of membership in the
Communist Party as set forth in Article 9, Sections 1, 2, and 4 of
the Constitution of the Communist Party, U. S. A., based upon the
following facts established by the District Review Commission:

1. Admitted employment of Harriet Dennett by an agency of the F.
B. I. and the submitting of regular reports to said agency over a
long period of time, with the knowledge and consent, and direct
participation of Eugene V. Dennett. This was established by his
admission of personal contact with a known agent of the F. B. I.
and his concealment from the Party of Harriet Dennett’s activities
and his own personal contact with the F. B. I.

2. Admitted personal and political relations by Eugene V. Dennett
with known Trotskyites with established participation by Harriet
Dennett.

3. An established record of anti-party, disruptive, and provocative
activity by Eugene Dennett on numerous occasions and by Harriet
Dennett in several instances.

In the case of Claude Smith, the expulsion is based upon violation of the conditions of membership in the Communist Party as set forth in Article 9, Sections 1, 2, and 4 of the Constitution of the Communist Party, U. S. A., and based upon the following facts established by the District Review Commission:

1. Admitted participation in the preparation of the reports
submitted by Harriet Dennett to the Agency referred to above as
well as sharing in the payment for those reports and concealment of
these activities from the Party.

The District Review Commission wishes to call to the attention of the Party membership and its organizations the necessary conclusions from these facts. First, in this case as in many in the past, a negative, carping attitude toward the Party and its program has upon investigation disclosed enemies of the Party and the working class.

The same thing must be said of toleration and association with Trotskyites who are simply fascists hiding behind “left” phrases. While such attitudes may be due to lack of understanding in new members, in the case of experienced long time members it can only be regarded as conscious assistance to fascism and to the agents of fascism. It must be noted also that the personal record of these people is marked by individualism instability and extreme egotism.

The District Review Commission also wishes to point out that it is necessary to learn to distinguish between honest differences of opinion which we have to constantly resolve by discussion and majority decision and disruptive, dishonest attacks upon the program activities and leadership of the Party, which is the earmark of the provocateur and agent of the enemy. Only by more resolutely defending and fighting for the program of the Party can we make this distinction clear. Only by becoming more alert to the smell of anti-Party poison can we root out these disrupters. Only by fighting for the unity of the Party and testing our cadres struggle can we create guarantees that such elements will not remain long in the Party or be able to steal into its posts of leadership, and that the damage that they do will be reduced to a minimum.

Harriet Dennett is at present holding the position of President of the Seattle UOPWA Local Union No. 35. Eugene Dennett is a member of the Board of Control of the NEW WORLD and a member of the Steelworkers Union. Claude Smith is at present editor of the Washington State CIO news.

All Party members are warned against personal or political association with these expelled members and to give them no consideration or comfort in the excuses and protests they can be expected to make against the expulsion action which was ordered carried out by unanimous vote of the Northwest District Committee in executive session on October 6, 1947.

Signed:
HENRY HUFF,
_District Chairman_,
C. VAN LYDEGRAF,
_District Orig. Sec’y_,
_For the Northwest District Committee Communist Party, U. S. A._

uopwa No. 35.

Mr. VELDE. There is one question I would like to ask you, Mr. Dennett, about your expulsion and your wife’s. You probably recall the argument that took place within the ranks of the Communist Party during the change from the Communist political association to the militant type of organization it was before.

Did you or your wife engage in any of those arguments after the receipt of the Duclos letter?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes, we did.

Mr. VELDE. I am interested in that, if you will please be as brief as you can.

Mr. DENNETT. I will do my best, sir.

I was still in the service at the time. This occurred in New Orleans. My wife was still doing this same work in New Orleans.

Mr. VELDE. Was that in the middle of 1945?

Mr. DENNETT. That is right, in May and June of 1945.

And with the publication of the Duclos letter in the Daily Worker, which my wife was a subscriber to at that time, we observed that something tremendous was taking place within the party. And she made contact with some of the party people in New Orleans.

When they found that we had an interest in it, they invited us to the meetings where this discussion took place. And I was quite startled to find that the general criticism was mainly directed at the bureaucratic attitude and dictatorial policies pursued by Mr. Earl Browder. I was flabbergasted because I did not have that conception of him, and I was quite surprised as a result of it. And, of course, you know the rest of the story, which was published.

Mr. VELDE. In other words, you and your wife both took the side of Earl Browder?

Mr. DENNETT. I wouldn’t say that my former wife took the side of Earl Browder. I wouldn’t say I took the side of Earl Browder either because I was not in the party at the time. I was simply a visitor invited, and I was mainly surprised. I questioned the reports that people made. I didn’t pass judgment on it. I simply could hardly believe the criticism which I heard.

Mr. VELDE. It appears to me from your testimony that you were probably sort of independent in this matter of following the Communist Party line as handed down from Soviet Russia, and that was probably one of the chief reasons why you were expelled. Is that not right? You would not follow the party line? You thought for yourself.

Mr. DENNETT. I thought I was following the party line, and I thought the leaders around here were zigzagging all over the lot, and they didn’t know what the line was. They thought I was nuts. I thought they were nuts.

Mr. VELDE. Maybe you were just like Trotsky or Lovestone. You just didn’t happen to be in the ruling class as far as the party line was concerned.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, we have just checked the names on exhibit No. 10, and find that all of the persons whose names appear there have been identified in testimony before this committee as Communist Party members. Therefore, I see no reason for restricting that document in any way in its introduction in evidence.

Mr. MOULDER. It is so ordered. Do you wish to read the names?

Mr. TAVENNER. I desire the witness to read the names.

Mr. DENNETT. Alice Kinney, known to me before as Alice Balmer, B-a-l-m-e-r; Trudi Kirkwood, Helen Huff. Helen Huff was known to me as the wife of Henry Huff, who was the district organizer of the party, and Helen Huff was one of those persons to whom I spoke when I requested that they allow my former wife to resign, but they would have nothing to do with that. They wouldn’t allow it. They wanted to make an example of her. Hallie Donaldson, Vivian Stucker, S-t-u-c-k-e-r, Jean R. Hatten.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Dennett, are there any other facts relating to your expulsion which would be of interest to this committee?

Mr. DENNETT. I think, Mr. Tavenner and members of the committee, that there are probably many. But, in view of the pressing time, I think that this is sufficient to give you the picture, and, if you want to go into more detail at a later time when you have more time available, I think maybe we could do that. I have said all I think I need to say at this time.

Mr. TAVENNER. After your expulsion have you been identified with the Communist Party in any way?

Mr. DENNETT. No, sir; I have not.

Mr. TAVENNER. The committee had information indicating that you may possibly have become a member after your expulsion, or even prior to that, of the Socialist Workers Party. And the information that the committee had in that respect was a nominating petition of that group signed by you.

We would like to know whether you were at any time a member of the Socialist Workers Party.

Mr. DENNETT. The answer is very simple. I was not. I never have been a member of the Socialist Workers Party.

The occasion for that signature on that nominating petition is the result of a request from the Socialist Workers Party leader, Mr. Daniel Roberts, who was the leader at that time, that I sign a nominating petition to permit their candidates to get on the ballot.

In the State of Washington a provision is in the election laws allowing nominating petitions to be signed by a minimum of 25 people who are qualified voters who did not vote in the primary. In other words, it is equivalent to casting a vote.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did the Socialist Workers Party endeavor to recruit you as a member?

Mr. DENNETT. Yes. Mr. Daniel Roberts tried time and time again to recruit me, thinking that my vast experience in the Communist Party gave me plenty of background to qualify me if I would simply change my thinking with respect to certain fundamental ideas which were points of difference between the Socialist Workers Party and the Communist Party. However, I never was able to accept all of the ideas which Mr. Roberts and some of their national leaders to whom he introduced me--I could never resolve all of the policies which they advocated to my own thinking.

And the whole experience caused me to go back and question and challenge the validity of the theoretical basis upon which the Communist Party was organized and upon which it operated. And it caused me to reach the conclusion a long time ago that it is very inadvisable for anyone to commit his political fealty to anyone or any organization that he doesn’t understand in full. And I do not to this day completely understand the Socialist Workers Party.

Mr. TAVENNER. I noticed in some of the earlier documents introduced in evidence that reference was made to you when the Communist Party was critical of you as being a Trotskyite.

Mr. DENNETT. That is true. Remarks were made about me on a number of occasions. And, as near as I can make out, the reason for it is I was asking embarrassing questions. It seems as though Trotsky did that against Mr. Stalin in the Soviet Union--when everyone especially was interested in a democratic procedure that went contrary to Stalin’s rule. His rule was that you had to accept his decision whether you liked it or not. And that is the rule of democratic centralism, a principle with which I am in total disagreement today. I thought for a long time that that was a wonderful principle. I had read Lenin’s writings on the subject. I thought that his explanations were quite good. But once I had had service in the military, once I knew what military organization was like, I recognized the principle of democratic centralism as the application of military rule to civilian life. And I am strictly opposed to it.

Mr. TAVENNER. In light of your experience in the Communist Party, and from your study of the Socialist Workers Party, would you please state as briefly as you can the principal differences between these organizations as you understood them.

Mr. DENNETT. One of the principal differences lies in the fact that the Socialist Workers Party people accused the Communist Party people, in particular Stalin and Stalinism, of having deserted the principle of socialism, of internationalism, accusing Stalin of degenerating into nationalism. That is when he developed the so-called theory of the possibility of developing socialism in one country alone.

Mr. TAVENNER. That country being the Soviet Union.

Mr. DENNETT. That country being the Soviet Union.

The Trotskyites maintained that Stalin was thereby deserting the cause of internationalism and that he would think first of the interests of the Soviet Union, and later, if at all, subordinate the interests of the world working class to building the Soviet Union at the cost of letting the working class in other countries go by the boards.

In other words, if a revolutionary situation developed in some other country Stalin would exert his power to prevent the success of the revolution in that country for fear that it would detract from the success of the Soviet Union.

Mr. TAVENNER. Unless, of course, such a revolution would strengthen his power and his regime in the Soviet Union. Wouldn’t you make that qualification?

Mr. DENNETT. That might be a consideration. But all history, all experience since the Second World War would indicate that Stalin at no time approved successful revolutions in any country. He opposed revolutionary effort of the Yugoslavs. He opposed the revolutionary effort of the Communists in Greece. He opposed the revolutionary effort of the Chinese Communists. He even made commitments, and part of the deal which people seemed to be so concerned about at Yalta and Potsdam and Cairo and Casablanca involved Stalin making commitments to Roosevelt and Churchill to the effect that the Soviet Union would use its influence to suppress the revolutionary effort of the workers in the various countries that were on the brink of revolution.

And that is why when the Soviet Red Army marched into those border countries in eastern Europe they did not attempt to create a Soviet revolution. They, instead, created something they called people’s democracies. But they were established in some instances with the aid of the Red army marching in, and the people in those countries had nothing to say about it.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the attitude of the Trotskyites as to Stalin’s agreement with reference to Greece, for instance?

Mr. DENNETT. They accused him of betraying the working class not only in Greece but in the Soviet Union because he was ruling in the Soviet Union with such an iron hand that workers there were being suppressed. They were being forbidden from enjoying the efforts they were putting in to build a Socialist country. In fact, they were being deprived of the fruits of what was intended to be socialism. In fact, the Trotskyites, as I understand, their philosophy in the matter is that the Soviet Union has suffered from an arrested development--it is not truly Socialist; it has not been permitted to become Socialist, and that the biggest crime Stalin committed was to pretend and hold the Soviet Union up to world view as a Socialist country when, in fact, it was not a Socialist country.

I also came to the conclusion, as a result of some of the theoretical material I read in about 1946, where Stalin was insisting that, instead of the authority of the state withering away as predicted in the writings of Engels and Lenin, that Stalin insisted that the authority of the state must increase, that the police power must be increased in the Soviet Union to make sure that they would continue in an ordered fashion, which certainly was contrary to all the earlier writings on the theoretical subject of the development of the state.

Mr. TAVENNER. It has been demonstrated time and again, has it not, to your satisfaction, that Stalin has endeavored to use international communism as a tool in order to advance his own foreign policy which necessarily, of course, meant his strengthening his own position in the Soviet Union.

Mr. DENNETT. It certainly is.

Mr. TAVENNER. There are many other matters that I would have liked to have gone into with you, but I must terminate the examination. I do not like to do so without giving you an opportunity to state anything that may be in your mind about the effect of your experience in the Communist Party or your present attitude toward the Communist Party.

I am not insisting that you do, but I merely want to give you the opportunity.

Mr. DENNETT. My counsel has already advised me to be very brief. I am very appreciative of the suggestion because the hour is late, and I want to thank you for the opportunity you have given me to make a statement.

The only statement I would make at this time is some elaboration over what I started to say earlier when we were talking about what steps to take to protect yourself against this sort of deception.

I am sure that some people in hearing the account which I have given by way of testimony before this committee may gather the impression that I learned quite a little bit about deception. And I am sure that some people were quite firmly convinced that I would do nothing except deceive this committee when I appeared before it.

I wish to assure you that I have testified to the best of my ability about the facts that I know and facts which I can substantiate with documentary evidence in my own records.

Those records are available to the committee. They have been made available to the committee, and I understand that you intend to have the United States Marshal pick them up and place them in protective custody where they will be available for me for further study and also to yourself.

I simply recite that as some indication that in my testifying before you the only reservation that I have is that I still have some misgivings about this kind of procedure because I fear that we are needlessly hurting individuals when we name them in such vast numbers as the committee has called upon me to do.

I think that some means needs to be found to change that procedure. And I believe that there will be more information of value to convincing the general public and to assisting the Congress, by way of its legislative effort, if a better effort is found.

And I hope that you will seriously pay attention to the recommendations of the American Civil Liberties Union in this regard. I think their recommendations deserve your worthy consideration.

I think, gentlemen, that is about all that is needed for me to say at this time. I can only say that I am available for whatever further work that you wish to do with me. I do not want anyone to think that they are going to make a professional witness out of me. I have no intention of being a professional witness. I would like to be able to live in peace and quiet because my own health will not permit me to do all the other things that need to be done.

Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Dennett, as chairman of this committee, and on behalf of counsel, Mr. Tavenner, and Mr. Wheeler, and I believe I should presume to express appreciation also on behalf of the full committee on Un-American Activities, the Congress of the United States, and the people of America for your honest, courageous, patriotic, and convincing testimony and information concerning communistic activities.

Your comprehensive and intelligent testimony is not only revealing but has been ably presented by you in a patriotic and conscientious spirit and duty to your country and also to yourself.

We commend you for your appearance and conduct before this committee as an example--and I emphasize this--as an example of how any and all former Communist Party members can clear themselves of any doubt whatsoever concerning their loyalty to the United States of America.

And, speaking for myself, I am glad I had an opportunity to observe your conduct on the witness stand, and, having heard your testimony, I am deeply impressed by the valuable information you have given to the committee.

Mr. Velde, do you have anything?

Mr. VELDE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I don’t think I can add too much to your very fine statement.

Let me say that I concur with our distinguished friend from Missouri in his statement about your testimony.

I happened to be here last year when you refused to testify. I think I mentioned earlier--last Thursday--that you would have a lot more friends after you got through testifying than you had before or during the time that you appeared here last time, and I sincerely hope that that is true. I believe it will be.

The reason, of course, that we were not able to hear your testimony at the sessions here last June was that we had too many other witnesses subpenaed to be heard as we do apparently this time, Mr. Chairman.

Let me say that I think you have made a great addition to the information that is already on file concerning the activities of the Communist Party. But, chiefly, you have made a great contribution in substantiating, in large part, the testimony that was given by Mrs. Barbara Hartle and other witnesses who gave information here last June. For that we are very appreciative.

I want to say just a word about Mrs. Hartle.

As you know, she is presently serving in the prison in West Virginia, a Federal penitentiary in West Virginia.

I think she certainly exhibited a great deal of courage and a great deal of American spirit in giving the testimony that she did.

Mr. Dennett, as far as the particular testimony you have given about your expulsion from the Communist Party is concerned, the experience that you had is similar to the experience of other persons who have been expelled from the Communist Party.

I think, of course, that you should be proud to have been expelled by the Communist Party. And I trust that, while you might at times find yourself in the same position of following the same line that the Communist Party does at the present time, that you no longer cling to the philosophy that we know the Communist Party represents here in the United States, that is, the philosophy of the Soviet Union, which intends of course, to rule the world eventually, whether it be by changing governments by peaceful means or by overthrowing it by force and violence.

We say it has been a great pleasure to hear your very fine testimony, and let me say also that I agree that you have been a very intelligent and truthful witness.

Mr. MOULDER. With our thanks and gratitude, you are excused.

Mr. DENNETT. Thank you, sir.

I wish to say, upon my being excused, that I want to extend my greatest appreciation to the patience of Mr. Tavenner, who has been the counsel to examine me. It has been a pleasure to work with a gentleman who is as well versed and who knows what he is doing as well as Mr. Tavenner.

And I want to thank Mr. Wheeler for the patience that he had, and the committee as well.

Mr. MOULDER. Call the next witness, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Abraham Cohen.

Mr. MOULDER. Hold up your right hand.

Mr. Photographer, when you take your picture, would you stand to the right or left so I can swear the witness.

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

Mr. COHEN. I do.

TESTIMONY OF ABRAHAM ARTHUR COHEN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, EDWARD E. HENRY

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

Mr. COHEN. Abraham Arthur Cohen.

(Whereupon a brief disturbance occurred in the corridor outside the door of the hearing room.)

Mr. TAVENNER. Let’s proceed.

Mr. MOULDER. Please be seated. We will have order in the hearing room, please.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will everyone be seated, please.

Mr. MOULDER. No pictures will be taken, please.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you seat those people at the door, and close the door, please.

I note you are accompanied by counsel. Will counsel please identify himself.

Mr. HENRY. Edward Henry, of the Seattle bar.

Mr. TAVENNER. I am not going to take the time to ask you various questions which I know the committee is interested in asking you because of the lateness of the hour. I will confine my questions to just 2 or 3 matters. Are you now a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. COHEN. I am not.

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

Mr. COHEN. I have been.

Mr. TAVENNER. Over what period of time were you a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. COHEN. From early in--well, I believe July 1937 until I left for the Armed Forces in March of 1942, and then upon returning from the war, oh, some time early in 1946, I would say, until January 1, 1951.

Mr. TAVENNER. Have you been a member of the Communist Party since 1951?

Mr. COHEN. No, sir.

Mr. TAVENNER. I believe you are one of the few, if not the only person in the United States, who registered as a member of the Communist Party upon the adoption of the Internal Security Act of 1950.

Mr. COHEN. It wasn’t a thing of which I was ashamed. I felt I was in the party. I felt that what I was doing was the right thing. I had no conscientious qualms about belonging to it. I felt what we were doing was right. And everything that I saw--nothing I saw led me to believe that it was subversive. I felt it was--what we were doing was in the interest of the workingman.

Mr. TAVENNER. Our purpose in subpenaing you was to ask you certain facts we think are within your knowledge regarding Communist Party activities. You have indicated a full desire, a willingness to give the committee the facts that you have. You have given a a written statement to the staff.

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAVENNER. I am not going into any of those matters now because they are here available for us. But, out of fairness to you, I want to give you the opportunity to make any further statement you desire regarding your own attitude toward the Communist Party.

Mr. COHEN. Do you feel that I haven’t stated my position enough in that brief?

Mr. TAVENNER. We would ask you additional questions if we had time to do it, and we may do that later. But for the present I want to be certain you have an opportunity to tell the committee anything further that is on your mind that might be of some benefit to yourself.

Mr. COHEN. Well, I felt that my desires on leaving the party were that I was in it primarily because of its connection with the trade-union movement. It helped the Guild in the early days to organize.

Mr. TAVENNER. And you function within the American Newspaper Guild?

Mr. COHEN. That is right.

I felt it did a worthwhile job there. And a great many people--Communists and non-Communists--benefited thereby. After the war the situation changed.

Mr. MOULDER. The witness is excused.

Mr. TAVENNER. I am not sure that he is through.

Mr. COHEN. I am ready to quit talking at any time.

Mr. TAVENNER. This is your time to talk if you want to.

Mr. COHEN. After the war I felt that we were in a--we were extending the neighborhood branches, and that the trade union, the time for trade union action was past. We didn’t function in trade union matters. My working hours were changed, and I no longer was--I rarely attended meetings. I really lost what contact I had.

And the act that finally culminated in my leaving was the fact that I wanted to take a trip abroad, and under one of the provisions of the McCarran Act it required that no Communist should be granted a passport.

And so I wanted to visit scenes of where I had been during the war, and I explained to the party that I wanted to leave. And it startled them, I admit, reasonably. But I succeeded in resigning. And there have been no repercussions since.

Mr. VELDE. Do I understand you have been, and are willing at any time to make available any information you have relative to your activities in the Communist Party?

Mr. COHEN. Yes, I am. I will say--before anybody even talks to me--there weren’t very many. There were very few; there weren’t very many.

Mr. VELDE. But are you willing to make those available to us?

Mr. COHEN. Yes.

Mr. VELDE. And, of course, we would be willing to hear you at length if we had the opportunity to do so.

Mr. TAVENNER. In light of the witness’ statements, I have no further questions.

Mr. MOULDER. Do you have any further statement you wish to make, Mr. Witness?

Mr. COHEN. Nothing further to say.

Mr. MOULDER. Then you are excused as a witness.

(Whereupon the witness was excused.)

Mr. TAVENNER. May I call Mr. Dennett to the front of the rostrum for a moment?

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

Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Dennett.

Mr. DENNETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. MOULDER. It has been my suggestion, after conferring with counsel, that probably it would be best that we revoke and withdraw our order excusing you from the force and effect of your subpena, and keep you under subpena.

Mr. DENNETT. I still have it.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe there may be a legal technicality involved, and I ask that the witness be resubpenaed. So there will be no question about it.

Mr. MOULDER. It is so ordered.

Mr. TAVENNER. That is a matter of protection to the witness.

Mr. VELDE. I think we ought to make this additional statement, that the reason for resubpenaing you is so that you might be within the protection of the United States Government in case anything arises as apparently happened out here a few minutes ago.

Mr. MOULDER. That is our only purpose in issuing another subpena.

Mr. DENNETT. Thank you.

Mr. MOULDER. Call the next witness.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Bernard Freyd.

Mr. HATTEN. May I request the Chair to ask the photographers not to take pictures?

Mr. MOULDER. We will have order in the hearing room.

Mr. HATTEN. Will you please not take any pictures?

Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Hatten.

Mr. HATTEN. I would like to request, Mr. Freyd does not like to have his picture taken in the hearing room. Would you so direct the photographers?

Mr. MOULDER. Very well.

The photographers will please refrain from taking pictures of the witness approaching the witness stand.

Hold up your right hand and be sworn, please.

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

Mr. FREYD. I do.

TESTIMONY OF BERNARD FREYD, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, C. T. HATTEN

Mr. TAVENNER. What is your name?

Mr. FREYD. Bernard Freyd--F-r-e-y-d.

Mr. TAVENNER. It is noted you are accompanied by counsel.

Will counsel identify himself for the record?

Mr. HATTEN. My name is C. T. Hatten. I am an attorney residing in Seattle.

Mr. TAVENNER. When and where were you born, Mr. Freyd?

Mr. FREYD. I was born in Seattle in 1893.

Mr. TAVENNER. What is your occupation?

Mr. FREYD. I am not employed by anyone.

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

Mr. FREED. I went through the public-school system, high school of this city, and University of Washington.

Mr. TAVENNER. When did you complete your educational training at the University of Washington?

Mr. FREYD. It was about the year 1930.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, how you have been employed since 1935?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. FREYD. I had no regular employment until the outbreak of the war, and I worked in various war plants until I was incapacitated by an accident in 1943.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was your business between 1930 and the outbreak of the war?

Mr. FREYD. Well, I was unemployed.

Mr. TAVENNER. During that entire period of time?

Mr. FREYD. Practically, as I recollect.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you engaged in any work of any kind during that period?

Mr. FREYD. Well, there was no work available that I could find.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you mean you were unemployed until 1941, December 1941?

Mr. FREYD. Yes.

Mr. TAVENNER. Where did you live in 1940?

Mr. FREYD. I lived in Seattle.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you engage in any work without remuneration?

Mr. FREYD. No.

Mr. TAVENNER. During the period from 1935 to 1940?

Mr. FREYD. No.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you connected with the Civil Rights Congress?

Mr. FREYD. I think I should invoke the fifth amendment on that question as I feel that it may tend to incriminate me.

Mr. MOULDER. To clarify the response, do you decline to answer by invoking the fifth amendment of the Constitution, or do you refuse to answer for fear it will tend to incriminate you?

Mr. FREYD. And also the first amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press and the right of people to assemble peaceably.

Mr. TAVENNER. The witness who preceded you a few moments ago, Mr. Eugene V. Dennett, described his disagreement with the Communist Party in connection with its policy toward the Civil Rights Congress. He told the committee that the Communist Party had organized the Civil Rights Congress, but that he disagreed with the policy of forming an organization which would defend only Communists. And, for that reason, he incurred the wrath of his superiors in the Communist Party.

He further testified that he was told by the leadership of the Communist Party that it didn’t have time to protect the civil rights of people generally, but it was only interested in the civil rights of members of the Communist Party.

Now it is our information that you held an official position in the Civil Rights Congress. I may be wrong about that. But surely you were in a position to know whether or not Mr. Dennett was telling the truth about the attitude of the Communist Party toward the Civil Rights Congress or the work of the Civil Rights Congress.

Mr. FREYD. I should like to confer with my attorney.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. FREYD. I invoke the first amendment and the fifth amendment for the reasons previously stated. And I may add that I am pleased to notice that there has been very widespread doubt expressed prominently in the press about the veracity of a witness testifying before this committee.

Mr. TAVENNER. If you have any doubt about that you are now in a position to straighten the committee out on it. In what particular, if any, was Mr. Dennett in error in his testimony?

Mr. FREYD. I would like to confer with my counsel.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. FREYD. I claim, again, the first and fifth amendments of the Constitution, and I wish to add that I am reluctant to answer any questions which would require me to claim the protection of the first and fifth amendments.

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

Mr. FREYD. The answer is the same, for the same reason.

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

Mr. FREYD. The answer is the same, and for the same reason.

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

Mr. MOULDER. Any questions, Mr. Velde?

Mr. VELDE. No questions.

Mr. MOULDER. The witness is excused.

(Whereupon the witness was excused.)

Mr. MOULDER. Call the next witness, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. HATTEN. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. MOULDER. Yes.

Mr. HATTEN. While I am here may I address the Chair with reference to the O’Connell matter again?

Mr. MOULDER. Yes.

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

Mr. HATTEN. I notice that on a number of witnesses the subpenas have been continued, and I would like to formally move that the subpena in case of Jerry O’Connell be continued to some later date at which time his health might be better.

Mr. MOULDER. The committee cannot entertain your motion.

Mr. HATTEN. I merely would like to make it for the record.

Mr. MOULDER. You have made the request on the record.

Mr. HATTEN. To state the position, I understand that possibly you cannot pass upon it.

Mr. MOULDER. Call the next witness.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Lenus Westman.

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

Mr. WESTMAN. I do.

TESTIMONY OF HANS LENUS ADOLPH WESTMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, C. T. HATTEN

Mr. WESTMAN. Mr. Chairman, under the first and fifth amendments----

Mr. TAVENNER. You haven’t been asked any questions.

Mr. WESTMAN. O. K.

Mr. TAVENNER. We will give you a chance.

What is your name, please, sir?

Mr. WESTMAN. Under the first and fifth amendments, as the result of having been subpenaed, I wish to apply these two amendments as reasons for not giving my name.

And also, in the light of the statement that was made here this afternoon, that you would like to have some witness that didn’t have to use his name, that is, that you could have appearing before you.

Mr. TAVENNER. You are mistaken.

Mr. MOULDER. We will have order, please.

Mr. VELDE. Do you refuse to answer as to what your name is?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. WESTMAN. I am going to confer with my attorney.

I wish to state that----

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

Mr. WESTMAN. I will answer the question under protest.

My name is Hans Lenus Adolph Westman.

Mr. TAVENNER. Will you spell your last name?

Mr. WESTMAN. W-e-s-t-m-a-n.

Mr. TAVENNER. It is noted that you are accompanied by counsel.

Will counsel please identify himself for the record?

Mr. HATTEN. C. T. Hatten, previously identified as an attorney in Seattle.

Mr. TAVENNER. Where do you live, Mr. Westman?

Mr. WESTMAN. In Seattle.

Mr. TAVENNER. What is your occupation?

Mr. WESTMAN. I would like to confer with counsel.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. WESTMAN. Well, I will answer under compulsion, and I am a sheetmetal worker.

Mr. TAVENNER. Do you have any other occupation?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. WESTMAN. Do you mean at the present time?

Mr. TAVENNER. During the last month, say, during the month of March.

Mr. WESTMAN. I would like to confer with my counsel.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. WESTMAN. Well, sir, I would like--I will decline to answer that question under the fifth amendment, as I do not know what is referred to as work by the question, and, hence, it might be something that is construed by you, sir, as constituting work that might be of a character that would waive my rights under the fifth amendment. And, hence, I will take the fifth amendment.

Mr. TAVENNER. I will be more specific.

Have you been engaged during the month of March in any publication work of any kind? That will limit it within narrow bounds.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. WESTMAN. I will decline to answer that under the fifth amendment. And I would like to go into the reasons why I take the fifth amendment, because under----

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, the witness has stated his reason as being the fifth amendment, which is a ground, under the circumstances here, I think he is entitled to use. And, therefore, it would not require any speech to accompany it.

Mr. MOULDER. Please make a direct answer to the question. We will get along more quickly.

Mr. WESTMAN. I said that under the fifth amendment I decline to answer that question, and I would like to just point out, Mr. Chairman, that I do take the fifth amendment because of the fact that it is in the Constitution to protect the innocent, and for the same reason that you gentlemen of Congress have congressional immunity.

Mr. MOULDER. You have made yourself clear about the fifth amendment.

Mr. TAVENNER. Have you at any time, during the month of March 1955, been the press director of the Communist Party?

Mr. WESTMAN. I will decline to answer that under the first and fifth amendments, as, under the first amendment, that is directly inquiring into the freedom of the press and into matters of like nature, and, under the fifth amendment, I decline because such testimony might be construed as testimony against myself.

Mr. TAVENNER. Mrs. Barbara Hartle testified before this committee, in June of 1954. In the course of her testimony in identifying various individuals as members of the Communist Party, she stated:

Lenus Westman was a member of a club in the central region and
lived in that area. Most of his Communist Party activities were in
mass work at that time, like the Progressive Party or election work.

Tell the committee, please, what knowledge you have of the activities of the Communist Party, if any, within the Progressive Party.

Mr. WESTMAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will decline to answer that question under the fifth amendment.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. WESTMAN. I think I have made my point clear on that.

Mr. MOULDER. May I ask you a question?

Where were you born and reared?

Mr. WESTMAN. I was born in Sweden, Umea, Sweden; and came to this country at the age of 7.

Mr. MOULDER. How old are you now?

Mr. WESTMAN. I am 52 years of age.

Mr. MOULDER. Are you a citizen of the United States?

Mr. WESTMAN. Yes, I am.

Mr. MOULDER. How long have you been a citizen?

Mr. WESTMAN. Since 1936.

Mr. MOULDER. Have you served in the armed services of the United States?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. WESTMAN. Yes; I have.

Mr. MOULDER. What branch of the armed services?

Mr. WESTMAN. In the infantry, Army.

Mr. MOULDER. For what period of time?

Mr. WESTMAN. From July 1942, until February 1943.

Mr. MOULDER. Did you receive an honorable discharge from the service?

Mr. WESTMAN. Yes; I did.

Mr. VELDE. I would like to ask one question.

How did you obtain citizenship in this country?

Mr. WESTMAN. Through naturalization.

Mr. VELDE. Did you file your petition for naturalization on your own?

Mr. WESTMAN. It was by petition.

Mr. TAVENNER. What was the date of your naturalization?

Mr. WESTMAN. It was July 1936.

Mr. TAVENNER. Was it July 27, 1936?

Mr. WESTMAN. Yes; I think that was the exact date.

Mr. TAVENNER. Where were you naturalized?

Mr. WESTMAN. Here in Seattle in the Federal court.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you a member of the Communist Party at the time you were naturalized?

Mr. WESTMAN. I decline to answer that question under the fifth amendment.

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

Mr. WESTMAN. I decline to answer that question for the same reasons that I have given.

Mr. TAVENNER. Have you been a member of the Communist Party at any time between 1936 and the present date?

Mr. WESTMAN. I decline to answer that question for the same reason that I have given.

Mr. VELDE. Were you a member of the Communist Party at the time you were naturalized?

Mr. WESTMAN. I decline to answer that question also, and for the same reason.

Mr. VELDE. Mr. Chairman, it appears to me there is some evidence that should be referred to the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service for future consideration, possibly with a view to denaturalization and deportation.

Mr. TAVENNER. Were you elected to the Senate of the State of Washington in the election of 1940?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. WESTMAN. Yes; I was.

Mr. TAVENNER. Did you serve? That is, were you seated?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. WESTMAN. I decline to answer that question, sir, under the fifth amendment.

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

Mr. VELDE. I want to go a little further. When did you file your petition for naturalization?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. WESTMAN. Well, at the moment I don’t recall exactly when I filed the petition, but it is a matter of public record.

Mr. VELDE. Would it have been approximately 5 years before the date of your naturalization in 1936?

Mr. WESTMAN. Yes.

Mr. VELDE. Probably in 1931?

Mr. WESTMAN. It would be approximately in that period.

Mr. VELDE. How old were you at that time?

Mr. WESTMAN. I was 29, I believe, at that time.

Mr. VELDE. Then during the 5 years following your filing of a petition for naturalization did you engage in any type of Communist activity?

Mr. WESTMAN. I decline to answer that question for the reasons that I have given before.

Mr. VELDE. Did you know what the Communist Party was at that time?

Mr. WESTMAN. I decline to answer that question for the same reasons that I have given.

Mr. VELDE. Where, and in what court did you receive your citizenship?

Mr. WESTMAN. It was at the Federal courthouse here, but I am not sure at the present time which court it was.

Mr. VELDE. At the time that you received your citizenship in the court, United States district court, were you engaged in any Communist Party activities?

Mr. WESTMAN. I decline to answer that question for the same reasons that I have given before.

Mr. MOULDER. Have you, to your own best knowledge and information, ever committed any act, a subversive act or one of un-American conduct against the United States of America?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. WESTMAN. Well, sir, under the fifth amendment, I must decline to answer that question, and I also know that this committee knows that I have not been engaged in such activities. I am sure that this committee knows that.

Mr. VELDE. As a member of the committee, I certainly do not know that you have not been engaged in subversive activities.

Mr. MOULDER. It seems to me you now have an opportunity to tell the committee that you have not been engaged in subversive activities.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. WESTMAN. I still decline to answer the question under the fifth amendment because I do not consider this an opportunity.

Mr. MOULDER. You say you served in the Armed Forces for a period of how long?

Mr. WESTMAN. Approximately 6 or 7 months.

Mr. MOULDER. And why were you discharged?

Mr. WESTMAN. That was because I was over 40.

Mr. MOULDER. What was the extent of your services in the Armed Forces? Were you in combat service?

Mr. WESTMAN. No.

Mr. MOULDER. Are there any further questions?

Mr. TAVENNER. No, sir.

Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Velde?

Mr. VELDE. No questions.

Mr. MOULDER. The witness is excused.

(Whereupon the witness was excused.)

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Frank Kerr.

Will you come forward? Just have a seat, please.

(Mr. Frank Kerr came forward, accompanied by his counsel, Jay G. Sykes.)

Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, this witness has been subpenaed, and a doctor’s certificate has been given which is wholly inadequate as a medical certificate to show that this gentleman was not in condition to appear here.

Counsel was advised to get a doctor and give us a certificate that we thought would mean something.

There may have been some confusion about who was to have the examination made, but, regardless of that, it is quite apparent, from observation, that the man is not well, and I don’t feel satisfied in interrogating him under these circumstances unless the witness himself wants to be interrogated.

(Mr. Sykes conferred with Mr. Kerr.)

Mr. SYKES. He would rather not.

Mr. TAVENNER. Under those circumstances I do not feel like insisting on it.