<DOC>
[107 Senate Committee Prints]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:83870.wais]
                                                         S. Prt. 107-84
                    EXECUTIVE SESSIONS OF THE SENATE
                       PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                    INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE
                        ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
=======================================================================
                                VOLUME 2
                               __________
                         EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS
                             FIRST SESSION
                                  1953
                        MADE PUBLIC JANUARY 2003
      Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs
                                    _______
                       U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
83-870                         WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
                   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                     107th Congress, Second Session
               JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan                 FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              TED STEVENS, Alaska
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey     GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MAX CLELAND, Georgia                 THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota               JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
                                     PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
           Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Staff Director and Counsel
              Richard A. Hertling, Minority Staff Director
                     Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk
                                 ------
                PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
                     CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii,             SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          TED STEVENS, Alaska
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey     GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MAX CLELAND, Georgia                 THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota               JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
                                     PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
            Elise J. Bean, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                 Kim Corthell, Minority Staff Director
                     Mary D. Robertson, Chief Clerk
                   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
                      83rd Congress, First Session
                JOSEPH R. McCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota          JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas
MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine          HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota
HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaho             HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington
EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois   JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland       STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri
CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan          ALTON A. LENNON, North Carolina
                   Francis D. Flanagan, Chief Counsel
                    Walter L. Reynolds, Chief Clerk
                                 ------
                PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
                JOSEPH R. McCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota          JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas \1\
EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois   HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington \1\
CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan          STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri \1\
                       Roy M. Cohn, Chief Counsel
                  Francis P. Carr, Executive Director
                      Ruth Young Watt, Chief Clerk
                           assistant counsels
Robert F. Kennedy                                    Donald A. Surine
Thomas W. La Venia                                   Jerome S. Adlerman
Donald F. O'Donnell                                  C. George Anastos
Daniel G. Buckley
                             investigators
                           Robert J. McElroy
Herbert S. Hawkins                                   James N. Juliana
                   G. David Schine, Chief Consultant
               Karl H. W. Baarslag, Director of Research
               Carmine S. Bellino, Consulting Accountant
                   La Vern J. Duffy, Staff Assistant
----------
  \1\ The Democratic members were absent from the subcommittee from
July 10, 1953 to January 25, 1954.
                            C O N T E N T S
                              ----------
                                                                   Page
                                Volume 2
State Department Information Service--Information Centers,
  March 23.......................................................   913
    Testimony of Mary M. Kaufman; Sol Auerbach (James S. Allen);
      and William Marx Mandel.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers,
  March 24.......................................................   945
    Testimony of Samuel Dashiell Hammett; Helen Goldfrank; Jerre
      G. Mangione; and James Langston Hughes.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers,
  March 25.......................................................   999
    Testimony of Mary Van Kleeck; and Edwin Seaver.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers,
  March 31.......................................................  1015
    Testimony of Edward W. Barrett.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers,
  April 1........................................................  1045
    Testimony of Dan Mabry Lacy
State Department Information Service--Information Centers,
  April 24.......................................................  1071
    Testimony of James A. Wechsler-published in 1953.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers,
  April 28.......................................................  1073
    Testimony of Theodore Kaghan.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers,
  May 5..........................................................  1115
    Testimony of James A. Wechsler-published in 1953.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers, May 5.  1117
    Testimony of Millen Brand.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers, May 6.  1123
    Testimony of John L. Donovan.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers, May 13  1135
    Testimony of James Aronson; and Cedric Belfrage.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers, May 19  1161
    Testimony of Julien Bryan.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers, July 1  1193
    Testimony of Richard O. Boyer; Rockwell Kent; Edwin B.
      Burgum; Joseph Freeman; George Seldes; and Doxey Wilkerson.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers, July 2  1217
    Testimony of Allan Chase.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers, July 7  1223
    Testimony of Eslanda Goode Robeson; Arnaud d'Usseau; and Leo
      Huberman.
State Department Information Service--Information Centers, July
  14.............................................................  1231
    Testimony of Harvey O'Connor.
State Department Teacher-Student Exchange Program, May 20........  1235
    Testimony of Naphtali Lewis.
State Department Teacher-Student Exchange Program, May 25........  1245
    Testimony of Helen B. Lewis; Naphtali Lewis; and Margaret
      Webster.
State Department Teacher-Student Exchange Program, May 26........  1267
    Testimony of Aaron Copland.
State Department Teacher-Student Exchange Program, June 8........  1291
    Testimony of Rachel Davis DuBois; and Dr. Dorothy Ferebee.
State Department Teacher-Student Exchange Program, June 19.......  1305
    Testimony of Clarence F. Hiskey.
State Department Teacher-Student Exchange Program, June 19.......  1311
    Testimony of Harold C. Urey.
Trade with Soviet-Bloc Countries, May 20.........................  1321
Trade with Soviet-Bloc Countries, May 25.........................  1329
    Testimony of Charles S. Thomas; Louis W. Goodkind; Thruston
      B. Morton; Kenneth R. Hansen; and Vice Admiral Walter S.
      Delaney.
Austrian Incident, June 3........................................  1349
    Testimony of V. Frank Coe.
Austrian Incident, June 5........................................  1367
    Testimony of V. Frank Coe.
Communist Party Activities, Western Pennsylvania, June 17........  1373
    Testimony of Louis Bortz; and Herbert S. Hawkins.
Communist Party Activities, Western Pennsylvania, June 18........  1395
    Testimony of Louis Bortz.
Special Meeting, July 10.........................................  1399
Alleged Bribery of State Department Official, July 13............  1415
    Testimony of Juan Jose Martinez-Locayo.
Internal Revenue, July 31........................................  1431
    Testimony of T. Coleman Andrews.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 10..................  1439
    Testimony of Mary S. Markward; Edward M. Rothschild; Esther
      Rothschild; and James B. Phillips.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 11..................  1473
    Testimony of Frederick Sillers; Gertrude Evans; and Charles
      Gift.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 11..................  1497
    Testimony of Raymond Blattenberger; and Phillip L. Cole.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 12..................  1515
    Testimony of Ernest C. Mellor; and S. Preston Hipsley.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 13..................  1527
    Testimony of Irving Studenberg.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 13..................  1533
    Testimony of Gertrude Evans; and Charles Gift.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 14..................  1547
    Testimony of Howard Merold; Jack Zucker; Howard Koss; and
      Isadore Kornfield.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 15..................  1563
    Testimony of Cleta Guess; James E. Duggan; and Adolphus
      Nichols Spence.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 18..................  1573
    Testimony of Roy Hudson Wells, Jr.; and Phillip Fisher.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 19..................  1577
    Testimony of Joseph E. Francis; Samuel Bernstein; and Roscoe
      Conkling Everhardt.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 21..................  1595
    Testimony of Florence Fowler Lyons.
Security--Government Printing Office, August 29..................  1603
    Testimony of Alfred L. Fleming; Carl J. Lundmark; Earl Cragg;
      and Harry Falk.
Stockpiling and Metal Program, August 21.........................  1615
    Statement of Robert C. Miller.
Communist Infiltration Among Army Civilian Workers, August 31....  1625
    Testimony of Doris Walters Powell; Francesco Palmiero; and
      Albert E. Feldman.
Communist Infiltration Among Army Civilian Workers, September 1..  1651
    Testimony of Cpt. Donald Joseph Kotch; Stanley Garber; Jacob
      W. Allen; Deton J. Brooks, Jr.; Col. Ralph M. Bauknight;
      Doris Walters Powell; Francesco Palmiero; Marvel Cooke; and
      Paul Cavanna.
Communist Infiltration Among Army Civilian Workers, September 2..  1695
    Testimony of Mary Columbo Palmiero; Col. Wallace W. Lindsay;
      Col. Wendell G. Johnson; Maj. Harold N. Krau; Louis Francis
      Budenz; Augustin Arrigo; and Muriel Silverberg.
Communist Infiltration Among Army Civilian Workers, September 3..  1729
    Testimony of John Stewart Service; Donald Joseph Kotch;
      Michael J. Lynch; and Jacob W. Allen.
Communist Infiltration Among Army Civilian Workers, September 8..  1745
    Testimony of H. Donald Murray.
Communist Infiltration Among Army Civilian Workers, September 9..  1777
    Testimony of Alexander Naimon; John Lautner; Esther Leenov
      Ferguson.
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--The United States Information Service
initially established a ``balanced presentation'' policy under
which books by controversial authors, including Communists,
would be stocked by its overseas libraries to reflect the
diversity of opinion in the United States and to preserve the
intellectual credibility of the collections. In 1952, the
Truman administration judged several books by the novelist
Howard Fast to be Communist propaganda and removed them from
the shelves although his other works remained. In January 1953,
the Eisenhower administration upheld the policy of balanced
collections but set criteria for defining books that might be
excluded.
    Between March and July 1953, the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations held extensive hearings, in both executive and
public session, that focused on the U.S. Information Libraries
worldwide. It examined the books that the libraries stocked,
and called some of the authors--including Howard Fast--to
testify. During the course of the investigation, chief counsel
Roy Cohn, and chief consultant David Schine, embarked on a
highly-publicized tour of the overseas libraries in major
European capitals, from April 4 to 21. Simultaneously, the
State Department ordered the removal of any books by Communist
authors or Communist sympathizers from the Information
Libraries' shelves. Hundreds of works of fiction and non-
fiction were discarded, and some were burned. In his
commencement address at Dartmouth College on June 13, President
Eisenhower told the students: ``Don't join the book burners.
Don't think you are going to conceal faults by concealing
evidence that they ever existed. Don't be afraid to go in your
library and read every book as long as any document does not
offend our own ideas of decency. That should be the only
censorship.''
    Mary M. Kaufman did not testify in public. Sol Auerbach
(who wrote as James S. Allen) and William Marx Mandel appeared
before the subcommittee in a televised public hearing on the
following day. During the open session, the chairman ordered
Mandel to identify publicly his current employer, information
that the witness had provided in executive session with the
request that it be kept confidential. Mandel complained that
the subcommittee had ``arrogated itself the right to exact
punishment, although it is not a court of law and deprives one
of due process of law. That punishment has ranged from fines
ranging from several thousand dollars in the case of people
dismissed up to the fact that you, Senator McCarthy, murdered
Raymond Kaplan by forcing him, driving him to the point where
he jumped under a truck. . . .'']
                              ----------
                         MONDAY, MARCH 23, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                        Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 3:00 p.m. in room 357 of the
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, chairman,
presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington; Senator Stuart
Symington, Democrat, Missouri.
    Present also: Claude I. Bakewell, former representative
from Missouri; Roy Cohn, chief counsel; Ruth Young Watt, chief
clerk.
    Mr. Cohn. Senator, this is William Z. Foster's attorney
Mrs. Kaufman.
    Do you have any objection to being sworn, Mrs. Kaufman?
  STATEMENT OF MARY M. KAUFMAN, ATTORNEY FOR WILLIAM Z. FOSTER
    Mrs. Kaufman. I don't see the necessity to be sworn simply
to explain why he isn't here. The facts I state are matters of
public record.
    Senator McClellan. I suggest this, Mr. Chairman. If this is
to be testimony, I think she should be sworn. If you are
willing to accept just a report from her as to why he is not
here, I should think that would be acceptable without her being
sworn.
    The Chairman. What are you prepared to present to us?
    Mrs. Kaufman. I simply wanted to advise the committee that
Mr. Foster is presently confined to the southern district of
New York under the terms of his bail, and because of that is
unable to appear. Now, that is a matter of public record. When
I reminded Mr. Cohn of the fact, he remembered that that was
so.
    In addition, I wanted to advise the committee that Mr.
Foster's health is such as not to permit him to appear before
this committee, and I have a statement from his physician to
that effect. The conclusion of the statement states that ``any
sudden strain or emotional excitation may provoke easily a
fatal cerebral or cardiac incident.'' And under these
circumstances, I would request that he be excused.
    The Chairman. May I ask counsel, number one: I assume the
first reason stated could be easily waived by the court.
    Mr. Cohn. No doubt about it.
    The Chairman. How about number two, the question of
illness?
    Mr. Cohn. That has been raised by Mr. Foster for some time,
I believe, since his original indictment in the summer of 1948.
He was granted a severance. There was a reexamination at my
request when I was in the Department of Justice a few months
ago. I am not aware that that motion was ever decided. Was it?
    Mrs. Kaufman. I don't believe the government took any
action.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, we did. We made a motion for another
physical examination, and I don't know whether there was ever a
ruling on whether he was well enough to stand trial.
    Senator McClellan. The first issue raised determines. You
do not have to pass upon the other.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, we can get that waived.
    Senator McClellan. I understand, but for the moment that
would settle it.
    The Chairman. He is definitely not in contempt for not
appearing today.
    Well, my thought is that he is not sufficiently important a
witness for the hearing that we should go to the trouble of
finding out whether he is in proper shape to appear or not. I
think the court is going to determine that in connection with
his criminal trial.
    Mr. Cohn. I was going to suggest this: Could we get from
Mr. Foster an affidavit answering the questions we want to put
to him?
    The Chairman. I think that might be a good idea. There is
no reason why he could not answer questions under oath.
    Mrs. Kaufman. I don't know. I would have to consult with
him in order to find out what he can or can not do.
    The Chairman. You are a notary public yourself, are you?
    Mrs. Kaufman. No, I am not.
    The Chairman. Let us leave it this way, then. Counsel can
prepare the interrogatories and submit them to the attorney,
with the orders that Mr. Foster answer them, unless counsel can
produce anything to indicate that that would adversely affect
his health. If no, we will go into that.
    Senator McClellan. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the
statement she brought from Mr. Foster and also from his
physician be filed.
    Mrs. Kaufman. Yes, I would like to place that in the
record, if I may.
    Senator McClellan. That does not have to go in the record.
    The Chairman. Those are merely accepted as exhibits.
    [A memorandum dated March 21, 1953, signed by Louis V.
Finger, M.D., 1056 Fifth Avenue, New York 28, New York, was
marked Kaufman Exhibit 1 and filed for the information of the
committee.]
    The Chairman. I want to thank you very much. And counsel
will prepare interrogatories to be submitted to Mr. Foster, to
be sent to you, and we will want you to have him answer those
and have him swear to them before a notary, unless you can
produce a doctor's certificate offering something that will
prove that that will adversely affect his health. We do not
want to kill off any of the witnesses.
    Mrs. Kaufman. I am sure of that, Senator.
    The Chairman. I want to thank you very much.
    Mrs. Kaufman. I am not in any position to state Mr.
Foster's agreement as to the interrogatories, but nevertheless
we can wait until we receive them to determine what action we
will take.
    The Chairman. It will be the order, as I say, that unless
you can produce some medical proof, either a doctor's affidavit
or whatever occurs to you to convince the committee that that
will adversely affect his health, the answers to the
interrogatories will be provided.
    Senator Symington. I would suggest that you suggest to Mr.
Foster that he try and answer the interrogatories to the best
of his ability.
    Mrs. Kaufman. Will you note my address? I don't think you
took it. It is 43 West 94th Street.
    The Chairman. Mr. Allen, will you stand and raise your
right hand? Will you stand, sir?
    In this matter now in hearing, do you solemnly swear to
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
    Mr. Auerbach. I do.
    The Chairman. Will you identify your counsel?
TESTIMONY OF SOL AUERBACH (JAMES S. ALLEN) (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS
                     COUNSEL, JOSEPH FORER)
    Mr. Auerbach. My counsel is Mr. Joe Forer of Washington.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that F-o-r-e-r?
    Mr. Auerbach. F-o-r-e-r.
    The Chairman. Mr. Allen, under the rules of the
subcommittee, you are entitled to have a conference with your
lawyer at any time you care to. If something comes up which you
think is of such a nature that you want to have a place to
discuss the matter with him confidentially, we will arrange
either another room or some place where you can get some
privacy. We do not allow the attorney to take part in the
proceedings, other than to advise you. If the attorney thinks
that a question is objectionable, he is free to tell you that,
and fully advise you at any time during the proceedings.
    Mr. Cohn. Give us your full name, please, Mr. Allen.
    Mr. Auerbach. My name is Sol Auerbach, A-u-e-r-b-a-c-h.
    Mr. Cohn. And you write under the name of James S. Allen;
is that right?
    Mr. Auerbach. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your address?
    Mr. Auerbach. 134 East Hudson Street, Long Beach, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you want to be called, Mr. Auerbach or
Mr. Allen?
    Mr. Auerbach. Either way.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you employed?
    Mr. Auerbach. I refuse to answer that, on the basis of my
constitutional privilege.
    Senator Symington. You refuse to answer where you are
employed on that basis?
    Mr. Auerbach. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You are employed, are you not, Mr. Allen, at
International Publishers, the official publishing house of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Auerbach. I refuse to answer that question on the same
ground.
    The Chairman. You refuse to answer on the grounds that your
answer might incriminate you?
    Mr. Auerbach. That is the reason, as it may be put. I
prefer to say----
    Senator McClellan. How do you put it?
    Mr. Auerbach. I would say that I have a constitutional
privilege under the Fifth Amendment not to bear witness against
myself and not to be a witness against myself.
    The Chairman. You have that privilege, as long as you
honestly believe that if you truthfully answered a question it
might tend to incriminate you. You do not have that privilege
if you would incriminate yourself by perjury, you understand.
It is only if you tell the committee that you honestly feel
that a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you. Then you
have the right to refuse to answer. You understand that?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think I understand that.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Allen, let me ask you this: Where was
the subpoena served on you? Just the street address?
    Mr. Auerbach. At Fourth Avenue.
    Mr. Cohn. 381 Fourth Avenue?
    Mr. Auerbach. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that the headquarters of the Communist party
of the United States?
    Mr. Auerbach. It is not the headquarters of the Communist
party of the United States.
    Mr. Cohn. I didn't get that.
    Mr. Auerbach. It is not the headquarters of the Communist
party of the United States.
    Mr. Cohn. I see. Is that the building in which are located
offices or organizations officially connected with the
Communist party of the United States?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think I will refuse to answer that question
on the same grounds previously stated.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are the headquarters of the Communist party
located?
    Mr. Auerbach. I really don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. They moved recently, did they not? You might have
read that in the public press if you do not know it some other
way.
    Mr. Auerbach. That is more or less public knowledge, I
think.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Allen, let me ask you this: Has the Communist
party gone underground recently? Is the location of the present
headquarters of the Communist party secret, as far as you know?
    Mr. Auerbach. As far as I know, it is no secret.
    Mr. Cohn. And you say you can't tell us where it is?
    Mr. Auerbach. I just don't happen to know where it is.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you visited the Communist party headquarters
recently?
    Mr. Auerbach. I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever visit Communist party headquarters?
    Mr. Auerbach. I will refrain from answering that, on the
same ground as previously stated.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you the author of a book called World
Monopoly and Peace? \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ James S. Allen, World Monopoly and Peace (New York:
International Publishers, 1946).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Auerbach. I am.
    Mr. Cohn. And you are the James S. Allen who wrote that
book?
    Mr. Auerbach. Yes, that is a copy of the book.
    Mr. Cohn. You say it is a copy.
    Mr. Auerbach. It is.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, I notice that that book is published by
International Publishers. Is that the official publishing house
of the Communist party?
    Mr. Auerbach. I refuse to answer that question on the same
grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. When you wrote that book, Mr. Allen, were you a
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Auerbach. I refuse to answer that question, on the same
grounds as previously stated.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you write that book?
    Mr. Auerbach. I wrote that book in '45, I believe, 1945.
    Mr. Cohn. At the time you wrote that book, did you favor
the Soviet Union against the United States of America?
    Mr. Auerbach. I have always favored the United States of
America.
    Mr. Cohn. If the United States of America were at war with
the Soviet Union, would you fight for the United States against
the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Auerbach. If we were the victim of aggression, I would.
    Mr. Cohn. I didn't ask you the circumstances. I said: If
the United States declared a state of war against the Soviet
Union, would you, as an American citizen, fight against the
Soviet Union?
    Mr. Auerbach. I would say that would depend on the
circumstances of the war.
    Mr. Cohn. I am not asking about the circumstances of the
war. I asked for a categorical answer. If the Congress of the
United States declared war against the Soviet Union----
    Senator Jackson [continuing]. As provided for by the
Constitution.
    Mr. Cohn [continuing]. Would you fight for the United
States?
    Mr. Auerbach. I have been in the American army and fought
in a war.
    Mr. Cohn. You didn't understand my question. If the
Congress of the United States declared war against the Soviet
Union, would you fight for the United States? ``Yes'' or
``no''?
    Mr. Auerbach. I cannot conceive of such a war.
    Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I think the witness is
getting very close to contempt of the committee.
    Mr. Auerbach. May I consult with my attorney?
    [Mr. Auerbach confers with Mr. Forer.]
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, I think I have answered the question.
    The Chairman. I do not think you have answered.
    Mr. Auerbach. May I repeat my answer?
    Mr. Cohn. Why don't I repeat the question? It will make it
simpler. The question is this: If the Congress of the United
States, for any reason, as provided by the Constitution, were
to declare war against the Soviet Union, would you fight
against the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, I answered that.
    Mr. Cohn. Can we have a ``yes'' or ``no'' answer? That is a
very simple question.
    Mr. Auerbach. I can't answer yes or no, because it would
depend on the circumstances of the war. There is not every war
that one would support.
    Mr. Cohn. You mean as an American citizen you can conceive
of a war declared by the official representatives of the
Congress of the United States pursuant to the Constitution
which you would not support?
    Mr. Auerbach. Which I may think to be an unjust war, not
worthy of the support of a patriotic American. And I think I
would have the privilege to be opposed to that war.
    The Chairman. Are there some circumstances under which you
would join the military forces and fight against the Soviet
Union if war were declared?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think if we were the victim of aggression
by the Soviet Union or any other power, I would fight for the
defense of the United States.
    Senator Symington. If the war, in your opinion, were
unjustified on the part of the United States, would you accept
money to be a spy for a foreign country that was fighting
against the United States?
    Mr. Auerbach. I would not.
    Senator Symington. Would you be a spy, without money?
    Mr. Auerbach. I would not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in espionage against the
United States?
    Mr. Auerbach. I certainly have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a representative of the
Communist International?
    Mr. Auerbach. I must refuse to answer that question on the
same grounds as previously stated.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you go to the Philippines for the Communist
International in 1939?
    Mr. Auerbach. I must refuse to answer the question, on the
same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you take a trip to the Philippines in 1939?
    Mr. Auerbach. I refuse to answer, on the same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you take a trip financed by the Communist
party?
    Mr. Auerbach. I must refuse to answer, on the same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you take a trip to Mexico in the interest of
the Communist International?
    Mr. Auerbach. My answer is the same.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that trip financed by the Communist party?
    Mr. Auerbach. My answer remains the same.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you foreign editor of the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Auerbach. I can't answer that question, on the same
grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you at this time a member of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Auerbach. I do not answer that question, on the same
ground as previously stated.
    Senator Symington. If you are a member of the Communist
party, why are you ashamed or afraid to say so?
    Mr. Auerbach. Because the purpose of the question is quite
different. I am not saying that I am or am not a member. I am
not saying I am or am not a member of the Communist party.
    Senator Jackson. Are you saying you never were a member of
the Communist party?
    Mr. Auerbach. I am refusing to answer that question, on the
ground----
    Senator Symington. My point is that all we are trying to do
is clarify who is for or against the United States. It would
have been possible for you to be a member of the Communist
party and then to have felt that was wrong and to have
resigned. What the counsel asked was: Are you a member now? And
you have refused to answer, which, of course makes us believe
that you are a member of the Communist party.
    Mr. Auerbach. You have no ground for believing that, on the
basis of my answer.
    Senator Symington. Then why are you afraid or ashamed to
answer the question?
    Mr. Auerbach. I am not afraid or ashamed.
    Senator Symington. Then why do you not answer it?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think it violates my constitutional right
under the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Symington. Why do you want to take refuge behind
your constitutional rights unless you are ashamed or afraid of
admitting membership?
    Mr. Auerbach. Because the purpose of these questions is
something quite different.
    Senator Jackson. What purpose could this committee have but
to properly obtain information with reference to your
activities? You are not incriminating yourself if you say you
are a member of the Communist party. There is nothing that I
know of on the statute books that says that a member of the
Communist party, per se, is in violation of the law. It is only
if you conspire, together with others, to overthrow the
government by force and violence. You could be a member of the
Communist party, if I understand the laws of this country
correctly, and testify here under oath and say you are a
member, but that you do not agree to overthrow of the
government by force and violence, and you would not incriminate
yourself.
    The Chairman. I may say, Senator Jackson, that as I
understand the law, merely being a member of the Communist
party does not make you guilty of a crime unless it can be
shown that you are aware of the objectives of the Communist
party.
    Senator Jackson. And that you acquiesce in those
objectives.
    Mr. Cohn. I don't think it is acquiescence; it is
knowledge.
    Senator Jackson. Well, you would have to know about them.
    The Chairman. And remaining a member after you know the
objectives.
    So that he does have the right, I think, without any doubt.
    Senator Jackson. I agree that he has the right.
    Senator Symington. I agree that he has the right, but I do
not see why, if he is a member of the Communist party, he is
ashamed or afraid of admitting it.
    Senator Jackson. Shall we get an answer to the original
question, about bearing arms?
    Mr. Cohn. We never have had a categorical answer to that.
    The Chairman. I think maybe he has answered that. He says
he would himself decide what terms and conditions under which
he would serve in the military forces, and while we may
disagree with the answer, I think he has perhaps answered it.
He says he can't answer it ``yes'' or ``no.''
    Senator McClellan. May I ask a question?
    Do you believe in the overthrow of the United States
government by force and violence?
    Mr. Auerbach. I do not.
    Senator McClellan. Do you belong to any organization,
political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the
government of the United States by force and violence?
    Mr. Auerbach. I do not. In my opinion, I do not belong to
any such organization.
    Senator McClellan. In your opinion, you do not. Is that
what you said?
    Mr. Auerbach. Yes.
    Senator McClellan. I am trying to understand it. Do you
know that the Communist party does favor the overthrow of the
United States government by violence?
    Mr. Auerbach. There seems to be quite a lot of difference
on that question, sir.
    Senator McClellan. Do you know that it does?
    Mr. Auerbach. No. In my opinion they do not.
    Senator Jackson. You are familiar with the Supreme Court
decision?
    Mr. Auerbach. I am.
    Senator Jackson. The last one, the Dennis case, in which
the court so found?
    Mr. Auerbach. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of public
opinion that does not agree with that, sir.
    Senator McClellan. Is it your opinion that the Communist
party does not advocate the overthrow of the government of the
United States by force and violence?
    Mr. Auerbach. That is my opinion, sir.
    Senator McClellan. You state that under oath?
    Mr. Auerbach. I state that under oath.
    Senator McClellan. On the contrary, do you not know, when I
ask you to state that under oath, that it does advocate the
overthrow of the United States government by force and
violence? Do you not know it?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think I answered your question, Senator.
    Senator McClellan. I do not think you did.
    Mr. Auerbach. I gave you my opinion.
    Senator McClellan. You gave me your opinion. I ask you now
if you do not know it. Not an opinion, but do you not know it?
    Mr. Auerbach. I believe that they do not stand for violent
overthrow of the government by force and violence.
    Senator McClellan. Then you mean to state by that answer
that you do not know it?
    Mr. Auerbach. That is not what I said, sir.
    Senator McClellan. Well, do you say you do know it, or do
not know it?
    Mr. Auerbach. According to my knowledge, they do not stand
for the violent overthrow of the government.
    Senator McClellan. Then, according to your knowledge, they
do not. Then you mean you do not know it. Is that what you are
saying? I know it has got you a little worried, but I am asking
you: Do you know it?
    Mr. Auerbach. I am not worried, Senator. I am trying to
understand your question.
    Senator McClellan. You do understand it. I asked you: Do
you not know it? And you said you ``believe.'' I am asking you,
contrary to what you say you believe, if you do not know it as
a matter of fact that you have personal knowledge of.
    [Mr. Auerbach confers with Mr. Forer.]
    Mr. Auerbach. I do not know it.
    Senator McClellan. All right. You say you do not know it.
    Mr. Auerbach. I do not.
    Senator Jackson. And do you know whether in the past the
Communist party has advocated the overthrow of the government
by force and violence?
    Mr. Auerbach. I do not believe it has.
    Senator Jackson. That is your opinion?
    Mr. Auerbach. That is my opinion.
    Senator Jackson. And that is what you believe?
    Mr. Auerbach. That is what I believe.
    Senator Symington. Mr. Allen, I am interested in this. Do
you believe that the Communist party is run from Moscow?
    Mr. Auerbach. My belief is that it is not run from Moscow.
    Senator Symington. Do you believe the Communist party in
this country runs itself? Or is it run from Moscow?
    Mr. Auerbach. I believe it runs itself.
    Senator Symington. It runs itself, without any control from
Moscow?
    Mr. Auerbach. I believe there is no control from Moscow.
    Senator Symington. Do you believe in the anti-Semitic
purges that have recently developed in the countries behind the
Iron Curtain? Do you approve of that?
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't believe there are anti-Semitic
purges.
    Senator Symington. You do not believe there are anti-
Semitic purges?
    Mr. Auerbach. No.
    Senator Symington. You think that is just propaganda on the
part of the capitalistic press?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think that it is misinformation about the
situation, combined with propaganda, which is quite appropriate
to the cold war from the viewpoint of those who would like to
wage that war.
    Senator Symington. So if I follow you, you believe that
these reports about anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union and its
satellites are incorrect. Is that right?
    Mr. Auerbach. I believe they are absolutely incorrect.
    Senator McCllelan. You said, now, that you do not believe
that the Communist party in the United States is run by Moscow
or controlled from Russia. Now I want to ask you the question.
Do you not know that it is?
    Mr. Auerbach. I do not know.
    Senator Jackson. In your opinion, is the Communist party in
the United States under any orders from outside the United
States?
    Mr. Auerbach. In my opinion, it is under no orders.
    Senator Jackson. Has it been in the past?
    Mr. Auerbach. I do not believe it has.
    Senator Jackson. Has Jacques Duclos ever had any influence
on operations of the Communist party of the United States.
    Mr. Auerbach. As far as I know, he has had no direct
influence over it. I would like to make it clear that I am no
authority on the question.
    Senator Jackson. Was Browder removed by totally an American
action, or was he removed by reason of action taken by the
Cominform in 1945? Can you answer the question?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think that action was taken here.
    Senator Jackson. Did the Cominform or other similar
apparatus of the International Communist Organization have
anything to do with action taken here?
    Mr. Auerbach. Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment at this
point?
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    Mr. Auerbach. I am not clear what this committee is after.
I know that this is a subcommittee for the investigation of
government operations, and I assumed that when I received the
subpoena it was in connection with such investigations.
    The Chairman. You are entitled to inquire the purpose of
the question. I will inform you of the purpose.
    We are presently investigating the background of some of
the individuals who have been doing work for the Voice of
America information program. We find that your works have been
used. We appropriate, oh, a huge amount of money. I think the
budget this year calls for $100-million some-odd to fight
communism throughout the world. So we are curious to know what
Communist authors or members of the Communist party are being
utilized in this fight, and the purpose of their being used. We
must inquire into your background therefor.
    Senator Jackson. We want to inquire into the operation of
the Communist party, your knowledge of it, here and abroad as
it affects the program.
    The Chairman. That is correct.
    Senator Jackson. Now, did you answer the question I put to
you a moment ago?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, I would like to make it clear that my
answer to any of these questions is merely the opinion of an
individual, and that for expert knowledge on the matter you
would have to seek somewhere else.
    Senator Jackson. I understand you to say under oath that
you have no knowledge of the workings of the Communist party?
    Mr. Auerbach. I did not say that.
    Senator Jackson. Well, can you answer that question?
    Mr. Auerbach. I claim my privilege under the Fifth
Amendment.
    Senator Symington. Will you yield a minute there?
    Senator Jackson. Yes.
    Senator Symington. You appear questioning, or irritated or
resentful, at the questions that are asked you, and you want to
make a statement. I feel irritated, questioning, and resentful
to any American citizen who is asked up here questions with
respect to the Communist party and either is ashamed or so
afraid or so arrogant with respect to the right of the Congress
that he does not answer those questions, does not want to
answer them, on the grounds that it might violate his rights
under the Fifth Amendment. I want to make very clear to you my
position with respect to your testimony. And I do not think
anybody is more anxious to have civil rights and civil
liberties perpetuated under our system.
    Mr. Auerbach. Senator, may I comment on what you say?
    Senator Symington. You certainly can.
    Mr. Auerbach. I am not disrespectful of the Congress of the
United States. I have no feeling of arrogance, in my attitude.
In my opinion it seems quite clear that anticommunism has
served as a cover for a struggle against and a suppression of
civil liberties. That is my position. And therefore I don't
want in any way to further such aims. Anticommunism has
historically served that purpose abroad. It served it in
Germany. It served it in Italy. It served it in Japan. And it
is serving it here.
    Senator Jackson. And communism in Russia serves to promote
civil liberties?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think they have aims of their own that are
quite apart from the aims of----
    The Chairman. The question was: Do you think that the
Communists are promoting the cause of civil liberties?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think they are. I think there are liberties
in the Soviet Union which we don't enjoy here.
    Senator Jackson. Can you say what right--I am not talking
now about what may be in some document--what right a citizen
has in the Soviet Union to a trial by jury?
    Mr. Auerbach. He has quite a number of rights of trial that
would be surprising to many Americans. There are courts, from
the lowest branches of the judiciary to the very highest where
a citizen has an opportunity to be heard by a jury of his peers
and by judges chosen by himself.
    The Chairman. Do you think the judicial system in Communist
Russia is superior to the judicial system in this country?
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't think it is a question of superior or
not. A judicial system meets certain needs.
    The Chairman. The question originally asked of you, Mr.
Allen, was whether you felt that communism was serving the
cause of promoting civil liberties, and then you went into the
judicial system. My question now is: Do you think the judicial
system in Russia is superior to that of this country in so far
as the preservation of civil liberties is concerned?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think that they are very much concerned
with the preservation of civil liberties in their judicial
system as well as under the Constitution.
    Senator Jackson. Hitler made some announcements, too, that
they were concerned about them, but they did not have them.
    The Chairman. Would you fight, if you were called upon to
fight, today, in the Korean War, on our side, if a draft board
called you up?
    Mr. Auerbach. I am opposed to that war. I think it is an
unjust war.
    Senator McClellan. On whose part is it unjust? On America's
part? Or on that of Red China?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, I believe that we had no business over
there.
    Senator McClellan. Do you think that Red China has any
business in there?
    Mr. Auerbach. I believe we were there before Red China was
there.
    Senator McClellan. That is right. What is your position as
to Red China? Do you think she is fighting an unjust war?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think Red China is probably concerned with
her security. If we had a foreign power down in Mexico or in
Cuba, we would be very much concerned about it.
    Senator McClellan. Is there any position you can take that
would at all criticize or condemn communism in the Soviet
Union? Is there one single criticism you have of it? Can you
think of one?
    Mr. Auerbach. There might be various criticisms of
something.
    Senator McClellan. There might be, and if you can think of
them, I would like to have you put it on the record right now.
    Mr. Auerbach. You would very much like to see that,
Senator.
    Senator McClellan. Yes, I would like to see it, if you have
any criticism at all; if you are a good American, as you say,
and have any criticism of it, I would like you to place it on
the record.
    Mr. Auerbach. But my concern is this country, not the
Soviet Union. I am an American citizen, born in the United
States and interested in this country.
    Senator McClellan. That is your words. But I might say to
you your actions do not conform to your words.
    Mr. Auerbach. You are entitled to your opinion, and I am
entitled to mine.
    The Chairman. I am going to order the witness to answer the
question.
    Mr. Allen, you were asked whether you could think of any
criticism of communism. Your works were being used, you see, by
the information program to fight communism. So if you have any
criticism of communism, Mr. McClellan wants to know what that
criticism is. You are ordered to answer that question. If you
have no criticism, you can tell us.
    Mr. Auerbach. You say to be used by the information
program?
    The Chairman. You understand our government is paying for
your works.
    Mr. Auerbach. I didn't know that.
    The Chairman. Well, let me tell you they are. They are
distributing your books for the purpose of fighting communism.
Now, in view of the fact that your works are being used to
fight communism, I think Senator McClellan's question is very
pertinent. His question is: Can you think of any criticism
which you have of communism? If so, tell us what it is.
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, I believe any criticism that I might
have of communism as a system of society would pertain to the
speed of its development and how effectively it meets the
requirements of a socialist and a Communist society. That is,
in other words, that it wouldn't fall within the framework of
the questioning, the line of questioning, that is being
developed here.
    The Chairman. In other words, you have no criticism of the
objectives of communism. You merely might criticize the speed
with which they are arriving at the objectives?
    Mr. Auerbach. I am all for the objectives of socialism and
communism, and I believe that is the form of society that we
will come to, too.
    Senator McClellan. So you are an advocate of communism and
you say this country is ultimately coming to communism. Is that
correct? Is that not what you just said?
    Mr. Auerbach. That is my opinion as a student of history,
that we will develop along that line.
    Senator McClellan. That is what I want. That is your
opinion. You favor the Communist objectives, and you believe
they are coming to America. Is that your statement?
    Mr. Auerbach. I believe that when the majority of the
American people want it, they will get it, and nothing will
stop them.
    Senator McClellan. That is not the question. The question
was this: As I understood you, your answer was that you believe
in the objectives of communism. Did you say that, or not?
    Mr. Auerbach. I believe that the objectives of Communist
society are just and proper for the world as a whole, and we
will eventually obtain them.
    The Chairman. Then you would feel that one of your
functions, as a loyal American, would be to promote the cause
of communism?
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't believe that that is a problem we
face at the moment, and I don't believe that it is a realistic
objective to hold forth at the moment. If a time should arise
that socialism, as a first stage of communism, should become
the order of the day, then it will be up to the American people
to decide that.
    The Chairman. You apparently do not understand my question,
or maybe you prefer not to answer it. You have told us that you
favor the objectives of the Communist movement, and you think
it is essentially just, et cetera. My question is then, this:
Do you then feel, as a loyal American, that one of your tasks
is to further the cause of communism, so that we may ultimately
have a Communist society in the United States?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think it is my duty as a loyal American to
support what I believe is best for the people. And at the
present moment, what is best for the people is that we have
peace, that we protect our democratic rights. Those are the
immediate objectives that stare us in the face right now.
    The Chairman. You understand, Mr. Allen, I am not trying to
tell you what you should advocate. I am not trying to tell you
that communism as you view it is right or wrong, that is, for
the purposes of this examination I am not. You are entitled to
think whatever you care to think. You are entitled to work for
a socialistic state in this country, if you work for it without
an attempt to overthrow this government by force and violence.
I am merely trying to find out what you do advocate, you see.
    Now, do I understand that your feeling is that the
Communist state is superior to our capitalistic form of
government?
    Mr. Auerbach. If I may, I would like to answer you as a
student of history and not as a political worker or as one who
is directing his answer to what is politically feasible at this
particular moment. As a student of history, it seems to me that
all of society will develop in that direction. Whatever form it
might take in this country, I don't know. I don't think anybody
could tell you what form it would take.
    The Chairman. I am going to insist that you answer that
question.
    Mr. Auerbach. That is my answer, sir.
    The Chairman. Will you read the question, Mr. Reporter?
    [The reporter read the pending question.]
    Mr. Auerbach. Yes. As I have explained, I think that a
Communist state would be superior to a capitalist state.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this. Do you feel that
communism as practiced in Russia today is superior to our form
of government?
    Mr. Auerbach. I would say that communism as practiced in
Russia today is superior to any previous form of government.
Now, it may be that communism as it will be practiced here some
time in the future may be superior to that.
    Senator Jackson. He has not answered the question.
    The Chairman. I will insist that you answer the question.
    Mr. Auerbach. As a form of society, I think it is
superior--I am answering your question directly, Senator--I
think it is superior, because of the fact that exploitation is
no longer there, that the society is not run for profit, and
that it does open the way to a form of society where everyone
can give according to his ability and receive according to his
need.
    Senator McClellan. Do you associate with that view an
expression on slave labor camps in Russia?
    Mr. Auerbach. I believe that is the part of the cold war
propaganda
    Senator Jackson. You do not believe it exists?
    Mr. Auerbach. I believe that they have penal camps, and
that they have a form of prison reform which might include
labor camps.
    Senator Jackson. Do you think the slave labor camps in the
Soviet Union are examples relating to penal reform?
    Mr. Auerbach. From what I know, it seems to me that they
are work camps where they attempt to rehabilitate prisoners,
and so on.
    Senator Jackson. It is to rehabilitate them, to build them
up, that these slave labor camps are maintained?
    Mr. Auerbach. According to my information on the subject.
    The Chairman. Were you acquainted with Reed Harris?
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't know the name at all.
    The Chairman. Pardon?
    Mr. Auerbach. Reed Harris? No. I don't know the name, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you read the newspapers lately about Mr.
Reed Harris, who was connected with the information program?
    Mr. Auerbach. No.
    The Chairman. That name does not strike a bell?
    Mr. Auerbach. It doesn't strike any chord, no.
    The Chairman. Do you recall that you ever addressed a
meeting at which Reed Harris was one of the speakers, and Mr.
Donald Henderson was the other speaker?
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't recall any such meeting.
    Mr. Cohn. November 25,1932, involving a Professor Leo
Gallagher, who had been expelled from the faculty of the
University of California.
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't recall any such meeting.
    The Chairman. Does that name ``Gallagher'' refresh your
recollection?
    Mr. Auerbach. It does not.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Donald Henderson?
    Mr. Auerbach. I will refuse to answer that, on the ground
of----
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man named Oakley Johnson?
    Mr. Auerbach. The same answer there.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you deny that you, Henderson, Johnson, and
Reed Harris addressed this meeting?
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't deny it. I just don't recall such a
meeting.
    Senator Symington. Recently a man died, Stalin. Do you
think he was a great man?
    Mr. Auerbach. I certainly do. I think he was a great man.
    Senator Symington. Once he was supposed to have been asked
how many people he had to kill in order to effect the Kulak
revolution in Russia. And he answered, presumably: ``Ten
million in four years. It was awful.'' Do you think there was
anything in that question and answer?
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't know what authority you are quoting,
Senator. It sounds to me like the kind of question and answer
that someone would use who had some other purpose in mind.
    Senator Symington. Well, it was in Time magazine, and I
read it, and I just wondered what you thought of it. You do
think, in order to have a society like there is in Russia
today, it is proper to starve or kill people to any great
extent to get it? Do you think it is worth that much? Would you
be in favor of the purges that have gone on in Russia in order
to get what is in Russia?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, you are asking me something that is
very difficult to answer.
    Senator Symington. I see that.
    Mr. Auerbach. It is very difficult.
    Senator Symington. But my impression was that you felt that
in Russia today they had a better system than we have here. Do
you think that the means that they went to to get that system,
which involved the destruction of a great deal of property and
a great many lives, was proper, under the man that you say you
think was a very great man?
    Mr. Auerbach. I think that a great deal of that has been
exaggerated. But undoubtedly there was a great deal of violence
connected with the revolution in Russia, as there is in any
revolution.
    Senator Symington. And since the revolution? Would you say
since the revolution?
    Mr. Auerbach. And undoubtedly there was some since the
revolution, although I think that a great deal of that is
exaggerated and used for propaganda purposes.
    Senator Jackson. In other words, if there is anything that
is really adverse that comes out in the paper about the Soviet
Union, you think for the most part that is pretty much
propaganda?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, I wouldn't put it that way at all. I
think that a great deal of it is propaganda, and a great deal
of it is a part of the so called psychological war of nerves.
    Senator Symington. Would you be willing to undertake a
reasonable amount of purging in this country in order to get
our system up to the standard of the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Auerbach. I would not be willing to undertake anything
of the kind.
    Senator Symington. So that you think it could be right over
there and wrong over here; is that it?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, I believe this country has a different
future ahead of it, and that its development will take place on
a basis of what is here, not what took place in the Soviet
Union or anywhere else.
    Senator Jackson. You have stated, Mr. Allen, that when a
majority of the people of the United States desire the
Communist form of government, they will have it. Are you
suggesting to the committee that that is the way communism
comes into being in a given country?
    Mr. Auerbach. What I am suggesting is that I believe that
communism--By the way, in order to have our terms straight,
when I speak of communism, strictly speaking, that is not the
form of society they have in the Soviet Union.
    Senator Jackson. I know. I will come to that in a minute.
    Mr. Auerbach. What they have there is a form of socialism.
And when that was established, in 1917, as you know, it was the
result of a revolution, and a rather violent revolution. Not
that it was the will of the Russian Communists that it should
take place that way.
    As you know, there were others that were interested in
preventing that revolution.
    Senator Jackson. Can you name a country where a majority of
the people have voted for communism, have voted it in?
    Mr. Auerbach. I believe that the majority of the people in
old Russia wanted it, or they wouldn't have had it. It would
have been impossible for them to obtain power.
    Senator Jackson. Can you name a country where the majority
of the people voted in communism? You testified here earlier
that when a majority of the American people wanted communism
they would have it, and you have also testified that you are
opposed to using force and violence to achieve that objective.
    Mr. Auerbach. That all depends on what you mean by ``voted
in.'' Well, the actual process may not have been through the
ballot; that is, a voting in.
    Senator Jackson. Well, how is it going to come into being?
    Mr. Auerbach. That depends on what the circumstances in the
country are. I certainly am no soothsayer and don't know how
things are going to happen here.
    Senator Jackson. Let us see if I can get your position
straight, because I think this is important. Do you believe
that the Communist society, as distinguished from the Soviet
Union--You are talking about the communist society as an ideal
objective. I assume that is it.
    Mr. Auerbach. The next stage of social development, yes.
    Senator Jackson. Do you say that that should come into
existence in a given country through the normal democratic
process? Or should it come into being through the use of force
and violence?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, I would say that it can come into being
through the normal democratic process. I don't see any reason
why it can't.
    Senator Jackson. Has it ever so come into being in any
country?
    Mr. Auerbach. Unless there is such opposition to it----
    Senator Jackson. Has it ever come into being in a country
without force or violence?
    Mr. Auerbach. That all depends. Now, China, of course, is
not a socialist country.
    Senator Jackson. What is it?
    Mr. Auerbach. It is what is known as a people's democracy,
and it is on the way to socialism.
    Senator Jackson. It is a people's democracy. Well, I would
like for you, if you can, for the benefit of this committee, to
give us one country where communism has come in by the means
that you apparently advocate, namely, peaceful means.
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, the Soviets took power largely by
peaceful means.
    Senator Jackson. You are a student of history. That is why
I ask you the question.
    Mr. Auerbach. It took part largely by peaceful means. The
violence took place after the taking of power, largely.
    Senator Jackson. I take it that your testimony is that the
present regime in Russia, and the previous regime, came into
existence by reason of the utilization of peaceful means. I
believe that is your testimony. Is that your testimony?
    Mr. Auerbach. In Russia, in general, yes. That is what took
place.
    Senator Jackson. And you are a student of history.
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, I consider myself something of a
student of history.
    Senator Jackson. And how did it come into being in
Czechoslovakia?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, it came after a war, did it not?
    Senator Jackson. I say, did it come by democratic process?
    Mr. Auerbach. It came after a war, and the Czechoslovakian
government was established by a democratic process.
    Senator Jackson. Which government are you talking about?
The Communist government?
    Mr. Auerbach. The one that is in power now.
    Senator Jackson. And they have a democratic government in
Czechoslovakia?
    Mr. Auerbach. They have a people's form of democracy.
    Senator Jackson. And communism came into being in
Czechoslovakia, or what you call a people's form of democracy,
through peaceful, democratic means?
    Mr. Auerbach. That is what took place throughout eastern
Europe.
    Senator Jackson. Will you answer the question?
    Mr. Auerbach. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. It came by peaceful means?
    Mr. Auerbach. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. And it took place in the Soviet Union the
same way?
    Mr. Auerbach. Not in exactly the same form.
    Senator Jackson. By peaceful means, though?
    Mr. Auerbach. It came into power peacefully.
    Senator Jackson. You are a marvelous student of history.
    Senator McClellan. You said it came into power in Russia by
peaceful means, and that the violence took place afterwards, I
believe?
    Mr. Auerbach. The violence took place, and a counter-
revolution arose.
    Senator McClellan. The violence you refer to: Do you
associate the purges with that?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, I don't know what you mean by
``purges,'' Senator.
    Senator Jackson. The Czar gave up peacefully?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, the Czar was out. You know, the Czar
wasn't there when the Soviets took power.
    Senator Jackson. I am talking about the Czarist regime.
    Mr. Auerbach. He had already been executed.
    Senator Jackson. But that was a peaceful execution?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, he had been executed while the Kerensky
government was in power.
    Senator Jackson. And how did they get rid of the Kerensky
government?
    Mr. Auerbach. They were voted out by the congress of
Soviets.
    Senator McClellan. They were voted out by bullets, were
they not?
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, they are the ones that brought bullets
in, weren't they? They were the ones that organized the
counter-revolutionary elements.
    Senator Jackson. You are familiar with the statement in
Pravda recently, in which they announced that there is a
Zionist plot in the Soviet Union. Do you go along with that
statement?
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't know all the circumstances involved
there, and I haven't followed that too closely. But I do know
this, that over a long period of years the Communists in the
Soviet Union have fought Zionism. And this is nothing new in
their policy.
    Senator Jackson. And are you in favor of that?
    Mr. Auerbach. Zionism as a reactionary form of
nationalism--it does have its dangerous aspects.
    Senator Jackson. You are opposed to Zionism as such?
    Mr. Auerbach. I am opposed to Zionism as a philosophy and a
program, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever disagree with anything in Pravda
that you read?
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't read Pravda.
    The Chairman. You say you do not read Pravda?
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't read Pravda.
    Mr. Cohn. You read translations of articles from Pravda
don't you?
    Mr. Auerbach. Very occasionally. Those that are reported in
the newspaper.
    The Chairman. When you were foreign editor of the Daily
Worker, did you ever read translations of articles from Pravda?
    Mr. Auerbach. May I consult with my lawyer?
    [Mr. Auerbach confers with Mr. Forer.]
    Mr. Auerbach. I will refuse to answer that question,
Senator, on the grounds previously indicated.
    Senator McClellan. I have one more question, Mr. Chairman.
    I believe in the beginning of your testimony you refused to
answer whether you were a Communist or not, on the ground that
it might incriminate you.
    Mr. Auerbach. Substantially, yes.
    Senator McClellan. In view of the admissions you have made
here with respect to your views, do you now insist that it
might incriminate you if you answer that question?
    Mr. Auerbach. You mean if you were to ask me the question
now?
    Senator McClellan. I will ask it again, and ask you whether
you think it would incriminate you now, in view of the
testimony you have already given.
    Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Auerbach. My answer would remain the same as
previously.
    Senator McClellan. You refuse to answer on the ground that
it might incriminate you?
    Mr. Auerbach. On the ground of my constitutional privilege
under the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator McClellan. Well, are you sincere in believing it
might incriminate you if you answered truthfully?
    Mr. Auerbach. If I answered truthfully and sincerely.
    Senator McClellan. I ask you now: Are you of the opinion
that it might incriminate you if you answered the question
truthfully?
    Mr. Auerbach. May I consult?
    [Mr. Auerbach confers with Mr. Forer.]
    Mr. Auerbach. It might tend to.
    The Chairman. That was not the question.
    Senator McClellan. No, I am asking you if you are sincere--
--
    Mr. Auerbach. I am sincere.
    Senator McClellan [continuing]. In making the statement
that you are afraid it might incriminate you.
    Mr. Auerbach. That it might tend to incriminate me, yes.
    Senator McClellan. Do you think it would add any particular
force to the testimony you have already given as to whether you
are a Communist or not?
    Mr. Auerbach. I don't quite understand your question.
    Senator McClellan. In other words, do you not think you
have already admitted in the record that you subscribe to all
of the philosophy and the objectives of communism? Have you not
already admitted it?
    Mr. Auerbach. What I have done, of course, is discuss my
opinions and my beliefs.
    Senator McClellan. You have pointed out that there is a
difference in your opinion----
    Mr. Auerbach. I believe it was Senator McCarthy who said I
had a right to any opinion or belief.
    Senator McClellan. You have. I am not questioning that.
    What I am saying is: Is there any difference between the
beliefs you have expressed, and communism? You say you do not
want to answer whether you are a Communist or not. Can you
point out any difference in the opinions you have expressed
here as your beliefs, and what the Communist party stands for?
Can you point out any?
    [Mr. Auerbach confers with Mr. Forer.]
    Senator McClellan. I would like for the record to show a
long consultation with counsel.
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, I have discussed my beliefs, stated my
beliefs.
    Senator McClellan. I agree with you.
    Mr. Auerbach. But when a question of being a member or not
being a member of the Communist party is raised, that is on
another order. That is an organizational question.
    Senator McClellan. I am asking you now, in view of the
beliefs that you have expressed here for the record, and on the
record: Can you point out any difference between those beliefs
and the beliefs of communism and what the Communist party
stands for? Can you point out any difference? In all fairness
to you, if there is some reason why you do not want to admit
you are a Communist, can you point out any difference between
what you have expressed here on the record and what communism
stands for, and its objectives?
    Mr. Auerbach. May I consult?
    [Mr. Auerbach confers with Mr. Forer.]
    Mr. Auerbach. Well, we are getting to very fine points
here. My answer would be, ``No.''
    Senator McClellan. I thank you very much.
    Mr. Auerbach. We are merely within the realm of belief,
talking about opinions and beliefs.
    Senator Jackson. In other words, you believe in the
objectives and the things that the Communist party stands for?
    Mr. Auerbach. Its general objectives, yes.
    Senator Jackson. Of the Communist party, as we know it?
    Mr. Auerbach. Yes.
    The Chairman. Let me ask this: If the Communist party
objectives could not be achieved in this country by peaceful
means, would you favor achieving them by force and violence?
    Mr. Auerbach. That is one of those ``iffy'' questions about
the future that one never knows how it is going to turn out. I
am not in favor of achieving it by force and violence, and I
would like to see it achieved as peacefully as possible. I
would certainly work for that.
    The Chairman. I think you can answer that question. As I
say, we are interested in this, because you are one of the men
whose books are being used to fight communism throughout the
world, believe it or not.
    Mr. Auerbach. That is news to me. I would like to know how
that happened.
    Senator Jackson. The chairman might have placed the witness
in serious trouble, if the Communist party finds out he has
been used to fight them. He will be up for disloyalty.
    The Chairman. In view of the fact that you are being used,
and we are paying money to buy your books, to fight communism,
I think we are entitled to an answer to that question. That is
this: If you can not achieve a Communist society in this
country by peaceful means, if it is found to be impossible,
then would you favor using force to accomplish that objective?
    Mr. Auerbach. I would answer that question by saying I am
not in favor of using force and violence to obtain that
objective. As to the alternative you place, I am in no
position, nor is anyone else in position to know.
    The Chairman. I am going to insist that you answer that. I
say: If you could not achieve a Communist society in this
country by peaceful means, if you find that is impossible, then
would you favor achieving it by force and violence? The only
grounds upon which I would let you avoid answering that is if
you say that the answer will tend to incriminate you.
    [Mr. Auerbach confers with Mr. Forer.]
    Mr. Auerbach. I can't answer the question, because I have
no opinion on it. I haven't thought about it, and I haven't
tried to determine an answer to that question. I just don't
have any opinion.
    The Chairman. In other words, at this time you say you do
not know whether you would favor using force and violence to
establish a Communist society in this country, if it could not
be done by peaceful means? You say you cannot answer that. You
do not know.
    Mr. Auerbach. I can't answer it, because one does not know
just what kind of circumstances would arise, how a question
like that would arise. I have given it no thought and have no
opinion on it.
    Senator McClellan. You are not willing to say under oath at
this time that you would not?
    Mr. Auerbach. I am not willing to say under oath anything
on the question, because I do not know.
    The Chairman. At Communist meetings, did you ever discuss
the necessity of establishing a Communist society in America by
using force and violence?
    Mr. Auerbach. I will have to claim my privilege on that,
sir,
    The Chairman. Did you know anyone on the Daily Worker,
ever, at any time, who was not a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Auerbach. I will have to claim my privilege on that
one, too, sir.
    The Chairman. Your testimony under oath is that you do not
know Reed Harris?
    Mr. Auerbach. I do not recall him in any way.
    Senator McClellan. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, you further
identify Reed Harris, the position he now holds, where he went
to school, and the meetings attended. Let us see if we cannot
refresh his memory.
    The Chairman. Reed Harris, according to the testimony
heretofore taken before this committee, attended Columbia
University and was expelled or suspended. He had been editor of
the Spectator. He appeared at a meeting at Columbia to defend
Don Henderson, who was about to lose his contract as a teacher.
Henderson, at that time, was identified as a Communist. He is
the man who has been identified as having appeared on a
platform with you, Oakley Johnson, Donald Henderson, to defend
Mr. Gallagher, Mr. Leo Gallagher, a professor being expelled
from the University of California because of Communist
activities. He has been active in the WPA, the Writers Project,
has worked under Alsberg, is now the deputy administrator of
the International Information Administration. With that
information, is it your testimony that you have no recollection
now of ever having met him?
    Mr. Auerbach. That is my testimony. I have no recollection
of ever having met him, nor do I have a recollection of the
meeting that you referred to.
    The Chairman. Did you know Owen Lattimore?
    Mr. Auerbach. Yes, I think I met him at one meeting. That
is, I am not quite sure, but at a previous hearing that
question was asked me, and I was shown a memorandum saying that
such a meeting was held, at which he was present and I was
present, and I assume that if there was such a memorandum--it
was many years ago--it was so. I just didn't recollect having
met him.
    The Chairman. What meeting was that? Where was it held?
    Mr. Auerbach. That was a meeting of the IPR.
    Mr. Chairman. And that was the only meeting you ever
attended with Owen Lattimore?
    Mr. Auerbach. Yes, if he was there, and I assume he was.
    The Chairman. Is it your testimony that you never received
instructions, either directly or indirectly, to your knowledge,
from Moscow, so far as Communist activities were concerned?
    Mr. Auerbach. I will claim my privilege on that.
    The Chairman. I think I have no further questions of this
witness at this time.
    You will be requested, or perhaps I should say ordered, to
appear tomorrow morning at 10:15 in this room. And that will be
a public hearing. You will have the same rights as far as
counsel is concerned as you have today.
    Mr. Cohn. I think you have another witness, Mr. Forer.
    Mr. Forer. Shall I bring him in?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    The Chairman. Will, you raise your right hand, sir?
    In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Mandel. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Give us your full name, please.
 TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM MARX MANDEL (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL,
                         JOSEPH FORER)
    Mr. Mandel. William Marx Mandel.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that M-a-r-x?
    Mr. Mandel. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And where do you reside?
    Mr. Mandel. 545 West 164th Street, New York City.
    The Chairman. Is that the name you have always gone under?
    Mr. Mandel. I refuse to answer that question, under my
privilege within the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, not
to testify against myself.
    The Chairman. May I ask this question? Is that the name
that you bore when you were, we will say, one year old? If you
think it will incriminate you, you may refuse to answer.
    Mr. Mandel. I will stick to the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. In other words, you say if you tell us what
your name was when you were a year old, it might tend to
incriminate you?
    Mr. Mandel. Well, it is quite obvious that carried up to
the present day, it may lead to something which might tend to
incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Well, it is a broad privilege.
    Senator Jackson. Is this your true name, that you gave the
committee?
    Mr. Mandel. That is my true name.
    Senator Jackson. Your true name. And what was your full
name, again?
    Mr. Mandel. William Marx Mandel, M-a-n-d-e-l.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: Have you written under
pseudonyms?
    Mr. Mandel. I will have to give the same reply.
    The Chairman. You refuse to answer on the ground that it
might incriminate you?
    Mr. Mandel. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you the author of Soviet Far East and Central
Asia, Mr. Mandel \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ William Mandel, The Soviet Far East and Central Asia (New York,
International Secretariat, Institute of Pacific Relations, 1944).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Mandel. I am.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you write that book?
    Mr. Mandel. Well, I think I wrote most of it in 1942, and I
think some of the additional material came in 1943, '42-'43.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party in 1942-
43?
    Mr. Mandel. I must refuse to answer that question, under my
privilege within the Fifth Amendment not to be a witness
against myself.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Mandel. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know of any Communists who ever did engage
in espionage or any related activity?
    Mr. Mandel. I don't understand ``related activity.''
    Mr. Cohn. I will withdraw that. Did you know of any
Communists who have engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Mandel. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party today?
    The Chairman. The question is: Are you a member of the
Communist party as of today?
    Mr. Mandel. I refuse to answer under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in sabotage or any other
illegal act against the United States?
    Mr. Mandel. I refuse to answer under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Will you separate the question?
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in sabotage against the
United States?
    Mr. Mandel. I refuse to answer under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever violated any law of the United
States?
    The Chairman. I don't think that is a proper question.
    Senator Jackson. Beyond the scope of the committee.
    The Chairman. Mr. Mandel, have you ever been convicted of
any crime?
    [Mr. Mandel confers with Mr. Forer.]
    Mr. Mandel. Will you repeat the question, please?
    The Chairman. The question was: Were you ever convicted of
a crime?
    Mr. Mandel. If disorderly conduct be regarded as such--I
think it is a misdemeanor--the answer is ``yes.''
    Mr. Cohn. In connection with what? That is a matter of
public record, I suppose. In connection with a demonstration or
riot or something?
    Mr. Mandel. No, the answer is that I was selling a
pamphlet, about twenty-odd years ago, or perhaps not that long
ago.
    Mr. Cohn. What was the pamphlet?
    Mr. Mandel. The pamphlet was called ``The Truth about
Father Coughlin.''
    The Chairman. And you were arrested at that time and
convicted of disorderly conduct?
    Mr. Mandel. That is my recollection.
    The Chairman. And that is the only time that you were
either arrested and convicted of any crime?
    Mr. Mandel. Other than traffic violations, or things of
that kind. That is the best of my recollection.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Louis F. Budenz.
    Mr. Mandel. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you fight for the United States against the
Soviet Union in the event the United States Congress declared
war against the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Mandel. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Under any circumstances?
    Mr. Mandel. If the United States Congress declared war,
yes.
    Mr. Cohn. You would. Do you believe that our cause in Korea
is a just cause?
    Mr. Mandel. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You do not?
    Mr. Mandel. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you fight on the side of the United States
and the United Nations in Korea?
    Mr. Mandel. Under the laws of the country, if required to,
yes.
    The Chairman. Do you think the cause of the North Koreans
and the Chinese Communists is a just cause in Korea?
    [Mr. Mandel confers with Mr. Forer.]
    Mr. Mandel. The answer is ``yes.''
    The Chairman. It is a just cause?
    Mr. Mandel. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. That is very interesting. What did you say your
occupation was at the present time?
    Mr. Mandel. Let me preface my reply, and I will answer the
question if you insist. My occupation at the present time has,
as will be evident if you press me, no conceivable relation to
any business before this committee. Therefore, to request
this--and I will answer it if you press me--can only have the
effect, if this is later made public, of causing me to lose my
livelihood, something which I will make the most of, I state
quite candidly.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that a threat?
    Mr. Mandel. That is not a threat. That is simply a
statement.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you going to make the most of it?
    The Chairman. On the reason for calling you, or not, you
said the question of your occupation would have nothing to do
with what is before the committee. We are checking into the
information program, which has been costing us, oh, $125 mill
or $135 million a year. And we have been checking into the
background, the activities, on some of the individuals who are
being used in this fight against communism. That is the
announced objective of the information program. And I think
under the circumstances it is a pertinent question to ask you
about your background, what you are doing today.
    I do not know what you are doing today, you see, until you
answer the question.
    Mr. Mandel. I am a writer of medical advertising copy to
the profession.
    Mr. Cohn. How long have you been doing that kind of work?
    Mr. Mandel. Oh, since shortly after the last time I was
before a committee hearing here in Washington.
    Mr. Cohn. What were you doing before that?
    Mr. Mandel. Before that I was in the furniture business for
a year.
    Mr. Cohn. And what were you doing between then and the time
you were before some other committee?
    Mr. Mandel. I have been before one previous committee. Let
me see, now. I have been in this work for a year. I was in the
furniture business for just about a year, I would imagine. And
last prior to that, I was employed as a translator for the
Stefansson Library at 14 St. Luke's Place, New York City.
    The Chairman. Is that Vilhjalmur Stefannson?
    Mr. Mandel. Vilhjalmur, yes.
    The Chairman. I would like to get your thought on this. You
seem to think that we should not inquire as to your occupation
as of today. If you have any valid grounds on which you want to
urge that, we would be glad to hear them.
    Mr. Mandel. Yes. The advertising business is a very public
relations-conscious business, and the firm by which I am
employed has important concerns as its clients, and they are
probably more public relations-conscious than is necessary.
That is the situation in the industry. So that if it became
public knowledge that someone employed by that firm had been
before this committee, that, in itself, would probably--it is a
guess; I think a sound guess--would probably be cause for my
losing my employment.
    The Chairman. Well, now, I do not want to argue this point
with you, but I would like to get the thought of the other
senators on this.
    My thought is, Senator Jackson, that here you have a man
who says, ``If I tell you the truth about whether I am a
Communist today, that might incriminate me.'' It creates a
strong inference, certainly, that he is a member of the
Communist party. Otherwise, it could not very well incriminate
him. His works are being used to fight communism. He is now
writing advertising copy, material being read by the general
public. I can't think of any reason why his occupation should
not be known. Do you?
    Senator Jackson. Well, I think that the committee has a
right, on the basis of asking the routine questions incident to
an over-all investigation, to ask what a man is doing and where
he lives. On that basis also, I think we have the right to ask.
    Might I say to the witness: I am sure you are realistic
enough to know that when you come before a committee in open
session it will be known in time whether you have answered, and
maybe in a way that might confuse the public; it will be known
that you have appeared, and it will be brought out through the
press that you worked for such and such a company. And it would
occur to me that in order to keep the record straight, you
should simply state it. You are in that situation, and
apparently that is the price you have to pay as a member of the
Communist party.
    The Chairman. And as a country, we are apparently dedicated
to the idea that communism is wrong, that it is set to destroy
us, that it is a conspiracy, that it is a crime to be a member
if you are aware of the conspiracy. Therefore, when a man comes
before the committee and says, ``I will not tell whether I am a
Communist or not,'' he, I believe, forfeits any right or any
privilege or special protection by the committee. I think he
should answer all the questions. Under the circumstances, the
answer will stay in the record.
    Mr. Cohn. Will you give us the name and address of your
business, and telephone number, at the present time?
    Mr. Mandel. Yes. The only point I want to make before
answering it is that I claim no privilege on this matter, and I
simply want to point out that if the committee wishes to face
the onus of causing loss of a job, not in any abstract sense--I
don't think that concerns the committee at all--but in the
practical sense of the impression that might be created upon
the public, if that is the case, I will, since I am aware of no
privilege on this matter, be happy to give you the information.
    The Chairman. May I say that I get the impression from what
you said that you were threatening the committee. When you are
outside the committee room, you can say anything you like about
this committee, and if you are a member of the Communist party,
as you indicate by your answer, you are dedicated, of course,
to attacking this committee, regardless of whether you lose
your job. I have been a subject of attacks by every Communist
writer, every Communist in the country. None of them, as far as
I know, have been supporting me or this committee. So that you
are not impressing us at all by any threat to attack it. You
will be just one of a long line, if you do answer the question.
    Mr. Mandel. The firm I am employed by is L. W. Frohlich, F-
r-o-h-l-i-c-h, and Company, and I don't know at the moment--
they are in three buildings. I suppose the legal address is 76
East 52nd Street, New York City.
    Mr. Cohn. What kind of a firm did you say this was?
    Mr. Mandel. They advertise medical products to the
profession solely. That is their business.
    Mr. Cohn. Do they have any connection with the government
in any way, any government work?
    Mr. Mandel. None whatever, to the best of my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. I have no further questions of this witness, Mr.
Chairman.
    You have told us you are the author of Soviet Far East and
Central Asia?
    Mr. Mandel. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. You decline to tell us whether or not you were a
member of the Communist party at the time you wrote that book?
    Mr. Mandel. That is correct, for the reason stated.
    Mr. Cohn. Is there anything in that book unfavorable to the
Soviet Union?
    Mr. Mandel. I haven't read the book in quite a while.
    Mr. Cohn. Can you give us your best recollection on it?
    Mr. Mandel. As far as that book is concerned, I cannot say
offhand. I can state that, as I stated to a committee last
year, I am aware of injustices, errors, and more of them than I
have described in things that I have written, and have no
hesitation discussing them, and I simply don't know, frankly,
whether in that work at that time I discussed that or not.
    Senator Jackson. Have you written anything unfavorable to
the Soviet Union at any time?
    Mr. Mandel. In the first place, you would have to define
the term. In short, if one describes the term ``favorable'' as
meaning that everything that happens there is good and nothing
that happens there is bad, then I would say that I certainly
have written unfavorable things. I just don't recall. The book
was written ten years ago, is on a specialized subject, and I
just don't recall.
    Senator Jackson. What is your opinion of the anti-Semitism
in the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Mandel. Being a Jew, I have certain standards on the
basis of which to judge that. I have never encountered an anti-
Semitic government in history that had a Jewish member of its
cabinet.
    Mr. Cohn. Who is the member of the Jewish Cabinet?
    Mr. Mandel. Kaganovich, K-a-g-a-n-o-v-i-c-h.
    The Chairman. What is his position?
    Mr. Mandel. He is one of the vice premiers, one of the
members of the five inner cabinet under the present
administration.
    Mr. Cohn. I think Senator Jackson's question was addressed
to these purges. Do you approve of the anti-Semitic purges?
    Mr. Mandel. I think that is utter nonsense.
    Mr. Cohn. That is just counter-revolutionary propaganda?
    Mr. Mandel. It is not counter-revolutionary propaganda. It
is nonsense. I went down and bought a copy of True, Soviet
Labor party. I bought copies of Pravda at the library next to
the main public library on 42nd Street. Four days after this
thing happened, that comes over by air mail, when our post
office doesn't stop it.
    And on the same front page of the same paper which
presented the indictment of these physicians, there was an
announcement of the meeting the previous evening of the
committee of Judges for Stalin prize awards in the literature
and science for this coming year.
    Among the eleven judges are two men who are well-known to
be Jewish.
    Mr. Cohn. And that is that?
    Mr. Mandel. And many similar things. If you want a lecture
for an hour and a half, I would be glad to give it to you.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man named Aaron Berg, who is a very
high functionary in the Soviet Union at the present time?
    Mr. Mandel. He is a very prominent writer. I don't know
that he has a function of any kind.
    The Chairman. Just one question. As I read the account of
the trials in the Slansky and other cases, the news stories
were to the effect that some of the individuals confessed to
being Zionists. They were hung. That apparently was a major
part of their alleged crime.
    Would you agree that it would be a crime to be a Zionist?
    Mr. Mandel. Their crimes under the indictment were military
treason, economic treason, murder, and a fourth which I don't
recall at the moment. You may have whatever opinion you care to
about the confessions and the evidence. The fact is that they
describe at great length the crimes which they committed. And
it is a rather interesting fact to me that the New York Herald
Tribune correspondent reported from Washington a couple of days
later that informed anti-Communists in Washington apparently
feel that these men were a little inept and stupid, and more
able men will have to be gotten into that job next time.
    Senator Jackson. Well, let me ask you this: You do not
think it is unusual that simultaneously, at least, leaders of
the Communist party in the Soviet Union and the satellite areas
of Jewish origin were all brought to trial at once?
    Mr. Mandel. The United States government is openly and
publicly engaged in a program of espionage against the Soviet
Union. In order to do this kind of thing, you have got to have
people who are going to be able to get inside of those
countries. Now, the State Department, which you gentlemen seem
to have differences with, has pursued a policy of cutting off
trade with those countries. Therefore you cannot possibly use a
businessman as cover for that kind of operation. The other side
has cut down the number of journalists which they admit in to a
very small number. Therefore, it is very difficult to find more
people like Oatis to do that kind of job. And so what you are
left with is the possibility of using whoever can get in. Now,
the allegedly anti-Semitic governments of the east European
countries permitted only Jewish organizations, and particularly
this Joint Distribution Committee, to function within their
territories after World War II, despite the fact that there are
similar Ukranian organizations.
    Pardon me just one moment.
    And apparently they did so on the grounds that the Jews had
suffered special persecution. So that it would seem entirely
logical to me that a government which is by open proclamation
engaged in espionage in their countries as our government is
would utilize whatever organization comes to hand that has
access to those countries.
    Therefore, it is not at all surprising that certain people
with that kind of connection were brought to trial.
    Senator Jackson. You said the Ukrainian organizations were
not allowed to function.
    Mr. Mandel. To the best of my knowledge. Remember, I am
speaking of foreign non-Soviet and east European organizations.
    Senator Jackson. What did you say about a Ukrainian
organization?
    Mr. Mandel. I said Ukrainian organizations existing in the
United States and Canada were not permitted to function on a
parallel relief basis as the Joint Distribution Committee was.
    Senator Jackson. Well, the Ukrainians have never been very
reliable so far as the Soviets are concerned.
    Mr. Mandel. That is a matter of opinion. I would say the
record of World War II is that the overwhelming majority of the
Ukrainians were entirely loyal. Hitler put up a puppet
government which fell to pieces in a few weeks.
    Senator Jackson. When they are fighting for their home that
is something else; but I am talking about reliable from an
ideological standpoint.
    Mr. Mandel. My opinion, since it is a matter of opinion, is
that the overwhelming majority of the Ukrainians have been
loyal to the Soviet Union during the vast bulk of this thirty-
five-year period.
    Senator Jackson. So you do not think it is unusual that
Anna Pauker has been removed?
    Mr. Mandel. Anna Pauker's successor is a man named Simon
Bugitch, who is also a Jew.
    Senator Jackson. You do not think that the Jewish leaders
in the Czechoslovakian government, that were all purged at the
same time, and the doctors in the Kremlin, provide any
significant pattern? You think that is totally unrelated to any
anti-Semitism within the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Mandel. The foreign minister of Czechoslovakia, who is
here at the present time, is Jewish, and so forth, on down the
line.
    Senator Jackson. I am glad you said that.
    Would you like to assure the committee that their tenure is
going to be pretty certain for the future, so we can check on
this?
    The Chairman. I am afraid he could not do that.
    Let me ask you this question: Do you think the Communist
society is superior to our society in this country?
    Mr. Mandel. That would be an interesting question to
debate. But there again, circumstances being what they are, and
legislation being what it is, I am afraid that I would have to
rely upon the Fifth Amendment and refuse to reply to that
question.
    The Chairman. Let us rephrase the question. Do you think
the present type of Communist government as it exists in Russia
is superior to the present form of government as it exists in
the United States of America?
    Mr. Mandel. That I am afraid is governed by exactly the
same privilege, in view of legislation and prosecutions that
have taken place, with which Mr. Cohn is quite familiar.
    Mr. Cohn. Thank you.
    Mr. Mandel. So that I am afraid I am unable to answer that
question.
    The Chairman. In other words, is it your answer that if you
told us the truth in answer to that question, you think that
that answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Mandel. No, sir. I think that the Fifth Amendment has
as its purpose to protect the innocent, and I think that the
origin of the Fifth Amendment lies in the protection of
political dissent.
    The Chairman. You will then be ordered to answer the
question.
    [Mr. Mandel confers with Mr. Forer.]
    The Chairman. May I say to counsel that I do not want to
interrupt the consultation, but----
    Mr. Forer. I think he misunderstood the preceding question,
and his answer to that led to your direction. That is what I
think is the situation.
    But I understand the chair's position.
    Mr. Mandel. What was the question prior to the last
question?
    The Chairman. Maybe I should rephrase the question.
    The question originally asked was: Do you consider the
present Communist government in Russia more desirable than the
present government which we have in the United States?
    Mr. Mandel. And to that question I will reply that I refuse
to answer under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
    The Chairman. Now my question to you is, do you feel that
if you told the truth in answer to that question, your answer
might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Mandel. Yes. Let me make this clear----
    The Chairman. First, just so you will understand us fully:
You see, you are not entitled to claim privilege if you
incriminate yourself by committing perjury. It is only when a
truthful answer will incriminate you that you are entitled to
claim privilege.
    Before we can determine whether you are entitled to claim
privilege, we must know whether or not you honestly feel that a
truthful answer might tend to incriminate you.
    That is the purpose of that question.
    Mr. Mandel. I would say that a truthful answer might tend
to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Okay. Then you are entitled to the privilege.
    Mr. Mandel. Fine.
    The Chairman. We will excuse you until 10:15 tomorrow
morning.
    [Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., a recess was taken until 10:30
a.m., Tuesday, March 24, 1953.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--The literary witnesses on March 24, 1953
included the former Pinkerton detective turned novelist,
Dashiell Hammett (1894-1961), author of Red Harvest (1929), The
Dain Curse (1929), The Maltese Falcon (1930), The Glass Key
(1931), and The Thin Man (1934), which later appeared as motion
pictures. Hammett had joined the Communist party in 1937,
taught at the Jefferson School for Social Science, and was a
trustee of the bail fund for the Civil Rights Congress. He was
convicted of contempt of court for refusing to identify the
contributors to the bail fund and served a prison term from
July to December 1951.
    Under the pseudonym Helen Kay, Helen Colodny Goldfrank
wrote such children's books as Insects (1939), Apple Pie for
Lewis (1951), Snow Birthday (1955), Secrets of the Dolphin
(1964), Apes (1970), and The First Teddy Bear (1985).
    Jerre Mangione (1909-1998) worked for Time magazine before
becoming an editor for the Federal Writers' Project--the
subject of his later book, The Dream and the Deal: The Federal
Writers' Project, 1935-43 (1972). In 1943 he published Mount
Allegro, an autobiographical account of his life as the son of
Sicilian immigrants, which his publisher believed would sell
better if issued as a work of fiction. Mount Allegro became a
best seller and was reissued five times by different
publishers. In later years, Mangione taught English at the
University of Pennsylvania.
    A major writer in the Harlem Renaissance, Langston Hughes
(1902-1967) published his first book of poetry, The Weary
Blues, in 1926. During the 1930s he wrote for the New Masses
and traveled to Russia to make a film about race relations in
the United States, which was never produced. The author of
plays, novels, short stories, film scripts, musicals, war
correspondence and a regular newspaper column for the Chicago
Defender, Hughes was best known for his poetry, and edited the
anthologies The Poetry of the Negro, 1746-1949 (1949) and New
Negro Poets, USA (1964).
    Dashiell Hammett, Helen Goldfrank and Langston Hughes
testified at a public hearing on March 26, 1953. Jerre Mangione
did not testify publicly.]
                              ----------
                        TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 2:00 p.m. in room 357 of the
Senate Office Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt, presiding.
    Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota;
Senator Everett M. Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator John
L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; and Senator Stuart Symington,
Democrat, Missouri.
    Present also: Roy Cohn, chief counsel; David Schine, chief
consultant; Daniel Buckley, assistant counsel; Henry Hawkins,
investigator; and Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
    Senator Mundt. The committee will come to order.
    Mr. Cohn. The first witness is Mr. Hammett, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Mundt. Mr. Hammett, do you solemnly swear the
testimony you are about to give us is the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Hammett. I do.
    Senator Mundt. Be seated. Proceed, Mr. Cohn.
                 TESTIMONY OF DASHIELL HAMMETT
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hammett, will you give your full name,
please?
    Mr. Hammett. Samuel Dashiell Hammett.
    Mr. Cohn. And what is your occupation?
    Mr. Hammett. Writer.
    Mr. Cohn. You are an author?
    Mr. Hammett. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long have you followed that calling?
    Mr. Hammett. Since about 1922, roughly thirty years.
    Mr. Cohn. You know that a considerable number of your works
are used in the State Department Information Program?
    Mr. Hammett. I did not know that until you told me on the
phone.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think we have given you a good civil suit
for royalties?
    Mr. Hammett. I doubt that, because thinking about it, the
chances are the radio end that was sold is owned by the movie
people.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party today?
    Mr. Hammett. I decline to answer on the ground that the
answer would tend to incriminate me, pleading my rights under
the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party in 1922?
    Mr. Hammett. I decline to answer on the ground that the
answer might tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. You have written a number of books between 1922
and the present time, have you not?
    Mr. Hammett. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. About how many?
    Mr. Hammett. Five, I think.
    Mr. Cohn. Just five books?
    Mr. Hammett. Yes, and many short stories and stuff that has
been reprinted in reprint books.
    Mr. Cohn. If I were to ask you as to each one of these
books if you were a Communist party member at the time you
wrote the book what would your answer be?
    Mr. Hammett. The same.
    Mr. Cohn. You would refuse on the ground you stated?
    Mr. Hammett. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you write a story which could be classed as
other than a detective story?
    Mr. Hammett. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What?
    Mr. Hammett. I have written quite a number of short stories
that were not detective stories.
    Mr. Cohn. Any that deal with social problems?
    Mr. Hammett. I don't think so. Yes, I remember one, if you
take it as a social problem. Some short stories have been in
paper bound books that have been published in book form.
    Mr. Cohn. Did any of those deal with social problems?
    Mr. Hammett. Yes. As a matter of fact, roughly one that I
remember, a short story called ``Night Shade.''
    Mr. Cohn. ``Night Shade''?
    Mr. Hammett. ``Night Shade,'' which had to do with Negro-
white relations.
    Mr. Cohn. In what book is that published?
    Mr. Hammett. I don't know, because that was published in
one of the reprints or collections of which a great many have
been published. Practically all of the short stories have been
published by either Mercury or Avon or Dell.
    Senator Mundt. Were they first all published in a magazine?
    Mr. Hammett. Yes, it was first published in a magazine that
I think is now out of existence. I have forgotten what its name
was. I could look it up.
    Mr. Cohn. When you wrote this short story, ``Night Shade,''
were you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Hammett. I decline to answer on the ground the answer
may tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Did that story in any way reflect the Communist
line?
    Mr. Hammett. That is a difficult--on the word ``reflect'' I
would say no, it didn't reflect it. It was against racism.
    Senator Mundt. Would you say that it resembled--whether it
reflected or not--the Communist line with respect to race
problems?
    Mr. Hammett. No, I couldn't pick out--I could answer that
question, if you just put it, did it at all, but did it reflect
that more than, say, other political parties, I would have to
say no. I think the truth would be that it didn't reflect it
consciously or solely.
    Mr. Cohn. Consciously or solely. Have you ever had any
contact with the publications commission of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Hammett. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You have not?
    Mr. Hammett. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any members of the publications
commission of the Communist party?
    Mr. Hammett. You would have to tell me.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Alexander Trachtenberg?
    Mr. Hammett. I have to think about that. I think I decline
to answer that on the ground that the answer might tend to
incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Louis F. Budenz?
    Mr. Hammett. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Alexander Bittelman?
    Mr. Hammett. I think, or my impression is, that he was in
the West Street Jail at the same time I was there.
    Senator Mundt. Where--jail?
    Mr. Hammett. Yes. I did six months for the bail bond--five
months, a month off for good behavior.
    Senator Mundt. Was that a contempt citation?
    Mr. Hammett. It was over the bail bond fund.
    Mr. Cohn. After the Communists jumped bail, the three
trustees, including Mr. Hammett, were called in and refused to
answer questions about the whereabouts of these fugitives, and
they refused to produce books and records of the bail bond
fund, and were sentenced to jail. That is a fairly accurate
statement?
    Mr. Hammett. Fairly.
    Senator Mundt. Was Bittelman in the jail for the same
reason?
    Mr. Hammett. What happened, the bail bond bail was revoked,
and since there were a group of so-called Communists out on
bail put up by the fund, until that was revoked, they were out
until they raised bail from other sources.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you get royalties from the purchase of your
books?
    Mr. Hammett. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, if a copy of your book is bought,
you get a royalty.
    Mr. Hammett. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What is the customary royalty?
    Mr. Hammett. I don't know. I think mine is 15 percent.
Publishers' contracts run from 10 percent, and have provisions
if there is a sale above a certain amount, it goes up. I think
mine is a flat 15 percent, but I am not sure.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever contributed money to the Communist
party?
    Mr. Hammett. I decline to answer on the grounds the answer
might tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have any other income other than that
derived from your writings?
    Mr. Hammett. No. There have been times when I have. At the
moment I haven't.
    Mr. Cohn. Have any moneys you have received as royalties
from the sale of these books been contributed to the Communist
party?
    Mr. Hammett. I decline to answer on the ground that the
answer might tend to incriminate me, pleading my rights under
the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. I think I have nothing more of Mr. Hammett, Mr.
Chairman.
    Senator Mundt. You might say for the record how generally
the State Department has been buying these books and
distributing them throughout information libraries overseas.
    Mr. Cohn. Very widely. We will have the exact figures by
the morning, but I would say that the number of copies in use
are in the hundreds.
    Senator Mundt. Any other questions? If not, you may step
down.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hammett, we might want you in public session
tomorrow morning, as I explained to you. Would you be here
tomorrow morning.
    Mr. Hammett. I can be.
    Mr. Cohn. At 10:15 tomorrow morning, in this room. Thank
you.
    Mr. Hammett. I am through now for the day?
    Mr. Cohn. You are through until 10:15 tomorrow morning.
    Senator Mundt. I would like to ask you one more question,
Mr. Hammett. You answered the question as to whether or not you
received a royalty from your books. I think you said earlier
that some of your plays or short stories or books were placed
in the motion pictures. Is that right?
    Mr. Hammett. Yes.
    Senator Mundt. Do you get a royalty from that, too?
    Mr. Hammett. No. I said that in connection with the radio.
The motion picture as a rule, mine have all been, the four
books sold to motion pictures have been sold outright. But
there is, as I said, on the radio thing a provision--I think I
would have to look at the contracts--but motion picture
companies put in a provision that gives them the radio right
also.
    Senator Mundt. Do I understand that the motion pictures pay
you nothing for your work?
    Mr. Hammett. No. They buy the motion picture right. It
varies with different companies, but the right for television
is in dispute, because that had not come up then. But they took
care of the radio.
    Senator Mundt. In other words, whenever they made a motion
picture from the book or short stories, they made a contract
that paid you outright for the motion picture rights?
    Mr. Hammett. That is right. The other they put in, because
they had no intention of selling radio rights, because the
thought of radio in those days as competing with motion
pictures kept you from serializing on the radio at the same
time.
    Senator Mundt. Will you stand, please, and be sworn. Raise
your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are
about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I do.
   TESTIMONY OF HELEN GOLDFRANK (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL,
                        CHARLES E. FORD)
    Senator Mundt. Give your name and address for the record,
please.
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Helen Goldfrank, Thornwood, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. Could we have counsel's name for the record?
    Mr. Ford. Charles E. Ford, 416 Fifth Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
    Mr. Cohn. Your name is Helen Goldfrank?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been known by any other name?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I believe I must stand on my rights of
special privilege as provided under the Fifth Amendment of the
Constitution, and I can not answer that question as it may tend
to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. You decline to answer on the ground the answer
might tend to incriminate you, and you exercise your privilege
under the Fifth Amendment?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. As to whether you have ever been known by another
name?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation--Is it Mrs. Goldfrank?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. My occupation is Mrs. Goldfrank.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you do any writing?
    Senator Mundt. I did not hear a word she said.
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Housewife.
    Mr. Cohn. What Is your husband's first name?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must decline to answer that question on
the ground that it might tend to incriminate me under the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution, and also on the basis of
privileged communication between husband and wife.
    Mr. Cohn. You think his first name is a privileged
communication?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes. I wouldn't know his name unless I were
married to him.
    Mr. Cohn. Was your husband a member of the national
committee of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must repeat that I regret that I must
decline to answer your questions on the basis of personal
privilege as the answer may tend to incriminate me and I seek
the protection of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, and
secondly, under the Constitution, the status of the family is a
privileged communication, and under that I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. You refuse to answer on the ground the answer
might tend to incriminate you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. That is correct.
    Mr. Ford. May the record show she gave two grounds? You
stated one.
    Senator Mundt. The record will show everything she says
loudly enough to be heard, and nothing else.
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I am sorry but my voice is not very loud.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this: Have you ever written any
books?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must again regretfully refuse to answer
on the rights of special privilege under the Fifth Amendment to
the Constitution that any answer I give you will tend to
incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever heard of a book called Apple Pie
for Lewis? \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Helen Kay, Apple Pie for Lewis (New York: Aladdin Books, 1951).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I respectfully decline to answer on the
ground that my answer may tend to incriminate me under the
Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
    Senator McClellan. Have you honestly been telling the truth
when you say you are afraid it will incriminate you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I am honest in telling the truth.
    Mr. Cohn. I do not understand how it could incriminate you
to say that you have heard of a certain book.
    Mr. Ford. May I address the committee on that? I believe
our courts have ruled that if a witness after asserting the
right is called upon to explain how the right would be
affected, they are waiving the privilege.
    Senator Mundt. I believe the courts have also held that a
witness is in contempt if there is no valid ground for
incrimination.
    Mr. Ford. Only if the senators decide to cite him in your
judgment.
    Senator Mundt. I think the witness should be apprized of
that fact. If she invokes the right when it does not exist, she
could be cited.
    Mr. Ford. I believe to save you time she realizes when she
declines you all intend to say she should answer so that will
cover the question.
    Mr. Cohn. I don't think it is a matter of intention. The
privilege can only be exercised if it is exercised in complete
good faith with the sincere good belief that if an answer is
given, it might result in incrimination.
    Mr. Ford. Correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Is it your testimony, Mrs. Goldfrank, that if you
say you have heard of a book known as Apple Pie for Lewis, that
that answer, if you answered truthfully, might tend to show you
are guilty of a crime, it might tend to incriminate you. That
is what the privilege is.
    Mrs. Goldfrank. That is my answer.
    Mr. Schine. Have you heard of the book Gone With the Wind?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I would like to consult my lawyer. May I
have the privilege of speaking with my lawyer?
    Mr. Schine. Certainly.
    [Witness consults with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Goldfrank. That book has no relationship to me and is
innocuous, and I have naturally heard of it.
    Mr. Cohn. It is your testimony then that this book, Apple
Pie for Lewis is not innocuous?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I refuse to answer that question on the
ground of possible self incrimination.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know that this book of yours, Apple Pie
for Lewis and another book of yours are being widely used by
the State Department information program?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I cannot answer that on the basis of
possible self incrimination.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you today a member of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I respectfully decline to answer that
question on the basis of the Fifth Amendment and my right of
personal privilege that any answer I may give may tend to
incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been a member of the Communist party at
any time over the last twenty years?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must again repeat, I respectfully decline
to answer your question on my constitutional right under the
Fifth Amendment that my answer may tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the party in 1951?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Once again I respectfully decline to answer
your question as my answer may tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. You have told us you are a housewife. Do you have
any outside source of income, any moneys other than those given
you by your husband?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I believe two factors would be involved
there. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis that any
answer I may give may tend to incriminate me, and the second
would be the privileged communication between husband and wife.
    Mr. Cohn. My question is whether or not you, forgetting
about your husband, have earned any moneys other than those
which your husband has given you. It does not involve your
husband at all. The only question is, have you received any
moneys other than those given you by your husband?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I once again----
    Mr. Cohn. I will tell you right now I will recommend to the
chairman that there is no possible question of husband and wife
privilege on that. We are addressing ourselves here to whether
or not you received any other moneys.
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must respectfully decline to answer that
question within my rights under the Fifth Amendment as any
answer I may give may tend to incriminate me.
    Senator McClellan [presiding]. Does the chair understand
that you think if you gave testimony as to your own personal
income from sources other than through your husband that that
would tend to incriminate you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I can only answer in the same way, sir.
    Senator McClellan. I am asking you if you think that it
would tend to incriminate you. That is what I am asking you. If
you gave the committee information regarding your income,
income that is independent from that of your husband, your own
personal income, are you stating to the committee that you
think that to give such testimony truthfully would tend to
incriminate you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must respectfully decline to answer your
question as I believe----
    Senator McClellan. You decline to answer whether you think
it would tend to incriminate you, do you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I think it would tend to incriminate me.
    Senator McClellan. That is what I asked you and you decline
to answer on constitutional grounds. I asked you if you think
to give such testimony regarding yourself, independent of your
husband, you think it would tend to incriminate you.
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Once again, I repeat that any answer--I
must stand on special privilege of the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator McClellan. You do not have that very well
memorized. I am asking you if you think it would tend to
incriminate you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I think it would tend to incriminate me.
    Senator McClellan. You think it would tend to incriminate
you to answer that question?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes.
    Senator McClellan. To answer the question that you think it
would tend to incriminate you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes, sir.
    Senator McClellan. So then you are unwilling to tell the
committee, are you, that you believe honestly that it would
tend to incriminate you if you answered these questions?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I believe once again----
    Senator McClellan. I cannot understand you. I am sorry.
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I am sorry, too, sir. Would you repeat your
question?
    Senator McClellan. Do you tell the committee that you think
that it would tend to incriminate you if you answered the
question whether you honestly believe if you answered the
question regarding your separate and independent income that
that would tend to incriminate you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I do.
    Mr. Schine. Where were you born?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. New York City.
    Mr. Schine. And where did you go to school?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Excuse me. May I consult with my attorney?
    Mr. Cohn. You may consult with counsel.
    [Witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I would stand on my right of special
privilege and feel that answering that question would tend to
incriminate me.
    Mr. Schine. You do not wish to tell the committee where you
went to school?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. No.
    Mr. Schine. You feel honestly if you did it would tend to
incriminate you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I do.
    Mr. Schine. In the school that you went to, did you ever
hear the pledge of allegiance to the American flag?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. You did. Did that pledge of allegiance mean
anything to you before you got involved in this trouble, or
before you got mixed up?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must once again repeat that I cannot
answer your question on the basis that it may tend to
incriminate me.
    Mr. Schine. Are you now involved in espionage against the
United States government?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I stand on my constitutional right of
refusing to answer that question as that question may tend to
incriminate me.
    Mr. Schine. Did you carry money from Moscow to Germany for
the Communist party?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I once again stand on my constitutional
right of personal privilege and refuse to answer that question
on the basis of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution as the
answer to that question may tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Schine. Have you been in Moscow?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I once again must refuse to answer your
question as that answer to that question may tend to
incriminate me.
    Mr. Schine. Do you regret that you are unable to tell the
committee whether you are now or have ever been a member of the
Communist party?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I regret on the basis of special privilege
that I cannot answer your questions within my rights under the
Fifth Amendment as any answer to that question may tend to
incriminate me.
    Mr. Schine. You misunderstood the question. Do you regret
that you cannot answer the question, are you now or have you
ever been a member of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. May I consult my counsel?
    Mr. Schine. Yes.
    [Witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I once again must stand on my rights of
special privilege and refuse to answer that question because
under the Fifth Amendment I have the right to plead that that
answer may tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Schine. Do you honestly believe in the overthrow by
force and violence of the United States government?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I refuse to answer that question as that
question may tend to incriminate me under the rights of special
privilege.
    Mr. Schine. I have no more questions.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this. Did you testify before a
federal grand jury in New York recently?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. May I consult my counsel?
    Mr. Cohn. Surely.
    [Witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I refuse to answer that question as any
answer I may give may tend to incriminate me and I stand on the
special privilege of my rights under the Constitution.
    Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I recommend that the
witness be considered in contempt of the committee for not
answering. Not answering a question of that character is
absurd.
    Senator McClellan. May I ask one other question. Are you an
American citizen?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I am, and I am proud of it, sir.
    Senator McClellan. You are an American citizen?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes.
    Senator McClellan. You do not think that incriminates you,
do you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Once again, as an American citizen, sir, I
stand on my right under the Constitution of special privilege--
--
    Senator McClellan. Is there anything in America that you
are proud of except that constitutional right you invoke so
freely and so insistently? Can you mention anything else you
are proud of about America except this right that you claim to
be invoking at this time? Do you think it will incriminate you
to answer that?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I would like to consult my attorney.
    Senator McClellan. All right, consult him.
    [Witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I am proud of the entire Constitution of
the United States, and on the basis of the Constitution I seek
special privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator McClellan. Do you believe in the overthrow of the
Constitution of the United States, which you now say you are
proud of?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must once again plead special privilege--
--
    Senator McClellan. If you are proud of it, why do you think
it intimidates you, after you say you are proud of it, to say
that you do not believe in the overthrow of it?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I once again must plead special privilege
    Senator McClellan. You have said that you are proud of all
of the Constitution of the United States. Do you now insist
that it might incriminate you to answer the question whether
you believe in the overthrow of that Constitution, which you
now say you are proud of? Do you still insist that that might
tend to incriminate you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I think my answer to that question would
tend to incriminate me.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever acted as a spy for a
foreign country?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I refuse to answer that question.
    Senator Symington. On the ground it might incriminate you?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. That is right.
    Senator Dirksen [presiding]. Mrs. Goldfrank, when you
stated that you are a citizen, are you a native born citizen or
a naturalized citizen?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I believe in the first question, I was born
in New York City.
    Senator Dirksen. You are then native born.
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. And you are how old, if that is not too
personal?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I am forty years old.
    Senator Dirksen. What was your answer?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Forty.
    Senator Dirksen. You are forty?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. And you have lived continuously in the
United States, I suppose, except for any excursions you may
have made abroad since that time?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. My residence has been in the United States.
    Senator Dirksen. What is your regular occupation, if you
have any? Is it authoring works such as appear here before the
committee, or do you have a profession, or are you associated
with some company?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Sir, I must plead the point, the wife's
special privilege, and refuse to answer on the basis that any
answer I may give you might tend to incriminate me.
    Senator Dirksen. I think for the purposes of the record I
should advise you that I doubt very much whether you can take
refuge in the Fifth Amendment on a question of that kind. I do
not believe it involves your liberty at all.
    Mr. Ford. May I address the senator?
    Senator Dirksen. Yes, I would be glad to hear you.
    Mr. Ford. I believe that question has appeared in many of
the cases tried in our district court here, what is your
occupation. I know of several. These grew out of the Kefauver
committee hearings, and the question was asked, ``What is your
occupation,'' and the people refused, and they were sustained
in our court when they did refuse on the constitutional ground.
    Senator Dirksen. They did not have to divulge what their
occupations were?
    Mr. Ford. That is right. The courts have held it is the
next questions that they may lead to, and they may involve the
question of income tax returns and things of that kind, because
those questions are asked in the returns in the federal law. So
I respectfully call that to your attention that they have ruled
that. One was Fischetti case and the other was Guzik, in
Chicago. There were several of them where that particular
question was made the count of the indictment and passed upon.
    Senator Dirksen. I think we ought to make the record
reasonably full here.
    Mr. Ford. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Are you associated with any school or
college in New York in a teaching capacity or any other
capacity?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must plead special privilege once again,
Senator, on the basis of the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Dirksen. Have you authored many books or a few
books or one book?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. That question also is----
    Senator Dirksen. I am not asking what kind of books. I am
asking you whether you have authored----
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I plead that the answer to that question
may tend to incriminate me.
    Senator Dirksen. I have grave doubts about your answer but
we will let it stand for the moment until we can determine
that. Have you made any trips abroad?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must refuse to answer that question on my
right----
    Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Dirksen. Senator Symington.
    Senator Symington. I am not a lawyer. I do not think we are
really talking to the witness. I think we are talking to the
witness' counsel. I think the witness thinks this is all pretty
much of a good joke. I respectfully again request, from my
knowledge as an American citizen, that this witness be held in
contempt of this committee.
    Senator Dirksen. Your question is very proper and should be
considered very shortly after this hearing terminates in a
strictly executive session.
    Senator Symington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cohn. Mrs. Goldfrank, were you ever associated with the
Communist Internationale?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Mr. Cohn is your name?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I respectfully decline to answer your
question on the basis of personal privilege.
    Mr. Cohn. Is it not a fact that as a representative of the
Communist Internationale you carried a sum of money from Moscow
to the German Communist party?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must respectfully decline to answer that
question on the basis of personal privilege and within my
rights under the Constitution.
    Mr. Cohn. Within the last year, have you been subpoenaed to
testify before a federal grand jury in New York?
    Mrs. Goldfrank. Once again I must----
    Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to ask
her counsel how he advises her to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. I was going to ask the chair to direct her to
answer the last question. There is no privilege whatsoever
whether a witness was in fact subpoenaed to appear before a
grand jury.
    Mr. Ford. I will be glad to answer Senator Symington.
    Senator Dirksen. The committee will be glad to hear
counsel.
    Mr. Ford. That would cover the question, and I think the
courts have held, with respect to identity. It is not only that
particular question, Senator, that is involved, because our
courts have held that if a witness does answer that question,
then they are bound to go on and answer the other questions
which would follow, which would be did you appear and what did
you testify, which would be natural questions to flow from the
key question. So I think our courts have held that you must
assert the right to the main question because it is the
subsequent questions that may involve her. That by itself would
be different. For instance, I remember Senator Welker had a
client of mine that was in this position before, and he said to
the witness, ``I don't think that those questions about your
sister and others here (the witness' name was Warring) would
involve you,'' and Warring said, ``Senator, as I understand, if
I answer that key question, I must go on,'' and Senator Welker
said, ``Oh, yes, I intended to follow it up with questions
until I hit,'' and may I use his expression ``pay dirt.'' So
that is why it is applied to that particular one.
    Senator Symington. I think your explanation is clear.
    Mr. Ford. For my own information, I think Mr. Cohn was
present when she did testify on two occasions. In fact, I think
she answered questions at that time.
    Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, accepting counsel's
exposition of the law as just stated for the record, I asked
the witness a few moments ago if there is anything she was
proud of in the Constitution of the United States except the
Fifth Amendment provision which she was invoking as a matter of
special privilege in this hearing, and she answered, as the
record will show, that she is proud of all of the Constitution
of the United States.
    Having answered then, Mr. Chairman, I asked the witness the
question if she believed in the overthrow of the Constitution
of the United States, and she again invoked her special
privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution on the
grounds that it might tend to incriminate her.
    Having answered that she is proud of all of the
Constitution, Mr. Chairman, I believe she should now be
required to answer the question whether she believes in the
overthrow of the Constitution of the United States, and I most
respectfully ask the chairman to order the witness to answer.
    Senator Dirksen. I think it is a very proper question which
does not incriminate or put the witness in jeopardy, and I
believe the question should be answered.
    [Witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Goldfrank. I must decline, Senator, on the basis of
special privilege.
    Senator Dirksen. I think the witness may step down. I would
like to ask counsel one question, however.
    Mr. Ford. I would be glad to answer.
    Senator Dirksen. It is not meant to be an invidious
question at all.
    Mr. Ford. Not at all.
    Senator Dirksen. And you can decline to answer if you like.
    Mr. Ford. I am sure I won't.
    Senator Dirksen. And we can strike it from the record if
you like.
    Mr. Ford. I am sure I won't.
    Senator Dirksen. I am wondering if because of comparable
situations we have had before, whether you have advised the
witness in advance on certain basic things that are the key for
an answer or no answer. Would you care to comment on that?
    Mr. Ford. Not at all. I consulted with this witness
yesterday afternoon in my office. I have known this witness
since she was a little girl. For myself I opened up Scott
Field, at Belleville, Illinois, at eighteen as a flier in the
first war. I am an Elk in good standing, and a Roman Catholic
of which I am proud, and I love every part of this country and
everything it does and says, and I am proud of the courts.
However, that same country told me that when a client comes to
me in my office, I should give them the best advice provided I
do not violate any of our laws, and that I did, and I
thoroughly explain to them what it was and what our courts have
held, because as a business proposition some years ago I found
it worthwhile to acquaint myself with this law as it was
becoming quite invoked all over the United States.
    I have appeared in Chicago in front of the Kefauver
committee, and I assure you that I merely gave this lady the
advice which I would give to anyone, because it was
conscientious and honest under our law.
    Senator Dirksen. Both the committee and the law recognize
the responsibility of an attorney's advocate to client when he
assumes that responsibility.
    Mr. Ford. In fact, Senator, I just came back from Hot
Springs yesterday, and last year I think I had the privilege of
laying beside you in the Majestic Hotel in the baths. You did
not know who I was, but I recognized you.
    Senator Dirksen. We also recognize the confidential
relationship between attorney and client.
    Mr. Ford. As far as myself or anything about me, I will
answer any question anywhere or at any time.
    Senator Symington. I would like to ask you a question, and
I am not a lawyer. If somebody comes to you whom you believe
has been interested in a conspiracy or member of an
organization conspiring to overthrow the United States, is it
worth your while to advocate their interest?
    Mr. Ford. Is it worth my while?
    Senator Symington. Yes.
    Mr. Ford. I think my profession requires me to advocate
their interest with certain limitations. First, that I in no
way by word of mouth, suggestion or action become in any way
part of that, that I keep myself completely detached, and by
completely, I do not mean any quibble about it. If the question
came up, if it was a close question, I must resolve in favor of
my government and not myself. Yes, I have that positive
philosophy, and I hope I die with it when the time comes.
    Senator Dirksen. Have you been sworn?
    Mr. Mangione. No.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony
you will give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Mangione. I do.
  TESTIMONY OF JERRE G. MANGIONE (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL,
                       JOSEPH A. FANELLI)
    Mr. Cohn. May we have the name of the counsel for the
record?
    Mr. Fanelli. Joseph A. Fanelli. I am a member of the
District of Columbia Bar, and I am maintaining offices at the
Wyatt Building in Washington.
    Senator Dirksen. Are you a native Washingtonian?
    Mr. Fanelli. No, sir, I am a native New Yorker, Senator,
but I have been around here a long time.
    Senator Dirksen. Is it Mangione?
    Mr. Mangione. That is the correct pronunciation.
    Senator Dirksen. Would you give your full name to the
reporter?
    Mr. Mangione. Jerre G. Mangione.
    Senator Dirksen. And where do you reside?
    Mr. Mangione. I reside in New York City at 36 East 65th
Street, New York 21.
    Senator Dirksen. Is that your legal residence?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Have you always lived there?
    Mr. Mangione. No, sir, I moved there last June from
Philadelphia.
    Senator Dirksen. Were you born in Philadelphia?
    Mr. Mangione. No. I lived in Philadelphia for ten years,
and before Philadelphia, I lived in Washington for five years--
I am going backwards now--and before Washington I lived in New
York for about five years.
    Senator Dirksen. If it is not too personal, how old are you
now?
    Mr. Mangione. Forty-four years old.
    Senator Dirksen. So you were born in 1909.
    Mr. Mangione. That is correct, March 20.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Mangione, are you the author of any books?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, sir, I am the author of three books----
    Mr. Cohn. What are the names?
    Mr. Mangione. Under my own name. The first one was Mount
Allegro.\4\ Do you want the dates?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Jerre Mangione, Mount Allegro (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1943).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. Approximate dates.
    Mr. Mangione. Published January or February 1943.
    The second book, a novel called The Ship and the Flame,
published 1948.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Jerre Mangione, The Ship and the Flame (New York: Current
Books, 1948).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The third book, called Reunion in Sicily, published in
1950.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Jerre Mangione, Reunion in Sicily (Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1950).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this: Are you aware of the fact
that your books are being used by the State Department
Information Program?
    Mr. Mangione. No, sir, I am not. Let me add this comment.
When my third book came out, Reunion in Sicily, which was
published by Houghton, Mifflin of Boston, which has New York
offices, I remember one day inquiring from the sales manager
how the sales were going, and Mr. McKee said, ``Well, it is
going pretty fair.'' The book, incidentally, had come out the
week of the Korean War, so that kind of hurt the sales. He
said, ``We just got an order this morning from the State
Department.'' I said, ``How many copies,'' hoping he would say
many, but he said, I think, six or ten, but I can't remember.
This can be checked very easily.
    Mr. Cohn. Six or ten copies by the State Department?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. So you have had that much notice that they were
being used.
    Mr. Mangione. I don't know how the State Department used
them. These books contain a great deal of information about
Sicily after the war, and I should think that any group in the
State Department that was interested in studying conditions in
Italy would have wanted to refer to this book for information,
certainly.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Mangione. I have never been a Communist, and I want to
make that emphatic, either now or at any time or a hidden
Communist, and I have never been under orders of the Communist
party.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended a Communist party meeting?
    Mr. Mangione. To the best of my knowledge I have never
attended a Communist party meeting.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have any doubt about it?
    Mr. Mangione. No, I don't think I have any doubt about it,
except I went to some meetings of the John Reed Club.
    Mr. Cohn. Wasn't that an official club of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Mangione. Not to my knowledge, no. It was a literary
club. I found out much later that it was made up of a lot of
people who had the reputation of being Communists. I went there
as a young writer, sort of attracted by the glamor of hearing
other writers talk, and the subjects when I was there were
always literary. Proletariat literature was the great subject
of the day. I don't know whether the senator recalls.
    Mr. Cohn. Has anybody ever stated in sworn testimony that
you were a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes. At a previous hearing. This is not
exactly yes, so please let me explain it is a statement. At a
subcommittee meeting in which I appeared as a witness last
Friday, Senator Jenner's committee, presided over by Senator
Welker--I think that is the right name--during the course of
the meeting or of the interview, a man was brought in who
claimed--a man I had never seen before--that I had attended
fraction meetings in the offices of the New Masses, that he was
a man who described himself as an old Communist who served from
1920 to 1937, and also described himself----
    Mr. Cohn. What was his name?
    Mr. Mangione. Malkin, I think.
    Mr. Cohn. Maurice Malkin?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes. He claimed that he went to one of these
meetings where there were, he said, five or six people present,
and he was working with the longshoremen at the time. I am
repeating what he said. He noticed me at one of these meetings,
and he said he asked the secretary there who was this fellow,
and the secretary claimed that my name was Jerre Mangione, and
that I was all right. First he said I was at three such
meetings, and then he said I was at five such meetings, and he
was asked what other people were present at the meetings. The
only name I recognized was a fellow called Bill Gropper, who
used to do political cartoons in the thirties.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Gropper was a Communist?
    Mr. Mangione. No, I didn't. I had seen Gropper somewhere
before.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you categorically deny Mr. Malkin's testimony?
    Mr. Mangione. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever at the offices of the New Masses?
    Mr. Mangione. I probably was.
    Mr. Cohn. You say probably.
    Mr. Mangione. I must have been because I reviewed some
books for them so I may have gone by.
    Mr. Cohn. Was it possible to have written for New Masses
without ever having been a Communist?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, I think so. Since I wrote for the New
Masses, and I was not a Communist, I can say that. This is
speculation, but I imagine if you go down the list of
contributors you will find a lot of people who were not
Communists who were writing for the New Masses.
    Mr. Cohn. New Masses was a Communist publication.
    Mr. Mangione. I don't know whether it was technically a
Communist publication or not. It certainly followed the
Communist party line.
    Mr. Cohn. When you wrote for it, did you follow the
Communist party line?
    Mr. Mangione. No, sir. I wrote a review of Fontamara by
Silone, which I think was an excellent book in the thirties,
dealing with Italy.\7\ The review was published but then it
turned out that Silone was persona non grata with the Communist
party, and some of the people came around and said I ought to
write a different kind of review and I said, ``That is
nonsense; this is a book I like very much. I wrote the review
and I stand by the review.'' I was expressing an opinion about
the book. I was not a member of the party. I was not under its
orders, and I didn't have to write what I was told.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Ignazio Silone, Fontamara (New York: H. Smith & R. Haas, 1934).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senator Dirksen. Does the New Masses pay for the reviews?
    Mr. Mangione. No, you just got the book.
    Mr. Cohn. You were not paid by New Masses?
    Mr. Mangione. No. I might add in connection with the Silone
incident that at the time I was working in a publishing house
as a publicity man, and reader and editorial man, and I thought
so highly of Mr. Silone's book that after he published
Fontamara, I was directly instrumental in seeing that his book
of short stories, antifascist short stories, was published in
this country.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever work for the United States
government?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. In what capacity?
    Mr. Mangione. I worked for the United States government in
several capacities. If you want I will go down the list
chronologically. I was interviewed in New York by a man who was
looking for an information writer for the Resettlement
Administration. His name was Max Gilfond.
    Mr. Cohn. Why do you not tell us what jobs you held first?
    Mr. Mangione. I am sorry not to be more brief. Information
writer for Resettlement Administration--I can't remember exact
dates. These are the best of my recollection for about three
months in Washington, D.C.
    Mr. Cohn. When?
    Mr. Mangione. In 1937, spring.
    Senator Dirksen. Was Dr. [Rexford] Tugwell then head of
resettlement?
    Mr. Mangione. No, he had left. The other day one of the
senators reminded me that it must have been Baldwin who was at
the head.
    Senator Dirksen. C. B. Baldwin.
    Mr. Mangione. That is right, but I did not work for Mr.
Baldwin. I worked for Gilfond.
    Then I worked for the Federal Writers Project.
    Mr. Cohn. During what period of time?
    Mr. Mangione. From 1937 to the time it ceased to be a
federal project, the beginning of 1939.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any people you thought were
Communists connected with the Federal Workers Project?
    Mr. Mangione. There were people on the project who had the
reputation of being Communists.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Henry Osborne?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, he was my boss.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he have the reputation of being a Communist?
    Mr. Mangione. No, he had the reputation of being an old
radical.
    Senator Dirksen. The writers project was a division of the
old WPA, as I recall it.
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you work in Washington or New York?
    Mr. Mangione. I worked in Washington. I made frequent trips
to New York. My work involved helping to get these books
published so I talked to a lot of publishers and talked to
sponsors and was sort of liaison man.
    Senator Dirksen. What was the general nature of the work?
Was it assembling the historical directives they had in
Washington, or theatricals and dramas and plays?
    Mr. Mangione. No. The writers project was then producing
guide books, one for every state in the Union. These guide
books consisted of the general essays on the various parts of
the state, plus automobile tours and all kinds of tours. There
was a book for each state in the Union, and also for some of
the large cities.
    About that time it was decided that the Government Printing
Office was not equipped to publish and distribute these books
because they had no distribution facilities and it was very
costly for them to print up the books and there were publishers
who were willing and eager to publish these books free of
charge or a royalty which would be paid back to the federal
government.
    Senator Dirksen. Of course, they did a lot of work besides
guide books as I recall.
    Mr. Mangione. They did pamphlets. They did folklore
studies. They got one out called ``American Stuff.''
    Senator Dirksen. I recall that when I was on the other end
of the Capitol that someone had authored a book called, The
Confessions of a Bellboy that developed considerable currency
that was under the Federal Writers Project.
    Mr. Mangione. I don't know that. That seems rather
astonishing to me.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Mangione, do you know where John Reed is
buried now?
    Mr. Mangione. I remember reading in the Columbia
Encyclopedia yesterday that he is buried in the Kremlin.
    Mr. Cohn. This is the John Reed of which club you were a
member.
    Mr. Mangione. Yes. I read this just yesterday in New York
City.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know where he is buried in the Kremlin,
or who he is buried next to?
    Mr. Mangione. No, I do not.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know now that there is or was any
connection between the John Reed Club and the Communist party?
    Mr. Mangione. I have heard that there was.
    Mr. Schine. That there was?
    Mr. Mangione. I have heard since that there was.
    Mr. Schine. Have you heard that there is a connection
between the John Reed Club and the Communist party?
    Mr. Mangione. I heard that many years later.
    Mr. Schine. They never had any discussions to that effect
when you were in the club?
    Mr. Mangione. No, sir. These meetings, incidentally, were
public, most of them.
    Mr. Schine. Did you know at that time who John Reed was?
    Mr. Mangione. I just knew him as a man who wrote a book
called Ten Days that Shook the World, which I still have not
read.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know how he spent the latter part of his
life, or did you know how he spent the latter part of his life?
    Mr. Mangione. No, I didn't.
    Mr. Schine. You knew nothing about the man who the
organization to which you belonged----
    Mr. Mangione. I never belonged to it. I said I went to some
meetings of it.
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't you in fact belong to it?
    Mr. Mangione. No, I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. Were the meetings open to everybody?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Anybody could walk in?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, that is right.
    Mr. Cohn. How many people were usually at the meetings?
    Mr. Mangione. Sometimes there would be forty people,
sometimes there would be two hundred people, depending on who
the star of the occasion was. The star of the occasion usually
being some writer who just published a book and was willing to
talk about it.
    Mr. Cohn. Did they advertise the meetings in the public
press?
    Mr. Mangione. I don't remember. They probably did.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Mangione, did they ever discuss communism
at those meetings?
    Mr. Mangione. No.
    Mr. Schine. They never brought up the subject of the Soviet
Union?
    Mr. Mangione. They must have discussed--first of all, I
want to say that all this happened around 1932 or 1933. This is
not 1952, so if I don't remember certain details, I hope you
don't think it is bad faith, but simply because I can not
remember accurately that far back. Sometimes I can't remember
things even more recently.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you have a recollection, Mr. Mangione,
whether they solicited membership in the party at that meeting?
    Mr. Mangione. No, I never saw anyone solicited for any
membership nor was I nor do I remember paying money to anybody.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Mangione, did you ever read the Communist
Manifesto?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, I did. I remember only one line about
it.
    Mr. Schine. Did you ever read the works of Lenin?
    Mr. Mangione. No. I never read the works of Lenin. I never
read Marx. I tried to read it, but I couldn't go into it.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know who wrote the Communist Manifesto?
    Mr. Mangione. It was Marx, wasn't it?
    Mr. Schine. Do you recall the works of Marx ever being
discussed at the John Reed meetings?
    Mr. Mangione. No. There was a lot of talk about Marxian
attitudes toward literature, a proletariat literature. That was
the great emphasis in the days in the thirties.
    Mr. Schine. Then they did talk about the theories of Karl
Marx in those meetings?
    Mr. Mangione. They talked about proletariat literature and
they said that was Marxian. I had, I suppose, then, I thought I
had--as a young man I probably thought I understood things much
better than I did. I think when one is young you are more sure
of things, you are quicker to think that you understand.
Anyway, I heard the words. Looking back, now, they must have
meant very little, but they seemed to mean something.
    Mr. Schine. In those days, in the early thirties, when you
were attending the John Reed meetings?
    Mr. Mangione. I went to about six meetings.
    Mr. Schine. Did you subscribe to the theories of Marx?
    Mr. Mangione. No, I did not subscribe to the theories of
Marx. I was interested in the John Reed meetings for two
reasons. One was because I was very anxious to be a writer, and
in fact had started immediately--while in college, I started a
literary magazine, a very literary magazine, which was not
concerned with political matters at all. The issue that got
some national publicity was devoted entirely to Stephen Crane,
an early realistic American writer who lived in the early part
of the century and went to Syracuse University. I happened to
discover some correspondence he had which was quite a coup.
    Mr. Schine. Do you suspect now, Mr. Mangione, that there is
something that is not good about the John Reed Society, that
perhaps the John Reed Society is not dedicated to our form of
government?
    Mr. Mangione. I suspect that, and if I had to do it all
over again, I certainly would not go to meetings of the John
Reed Club. I would not do several things I did in the thirties.
    Mr. Schine. May I ask you this, Mr. Mangione. When did you
first meet Reed Harris?
    Mr. Mangione. Reed Harris, I met him in the writers
project. He was some kind of administrative assistant.
    Mr. Schine. Which project?
    Mr. Mangione. The Federal Writers Project in Washington.
    Mr. Schine. Did you ever persuade him to join some
organization?
    Mr. Mangione. No, sir, no, never.
    Mr. Schine. Were you in the League of American Writers?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes. I was a member of that for a while until
I decided that that was really a Communist front.
    Mr. Cohn. How long did it take you to decide that?
    Mr. Mangione. It took me about a year and a half.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you join?
    Mr. Mangione. I don't remember the exact date, but it must
have been around 1936 or 1937. I can't remember.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Mangione, are you familiar with Reed
Harris' career?
    Mr. Mangione. Am I familiar with his what?
    Mr. Schine. Career?
    Mr. Mangione. I am only familiar with the fact that he was
on the writers project at the time doing a lot of paper work.
    Mr. Schine. You knew of his ideas over the years?
    Mr. Mangione. No, sir. We never discussed them.
    Mr. Schine. Did you know any of his ideas in the early
thirties?
    Mr. Mangione. No. I just had heard that he had written a
book which had created quite a stir. I never read the book.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know anything about the book?
    Mr. Mangione. Only from what I read in the papers since his
hearings.
    Mr. Schine. Based on your understanding of what he wrote in
that book, if you were to pick a man to be the first or the
second person in charge of the International Information
Administration, which is supposed to depict the American way of
life, and promote understanding of our ideas and counter
Communist propaganda, would you select Reed Harris as that man?
    Mr. Mangione. I can't answer that yes or no. I would
consider the fact that he wrote this book when he did, when he
was young. I think people change. They undoubtedly do if they
are any good. Whether they change for the better or worse
depends on what kind of character they are. In the case of Reed
Harris, I don't know whether he changed or not. I would be
inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I would
investigate the facts.
    Mr. Schine. You would probably want to have from him some
tangible evidence that he had refuted his earlier beliefs, and
that he felt that he had made mistakes?
    Mr. Mangione. A man may refute his earlier beliefs to his
wife and mother, but sometimes he doesn't get the opportunity
or there is no avenue to refute his earlier beliefs.
    Mr. Schine. Writing a book is a pretty good way of doing
it.
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, it is. Again I would say this. I know
many, many writers, and I would say that I have found that many
writers who wrote books--and I don't mean political books
necessarily, say novels--when they were very young, are very
embarrassed by them when they get older. I think that is
natural. People change biologically and their mind changes.
    Senator Dirksen. Is writing your principal business now?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes. That is, I make a living by copy
writing. I write books on the side. I lead a double life in
that sense.
    Senator Dirksen. What about pamphlets and short stories and
essays; do you do some work in that field?
    Mr. Mangione. No. I am not a good short story writer. I did
sell a short story to Esquire a couple of years ago, but they
have not run it yet.
    Senator Dirksen. You were paid, but it was not printed?
    Mr. Mangione. It is very annoying. I write short stories so
seldom I like to see them in print when I do write them.
    Senator Dirksen. Have you been given some idea of the basic
purpose for the explorations of this committee?
    Mr. Mangione. I saw an editorial, ``McCarthy Targets
Overseas Books.''
    Senator Dirksen. Did you get the nub of the purpose in
which we are engaged just now?
    Mr. Mangione. I know you have been having Voice of America
hearings, and now according to this story you are going to talk
about books in overseas libraries. As I understand the United
States Information Service, that is not connected with the
Voice of America.
    Senator Dirksen. Yes, it is.
    Mr. Mangione. It is?
    Senator Dirksen. Let me brief you, because I think every
witness is entitled to know basically what is at stake and it
can be helpful to both the witness and to the committee.
    Mr. Mangione. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. There is an overall International
Information Administration, which carries on the propaganda
program for the free ideas. That includes the motion pictures,
the Voice of America, the library program, of which there are
some 150 scattered around the world. They usually have a
librarian there, and the people in that particular country can
come in and freely run through the shelves and find what they
want to read. The committee is of the opinion, and I think the
opinion and conviction is well founded, that if we take
taxpayers money and purchase books to be placed in those
libraries, where they can reach people in an impressionable
stage, and those books instead of selling the American idea and
the free idea, sell exactly the opposite thing, it would
certainly be a disservice to the people of the country, and
could scarcely be justified as a sound investment of public
funds.
    Mr. Mangione. I agree with you, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. I am glad to hear you say that. We have
had a number on the stand this morning, and there will be
others, some of whom have known affiliations with the Communist
party, as, for instance, Earl Browder who was here this
morning. There can be little doubt as to his identity with the
party scheme, although Mr. Browder even refused to identify his
own books this morning. But those books have been in these
libraries, and that looks like anything but a good deal for the
American people, particularly when young men are slugging it
out over in Korea in the interest of what we think of as the
free American system.
    Mr. Mangione. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. So the purpose of the exploration has
been, first, find the books that have been acquired with public
funds, and to see what kind of gospel those books sell and then
to nail it down. Involved, of course, is the future of this
whole information program. Shall it continue? Shall it continue
in a different direction? Shall it continue under other
auspices? All those are merely collateral questions that must
be resolved later.
    The purpose in having you here was first to ascertain
whether you were the author of books, whether those books were
in these libraries, and what the general philosophic content of
those books is.
    Mr. Mangione. Fine. I might say I agree with the general
tenor of that certainly. I think if I may express an opinion
that the danger in a query like this is that we might give
people a broad ammunition that is anti-American. That is, we
might give the impression that we are afraid of ideas. I hope
we are not. I agree with you that a book that is out and out
Communist, that does not have the interest of this country at
heart, should not appear in these libraries. As for my own
books, I am very happy about my books, sir. I have written
three books and they have been generally praised very highly by
most of the press. My books are expressions about my feeling
about my country and my family and my love of God. These books,
I think, do a service, and I will be glad to go over each book
with you, if you wish, and tell you briefly what they consist
of.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Mangione, do you think that it is in the
best interests of the country for our committee to try and
ascertain if the maximum constructive use has been made of
taxpayers funds appropriated for an information program, and to
try to find out and pin down responsibility if we find that the
maximum constructive use has not been made?
    Mr. Mangione. That sounds like a very honest and legitimate
purpose to me.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Mangione, do you think that our committee
is representing the best interests of the American people if we
seek to expose members of a conspiracy to overthrow our
government by force and violence?
    Mr. Mangione. I think that depends on your tactics. For
instance, the other day when I was presented by a man who is a
false witness, I didn't feel very good about these tactics.
    Mr. Schine. You have witnessed our tactics here today.
    Mr. Mangione. And I think they have been very good.
    Mr. Cohn. You told us you were a member of the League of
American Writers. Were you on the advisory board of a
publication known as Direction? I think that was a publication
of this writers project.
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, I had something to do with it. I think I
did.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you regard that as a Communist publication?
    Mr. Mangione. No, it was not a Communist publication.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever come to regard it as a Communist
dominated publication at any time?
    Mr. Mangione. We can not be talking about the same
publication because the one I have in mind only came out once.
    Mr. Cohn. There was only one issue?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Was Reed Harris on the board of that, too, do you
know?
    Mr. Mangione. To the best of my recollection he was not,
but I can't say for sure.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know that has been cited by the Un-
American Activities Committee as a Communist initiated and
controlled publication?
    Mr. Mangione. No.
    Mr. Cohn. That is a surprise to you?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes. May I see this publication?
    Mr. Cohn. I don't have it here.
    Mr. Mangione. I would like to make sure we are talking
about the same publication, because I was interested in little
magazines of all kinds in those days. I wrote an article on it
for the Literary Digest. I may be getting it confused with some
other publication. But I would like to see it.
    Mr. Cohn. I am sorry, I do not have it available.
    Mr. Mangione. In that case I would withhold identifying it
until I actually see it.
    Mr. Schine. Could you produce the one you are familiar with
for us?
    Mr. Mangione. Which one is that?
    Mr. Cohn. Direction. Do you have a copy of that?
    Mr. Mangione. I just remember vaguely this. There were so
many publications that the writers project had things to do
with. There was, for instance, one called American Stuff. About
that time there were other publications I got interested in
putting out writer project issues or special sections. It seems
to me that there was a magazine called Direction which did
that. So actually it was not a Federal Writers Project
publication. That is why I would like to see it because then I
could remember exactly what it was. I could tell you about
American Stuff, and you can find that in the library. I can
tell you it was published by Viking Press. I remember that
collection very well.
    Senator Dirksen. One other question, Mr. Mangione, and this
is wholly speculative, and you can answer it or not, as you
like. Do you not think it is a pretty fair assumption if, for
instance, anybody in this country who had some identity with
the Communist party or any of its fringes, was an author and
his books showed up in a foreign library under American
auspices, that Communists in those countries would be quick to
ascertain the fact? Do you not believe that, as a matter of
course, would be true?
    Mr. Mangione. No, sir, I don't. May I explain why?
    Senator Dirksen. Yes, please.
    Mr. Mangione. For one thing, in the thirties during this
atmosphere that interested a lot of young so-called idealists
who finally realized that they were being taken over, those
people may have joined the Communist party and done a lot of
things they regretted since, and they may be writing books that
are very good books and that people should read, and that are a
service to our country in terms of the propaganda and the
feeling of friendliness we want to create with other countries,
not with Communists in other countries, but with the general
population. So I don't think it is fair to condemn a man who
had left-wing associations in the thirties, and say that the
books he writes in the forties or fifties are no good per se. I
think each book must be read carefully. I think the reviews
should be read, to see what the press thought of them, and a
general opinion formed about each book. I think that is fair
enough. Who is going to be the judge of all this, I don't know,
except I think the literary editors of this country are pretty
fair judges by and large. I think if you took a consensus,
their opinion would be probably a good guide.
    Senator Dirksen. Would you qualify that answer some on the
basis of the age of the author of the book?
    Mr. Mangione. The age of the author of the book?
    Senator Dirksen. Yes.
    Mr. Mangione. It depends on how old he was.
    Senator Dirksen. Something that somebody did in his early
twenties, let us say.
    Mr. Mangione. In his early twenties. Some people mature a
little more quickly than others. Sometimes it takes a little
while longer for a person to mature. Some people in their
twenties are reckless and irresponsible, and then they do
mature slowly, but surely. Other people are born mature.
    Senator Dirksen. But you would not make that answer, I
suppose, in connection with books like those of Earl Browder
that had a known objective, and that was----
    Mr. Mangione. I don't think Earl Browder----
    Mr. Fanelli. Let him finish.
    Mr. Mangione. I am sorry.
    Senator Dirksen. Books like that, that seek to hurl America
along the Communist path, because that is the objective.
    Mr. Mangione. I don't consider that good American
propaganda.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, one other question, Mr. Mangione. Do
you regard this as a fair hearing on the basis of the
responsibility the committee has to explore this, since it
involves public funds and a public activity to persuade people
behind the Iron Curtain and elsewhere of the merits of the free
system?
    Mr. Mangione. I think it could be a little more full. That
is, I can only judge of my own personal experience. You have
not inquired about my books. I don't know whether you gentlemen
have read them. You don't know how they were received, what the
press thought of them, how pro-American they were, and so on. I
think these are important considerations in terms of me.
    Senator Dirksen. Would you like to give us just a brief
statement on that subject?
    Mr. Mangione. I would love to.
    Senator Dirksen. Very well.
    Mr. Mangione. First of all, because I got some inkling of
the fact that you were interested in the books overseas, and
because I remember the conversations I had with Mr. Mackey
about the fact that the State Department had bought some copies
of the book, I have taken the liberty of bringing along my last
book, which is Reunion in Sicily and here it is.
    Mr. Fanelli. Could you spare a copy of that?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, I can. I could give that to the
committee with my compliments.
    Senator Dirksen. If we don't have a copy of that at the
moment, we would be glad to have it.
    Mr. Mangione. First of all, I have a scrapbook here----
    Mr. Fanelli. Do not give the committee all of it, but just
indicate its contents.
    Mr. Mangione. This is a scrapbook. I am not going into all
of it. I just want to make the general statement that most of
these reviews are extremely favorable and indicate a very pro-
American attitude. Some of the more politically minded
reviewers indicate it is an anti-Communist book. Would you like
to see the scrap book? It is my only copy.
    Senator Dirksen. Would you like to leave it here and have
it returned to you?
    Mr. Mangione. It is my only copy, but if I could leave it
here, and if you would indicate what you would like to have
photostated, I could do that.
    Senator Dirksen. Suppose you take it back with you and we
will rest it on these statements that you have made and then we
may want some particular things and will contact you.
    Mr. Mangione. Yes. I would like to read into the record, if
I may have the opportunity, a couple of paragraphs towards the
end to sort of summarize the gist of the whole book and
findings. It tried to be an objective book, as objective as I
could make it. This is what it says:
    In retrospect, the spiritualness I found among the
Sicilians was the most surprising feature of my sojourn. I had
sailed from New York with reluctance and foreboding, certain
that the Sicilians would be warped and embittered by their
encounter with the war. My fears left me as soon as I set foot
on the island. I felt myself in the presence of an ancient
wisdom that transcended all defeat. There was dissension, but
the general atmosphere was clear and stimulating. The hangdog
look I saw during fascism was gone; so were the strutting
patriots and the fake nationalism. There was life galore--
vibrant, warm and poignantly human.
    Yet, the infections of fascism were still noticeable. There
were specters of dictatorship, from the right and the left,
ready to thrive on poverty and confusion. There was liberty,
but only some of the people realized what a precious thing it
was; not all of them knew how to use it. There were those who
chose to interpret it as freedom from responsibility. Others
were ready to exchange it for the promises of would-be tyrants.
It was going to take time, years of experience with liberty,
before the majority could absorb what the older people had
almost forgotten and the younger ones never knew; the meaning
and value of the democratic process. But in the meantime, one
could easily be optimistic, for their strong faith in life and
their deep-rooted talent to survive its worst onslaughts were
as promising and impressive as a Sicilian spring.
    I might add that both my parents were born in Sicily. I
have hundreds of relatives there. I was able to make an
accurate investigation. I reported my findings to Ambassador
Dunn, because he was going down there, and I thought the
information would be useful to him.
    I have gotten a little depressed since because of the
forthcoming election in Italy. This is an election that is as
important as the general Italian election that happened in
1948. During that 1948 election, I made a short wave talk along
with Mrs. John Cabot Lodge to the people of Italy urging them
to vote the democratic ticket.
    Mr. Cohn. Mrs. John Davis Lodge.
    Mr. Mangione. John Davis Lodge. I have a photograph that
appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer. This is 1948. There is a
photograph of Mrs. Lodge broadcasting and me and some countess
here waiting to broadcast. This is described as a part of the
anti-Communist message for voters in Italy. It simply describes
that we are waiting our turn to speak. I think perhaps this
ought to go in the record.
    I am concerned about this election very seriously. It is
coming soon. I think next month. I wish this committee or some
other committee could do something about that, because that is
going to have an effect that is worldwide. If the Communists
win, it will be very unfortunate because there are many people
in Sicily, in Italy and I think in Europe, but I know Italy
pretty well, who call themselves Communists, who do not know
the meaning of communism but are going along with Communists,
which is bad, because it represents power for the Communist
Party.
    Senator Dirksen. Is Togliatti still the spiritual head?
    Mr. Mangione. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. How about De Gaspari?
    Mr. Mangione. He has been strong up to this point. He was
able to survive the last election, I think mainly because the
Americans got busy and wrote to their Italian relatives,
``Look, we don't want left wing parties in there, and it would
be nice if you voted the right way.'' I think these letters had
a tremendous influence. Nothing has been done, as far as I can
make out, to get anyone in Italy excited about the outcome of
this election.
    Senator Dirksen. Are you alarmed about the outcome in terms
of Red strength at the polls everywhere in Italy or only in
some areas like Milan and Turin?
    Mr. Mangione. Having been away from Italy for five years I
don't know specifically the different areas. I do know Sicily
very well. I had predicted that the Communists would win in
Sicily. I had made my prediction known to the American
consulate there, and they sort of pooh-poohed it. The
Communists in Sicily did win their election. It was a
parliamentary election. It was not too important fortunately
but it was a symptom of what was to come.
    Senator Dirksen. It is a question for the voters there to
decide.
    Mr. Mangione. Yes, but the voters there have not had enough
experience in democracy to know how to decide. The Italians
have been kicked around so much, they have had twenty years of
dictatorship included in that kicking around process, so their
political judgment needs maturing. They are easily attracted by
slogans and Communists are smart enough to use the slogans that
answer their needs.
    Senator Dirksen. I have one other question, Mr. Mangione.
Where did you do your college work?
    Mr. Mangione. Syracuse University. I graduated in 1931 with
a bachelor of arts degree, English major.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever special assistant to the director
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service?
    Mr. Mangione. Let me correct that. I had the title of
special assistant to the commissioner, and this was the period
from 1942 to 1948 with the exception of a leave of absence for
one year.
    Mr. Cohn. Under what circumstances?
    Mr. Mangione. Under three commissioners.
    Mr. Cohn. Under what circumstances did you leave?
    Mr. Mangione. I was hired to help publicize the 1940 alien
registration program.
    Mr. Cohn. Was any loyalty question involved in your
leaving?
    Mr. Mangione. No, not at all.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you sure of that?
    Mr. Mangione. Absolutely sure. In leaving what?
    Mr. Cohn. The immigration service.
    Mr. Mangione. There have never been any loyalty questions
about leaving any service. I am sure of that because at that
time when I left the immigration service in 1948, which I did
because I just married a Philadelphia girl and the immigration
service was coming back to Washington and I wanted to stay in
Philadelphia and get in private industry, I got a job with N.
W. Ayer and Son, and I learned the job of copy writing. At the
time I left I was under attack by the Hearst press. The Hearst
press wanted to make it appear that I was fired. Commissioner
Watson Miller made a statement that I was leaving for personal
reasons.
    Mr. Cohn. There should have been some loyalty
investigation.
    Mr. Mangione. I was constantly investigated.
    Mr. Cohn. You concede that you were a member of certain
organizations which turned out to be Communist friends, and you
were in the League of American Writers, and you were in
frequent attendance at the John Reed Club?
    Mr. Mangione. No, I was not.
    Mr. Cohn. How many times did you attend the meetings of the
John Reed Club?
    Mr. Mangione. About five or six times.
    Mr. Cohn. That is a lot.
    Mr. Mangione. Over a two year period.
    Mr. Cohn. That is a lot. I think once is a lot.
    Mr. Mangione. I agree with you now. I do not think your
summary was very accurate, Mr. Counsel.
    Senator Dirksen. I think in all candor, Mr. Mangione, it
ought to be said you have been indeed a very refreshing
witness. I do not believe you have tried to conceal anything
from the committee.
    Mr. Mangione. No, sir, I have nothing to conceal. The
reason I can speak honestly is because I speak with a clear
conscience.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether it is
within our province or not, but it appears that it might be
constructive, since Mr. Mangione has written books on the
subject and has thought about it a great deal, and is presently
concerned about the election problem in Italy, if he has any
ideas and would like to put them in writing and submit them to
the Foreign Relations Committee, they would be very pleased to
see them.
    Senator Dirksen. I am afraid, however, that is not the
province of this committee. That would be a voluntary
contribution which Mr. Mangione would have to make.
    Mr. Mangione. May I suggest if anyone knows anyone on that
committee that they do read Reunion in Sicily. Although that
was written of the period of 1947, I am sure the situation is
the same in Sicily. That might be an indication of how the
situation could best be met.
    Mr. Fanelli. Senator, is the witness excused?
    Senator Dirksen. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. We will let you know if there is anything
further.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Hughes, will you come forward, please?
Will you stand and be sworn?
    Mr. Hughes. Do you put your hand on the book?
    Senator Dirksen. It is not necessary at this time.
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
    Mr. Hughes. I do.
TESTIMONY OF LANGSTON HUGHES (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, FRANK
                           D. REEVES)
    Senator Dirksen. Will you identify yourself for the record,
please?
    Mr. Reeves. My name is Frank D. Reeves.
    Senator Dirksen. You are here as counsel to Mr. Hughes?
    Mr. Reeves. That is right.
    Senator Dirksen. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Reeves. In the District of Columbia, 1901 11th Street.
    Senator Dirksen. And you are an attorney at law, and a
member of the District Bar?
    Mr. Reeves. That is correct.
    Senator Dirksen. Has this always been your home?
    Mr. Reeves. For the last twenty years or more.
    Senator Dirksen. And you came originally from where?
    Mr. Reeves. I was originally born in Montreal, Canada.
    Senator Dirksen. So since that time you have been here?
    Mr. Reeves. Yes, and I was naturalized.
    Senator Dirksen. How long have you been a member of the
District Bar?
    Mr. Reeves. Since 1943.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Hughes, will you state your name for
the record?
    Mr. Hughes. James Langston Hughes.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you always use that name, James
Langston Hughes?
    Mr. Hughes. In writing I use simply Langston Hughes, but
friends know both names.
    Senator Dirksen. Where were you born?
    Mr. Hughes. Joplin, Missouri.
    Senator Dirksen. If it is not too personal, how old are you
now?
    Mr. Hughes. 51; I was born in 1902.
    Senator Dirksen. Is Missouri still your home?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, New York City is my home.
    Senator Dirksen. How long have you been residing in New
York City?
    Mr. Hughes. I would say with any regularity for ten years,
but I have been going in and out of New York for the last
twenty-five.
    Senator Dirksen. I assume you travel and lecture?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I do.
    Senator Dirksen. From coast to coast?
    Mr. Hughes. In fact, I first came to New York in 1921, but
off and on I have not lived there.
    Senator Dirksen. You have a family?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I don't.
    Senator Dirksen. You are a single man?
    Mr. Hughes. I am.
    Senator Dirksen. Have you done college work at any time?
    Mr. Hughes. I did a year at Columbia, and I finished my
college at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, and graduated in
1929.
    Senator Dirksen. You hold a degree?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I do. I have also an honorary degree.
    Senator Dirksen. Other than writing, have you had some kind
of occupation or profession?
    Mr. Hughes. No, not with any regularity. I have been a
lecturer, of course, all the forms of writing. I had one
Hollywood job years ago.
    Senator Dirksen. Are you attached to the faculty of any
school or any university?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I am not, but I was about to tell you
that I have been a writer in residence at the University and at
Chicago Laboratory School.
    Senator Dirksen. Other than writing, you do not pursue any
other occupation?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. That is your occupation?
    Mr. Hughes. Not with any degree of regularity, no.
    Senator Dirksen. Have you ever worked for the government of
the United States?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, not so far as I know, unless you would
consider--I don't think one would consider USO appearances
during the war----
    Senator Dirksen. Did you appear for the USO?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes. Or writing scripts, but those were unpaid.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you lecture for the USO?
    Mr. Hughes. I made a number of USO appearances, yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. In this country or abroad?
    Mr. Hughes. In this country.
    Senator Dirksen. And have you lectured abroad?
    Mr. Hughes. I have, but not under any government auspices.
    Senator Dirksen. No, I mean privately.
    Mr. Hughes. Privately I have. I would not say
professionally really, but I have been asked to give speeches
abroad, or have spoken or read my poems, usually my poems.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, with respect to your travels have you
traveled recently in the last ten or fifteen years?
    Mr. Hughes. In the country?
    Senator Dirksen. Outside.
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir. I have not been out of the country if
my memory is correct since 1938 or 1939.
    Senator Dirksen. Would you care to tell us whether you have
traveled to the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Hughes. I have, sir, yes.
    Senator Dirksen. For an extended period?
    Mr. Hughes. I was there for about a year.
    Senator Dirksen. Just there, or were you lecturing or
writing?
    Mr. Hughes. Well, I went to make a movie, or to work on a
movie, rather. I should not say make, myself. I went to work on
a picture. The picture was not made, and I remained as a writer
and journalist, and came back around the world.
    Senator Dirksen. That I assume was a Soviet-made movie.
    Mr. Hughes. It was to have been. It was not made.
    Senator Dirksen. As I recall, all movies in the Soviet
Union are government products, really, are they not?
    Mr. Hughes. This was a disputed point at that time. But I
would think so. At any rate, the film company was called
Meschrabpom Film.
    Senator Dirksen. How do you spell that?
    Mr. Hughes. I am sorry I can not tell you. I don't read
Russian.
    Senator Dirksen. Your chief reputation lies in the fact
that you were a poet. Would that be a correct statement?
    Mr. Hughes. I think in most people's minds that would be
correct, although I have written many other kinds of things,
yes, stories, and plays as well.
    Senator Dirksen. This will be a direct question, of course,
but first I think I should explain to you the purpose of this
hearing, because I believe witnesses are entitled to know.
    Mr. Hughes. I would appreciate it, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. You see, last year Congress appropriated
$86,000,000 against an original request of $160,000,000 for the
purpose of propagandizing the free world, the free system, and
I think you get the general idea of what I mean, the American
system. In that $86,000,000, about $21,000,000 was allocated to
the Voice of America. Some was allocated to the motion
pictures. Some funds were used.
    Mr. Hughes. I am sorry, I did not understand that.
    Senator Dirksen. Motion pictures and the Voice of America,
did you get that?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I did.
    Senator Dirksen. And then some funds were used to purchase
books to equip libraries in many sections of the world, the
idea being, of course, that if people in those countries have
access to American books, which allegedly delineate American
objectives and American culture, that it would be useful in
propagandizing our way of life and our system. The books of a
number of authors have found their way into those libraries.
They were purchased, of course. The question is whether or not
they subserve the basic purpose we had in mind in the first
instance when we appropriated money or whether they reveal a
wholly contrary idea. There is some interest, of course, in
your writings, because volumes of poems done by you have been
acquired, and they have been placed in these libraries,
ostensibly by the State Department, more particularly, I
suppose I should say, by the International Information
Administration. So we are exploring that matter, because it
does involve the use of public funds to require that kind of
literature, and the question is, is it an efficacious use of
funds, does it go to the ideal that we assert, and can it
logically be justified.
    So we have encountered quite a number of your works, and I
would be less than frank with you, sir, if I did not say that
there is a question in the minds of the committee, and in the
minds of a good many people, concerning the general objective
of some of those poems, whether they strike a Communist, rather
than an anti-Communist note.
    So now at this point, I think probably Mr. Cohn, our
counsel, has some questions he would like to ask.
    Mr. Hughes. Could I ask you, sir, which books of mine are
in the libraries?
    Senator Dirksen. They are here, and I think we will
probably refer to a number of them.
    Mr. Hughes. I see, because I could not quite know
otherwise.
    Mr. Cohn. We will refer you from time to time to specific
ones. Let me ask you this: Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I am not. I presume by that you mean a
Communist party member, do you not?
    Mr. Cohn. I mean a Communist.
    Mr. Hughes. I would have to know what you mean by your
definition of communism.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a believer in communism?
    Mr. Hughes. I have never been a believer in communism or a
Communist party member.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a believer in socialism?
    Mr. Hughes. My feeling, sir, is that I have believed in the
entire philosophies of the left at one period in my life,
including socialism, communism, Trotskyism. All isms have
influenced me one way or another, and I can not answer to any
specific ism, because I am not familiar with the details of
them and have not read their literature.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you not being a little modest?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You mean to say you have no familiarity with
communism?
    Mr. Hughes. No, I would not say that, sir. I would simply
say that I do not have a complete familiarity with it. I have
not read the Marxist volumes. I have not read beyond the
introduction of the Communist Manifesto.
    Mr. Cohn. Let us see if we can get an answer to this: Have
you ever believed in communism?
    Mr. Hughes. Sir, I would have to know what you mean by
communism to answer that truthfully, and honestly, and
according to the oath.
    Mr. Cohn. Interpret it as broadly as you want. Have you
ever believed that there is a form of government better than
the one under which this country operates today?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. You have never believed that?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. That is your testimony under oath?
    Mr. Hughes. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended a Communist party meeting?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. And if witnesses said you did, they would be
lying?
    Mr. Hughes. They would be lying, and as far as I know, I
was never to a Communist meeting.
    Mr. Cohn. Could it happen that you have been?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, it could not.
    Mr. Cohn. You would know if you were at a Communist party
meeting?
    Mr. Hughes. Not necessarily.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever at any meeting about which you have
doubt now that it might have been a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Hughes. That is why I would like a definition of what
you mean by communism, and also what you would call a Communist
party meeting. As you know, one may go to a Baptist church and
not be a Baptist.
    Mr. Cohn. I did not ask you that. I asked you whether or
not you ever attended a Communist party meeting. I did not say
if you were a Communist party member attending a Communist
party meeting. So your analogy about a Baptist does not hold
water. The only question now is: Have you ever attended a
Communist party meeting.
    Mr. Hughes. As far as I know, not. That is the best I can
say.
    Mr. Cohn. Were there any meetings you now think might have
been Communist party meetings?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, there are not.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever a believer in socialism?
    Mr. Hughes. Well, sir, I would say no. If you mean
socialism by the volumes that are written about socialism and
what it actually means, I couldn't tell you. I would say no.
    Mr. Cohn. You would say no?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I would say no.
    Mr. Cohn. You want to tell us you have never been a
believer in anything except our form of government?
    Mr. Hughes. As far as government goes, I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you mean, as far as government goes?
    Mr. Hughes. I mean to answer to your question.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have some reservation about it?
    Mr. Hughes. No, I have not. Would you repeat your question
for me?
    Mr. Hughes. Let us do it this way. Did you write something
called Scottsboro Limited? \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Langston Hughes, Scottsboro Limited: Four Poems and a Play in
Verse (New York: The Golden Stair Press, 1932).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you not think that follows the Communist party
line very well?
    Mr. Hughes. It very well might have done so, although I am
not sure I ever knew what the Communist party line was since it
very often changed.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hughes, when you wrote Scottsboro Limited,
did you believe in what you were saying in that poem?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, not entirely, because I was writing in
characters.
    Mr. Cohn. It is your testimony you were writing in
character and what was said did not represent your beliefs?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir. You cannot say I don't believe, if I
may clarify my feeling about creative writing, that when you
make a character, a Klansman, for example, as I have in some of
my poems, I do not, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. How about Scottsboro Limited, specifically. Do
you believe in the message carried by that work?
    Mr. Hughes. I believe that some people did believe in it at
the time.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you believe in it?
    Mr. Hughes. Did I?
    Mr. Cohn. Did you personally believe? You can answer that.
Let me read you, ``Rise, workers and fight, audience, fight,
fight, fight, fight, the curtain is a great red flag rising to
the strains of the Internationale.'' That is pretty plain, is
it not?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, indeed it is.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you believe in that message when you wrote,
it?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You did not believe it?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. It was contrary to your beliefs, is that right?
    Mr. Hughes. Sir, I don't think you can get a yes or no
answer entirely to any literary question, so I give you----
    Mr. Cohn. I am trying, Mr. Hughes, because I think you have
gone pretty far in some of these things, and I think you know
pretty well what you did. When you wrote something called
``Ballads of Lenin,'' did you believe that when you wrote it?
    Mr. Hughes. Believe what, sir?
    Mr. Cohn. Comrade Lenin of Russia speaks from marble:
    On guard with the workers forever--
    The world is our room!
    Mr. Hughes. That is a poem. One can not state one believes
every word of a poem.
    Mr. Cohn. I do not know what one can say. I am asking you
specifically do you believe in the message carried and conveyed
in this poem?
    Mr. Hughes. It would demand a great deal of discussion. You
can not say yes or no.
    Mr. Cohn. You can not say yes or no?
    Mr. Hughes. One can if one wants to confuse one's opinions.
    Mr. Cohn. You wrote it, Mr. Hughes, and we would like an
answer. This is very important. Did you or didn't you?
    Mr. Hughes. May I confer with counsel, sir?
    Mr. Cohn. Surely.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Hughes. Would you ask me the question again, sir?
    [Question read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Hughes. My feeling is that one can not give a yes or no
answer to such a question, because the Bible, for example,
means many things to different people. That poem would mean
many things to different people.
    Mr. Cohn. How did you intend it to mean?
    Mr. Hughes. I would have to read and study it and go back
twenty years to tell you that.
    Mr. Cohn. Read it right now. Is it your testimony that you
can not recall it?
    Mr. Hughes. I could not recite it to you, no, sir. I can
not.
    That, sir, in my opinion is a poem symbolizing what I felt
at that time Lenin as a symbol might mean to workers in various
parts of the world. The Spanish Negro in the cane fields, the
Chinese in Shanghai, and so on.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that what it meant to you at that time?
    Mr. Hughes. That is what it meant to me at that time.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Hughes, let me ask, are you familiar
with an organization known as the International Union of
Revolutionary Writers?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes. If I am not mistaken that was the
international format to which the League of American Writers
was affiliated.
    Senator Dirksen. That was a Soviet organization, I take it,
was it not?
    Mr. Hughes. My understanding of it, sir, was that it was an
international organization.
    Senator Dirksen. Did it have its headquarters in the Soviet
Union?
    Mr. Hughes. That, sir, I am sorry I can't tell you. I don't
know.
    Senator Dirksen. This goes back now to 1940, and I am not
unmindful of course that one does not always have a pinpoint
recollection of things that happened a long time ago. But in
November 1940, you did recite one or more of your poems at the
Hotel Vista de la Royal in Pasadena, California. Does that
occur to you?
    Mr. Hughes. Could you tell me more about it?
    Senator Dirksen. It was known as an author's luncheon, and
it was the Vista de la Royal Hotel in Pasadena, California. On
the same program was one George Palmer Putnam.
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I remember that. I was prevented from
reading my poems there by a picket line thrown around the hotel
by Amy Semple McPherson.
    Senator Dirksen. They referred to you as author of the poem
and member of the American section of Moscow's International
Union of Revolutionary Writers. I presume you were familiar
with the hand bill advertising it and that it also carried one
of your poems?
    Mr. Hughes. Sir, I would be inclined to say perhaps that
was the handbill put out by the picket line, rather than the
sponsors of the luncheon.
    Senator Dirksen. Is that statement correct that you were a
part of the American section of Moscow's International Union of
Revolutionary Writers?
    Mr. Hughes. I would say with the word ``Moscow'' eliminated
it would be correct. I was a member of the League of American
Writers which was affiliated with the international.
    Senator Dirksen. Was that an organization that required
dues of its members? Did you pay dues at all?
    Mr. Hughes. I do not believe so, sir. I had been at that
period in my life very often a kind of honorary member or a
member that they just had.
    Senator Dirksen. Are you fifty-three now?
    Mr. Hughes. I am fifty-one, sir. I was born in 1902.
    Senator Dirksen. Fifty-one?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. That was thirteen years ago, so you were
38 years old, and that would doubtless be the age of
discretion, certainly, would it not?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I would say, sir, that I certainly was a
member of the League of American Writers, but I have no
recollection of paying any regular dues.
    Senator Dirksen. You know, Mr. Hughes, I was very curious
when you asked, ``Do you put your hand on the book'' in taking
the oath, and the reason for the curiosity was that poem that
you wrote at that time, and that you read at that meeting in
Pasadena, and its title is ``Goodbye, Christ''.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ In the public hearing on March 26, Senator McCarthy inserted
the entire text of ``Goodbye Christ'' in the record and added: ``As far
as I know, this was not in any of the books purchased by the
information program. This is merely included in the record on request,
to show the type of thinking of Mr. Hughes at that time, the type of
writings which were being purchased.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Hughes. There are misstatements in your statement. The
poem was not written at that time. It was not read at that
meeting, and I can't quite remember what the other was, but I
think you have three wrong statements.
    Senator Dirksen. My statement may be an inaccuracy, but I
have before me here the Saturday Evening Post for December 21,
1940, and here is what it recites: ``Here is a photograph of a
circular distributed here early in November.''
    Mr. Hughes. Distributed where?
    Senator Dirksen. In Pasadena. And in a box where it is
boldly set out, and it is photographed, the first line is,
``Attention Christians'' with two exclamation points. ``Be sure
to attend the book and author luncheon at Vista de la Royal
Hotel, Pasadena, California.'' Can you hear me?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I can hear you.
    Senator Dirksen. ``Friday, November 15, 1940, at 12:15
promptly. Hear the distinguished young Negro poet, Langston
Hughes, author of the following poem, and member of the
American Section of Moscow's International Union of
Revolutionary Writers,'' and the title is ``Goodbye, Christ.''
    Mr. Hughes. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. The reason I was curious about your asking
for the book on which to hold your hand and may I say, sir,
from my familiarity with the Negro people for a long time that
they are innately a very devout and religious people--this is
the first paragraph of the poem:
    Listen, Christ, you did all right in your day, I reckon
    But that day is gone now.
    They ghosted you up a swell story, too,
    And called it the Bible, but it is dead now.
    The popes and the preachers have made too much money from
it. They have sold you to too many.
    Do you think that Book is dead?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I do not. That poem, like that
handbill, is an ironical and satirical poem.
    Senator Dirksen. It was not so accepted, I fancy, by the
American people.
    Mr. Hughes. It was accepted by a large portion of them and
some ministers and bishops understood the poem and defended it.
    Senator Dirksen. I know many who accepted the words for
what they seem to convey.
    Mr. Hughes. That is exactly what I meant to say in answer
to the other gentleman's question, that poetry may mean many
things to many people,
    Senator Dirksen. We will put all of it in the record, of
course, but I will read you the third stanza.
    Goodbye, Christ Jesus, Lord of Jehovah,
    Beat it on away from here now
    Make way for a new guy with no religion at all,
    A real guy named Marx communism, Lenin Peasant, Stalin
worker, me.
    How do you think the average reader would take that?
    Mr. Hughes. Sir; the average reader is very likely to take
poetry, if they take it at all, and they usually don't take it
at all, they are very likely often not to understand it, sir. I
have found it very difficult myself to understand a great many
poems that one had to study in school. If you will permit me, I
will explain that poem to you from my viewpoint.
    Senator Dirksen. Of course, when all is said and done a
poem like this must necessarily speak for itself, because
notwithstanding what may have been in your mind, what
inhibitions, whether you crossed your fingers on some of those
words when you wrote them, its impact on the thinking of the
people is finally what counts.
    May I ask, do you write poetry merely for the amusement and
the spiritual and emotional ecstacy that it develops, or do you
write it for a purpose?
    Mr. Hughes. You write it out of your soul and you write it
for your own individual feeling of expression.
    First, sir, it does not come from yourself in the first
place. It comes from something beyond oneself, in my opinion.
    Senator Dirksen. You think this is a providential force?
    Mr. Hughes. There is something more than myself in the
creation of everything that I do. I believe that is in every
creation, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. So you have no objective in writing
poetry. It is not a message that you seek to convey to
somebody? You just sit down and the rather ethereal thoughts
suddenly come upon you?
    Mr. Hughes. I have often written poetry in that way, and
there are on occasions times when I have a message that I wish
to express directly and that I want to get to people.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you know whether this poem was
reprinted in quantities and used as propaganda leaflets by the
Communist party?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, it was not. It was reprinted in
quantities as far as I know, and used as a propaganda leaflet
by the organizations of Gerald L. K. Smith and the organization
of extreme anti-Negro forces in our country, and I have
attempted to recall that poem. I have denied permission for its
publication over the years. I have explained the poem for
twenty-two years, I believe, or twenty years, in my writings in
the press, and my talks as being a satirical poem, which I
think a great pity that anyone should think of the Christian
religion in those terms, and great pity that sometimes we have
permitted the church to be disgraced by people who have used it
as a racketeering force. That poem is merely the story of
racketeering in religion and misuse of religion as might have
been seen through the eyes at that time of a young Soviet
citizen who felt very cocky and said to the whole world, ``See
what people do for religion. We don't do that.'' I write a
character piece sometimes as in a play. I sometimes have in a
play a villain. I do not believe in that villain myself.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you think that any twelve-year-old boy
could misunderstand that language, ``Goodbye Christ, beat it
away from here now''?
    Mr. Hughes. You cannot take one line.
    Senator Dirksen. We will read all of it.
    Mr. Hughes. If you read the twelve-year-old the whole poem,
I hope he would be shocked into thinking about the real things
of religion, because with some of my poems that is what I have
tried to do, to shock people into thinking and finding the real
meaning themselves. Certainly I have written many religious
poems, many poems about Christ, and prayers and my own feeling
is not what I believe you seem to think that poem as meaning.
    Senator Dirksen. I do not want to be captious about it, and
I want to be entirely fair, but it seems to me that this could
mean only one thing to the person who read it.
    Mr. Hughes. I am sorry. There is a thousand interpretations
of Shakespeare's Sonata.
    Senator Dirksen. Was this ever set to music?
    Mr. Hughes. No.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you know Paul Robeson?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you know him well?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I do not, not at this period in our
lives.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever know him well? You say ``not at this
period of my life.'' Was there ever a period in your life when
you knew Paul Robeson well?
    Mr. Hughes. Before he became famous when we were all young
in Harlem, I knew him fairly well, and at that time he was
quite unknown and so was I. Since his rise to fame, I have not
seen him very often.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know he was a Communist when you knew him
very well?
    Mr. Hughes. I would not be able to say if he ever was a
Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. You still do not know he is a Communist?
    Mr. Hughes. I still do not.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a little bit suspicious?
    Mr. Hughes. I don't know what you mean by suspicious.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Hughes, you are entitled to interpret your
poems in any way you want to, and others will interpret your
poems in the way they want to.
    Mr. Hughes. That is true.
    Mr. Schine. I also should say that you should be entitled
to consider the seriousness of not telling the truth before
this committee.
    Mr. Hughes. I certainly do, sir. The truth in matters of
opinion is as Anatole France said, like the spokes of a wheel,
and my opinions are my own, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Hughes, you know many witnesses come before
a committee, and they are not guilty of a crime, and then to
avoid embarrassment or for reasons that they may not understand
themselves, they do not tell the truth. They are entitled to
refuse to answer on the grounds of self incrimination, but
sometimes they do not take that privilege, and when they have
left the room they are guilty of perjury. I think you should
reconsider what you have said here today on matters of fact
before you leave this room, because perjury is a very serious
charge.
    Mr. Hughes. I am certainly aware of that, sir.
    Mr. Schine. You do not wish to change any of your
testimony?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I do not.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hughes, is it not a fact now that this poem
here did represent your views and it could only mean one thing,
that the ``Ballads to Lenin'' did represent your views? You
have told us that all of these things did, that you have been a
consistent supporter of Communist movements and you have been a
consistent and undeviating follower of the Communist party line
up through and including recent times. Is that not a fact?
    Mr. Hughes. May I consult with counsel, sir?
    Mr. Cohn. Surely.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Cohn. Can you answer my question?
    Mr. Hughes. May I ask the chairman of the committee if it
is possible to break that question down into specific and
component parts?
    Mr. Cohn. Surely. I personally do not think it is
necessary. You say you do not understand the question?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I do not say I do not understand the
question. It is not a question. It is a series of questions.
    Mr. Cohn. Let us do it this way: Is it not a fact that you
have been a consistent follower of the Communist line?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Tell me in one respect in which you have differed
from the Communist line up through 1949.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Cohn. Sir?
    Mr. Hughes. I am sorry, I have forgotten your last
question.
    Mr. Cohn. The last question was, tell us one respect in
which you differed from the Communist line through the year
1949.
    Mr. Hughes. Sir, I don't know what the Communist line was
in 1949.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know what it was when you came out and
urged the election of the Communist party ticket in 1932?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I did not know what it was.
    Mr. Cohn. Why did you come out and do it that way?
    Mr. Hughes. Just as a lot of people urged the election of
the Democrats without knowing what the platform was.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know what you were doing on February 7,
1949, when you gave a statement to the Daily Worker defending
the Communist leaders on trial and saying that the Negro people
too are being tried?
    Mr. Hughes. Could I see that statement, sir?
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever hear of something called the Chicago
Defender?
    Mr. Hughes. I certainly have.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you write in the Chicago Defender, ``If the
12 Communists are sent to jail, in a little while they will
send Negroes to jail simply for being Negroes, and to
concentration camps just for being colored.''
    Mr. Hughes. Could I see it?
    Mr. Cohn. My first question is did you say it?
    Mr. Hughes. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Could you have said it? That is a pretty serious
thing to say in 1949. Do you have to look at it to see if you
said something in that substance?
    Mr. Hughes. I would have to see it to see if it is in
context.
    Mr. Cohn. I do not have the original. I will get the
original for you.
    Mr. Hughes. Please do.
    Mr. Cohn. In the meantime I would like to know whether or
not you can tell us whether you said it.
    Mr. Hughes. I do not know whether I said it or not.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you believe in 1949, ``If the 12 Communists
are sent to jail, in a little while they will send Negroes to
jail simply for being Negroes, and to concentration camps just
for being colored.'' Did you say that?
    Mr. Hughes. The----
    Mr. Cohn. Did you believe that? That is the question.
    Mr. Hughes. May I consult with counsel, sir?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Cohn. Did you believe that? That is the question.
    Mr. Hughes. Sir, I do not believe in any kind of literary
work or writing you can take a thing out of context. Whatever
the whole thing is, if I wrote it, of course I did write it.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Hughes, let us get at it this way.
Have you at any time contributed to the Chicago Defender?
    Mr. Hughes. I do a regular weekly column for it.
    Senator Dirksen. Is it likely that you did a column or
article for the Defender in 1949?
    Mr. Hughes. I have been writing for the Defender for, I
think, sir, about ten years.
    Senator Dirksen. So it is fair to assume that in 1949 which
is within the last ten years, you probably did one or more
articles for the Chicago Defender.
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I did more nearly fifty-two articles a
year.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you have in mind a reasonably clear
picture of that period when the Communist leaders were on trial
in New York? You remember generally, I think, do you not, that
they were on trial?
    Mr. Hughes. I remember some of them were on trial according
to the papers, yes.
    Senator Dirksen. If you know it no other way, you probably
saw it in the newspapers, like I did, because I did not attend
the trial, but there was every reason to believe from the press
dispatches they were on trial. So you probably had an idea they
were on trial. You probably had an idea they were on trial back
in 1949.
    Mr. Hughes. Well, sir, I can not say the date or time, but
if you are correct, I would say yes.
    Senator Dirksen. That is four years ago.
    Mr. Hughes. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Surely you would have a recollection as to
whether or not you made some written comment in the course of
your column on the Communist trial.
    Mr. Hughes. I very well may have, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Would you not be reasonably sure whether
you had?
    Mr. Hughes. I would like to see the column, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. You would have to see the column?
    Mr. Hughes. I would have to see the column and the context,
because if it is quoted from some other source, it very well
may be misquoted.
    Mr. Cohn. Let us forget what that says. I want to know
whether that was your belief.
    Mr. Hughes. I have forgotten now what you read.
    Mr. Cohn. What I asked was if the quote that appears in the
Daily Worker from your article is a statement by you, ``If the
12 Communists are sent to jail, in a little while they will
send Negroes to jail simply for being Negroes, and to
concentration camps just for being colored.'' Did you believe
that in February 1949?
    Mr. Hughes. Sir, the entire article and the entire column--
--
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hughes, did you believe that in 1949? I think
you are fencing.
    Mr. Hughes. One can not take anything out of context.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hughes, did you believe that in 1949? I think
the chairman is very patient. I think you are being evasive and
unresponsive when being confronted with things which you
yourself wrote. I want to know, did you believe that statement
in 1949.
    Mr. Hughes. May I consult with counsel?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Hughes. If that statement is from a column of mine, as
I presume it probably is, I would say that I believed the
entire context of the article in which it is included.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you believe that today?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I would not necessarily believe that
today.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you change your views?
    Mr. Hughes. It is impossible to say exactly when one
changes one's views. One's views change gradually, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever written any attack on communism?
    Mr. Hughes. I don't believe I have ever written anything
you would consider an attack, no, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you pretty much familiar with the
investigations of the un-American activities by congressional
committees?
    Mr. Hughes. No, I am not, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You have written on the subject, have you not?
    Mr. Hughes. I have written from what I have read in the
newspapers.
    Mr. Cohn. Pardon me?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I have written as other columnists do from
what one reads in a newspaper.
    Mr. Cohn. You wrote something that is called, ``When One
Sees Red.''
    Mr. Hughes. I remember.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you remember that part called ``When One Sees
Red''? I think it appeared first in the New Republic.
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, you are wrong.
    Mr. Cohn. Yes?
    Mr. Hughes. It would have appeared first in the Chicago
Defender.
    Mr. Cohn. You do recall the piece?
    Mr. Hughes. I recall the title. If you read a portion of
the piece----
    Mr. Cohn. Do you remember writing this: ``Good morning,
Revolution. You are the very best friend I ever had. We are
going to pal around together from now on.''
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I wrote that.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you write this, ``Put one more `S' in the USA
to make it Soviet. The USA when we take control will be the
USSA then.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ In the public hearing on March 26, Senator McClellan asked:
``May I inquire of counsel if you are quoting from books or works of
the author that are now in the library?
    Mr. Cohn. No; this one poem I quoted, `Put Another ``S'' in the USA
to make it Soviet' is as far as we know not in any poems in the
collection in the information centers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I wrote that.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you kidding when you wrote those things?
What did you mean by those?
    Mr. Hughes. Would you like me to give you an interpretation
of that?
    Mr. Cohn. I would be most interested.
    Mr. Hughes. Very well. Will you permit me to give a full
interpretation of it?
    Mr. Cohn. Surely.
    Mr. Hughes. All right, sir. To give a full interpretation
of any piece of literary work one has to consider not only when
and how it was written, but what brought it into being. The
emotional and physical background that brought it into being.
I, sir, was born in Joplin, Missouri. I was born a Negro. From
my very earliest childhood memories, I have encountered very
serious and very hurtful problems. One of my earliest childhood
memories was going to the movies in Lawrence, Kansas, where we
lived, and there was one motion picture theater, and I went
every afternoon. It was a nickelodeon, and I had a nickel to
go. One afternoon I put my nickel down and the woman pushed it
back and she pointed to a sign. I was about seven years old.
    Mr. Cohn. I do not want to interrupt you. I do want to say
this. I want to save time here. I want to concede very fully
that you encounter oppression and denial of civil rights. Let
us assume that, because I assume that will be the substance of
what you are about to say. To save us time, what we are
interested in determining for our purpose is this: Was the
solution to which you turned that of the Soviet form of
government?
    Mr. Hughes. Sir, you said you would permit me to give a
full explanation.
    Mr. Cohn. I was wondering if we could not save a little
time because I want to concede the background which you wrote
it from was the background you wanted to describe.
    Mr. Hughes. I would much rather preserve my reputation and
freedom than to save time.
    Mr. Cohn. Take as long as you want.
    Mr. Hughes. The woman pushed my nickel back and pointed to
a sign beside the box office, and the sign said something, in
effect, ``Colored not admitted.'' It was my first revelation of
the division between the American citizens. My playmates who
were white and lived next door to me could go to that motion
picture and I could not. I could never see a film in Lawrence
again, and I lived there until I was twelve years old.
    When I went to school, in the first grade, my mother moved
to Topeka for a time, and my mother worked for a lawyer, and
she lived in the downtown area, and she got ready for school,
being a working woman naturally she wanted to send me to the
nearest school, and she did, and they would not let me go to
the school. There were no Negro children there. My mother had
to take days off from her work, had to appeal to her employer,
had to go to the school board and finally after the school year
had been open for some time she got me into the school.
    I had been there only a few days when the teacher made
unpleasant and derogatory remarks about Negroes and
specifically seemingly pointed at myself. Some of my
schoolmates stoned me on the way home from school. One of my
schoolmates (and there were no other Negro children in the
school), a little white boy, protected me, and I have never in
all my writing career or speech career as far as I know said
anything to create a division among humans, or between whites
or Negroes, because I have never forgotten this kid standing up
for me against these other first graders who were throwing
stones at me. I have always felt from that time on--I guess
that was the basis of it--that there are white people in
America who can be your friend, and will be your friend, and
who do not believe in the kind of things that almost every
Negro who has lived in our country has experienced.
    I do not want to take forever to tell you these things, but
I must tell you that they have very deep emotional roots in
one's childhood and one's beginnings, as I am sure any
psychologist or teacher of English or student of poetry will
say about any creative work. My father and my mother were not
together. When I got old enough to learn why they were not
together, again it was the same thing. My father as a young
man, shortly after I was born, I understand, had studied law by
correspondence. He applied for permission to take examination
for the Bar in the state of Oklahoma where he lived, and they
would not permit him. A Negro evidently could not take the
examinations. You could not be a lawyer at that time in the
state of Oklahoma. You know that has continued in a way right
up to recent years, that we had to go all the way to the
Supreme Court to get Negroes into the law school a few years
ago to study law. Now you may study law and be a lawyer there.
    Those things affected my childhood very much and very
deeply. I missed my father. I learned he had gone away to
another country because of prejudice here. When I finally met
my father at the age of seventeen, he said ``Never go back to
the United States. Negroes are fools to live there.'' I didn't
believe that. I loved the country I had grown up in. I was
concerned with the problems and I came back here. My father
wanted me to live in Mexico or Europe. I did not. I went here
and went to college and my whole career has been built here.
    As I grew older, I went to high school in Cleveland. I went
to a high school in a very poor neighborhood and we were very
poor people. My friends and associates were very poor children
and many of them were of European parentage or some of them had
been brought here in steerage themselves from Europe, and many
of these students in the Central High School in Cleveland--and
this story is told, sir, parts of it, not as fully as I want to
tell you some things, in my book, The Deep Sea, my
autobiography \11\--in the Central High School, many of these
pupils began to tell me about Eugene Debs, and about the new
nation and the new republic. Some of them brought them to
school. I became interested in whatever I could read that Debs
had written or spoken about. I never read the theoretical books
of socialism or communism or the Democratic or Republican party
for that matter, and so my interest in whatever may be
considered political has been non-theoretical, non-sectarian,
and largely really emotional and born out of my own need to
find some kind of way of thinking about this whole problem of
myself, segregated, poor, colored, and how I can adjust to this
whole problem of helping to build America when sometimes I can
not even get into a school or a lecture or a concert or in the
south go to the library and get a book out. So that has been a
very large portion of the emotional background of my work,
which I think is essential to one's understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Langston Hughes, The Big Sea (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1940).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When I was graduated from high school, I went to live with
my father for a time in Mexico, and in my father I encountered
the kind of bitterness, the kind of utter psychiatric, you
might say, frustration that has been expressed in some Negro
novels, not in those I have written myself, I don't believe. A
man who was rabidly anti-American, anti-United States. I did
not sympathize with that viewpoint on the part of my own
father. My feeling was this is my country, I want to live here.
I want to come back here I want to make my country as beautiful
as I can, as wonderful a country as I can, because I love it
myself. So I went back after a year in Mexico, and I went to
Columbia.
    At Columbia University in New York City where I had never
been before, but where I heard there was practically no
prejudice, by that time wanting to be a writer and having
published some papers in Negro magazines in this country, I
applied for a position on the staff of the Spectator newspaper,
I think that they had at the time, and I think they still do.
Our freshman counselor told us the various things that freshmen
could apply for and do on the Columbia campus, and I wanted to
do some kind of writing, and I went to the newspaper office. I
was the only Negro young man or woman in the group. I can not
help but think that it was due to colored prejudice that of all
the kinds of assignments, and there were various assignments,
sports, theater, classroom activities, debating, of all the
various assignments they could pick out to assign me to cover
was society news. They very well knew I could not go to dances
and parties, being colored, and therefore I could bring no
news, and after a short period, I was counted out of the
Spectator group at my college.
    When I went into the dormitory my first day there, I had a
reservation for a room. It had been paid for in the dormitory--
the correct portion was paid for--it was Fardley Hall. I was
not given the room. They could not find the reservation. I had
to take all of that day and a large portion of the next one to
get into the dormitory. I was told later I was the first to
achieve that. In other words simple little things like getting
a room in a university in our country, one has to devote
extraordinary methods even to this day in our country in some
parts.
    I am thinking of the early 1920's. I did not stay at
Columbia longer than a year due in part to the various kinds of
little racial prejudices that I encountered.
    Senator Dirksen. I think, Mr. Hughes, that would be
adequate emotional background.
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, that would not explain it all, how I
arrive at the point that Mr. Cohn, I believe, has asked me
about.
    Mr. Cohn. Could you make it briefer, please?
    Senator Dirksen. Do you think we need more background to
tell what you meant by USSA?
    Mr. Hughes. I think you do, sir. Because a critical work
goes out of a very deep background, it does not come in a
moment. I am perfectly willing to come back and give it to you
later, if you are tired.
    Mr. Cohn. No, we will sit here as long as you want to go
on. But you are missing the point completely. What we want to
determine is whether or not you meant those words when you said
them.
    Mr. Hughes. Sir, whether or not I meant them depends on
what they came from and out of.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you desire to make the United States Soviet,
put one more ``S'' in the USA to make it Soviet. ``The USA,
when we take control, will be the USSA.''
    Mr. Hughes. When I left Columbia, I had no money. I had
$13.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you mean those words when you spoke them? We
know the background. I want to know now, did you mean the words
when you spoke them? I am not saying you should not have meant
them. I am asking you----
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, and you gave me the permission to
give the background.
    Senator Dirksen. That answers the question.
    Mr. Hughes. I did not say ``Yes'' to your question. I said
you gave me the chance to give you the background to the point.
    Senator Dirksen. We have had enough background.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you tell us whether or not you meant those
words?
    Mr. Hughes. What words, sir?
    Mr. Cohn. ``Put one more `S' in the USA to make it Soviet.
The USA, when we take control, will be USSA then.''
    Mr. Hughes. Will you read me the whole poem?
    Mr. Cohn. I do not have the whole poem. Do you claim these
words are out of context?
    Mr. Hughes. It is a portion of a poem.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you claim that these words distort the
meaning?
    Mr. Hughes. That is a portion of a poem and a bar of music
out of context does not give you the idea of the whole thing.
    Mr. Cohn. At any time in your life did you desire to make
the United States of America Soviet?
    Mr. Hughes. Not by violent means, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. By any means.
    Mr. Hughes. By the power of the ballot, I thought it might
be a possibility at one time.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you want to do it? Did you desire that by the
ballot, not by violent means? Would you give us a yes or no
answer to that?
    Mr. Hughes, you say you have changed your views. You say
you no longer feel the way you did in 1949 when you made that
statement in defense of the Communist leaders, and said the
things we read you. Will you give us some evidence of that and
be frank with this committee?
    Mr. Hughes. Evidence of what, sir?
    Mr. Cohn. Will you be frank with this committee and give us
some straightforward answers? Did you ever in your life desire
the Soviet form of government over here? That is a very simple
question, Mr. Hughes, for a man who wrote the things you did,
and we have just started.
    Mr. Hughes. You asked me about the poem, and I would like
to hear it all.
    Mr. Cohn. I would like to know right now whether you ever
desired the Soviet form of government in this country, and I
would like it answered.
    Mr. Hughes. Would you permit me to think about it?
    Mr. Cohn. Pardon me? Mr. Hughes, you have belonged to a
list of Communist organizations a mile long. You have urged the
election to public office of official candidates of the
Communist party. You have signed statements to the effect that
the purge trials in the Soviet Union were justified and sound
and democratic. You have signed statements denying that the
Soviet Union is totalitarian. You have defended the current
leaders of the Communist party. You have written poems which
are an invitation to revolution. You have called for the
setting up of a Soviet government in this country. You have
been named in statements before us as a Communist, and a member
of the Communist party.
    Mr. Hughes, you can surely tell us simply whether or not
you ever desired the Soviet form of government in this country.
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. The answer is yes. I think if you were a little
more candid with some of these things, we would get along a
little better, because I think I know enough about the subject
so I am not going to sit here for six days and be kidded along.
I will be very much impressed if you would give us a lot of
straightforward answers. It would save us a lot of time. I know
you do not want to waste it any more than we do. We know every
man is entitled to his views and opinions. We are trying to
find out which of these works should be used in the State
Department in its information program.
    In the course of finding that out, we want to know whether
you ever desired the Soviet form of government in this country.
I believe you have said just a minute ago your answer to that
is yes, is that right?
    Mr. Hughes. I did desire it, and would desire----
    Mr. Cohn. That is an answer. That is what we want. I
believe your statement before was that you desired it, but not
by violent means, is that right?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir. That would be correct.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you mean when you said ``Good morning,
Revolution, you are the very best friend I ever had. We are
going to pal around together from now on.''
    Does not revolution imply violent means?
    Mr. Hughes. Not necessarily, sir. I think it means a change
like the industrial revolution.
    Mr. Cohn. That is an answer. When you used the word
``revolution'' you were using it in a very broad sense, and
meaning a change, is that right?
    Mr. Hughes. That is right, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you stop desiring the Soviet form of
government for this country? When did you come to the
conclusion that was not the solution.
    Mr. Hughes. As I grew older, at that point I think I was
about twenty years old, possibly, I began to see not only an
increasing awareness of the seriousness of our racial situation
in America on the part of many people----
    Mr. Cohn. Could you fix a time for us?
    Mr. Hughes. Sir?
    Mr. Cohn. Could you fix an approximate time? You cannot
tell the exact date, or maybe not even the exact year, but can
you fix the approximate time when you changed your view?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes. When I began to see social progress
accelerating itself more rapidly, Supreme Court decisions,
FEPC.
    Mr. Cohn. About when was that?
    Mr. Hughes. I would say certainly about the early 1940s and
from that point on.
    Mr. Cohn. What were your views in 1949 when you said, ``If
the 12 Communists are sent to jail, in a little while they will
send Negroes to jail simply for being Negroes and to
concentration camps just for being colored.'' You have told us
you do not feel that way today. When did you change that
particular view?
    Mr. Hughes. You asked two questions. sir. That view point I
think grew out of what I had read about Germany, how they began
with the Communists, and they went on to Jews, and they went on
to Negroes, and we had Hitlerism, and that has been a general
feeling on the part of some people.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you changed, that view. When did you
change that view. This was February 1949. You say you do not
feel that way today.
    Mr. Hughes. The view that Negroes may be sent to jail if
Communists are?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes. As a consequence of the conviction of the
Communist party leaders. In other words, a chain set off by the
conviction of the Communist party leaders.
    Mr. Hughes. Well, it has not happened as yet, and therefore
my hope is and my belief is that we can keep it from happening.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hughes, this is very important now that we
have had witnesses down here under oath: Are you sure that you
were never a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended a Communist party meeting?
I ask this again because perjury is a very serious crime.
    Mr. Hughes. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever knowingly participated in any
Communist party activities?
    Mr. Hughes. Just a moment, please.
    Mr. Cohn. Surely.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Hughes. Could you be specific about the activity?
    Mr. Cohn. No.
    Mr. Hughes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. I asked you a question. I would like an answer.
Could we have the question read?
    [Question read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Hughes. Not to my knowledge in any activities that were
exclusively and solely and wholly Communist party activities,
no, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this before we leave this point.
During that period of time, say up to the 1940s when you
thought the Soviet form of government was desirable, until you
came to change your views, you say, because you saw progress
was being made under our form of government, do you think it is
a wise thing for the State Department Information Program,
trying to carry a true picture of the American way of life, to
use your early writings, such as this ``Ballad to Lenin'' and
the Scottsboro thing, and the curtain in the form of the red
flag, and the singing of the Internationale, to use that in the
information centers of foreign countries, and put on the
shelves for people, who expect to get a view of American life,
to read today?
    Mr. Hughes. I doubt very much, sir, they are there.
    Mr. Cohn. I am telling you for a fact they are there. Do
you think it is a good thing to have them there?
    Mr. Hughes. I would think, sir, that it would be a good
thing for anyone to know all about the literature of any
country written in all forms so they can really judge it.
    Mr. Cohn. You changed the views you expressed then. Are you
particularly proud of the views you expressed then?
    Mr. Hughes. The word ``proud'' disturbs me because one
cannot go back and change anything one has done in the past.
    Mr. Cohn. I think one can admit one was wrong.
    Mr. Hughes. One can admit one was wrong. One can say ``I
think differently now.''
    Mr. Cohn. Saying as you do that you think differently now,
and have been candid about that, do you think that those of
your works which should be used are those representing this
period prior to your change of views? Do you think that is
helpful to this country?
    Mr. Hughes. The works which you have named, sir, are not
very representative of my literary career.
    Mr. Cohn. Without fencing, do you think if you were going
to make a selection of works to give a true picture of American
way of life, would you place in there the Scottsboro thing and
this poem, ``Ballad to Lenin''?
    Mr. Hughes. If I were a librarian doing it, I would place
in there----
    Mr. Cohn. I am not talking about a librarian. This is not
done by librarians. This is done under a specific program of
the State Department to give people in foreign countries a true
view as to the American way of life, and the objectives we seek
to achieve in this country.
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir. They certainly should have a view of
the objectives we seek racially, and therefore they should know
something about the----
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hughes, we are not talking on the same plane
at all. Certainly they might have a view as to what we seek
racially and all that. But the question is, should they have
poems which call for the Soviet form of government, poems which
idealize Lenin, a poem which calls for everybody to get up and
sing the Internationale?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I think they should, because it
indicates freedom of press in our country, which is a thing we
are proud of.
    Mr. Cohn. I do not think you understand it at all. Those
are not in there to indicate freedom of the press in our
country. Those are in there because people in those countries
depend on what is given to them for an accurate picture of the
objectives which this country seeks to achieve in its fight
against Communists.
    Mr. Hughes. Yes. You want them to know we have freedom of
the press.
    Mr. Cohn. No. These poems are not in there to illustrate
the fact we have freedom of press. They are put in there as
part of a program to show the objectives of this country, and
to show our beliefs in the fight against communism. Do you
think something which calls for an espousal of the Soviet form
of government aids us in fighting communism? Think before you
answer that question, Mr. Hughes.
    Mr. Hughes. I have answered your first question, have I
not? The other one has been answered, yes, indicating freedom
of press. My answer would be yes.
    Mr. Cohn. You think it is a good thing.
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, to show we have a very wide range of
opinion in our country, yes, I do.
    Mr. Cohn. We have an awful lot of your writings we want to
go over. Just let me ask you about this one thing here. You are
concerned about minority rights in this country, is that right?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Cohn. You are concerned about the rights of Jews as
well as the rights of Negroes?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you write a poem called ``Hard Luck''? ``When
hard luck overtakes you, nothing to offer, nothing for you to
do, When hard luck overtakes you, nothing to offer, nothing to
do, Gather up your fine clothes and sell them to the Jew.'' Did
you write that?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think that is respectful of the rights of
the minority known as the Jews?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I do.
    Mr. Cohn. In what respect?
    Mr. Hughes. Because in common parlance among a certain
poorer class of Negroes--at least when that poem was written--
on a Monday morning when they were broke and had to pawn
something, it was a part of the slang with no disrespect meant
on their part certainly, to say, ``I will take my coat to Uncle
or my clock to the Jew,'' and the racial connotation was not
disrespectful there.
    Mr. Cohn. As much concern as you have on the rights of
Negroes, do you think this is a good poem to have in foreign
information centers?
    Mr. Hughes. I think the title of the book is bad. I think
the poem is a good poem to have anywhere.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Langston Hughes, Fine Clothes to the Jews (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1927).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. How about the poem, ``Goodbye to Christ,'' that
is a good poem to have anywhere?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, from my interpretation.
    Mr. Cohn. How about the book, ``Put One ``S'' in USA?'' Do
you think that is a good book against communism?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, because I think people would see it is
absurd.
    Mr. Cohn. You do not think you are a Communist today?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I am not.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you stop being a Soviet believer?
    Mr. Reeves. That is like the question, ``When did you stop
beating your wife?''
    Mr. Cohn. Do you want to testify?
    Mr. Reeves. No, I don't.
    Mr. Cohn. Under the rules of the committee, the witness can
consult with you, but you are not here to testify, because if
you were, you would have to be sworn and give testimony. Mr.
Hughes is free to consult with you--and the chairman can
correct me if I am wrong--the rule of the committee is that the
witness is free to consult with you any time he wishes, but you
are not here to give testimony.
    Mr. Reeves. May I ask a question of the chairman?
    Mr. Cohn. Certainly.
    Mr. Reeves. My only concern was that the rapid fire process
of these questions frequently does not even permit of an
answer, and that particular question, as a lawyer, is of the
type that in a rapid fire of questioning--as I said, I am
interested in protecting the rights of my client--it may very
well be he might not have the opportunity in that series to
answer.
    Mr. Cohn. If the questions are given too rapidly, I
suggest, Mr. Chairman, that he turn to his counsel and his
counsel can advise him, and the witness can tell us that I am
going too fast, and ``I did not understand the question'' and
we will stop. But I do not think counsel ought to testify.
    Mr. Hughes. May I say if we agree on the principle of
communism as meaning the Communist party, I will answer once
and for all I have never been a member of the Communist party.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist without having
formally joined the party?
    Mr. Hughes. No, sir, I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think it is possible to desire the Soviet
form of government in this country and not be a Communist?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir, I do.
    Mr. Cohn. How do you make the distinction?
    Mr. Hughes. That requires of course a definition of
Communist, and my definition of it is the Communist party.
    Mr. Cohn. I am saying disregard the formal membership in
the Communist party. I am talking about a change in our form of
government, and a substitution of the form of government that
is in the Soviet Union, the Soviet form of government.
    Mr. Hughes. Your question was how can one believe that and
not be a Communist, and we have to agree upon what you mean by
Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. You have said it is possible. Now, you tell me
what a Communist means to you.
    Mr. Hughes. A Communist means to me a member of the
Communist party who accepts the discipline of the Communist
party and follows the various changes of party line.
    Mr. Cohn. Good. Now, you take my definition of a Communist
as one who is a believer in communism, a believer in the Soviet
form of government, and tell me whether or not you have ever
been a Communist.
    Mr. Hughes. A believer in the Soviet form of government?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Hughes. For the Soviets or for whom?
    Mr. Cohn. A believer in the Soviet form of government for
everybody.
    Mr. Hughes. From my point it doesn't matter what the form
of government is if the rights of the minorities and the poor
people are respected, and if they have a chance to advance
equally--
    Mr. Cohn. What I want to know is this: You have conceded
here that you desired the Soviet form of government in this
country.
    Mr. Hughes. Not desire, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. That you have desired the Soviet form of
government.
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that not your testimony here?
    Mr. Hughes. In the past, yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. I think you said up to the early 1940s. I want to
know how it is possible to desire the Soviet form of government
and not believe in communism?
    Mr. Hughes. One can desire a Christian world and not be a
Baptist or Catholic.
    Mr. Cohn. You were a non-Communist who nevertheless desired
the Soviet form of government for this country?
    Mr. Hughes. That is right, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. In what respect did you not believe in communism
during that period that you desired a Soviet form of government
for this country?
    Mr. Hughes. In several respects, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. What?
    Mr. Hughes. I will again answer your question, if I may
have the time to answer it, in my own way.
    Mr. Cohn. I think you might just outline to us briefly
point by point the points of difference between you and
communism at the period of time when you wanted a Soviet
government in the United States.
    Mr. Hughes. Again I repeat, sir, that communism to me did
not mean the rule book or Manifesto or the laws of the Soviet
Union, which I have never read, and my knowledge of it
certainly came possibly from very shallow sources, largely from
reading magazines and newspapers. My disagreement with what I
read about them, which is in force now, too, and has been since
I began to think about it at all seriously, maybe twelve or
more years ago, or fifteen years ago, or even longer than that,
to tell the truth, has been first that the literary artist or
an artist of any kind cannot accept outside discipline in
regard to his work or outside force or suggestions and my
understanding was that Communist party writers accepted the
dictates of the party in regard to their work.
    Mr. Cohn. Under the Soviet form of government, is not that
true? You will agree that as to the Soviet form of government
as it existed in the Soviet Union at the time you wrote this,
the Communist party was certainly in control?
    Mr. Hughes. The Communist party was in control and that is
one point I would disagree with the Communist party.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, when you desired the Soviet form
of government in this country, you desired it with certain
modifications?
    Mr. Hughes. With many modifications.
    Mr. Cohn. You express that in any place in writing?
    Mr. Hughes. I have not finished your question.
    Mr. Cohn. I want to know whether you have expressed that in
writing.
    Mr. Hughes. You said in different ways.
    Mr. Cohn. You have given the first way. Have you expressed
in writing any place your disagreement with the Soviet form of
government as to that one point which you just made?
    Mr. Hughes. Of that I can not be sure. I have certainly
expressed it verbally.
    Mr. Cohn. To whom?
    Mr. Hughes. Ivy Litvinov.
    Mr. Cohn. To whom?
    Mr. Hughes. To Mrs. Litvinov in Russia. We had a lot of
arguments.
    Mr. Cohn. I do not think the Litvinovs are available. To
anybody in the United States?
    Mr. Hughes. My relatives who heard me talk on the subject.
    Mr. Cohn. You have not written anything on it?
    Mr. Hughes. I may have. I would have to search and see.
    Mr. Cohn. Will you go to point two?
    Mr. Hughes. You do not desire me to answer other points
where I disagree?
    Mr. Cohn. I have just asked you that.
    Mr. Hughes. Yes. I gathered from shortly after I returned
from the Soviet Union and therefore was a bit more interested
in what the actual programs for the Negro in America of the
Communist party was that they had a program for the self
determination of the Black Belt. As nearly as I could ever
understand it, it meant a separate Negro state or states. I did
not agree with that, and have in all my writing, as far as I
know, if you take it in its entire context and each piece as a
whole, urged and suggested the complete unification of the
Negro people with all the other people in America. So I never
went along with that program.
    Mr. Cohn. Point three.
    Mr. Hughes. Yes. I am getting up to it.
    Mr. Cohn. Very well.
    Mr. Hughes. I don't suppose this is part of the Communist
party program, but the Communist party press, that is, the
Masses and the more literary portions of the press that I read
rather intensively at one time in my life, had a way of
attacking Negro leadership, and also a way at one period of
attacking the church in general, both Negro and white, and I
did not and have never gone along with those attacks on Negro
leaders of prominence, and I have never myself repeated them or
taken part in them, and I have opposed them at times, and have
written very favorably myself about people under attack
sometimes by the party press.
    Mr. Cohn. While they were under attack?
    Mr. Hughes. While they were under attack. I have also
written any number of poems and articles expressing sympathy
and interest and encouragement to religious groups and to
religion in general with which many people more left than
myself have disagreed with, and asked me, ``Why do you write
about the church, and write poems, `At the Feet of Jesus,' sung
by Marian Anderson, at the time they were antireligious.''
    Mr. Cohn. Would you call this poem, ``Goodbye Christ'' a
sympathetic dealing with religion?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I would. I could site other poems but I
think that is sufficient to show you that I could not over a
long period of years, and never agree with some of the presumed
main points of what I understand to have been Communist party
programs.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you not think that a reasonable person reading
this poem, ``Goodbye Christ'' would not share your
interpretation of it?
    Mr. Hughes. Sir, a poem may be interpreted in many ways and
many people have not understood that poem, and many people have
chosen not to understand it deliberately to sell it to foment
race discord and hatred.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Hughes, I think it is only fair to
reemphasize to you the danger that you face if you do not tell
the truth to this committee, and to ask you to reconsider as to
whether you wish to change any of your testimony here. Do you
wish to change it?
    Mr. Hughes. No. sir, I do not. I have never been a member
of the Communist party, and I wish so to state under oath.
    Mr. Schine. I am not just talking about that testimony. I
am talking about your entire testimony before this committee.
    Mr. Hughes. May I consult with counsel, sir?
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Hughes. The truth of the matter is, sir, that the
rapidity with which I have been questioned, I don't fully
recollect everything that I might have said here. If a complete
review of the testimony were given me, it might be possible
that I would want to change or correct some.
    Mr. Schine. Let me ask you a question. Will you give the
committee at this time the names of some Communist party member
whom you know?
    Mr. Hughes. I do not know anyone to be a member of the
Communist party, sir. I have never seen anyone's party card.
    Mr. Schine. You have never talked with anyone who is a
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Hughes. I wouldn't say that. I say I do not know who is
a Communist party----
    Mr. Schine. You are quite sure of that?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, I am quite sure of that, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Do you think Mrs. Litvinov is a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Hughes. I rather think she was not from what they said
about her in Moscow.
    Mr. Schine. What about Mr. Litvinov?
    Mr. Hughes. I think perhaps he was.
    Mr. Schine. Did you talk with him?
    Mr. Hughes. No, I did not. I never met him.
    Mr. Schine. You were in Russia?
    Mr. Hughes. I was in Russia.
    Mr. Schine. And you do not think that you talked to any
members of the Communist party while you were in Russia?
    Mr. Hughes. I would certainly think I must have, but I do
not ask people even in Russia whether they are.
    Mr. Schine. Do you not think it is important when you are
asked a question concerning your conversations with Communist
party members that you try to be accurate?
    Mr. Hughes. I am trying to be as accurate as I know how,
sir. May I consult with counsel?
    Mr. Schine. Certainly.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Hughes, I think we will suspend for
the evening, and could you oblige by returning at 10:15 on
Thursday morning? The hearing will be an open public hearing.
    Mr. Hughes. Would you tell me, sir, about expenses?
    Senator Dirksen. About expenses?
    Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir. They are covered by the committee
while I am here?
    Senator Dirksen. Under the rule the transportation is paid
and there is an allowance of $9 a day while you are here.
    Mr. Hughes. From whom do I get it here?
    Senator Dirksen. From the Treasury.
    The committee will be in recess until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow.
    [Thereupon at 5:10 p.m., a recess was taken until
Wednesday, March 25, 1953, at 2:00 p.m.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--Mary Van Kleeck (1883-1972) was a
prominent sociologist and prolific author. A graduate of Smith
College with a law degree from St. Lawrence University, she was
director of industrial studies at the Russell Sage Foundation
from 1909 until her retirement in 1948. She was not called to
testify in public session.
    Author and editor Edwin Seaver (1900-1987) returned to
testify in public on March 26, 1953. In his memoir, So Far So
Good (Westport, Conn.: Lawrence Hill & Company, 1986), Seaver
identified himself as a ``fellow traveler'' during the 1930s.
He had written book reviews for the Daily Worker and the New
Masses, and had briefly edited Soviet Russia Today, but had
never joined the Communist party. He drifted away from radical
politics when he was offered a better paying job with the Book-
of the-Month Club. However, he was forced to resign that
position in 1947, when his name was identified with groups on
the attorney general's list of subversive organizations. He
then joined the publishing house of Little, Brown. Fearful that
he would lose that job as well if he testified in public,
Seaver asked that his employer not be identified. At the
televised public hearing, he was asked if he would have his
book, The Company, which he wrote in 1929, in an American
library overseas. Seaver said no. ``All I wanted was to make my
getaway without mentioning Little, Brown, or any other names,''
he later wrote. ``I consoled myself with the thought that I
wasn't implicating anyone, I wasn't betraying anyone, I wasn't
harming anybody but myself, and I could live with that.''
Although he kept his job, Seaver was accused of having been a
``cooperative witness'' who had ``repudiated'' his own book.
``I said such talk was nonsense, that if they had read the book
they must have seen there was nothing to repudiate. But no
matter how much I rejected the imputation of my holier-than-
thou friends, or how small I chose to think my fault was, I
felt the fault was there, that it has been motivated by ignoble
fear, and I have suffered in the recognition of this.'']
                              ----------
                       WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 5:30 p.m. in room 357 of the
Senate Office Building, Senator Henry M. Jackson, presiding.
    Present: Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington.
    Present also: Roy Cohn, chief counsel.
    Senator Jackson. Will you rise and be sworn, please?
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. May we have your full name, please?
   TESTIMONY OF MARY VAN KLEECK (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL,
                       LEONARD B. BOUDIN)
    Miss Van Kleeck. Mary Van Kleeck, K-l-e-e-c-k, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. For the record, Mr. Chairman, the counsel is
Leonard B. Boudin of New York.
    Mr. Boudin. Could I know the senator's name?
    Senator Jackson. Senator Jackson of Washington.
    Mr. Boudin. Thank you.
    Senator Jackson. You understand you have the right to
confer with the witness, and the witness has the right to
confer with counsel. Counsel is not permitted to testify. But,
of course, you have the right to advise your client of her
constitutional rights and any other matter that relate to your
assignment as her attorney.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Miss Van Kleeck, you are the author of a
book called Rulers of America?\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Anna Rochester, Rulers of America: A Study of Finance Capital
(New York, International Publishers, 1936). Rochester's name later
appeared on a list of prospective witnesses, but she did not testify.
See ``McCarthy issues call for 10 authors,'' Baltimore Sun, June 28,
1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Miss Van Kleeck. No. I never wrote a book like that.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever written any books?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I have written quite a number of books
published by Russell Sage Foundation, almost all of them, and
one by a commercial publisher.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever write one published by International
Publishers?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Never.
    Mr. Cohn. You are sure of that?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Unless it is without my knowledge that it
was published.
    Mr. Cohn. You say they were published by Russell Sage
Foundation?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Russell Sage Foundation published my
studies of labor relations, and Covici-Friede published one
book of mine in 1936. They all dealt with labor relations.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, when was the last book that you wrote?
    Miss Van Kleeck. The last was 1944, under the title
Technology and Livelihood, a study of the impact of technology
on productivity and living standards in the United States
published by Russell Sage Foundation.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, have you ever been a Communist?
    Miss Van Kleeck. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a party member?
    Miss Van Kleeck. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been pro-Communist?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Mr. Chairman, I must know what the
definition of communism is.
    Mr. Cohn. Maybe I can clarify that for you. Have you ever
been a believer in socialism? I think that is clear.
    Senator Jackson. You mean with reference to the books used
in the library?
    Mr. Cohn. I might say that a number of the books written by
this lady are in use in the State Department now, books dealing
with technology and labor problems, and so on and so forth.
    Senator Jackson. The question that concerned me was whether
she had a belief in democratic socialism or Marxism, advocating
force and violence.
    Mr. Cohn. She has already said she was not a Communist and
not a Communist party member.
    I was now interested to know whether she preferred
socialism to our present form of government.
    Senator Jackson. Why do you not just state your beliefs? I
do not see that it is going to do any harm.
    Miss Van Kleeck, May I do the following. I want to state
that my studies are studies of specific situations; nothing to
do with political economic systems. They are studies of the
coal miners in this country, a study of the company union, the
Colorado Fuel and Iron Company. My work with the Russell Sage
Foundation was entirely limited to the United States. There is
nothing in my books about socialism. I am not a Socialist. I
have never been a member of the Socialist party.
    Senator Jackson. And you are not now and never have been a
member of the Communist party?
    Miss Van Kleeck. True. I have never been a member of the
Communist party.
    Senator Jackson. Have you ever advocated the aims of the
Communist party as we know it, which involve, as you know, the
overthrow of the government by force and violence?
    Miss Van Kleeck. As we know the definition given by Mr.
Budenz, decidedly not.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, one of the aims of communism, of course, is
the substitution of socialism for our form of government, and I
would like to know if you ever have believed in that.
    Have you ever believed in the substitution of socialism for
our form of government?
    [Mr. Boudin confers with Miss Van Kleeck.]
    Mr. Cohn. We will withdraw the question.
    Senator Jackson. We may want to ask you about that later.
    Mr. Cohn. I cannot ask anything more, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Jackson. Let me ask you: Have you belonged to any
Communist front organizations, so listed by the attorney
general? I mean, you are an intelligent lady. You would know
whether you were in any Communist front organizations, and I
want to be fair with you. It may be that you may have been in
an organization that was not a Communist front at the time you
joined, and it may later have become one. Can you tell the
committee just exactly what your membership has been with
reference to any such organization?
    Miss Van Kleeck. You see, what one means by Communist front
organization----
    Senator Jackson. Listed by the attorney general of the
United States.
    Miss Van Kleeck. Anything on the attorney general's list?
    Senator Jackson. Yes.
    Miss Van Kleeck. I belonged to the National Council on
American-Soviet Friendship. I do not now belong to it.
    Senator Jackson. When did you join?
    Miss Van Kleeck. That is not a membership organization. I
became a member of the board of directors.
    Mr. Cohn. You are on the board of directors?
    Miss Van Kleeck. No, I have said I am no longer on the
board of directors. I was on the board of directors of the
National Council.
    Senator Jackson. When did you get affiliated with that
organization?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I can't remember the date. I am sorry.
    Senator Jackson. Can you tell the year, about?
    Miss Van Kleeck. But it is in a recent period, in a very
recent period. I think probably since the war; I think 1945.
There is a special legal situation of that National Council
before the Supreme Court, which I do not wish to go into
technically, but which has a bearing on whether that is a
subversive organization from the point of view of the attorney
general. And I think that is important, because it affected my
relationship to it.
    Senator Jackson. Let me ask you: Could you supply to the
committee in an affidavit form a statement as to when you
joined and became affiliated with--what is the name of it?
    Miss Van Kleeck. The National Council on American-Soviet
Friendship.
    Senator Jackson. And if you are no longer a member of or
affiliated with that organization, state when you left, and
why, and what you did while you were a member of it.
    Miss Van Kleeck. Certainly.
    The objection is to calling it a Communist front
organization. You see, any organization, if I may informally
say this--any organization I ever joined, I joined on specific
issues growing out of my own research. I am a sociologist. I
have been so for forty-eight years, intensively studying
industrial relations, labor relations, for the Russell Sage
Foundation, until 1948, when I retired.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you withdraw from the National Council
for American-Soviet Friendship? What year?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I thought I was just told that I might put
this in an affidavit. It was in the course of the last summer,
I should say.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of it after----
    Miss Van Kleeck. My membership had nothing to do with the
question; only with my own program, that I didn't wish to
continue that activity.
    Mr. Cohn. You mean the fact that it was listed by the
attorney general as a Communist front did not influence you in
resigning? Maybe I did not understand you.
    Senator Jackson. Is that right?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I suppose it is right. Yes. I said there
was a Supreme Court decision on this subject, which decidedly
influences one, because the Supreme Court did not confirm.
There was a case before the Supreme Court on appeal from the
court of appeals. I can't give you the technicality. I am not a
lawyer, anyway. But it very decidedly influenced anyone
connected with the National Council, that the listing by the
attorney general had not been justified. And therefore, you can
see my hesitation in answering the question that way.
    Mr. Cohn. That was not directed at the merits of the case
involving the National Council. That was directed at the
procedure followed by the attorney general in all cases.
    Miss Van Kleeck. No, specifically the National Council.
    Mr. Cohn. But it did not pass on the merits of whether the
National Council was or was not Communist.
    Miss Van Kleeck. It handed back to the lower court for
passing on the substantive question, but it would naturally
affect those of us who believed that there was no basis for
listing it on the attorney general's list.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, are there any other organizations listed by
the attorney general----
    Miss Van Kleeck. That I belong to? I do not.
    Mr. Cohn. You have never belonged to any? Is that right?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Now, I want to say this. I don't know that
I know the attorney general's whole list. I have belonged to
organizations, many of them, in my life, in a long career. I
would rather say I do not recall any at this moment, excepting
one or two others, possibly, that were listed. But I think this
is so inexact on my part.
    Senator Jackson. Well, just be truthful.
    Miss Van Kleeck. I am. I am completely truthful.
    Senator Jackson. Just tell what you know, about any
affiliation you might have had. Possibly a list can be
obtained, and you could go over it.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Elizabeth Gurley Flynn?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Yes. Certainly. Anyone in labor relations
would know her.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you last see Miss Flynn?
    Miss Van Kleeck. That is a hard question, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Jackson. Well, approximately. Recently?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Not very recently, I believe.
    Senator Jackson. In the last year?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I don't think so.
    Mr. Cohn. Prior to her going on trial for conspiracy to
teach and advocate overthrow of the government?
    Miss Van Kleeck. When you use the word ``seen,'' I think I
saw her in the distance at a meeting. I have not talked with
Elizabeth Gurley Flynn.
    Mr. Cohn. What meeting was that?
    Miss Van Kleeck. It may have been one of the meetings in
New York.
    Senator Jackson. What kind of a meeting?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I really do not remember.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, do you customarily attend meetings at which
a member of the national committee of the Communist party is
present?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Certainly not customarily. I am not a
member of the Communist party. I do not customarily attend
meetings--
    Senator Jackson. Well, have you attended Communist
meetings, although you are not a member?
    Miss Van Kleeck. The meeting--it is general public meetings
I have attended. I don't think I have ever in my life attended
a meeting of the Communist party.
    Senator Jackson. You never attended a closed meeting?
    Miss Van Kleeck. No, nor an open meeting organized by the
Communist party.
    Mr. Cohn. At what general public meeting did you see
Elizabeth Gurley Flynn in the last year? That would interest me
very much.
    Senator Jackson. Would that be a meeting to raise funds for
the defense of witnesses?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I am trying to be exact. I think I
probably saw her in the distance at a meeting under the
auspices of the Committee to Defend Smith Act Victims, which
was a general meeting organized by a general committee.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, that committee was Communist dominated,
wasn't it?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Not that I know of.
    Senator Jackson. Well, who was on the committee?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I am not a member of the committee.
    Senator Jackson. I understand, but----
    Miss Van Kleeck. I don't know the membership of the
committee.
    Senator Jackson. I mean, you have had a lot of experience
in your forty-eight years as a sociologist and writer, and can
you not pretty much tell when something is framed up by the
Communists as a meeting, although it is not called a Communist
meeting?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Mr. Chairman, I don't consider that a
meeting of this kind was framed up by the Communists. There are
very many people interested in this trial procedure, and I am
very sure that there are persons who have been connected--I am
not a member of that Committee to Defend Smith Act Victims. I
don't know their membership. But they called a meeting, and I
attended the meeting.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you given any money to that committee?
    Miss Van Kleeck. No, I haven't.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever contributed any money to the
defense of the Communist leaders?
    Miss Van Kleeck. No, I never have.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever contributed any money to any
Communist front organization?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Again I ask you: What is a Communist front
organization?
    Mr. Cohn. An organization listed by the attorney general of
the United States as such.
    Miss Van Kleeck. The National Council on American-Soviet
Friendship. I have contributed occasionally five dollars.
    Mr. Cohn. That is the only one?
    Miss Van Kleeck. As far as I know.
    Senator Jackson. Might I suggest to the lady and her
counsel that you go over the list? You have a copy of the list,
I presume?
    Mr. Boudin. In New York.
    Senator Jackson. Well, we will supply you with a copy of
the list, so that she can refresh her recollection and go over
it and file in connection with the affidavit that we requested
on the National Council on Soviet Friendship thing on this as
well. We will request that you also in that affidavit list any
other organization that you have belonged to that appears on
the attorney general's list. State when you joined, when you
left, if you left, what contributions you made to it, what
participation, if any, you took in the particular organization.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Betty Gannett?
    Miss Van Kleeck. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Claudia Jones?
    Miss Van Kleeck. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You have never met either one of them?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I don't think I have ever met either of
them. I have never seen Betty Gannett.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever seen Claudia Jones?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I think I have seen her.
    Mr. Cohn. Where would you have seen Claudia Jones?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Mr. Chairman, I have great difficulty with
things I simply can't remember.
    Mr. Cohn. Claudia Jones is also one of the top leaders of
the Communist party of the United States?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Of course. I know that.
    Mr. Cohn. Being a Communist, it might make quite an
impression on you to be at a meeting with one of the top
Communist functionaries, would it not?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Why, no.
    [Mr. Boudin confers with Miss Van Kleeck.]
    Miss Van Kleeck. Exactly. I was not in a meeting with them.
It was not that kind of thing. I said that I thought I had seen
her at a meeting. Specifically, I think it was one of the
election meetings in New York before the elections in 1948.
When there was a meeting of the Women's Congress, as I remember
it, called together, a great many women's organizations,
preparatory to the campaign that was going on in New York, the
Wallace campaign, the Progressive party, the Henry Wallace
Progressive party campaign. And, as I remember it, that was the
only time I ever saw Claudia Jones. She is a rather striking-
looking person, and I remember her. But not because I was
impressed at being with a Communist party functionary, because
her being a Communist party functionary had nothing to do with
it.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been at any meeting at which was
also present any top leader of the Communist party other than
Claudia Jones and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I just don't know the import of that
question. We live in the city of New York.
    Mr. Cohn. Oh, madam.
    Miss Van Kleeck. I naturally go to a great many meetings.
Yes, of course I have been at meetings. I have never been at a
meeting of the Communist party, organized by the Communist
party, which is the way you put it, with implications for me.
    Senator Jackson. Are you sure you are saying----
    Miss Van Kleeck. Therefore I am uncertain of the drift of
your questions. I want to be cooperative. I want to help the
committee in the field of its investigations. I am a social
scientist. I am not accustomed to this discussion of
individuals.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, I am sorry you are not accustomed to it,
madam. To make it a little plainer, might I state that we have
received information from individuals that you are a member of
the Communist party? I assume you deny that. Is that right?
    Miss Van Kleeck. You have heard my denial.
    Mr. Cohn. And if anyone says you are or have been a member
of the Communist party, according to you that person is not
telling the truth?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I have sworn I was not a member.
    Mr. Cohn. So we have that issue to determine, as to who is
telling the truth about this, and I think if there is any
association or attendance at meetings at which were present top
Communist leaders of the party, that would be important along
these lines. I might ask you this: Are you a believer in our
form of government today?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Emphatically. I am an American with a long
family background going back to the early days, and my whole
work is devoted to the United States of America.
    Mr. Cohn. My question was: You are a believer in the
capitalist form of government?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Is the United States essentially and
forever capitalist? It has changed its form of organization
through the years. I am a believer in political democracy,
which is the essence of the United States of America.
    Mr. Cohn. I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Jackson. Now, as I understand it, you do not
believe in any system which would involve the advocacy or
overthrow of this government by force or by violence?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I do not believe in force and violence. I
am not sure that I repudiate the revolution which established
the United States of America.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you repudiate the revolution which established
the Soviet Union?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I have nothing to do or say with the
revolution which established the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you not ever studied that? Haven't you in
the course of your studies, come across it or studied anything
about it?
    Miss Van Kleeck. It is a perfectly irrelevant question to
say, because I am not a Soviet citizen. I am devoted to the
United States of America. Naturally, any studies I have made of
the Soviet Union have been made--and I have studied social-
economic planning in the Soviet Union--have been made with a
view to seeing our whole situation. I approach these questions
as a sociologist who recognizes the tremendous impact of
technological change and development on political and social
structure.
    And so when you ask me a specific question, capitalism is
not the same today as it was fifty years ago. Capitalism
changes. Technology changes. I am a sociologist in my approach.
I want the general welfare and the declaration of human rights,
which is basic in American life. We don't know what the
economic forms may be in the future.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you believe in Marxism?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I am not a--I know very little about
Marxism.
    Mr. Cohn. Madam, the question is: Do you believe in
Marxism?
    Miss Van Kleeck. May I tell you that I am secretary of the
board of directors of the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences. I
can't be so trivial as to talk about whether I believe in
Marxism. I believe in study of social sciences, and I am
tremendously interested always in the new developments which
call for training lawyers in sociological developments.
    Mr. Cohn. Thank you.
    Miss Van Kleeck. I have taken part in that.
    Senator Jackson. You understand when we refer to Marxism,
it involves the dictatorship of the proletariat and the basic
doctrine of Marxism. That is what he is referring to.
    Miss Van Kleeck. I believe that the United States of
America is not facing today any revolutionary change. My belief
is that whatever changes are necessary--and we have been
working on this subject of monopoly since 1890-something, when
we passed our control bills on monopoly. I believe that
whatever changes are necessary in the United States will and
can be made under our constitution by the will of the people.
If you ask me specifically what that change is going to be----
    Senator Jackson. Madam, you have a right to believe in
anything you want, as long as the means that you advocate to
achieve that end is lawful. I think that is the law of this
land. And the point that I am interested in is whether you are
a member of any subversive organization that would deny the
right of the people to make any change by lawful means.
    Miss Van Kleeck. The complete contrary. I am an America
citizen, believing that we have within our political form of
government, the right, if we can preserve our civil liberties,
and if we can preserve the freedom of the social sciences,
which are terribly jeopardized today.
    Senator Jackson. Let me ask you just one other question. If
this country declared war on the Soviet Union through the means
provided by the constitution, namely, the Congress of the
United States, would you cooperate with your government, as a
citizen, in carrying out the resolution and the will of the
Congress of the United States?
    Miss Van Kleeck. Completely. I want to make a further
announcement, that when we were involved in war, the First
World War, I was immediately called to Washington to take
charge of the women in industry service of the ordnance
department. I was a member of the War Labor Policies Board. And
I was the first director of the Women's Bureau, which had
relationship to the work of women in government arsenals in the
munitions plants, and I gave everything that was in me to
maintain the productivity of women's work during the war, with
many contacts with the arsenals, with all the officials in the
ordnance department offices.
    And the answer that I gave then would be the answer I would
give under any circumstances. I would wish to strengthen the
social-economic structure of our own government.
    Senator Jackson. Well, as I understand, it, your testimony
is that if we were involved in war with the Soviet Union, you
would loyally, as an American citizen, support your government
in that endeavor?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I would support my government in that
endeavor. I would work in advance to prevent war.
    Senator Jackson. Well, that is everybody's right.
    Mr. Cohn. No matter how the war arose; in other words, as
long as the Congress declared war?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I am an American citizen, and as such I
would serve in whatever function I could, because I would be
serving the American people in their daily life under any
circumstances.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you believe that our cause in Korea today is a
just cause?
    Miss Van Kleeck. I believe that our course in Korea today
could have been very much wiser from the beginning, if the
social-economic approach had been followed from 1945.
    Mr. Cohn. I have heard enough, as far as I am concerned. I
would like this witness to remain under subpoena, Mr. Chairman,
because we have an issue of fact to determine between her, and
other witnesses.
    Senator Jackson. Very well.
    Mr. Cohn. Would, you stand and be sworn?
    Senator Jackson. Will you raise your right hand? Do you
solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give shall
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
    Mr. Seaver. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Your full name, please.
                   TESTIMONY OF EDWIN SEAVER
    Mr. Seaver. Edwin Seaver, S-e-a-v-e-r.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation, Mr. Seaver?
    Mr. Seaver. Right now, I am in advertising. I am a writer.
    Mr. Cohn. With what company?
    Mr. Seaver. Little, Brown and Company.
    Mr. Cohn. And are you an author of any books?
    Mr. Seaver. Oh, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, a number of books?
    Mr. Seaver. Under my own name, only two. I mean novels.
    Then I edited several books besides that.
    Mr. Cohn. Under what other names have you written?
    Mr. Seaver. No other names.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, you have helped edit.
    Mr. Seaver. Yes, I edited a book of stories by various
writers called Cross Section.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Cross Section: A collection of New American Writing (New York:
L.B. Fischer, 1944-1948).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. What are the names of your two books?
    Mr. Seaver. My first book was called The Company, and the
second book was called Between the Hammer and the Anvil.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Edwin Seaver, The Company (New York: Macmillan, 1930), and
Between the Hammer and the Anvil (New York, J. Messner, 1937).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. Between the Hammer and the Anvil. Now, have you
ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Seaver. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever belonged to any organization listed
as subversive by the attorney general?
    Mr. Seaver. To the best of my knowledge, I have not
belonged to any such organization since the listing.
    Mr. Cohn. Oh, no. I mean, have you ever belonged to such an
organization?
    You see, the listing is not meant to determine the date
that an organization is Communist. In other words, if the
attorney general listed it on October 2nd, 1943, that doesn't
mean it became Communist on that date. He may have listed it
because of its past activities.
    Mr. Seaver. There was the League of American Writers, the
Congress Against War and Fascism.
    Mr. Cohn. Did, you belong to that?
    Mr. Seaver. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you not know that was a Communist-dominated
organization?
    Mr. Seaver. I certainly did not know it at the time. I
certainly did not. Because most of the fellows I knew were on
it, all sorts of writers, of every kind.
    Senator Jackson. When did you join it?
    Mr. Seaver. I joined it at the beginning. I was one of the
group that thought it was a wonderful group for writers to
organize against war and fascism.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you leave it?
    Mr. Seaver. Well, frankly, it just petered out for me. I
just didn't go on with it.
    Mr. Cohn. No other organizations like that?
    Mr. Seaver. No, no other organization I belonged to, except
this so called Peace Conference at the Waldorf some years ago.
    Senator Jackson. American Peace Mobilization?
    Mr. Cohn. You mean the recent conference, do you not?
    Mr. Seaver. It was 1947 or 1948.
    Mr. Cohn. We are not talking about the Emergency Peace
Organization. You are talking about the Waldorf Astoria Peace
Conference?
    Mr. Seaver. That is right.
    Senator Jackson. That was the thing with Ehrenburg, the
Soviet writer, headed by Shaffly of Harvard.
    Mr. Seaver. But I didn't organize it. I was one of those
who thought it would be a good thing to have it.
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't you know that was Communist inspired?
    Mr. Seaver. No, I didn't. Because if you look at the list
of people who signed that thing, how could you say that?
    How could I say it, I mean.
    Mr. Cohn. I looked at it carefully.
    Mr. Seaver. Now you are looking at it with after thought.
    Mr. Cohn. No, I looked at it then.
    Senator Jackson. After you got into the thing, were you not
convinced, as a writer, or as an intelligent man----
    Mr. Seaver. I didn't think it had much to do with writing.
    Senator Jackson. Did you not think it was Communist
dominated, after you saw the whole thing?
    Mr. Seaver. Yes, I thought the whole thing was politically
motivated, that it didn't have to do with writers dealing with
writers' problems.
    Senator Jackson. What do you mean by ``politically
motivated''?
    Mr. Seaver. I mean whoever it was the Russian writer got up
and made a specific speech about Russia, and that sort of
thing, and I wasn't there to hear about the glories of Russia.
I wanted to hear about Russian literature.
    Senator Jackson. I mean as an intelligent citizen, were you
not convinced that this was a Commie pitch?
    Mr. Seaver. Yes, I was, Senator. And it was the last such
thing I ever attended.
    Mr. Cohn. You say that was the last such thing you ever
attended?
    Mr. Seaver. To the best of my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended a Communist meeting?
    Mr Seaver. No,
    Mr. Cohn. You have not?
    Mr. Seaver. No. Now, I have to qualify that. Because I
wouldn't know if a thing were a Communist meeting. I never went
to a meeting that was supposed to be.
    Senator Jackson. Knowing it was a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Seaver. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Looking back, can you think of any meetings which
you attended which you now think were Communist meetings?
    Mr. Seaver. There was one meeting, and I honestly can't
tell you where it was held or what the damn thing was, because
I didn't know, when I went there. But when I went there, and I
heard people talking about economics and economic policy three
hours at a time, I remembered it was a nice spring day, and I
left.
    Senator Jackson. Who was the sponsor of the meeting?
    Mr. Seaver. I was never told.
    Senator Jackson. Was it a public meeting?
    Mr. Seaver. It seemed to be. It was a big hall and I
remember Earl Browder was making a long speech summarizing the
whole economic----
    Mr. Cohn. You knew he was a pretty well known Communist?
    Mr. Seaver. Oh, of course. He ran for office. I couldn't
help knowing it.
    Mr. Cohn. That didn't sort of make you think it might be a
Communist affiliated meeting?
    Mr. Seaver. I don't know. Now, wait a minute. I didn't say
I didn't think it was a Communist meeting. I said the only
meeting I ever attended that I knew was a Communist meeting----
    Mr. Cohn. Oh, I thought you said originally you never
knowingly attended a Communist meeting.
    Mr, Seaver. Wait a minute. When I got there and saw what it
was, I knew it was a Communist meeting.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you do then?
    Mr. Seaver. I walked out of it.
    Mr. Cohn. You walked out?
    Mr. Seaver. Very quickly.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you hear Browder? You just said you listened
to some long speech by Browder.
    Mr. Seaver. It was a long speech summarizing, I guess, the
economic condition of the country.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you do? Did you walk out quickly, or did
you listen to Browder for a long time?
    Mr. Seaver. I didn't listen to Browder for a long time,
because I can't listen to long speeches of that sort. That is
not my makeup.
    Senator Jackson. Counsel has asked you if you have been a
member of the Communist party. I will put this question to you:
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Seaver. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a believer in communism?
    Mr. Seaver. I think in that period of the thirties, for
three or four years, I would certainly consider myself a fellow
traveler.
    Senator Jackson. A fellow traveler during the thirties?
    Mr. Seaver. That is what I call myself, looking back.
    Senator Jackson. What was your position during the Hitler-
Stalin Pact? Did you think it was a good----
    Mr. Seaver. Well, I would say before that I already knew
that I didn't want any part of it. That was the business of the
Finnish war.
    Senator Jackson. The which?
    Mr. Seaver. The Finnish war.
    Senator Jackson. What was your position on that? Did you
think the Russians were right?
    Mr. Seaver. Oh, of course not. Why should an aggressor
nation be right?
    Senator Jackson. Well, then, you were in favor of, or
opposed to, the Hitler-Stalin Pact?
    Mr. Seaver. I was opposed to it, because it just brought
war that much quicker.
    Senator Jackson. Did you ever make any public statement on
it?
    Mr. Seaver. No.
    Senator Jackson. Did you ever write anything on it?
    Mr. Seaver. No. I had stopped writing on any of those
things by that time, on any of them.
    Mr. Cohn. The thing that troubles me is the thing that you
turn up at this Waldorf Peace Conference in 1948.
    Mr. Seaver. Well, look. Is it wrong for a man to want to
work for peace if he thinks there could be peace? I just want
to finish this. It was the last time. Because I saw very
clearly that what all these things are, are orientations toward
trying to push this policy of one country against another. And
that is the end of it for me.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you write your books?
    Mr. Seaver. The first one was written in 1929, published in
1930.
    Mr. Cohn. Which one was that?
    Mr. Seaver. The Company. The second one was--I would say I
started it about 1934, in a period of great depression for me.
I was out of a job.
    Mr. Cohn. That was The Hammer and the Anvil?
    Mr. Seaver. That was published in 1938.
    Senator Jackson. You started writing it in 1938?
    Mr. Seaver. Yes. It might have been a little earlier or a
little later.
    Mr. Cohn. When you wrote that book, you would still be in
that period when you would call yourself a sympathizer?
    Mr. Seaver. I think so, yes,
    Mr. Cohn. That is pretty well reflected in the book, is it
not?
    Mr. Seaver. I would say so.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this. You have broken. In other
words, you have changed your views, and you have seen, as I
think you tried to tell us pretty frankly here, the depression,
and you were pretty badly misled, and you certainly now, am I
correct in stating, are a firm believer in this country?
    Mr. Seaver. Well, I would put it more than that. I am a
firm believer that the Communist way of life is not for us.
    Mr. Cohn. Right. And you now are big enough to say that you
were mistaken back many years ago when you believed otherwise.
    Mr. Seaver. Can I say this: Can I say that I was idealistic
and a little fuzzy-minded, I think.
    Mr. Cohn. I want to get to this. Having been straight-
forward enough to say that, you know what this is about, I
imagine. We are investigating the information program of the
State Department, finding out they have got a lot of books that
have seeped in there. Their objective is not just to put in any
book, by the way, but to put in those books which will give to
the people throughout the world a true picture of the American
objectives in the year 1953 and will aid us in the fight
against communism. Now, if you were to make a selection of
books, would you pick these books from your early period?
    Mr. Seaver. I think The Company would be all right.
    Mr. Cohn. How about The Hammer and the Anvil?
    Mr. Seaver. No, I would not. Because it reflects a good
deal of my own subjective feeling at the time. First of all, I
don't think it is a very good book.
    Senator Jackson. Well, you wrote the book during a time
when you now say you were fuzzy, idealistic, and if you had it
to do over again you would not do it. Is that not about it?
    Mr. Seaver. I couldn't possibly do it.
    Mr. Cohn. How about The Company? Are you sure about that?
Wouldn't you call that pretty much of a borderline case?
    Mr. Seaver. I don't know. I was a very young man then.
These sketches that I was writing appeared in many magazines.
    Mr. Cohn. I know. But still, in 1953----
    Mr. Seaver. I don't know whether it could be or not. It
wasn't reviewed that way.
    Mr. Cohn. No, but in the year 1953, is that a book that you
would stick in there?
    Senator Jackson. What is The Company about?
    Mr. Seaver. The Company is about white collar workers.
    Mr. Cohn. I looked at that.
    Mr. Seaver. That is pretty much of a literary work.
    Mr. Cohn. But it is pretty much full of this other stuff.
    Senator Jackson. When was that written?
    Mr. Seaver. In 1929. I think you are drawing the line
rather fine.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, you are trying to be frank, and I
appreciate it.
    Mr. Seaver. I wouldn't put it in, because I don't think
that is proper in the current situation.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, sticking by your views at the time and even
though they are not reflected as much as in The Hammer and the
Anvil, and I agree with you on that, still, in all frankness,
would you put The Company in there today?
    Mr. Seaver. I don't know. I can think of many better books
to put in.
    Senator Jackson. What is The Company about?
    Mr. Seaver. It is a series of white collar sketches, clerks
working in a big corporation and feeling their own personal
lives weren't being expressed.
    Senator Jackson. It was applied to the white collar worker
in America?
    Mr. Seaver. Well, that is putting a big name on it. Because
I was a young guy then just writing.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you edit this book of stories?
    Mr. Seaver. You mean Cross Section?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Seaver. That was '44, '46, '47, '48.
    Mr. Cohn. And that you would say is okay?
    Mr. Seaver. Well, now, listen. I did not write the stories
and didn't know who the people were who were writing them. It
is like these books now, these pocket books, the New American
Library, and so forth, where a lot of young writers send you
their stuff, and you judge it by its quality and I wouldn't say
none of it doesn't come under what you are talking about. I
would think maybe some of it does.
    Mr. Cohn. In all candor, that is not a book you would stick
in there either, would you?
    Mr. Seaver. No, I wouldn't.
    Mr. Cohn. You have been frank, and I appreciate it.
    Mr. Seaver. Well, I am a writer.
    Senator Jackson. What are you doing now?
    Mr. Seaver. I am advertising manager for Little, Brown. The
last few years earned me more money than all the books I ever
wrote. I ghosted Carole Landis's Four Jills in a Jeep.
    Senator Jackson. I take it you do not go along with Soviet
foreign policy and their anti-Semitic attacks?
    Mr. Seaver. Well, first of all, I am a Jew.
    Senator Jackson. You have a right to be anything you want.
We are all Americans.
    Mr. Seaver. I would hardly go along with that.
    Senator Jackson. I am glad to hear you say that, because we
had one witness before this committee the other day who was
Jewish and who would not believe his own people. And I say that
anyone who is of that kind of background is a pretty sad
individual.
    Mr. Seaver. I think I am what they call a bourgeois
internationalist Zionist.
    Senator Jackson. Well, he said a Zionist was a capitalistic
stooge engaged in spying, a member of a capitalistic stooge
organization of the United States, I think, in effect, spying
on the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Cohn. We want to ask you to come back tomorrow morning,
Mr. Seaver, if it is agreeable.
    [Whereupon, at 6:25 p.m. a recess was taken to the call of
the chair.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--Edward W. Barrett (1910-1989) served as
overseas director of the Office of War Information during World
War II, editorial director of Newsweek magazine after the war,
and assistant secretary of state for public affairs from 1950
to 1952. In the latter capacity, he supervised and signed the
press releases that the State Department issued to rebut
Senator McCarthy's accusations about subversion and lax
security within the department. In a Senate speech on June 2,
1950, McCarthy described the State Department's White Paper on
China as having been ``supervised by Edward Barrett, Mr.
Acheson's publicity chief. He was Mr. Lattimore's superior when
both worked in the Office of War Information.'' The senator
went on to charge: ``We cannot afford the luxury of high-paid
phonies peddling propaganda to protect the reputations of men
who have proven themselves unworthy of the confidence of the
American people.''
    On March 27, 1953, Barrett testified during a public
hearing of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Overseas
Information Programs, chaired by Senator Bourke B.
Hickenlooper. He identified his occupation at the time as a
consultant in news, television, and public relations. In his
opening statement to the Hickenlooper subcommittee, Barrett
said: ``As the President has said, we cannot hope to win the
cold war against Communist imperialism unless we win the minds
of men. This means mastering the techniques of honest
international persuasion. It does not mean, as you know, going
hogwild, misconstruing propaganda as a substitute for action.
It does not mean letting childish headline hunters frighten us
into such shrill and strident techniques as to antagonize at
the outset those abroad whom we seek to win over. . . . Mr.
Chairman, the Voice of America and the international
information program have important shortcomings. I know,
because they were among the operations for which I was
responsible for a couple of years. When the full facts are
known, I believe it will develop that there is little basis for
most of the recently headlined and well-rehearsed allegations
made elsewhere by a handpicked group of disgruntled and
frightened little men.'' As a result of these remarks, Barrett
was called to testify in executive session of the permanent
subcommittee on investigations. The subcommittee did not call
him back to testify in public. Barrett later became dean of the
Columbia School of Journalism, where he founded the Columbia
Journalism Review.]
                              ----------
                        TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 2:45 p.m. in room 357 of the
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, chairman,
presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator John
L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Stuart Symington,
Democrat, Missouri.
    Also present: Roy Cohn, chief counsel; Donald Surine,
assistant counsel; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk; John S. Leahy,
Jr., special assistant to the under secretary of state for
administration.
    The Chairman. The hearing will be in order.
    Mr. Barrett, in this matter before the subcommittee for
hearing, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Barrett. I do.
                 TESTIMONY OF EDWARD W. BARRETT
    The Chairman. Mr. Barrett, I know you have appeared before
the Hickenlooper committee, and normally we do not duplicate
witnesses or the work they are doing, but you made some
statements over there which indicated that you might be helpful
to this committee.
    We have been calling witnesses in regard to the Voice of
America. I notice you referred to the disgruntled employees, if
I may get the exact language. I have a list of the witnesses we
have called up, and I wish you would tell me which ones you
consider disgruntled, and it might be of some assistance to us
in evaluating the testimony if we know which of those employees
are disgruntled. Will you tell us who you had in mind?
    Mr. Barrett. Do you want another copy of that statement, by
the way? Is this on the record, senator?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Barrett. There is a record kept?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    You made some statements before the Hickenlooper committee
which I think might be of some assistance to us if you can give
us some further detailed evidence on this matter. For example,
one of the things that the committee must determine is which of
the witnesses are telling the truth. We want to get a complete
picture of the witness and evaluate his testimony.
    I note you made the statement: ``It was a hand-picked group
of disgruntled and frightened little men who testified.''
    Could you tell us which ones you are referring to? That is
on page two.
    Mr. Barrett. Could I say in general this, sir, that that is
my opinion, shared by many newspapers, including the New York
Times who editorialized to that effect, and I am quite sure
there are a number of others. It is an impression that is based
in large part on the public hearings and particularly on the
televised hearings and the amount of time given to individuals
who seemed to me to fit into that category.
    The Chairman. Well, just to give us a general statement,
general information, does not help us at all, but if you know
of any particular disgruntled or frightened little men who
testified, that would help us.
    Mr. Barrett. I think Miss Nancy Lenkeith, and I do not have
the list here, was given a great deal of time on the television
showing and fitted into that category, a discharged employee. I
think that Mr. McKesson, on whose testimony a very large amount
of the charges about the transmitter program was based, was an
employee who is now out of the Voice after having had
differences.
    The Chairman. Did you feel he was testifying as he did
because he was a disgruntled former employee?
    Mr. Barrett. I felt that that was a factor in it, Senator.
    The Chairman. Are you aware of the fact that the new head
of the Voice has canceled the two stations in accordance with
the recommendations of Mr. McKesson, as a result of the
hearings?
    Mr. Barrett. I am aware of the fact that those stations
have been suspended, and I am aware of the fact that there are
still differences between engineers on those points as to
whether those are good locations or not. I am aware of the
fact, sir----
    The Chairman. Between what engineers? I think we should
identify it. What was your job in the State Department?
    Mr. Barrett. My last job in public life, sir, was assistant
secretary of state for public affairs.
    The Chairman. When were you so employed?
    Mr. Barrett. I started in January of 1950. I started on
February 15 approximately, 1950, and ended my service
approximately February 20 of 1952.
    I should add for your benefit that the duties encompassed a
great many things over and beyond the Voice of America. It was
that, and in fact the entire information program made up only a
part of my duties, so mine was a broad supervisory function.
    The Chairman. You had considerable to do with the
information program?
    Mr. Barrett. I did, sir. I had responsibility for that
along with other things in a supervisory capacity.
    The Chairman. We have had testimony here that of the
authors used at least seventy-five were members of the
Communist party, and a number of the authors appeared before
the committee and refused to tell whether they were Communists
as of the date they appeared, and others said they were not
Communists as of the date they appeared and refused to tell
whether they were Communists when they wrote the books. I would
like to ask you this question: Number one, were you aware of
the fact that the works of Communist authors were being
purchased?
    Mr. Barrett. No, I was not aware that the books of
Communist authors were being purchased. I felt we had
considerable safeguards in that regard, because the libraries
were continually being inspected and inspected in detail. For
example, a committee of three from the American Book Publishers
Council, I believe it was, was appointed to go around the world
to inspect them.
    The Chairman. Who were those three people?
    Mr. Barrett. The three book publishers? It was headed by
Mr. Robert Crowell, president of Thomas Y. Crowell.
    Senator Mundt. Of Crowell Publishing Company?
    Mr. Barrett. Thomas Y. Crowell Publishing Company.
    The other names I do not at this moment recall.
    The Chairman. Could you get those names for us?
    Mr. Barrett. One other was Mr. Chester Kerr of Yale
University Press, and the third was an eminent librarian whose
name I do not remember at this time. A correction--I am not
sure that that was appointed by the publishers council but it
was appointed by my office with the advice of the publishers
council.
    The Chairman. What instructions were they given? Were they
given instructions to remove the books?
    Mr. Barrett. To go around and inspect the libraries; they
were given general instructions to inspect the libraries and to
go over the shelves and see how they were being handled; and
also all libraries, or most libraries, around the world were
inspected by a group of investigators from the House
Appropriations Committee, who made a five-month inspection in
1951 or early 1952 I believe.
    The Chairman. Some of the senators will have to leave
fairly soon, and there are a number of questions I would like
to get to before they leave.
    Mr. Barrett. I wonder if I could get back to one point you
raised before, because I did not get to finish the answer?
    The Chairman. You certainly may.
    Mr. Barrett. That was on the matter of the transmitters.
Before I left, I had numerous studies made of those
transmitters, one by Dr. Wilson Compton, and that was before
February of 1952. I did get one report that I think is germane,
indicating the character of the people who were originally
consulted and worked on the location of these transmitters
during my term of office. This was by Mr. Wiesner, of
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and if I could read the
first paragraph, I will be glad to give you the whole thing for
the record.
    This is from Mr. Jerome B. Wiesner, Associate Director,
Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. It is dated December 26, 1951. It is addressed to
Mr. Raymond Kaplan:
      Dear Ray: Since our recent conversation, Dr. Bettencourt
and I have once more reviewed our recommendations to place the
Baker station in the Northwest. As you know, our decisions were
based on the study of the RCA signal corps, and the CRPL, the
Central Radio Propagation Laboratories of the U.S. Bureau of
Standards. We did not introduce any data into the review. We
believed that the original recommendation that the Baker
station should be placed in Seattle is still sound.
    I call that to your attention just to show you that as of
that date at any rate----
    Mr. Cohn. We have that entire report in the record.
    The Chairman. Mr. Barrett, will you get back to this
question: Did I understand your statement to be that you did
not know that those Communist works were being purchased?
    Mr. Barrett. I do not yet know, sir, that any Communist
works were purchased during that time. I received many
complaints about many parts of the program and always made it a
point to have an investigation made.
    The Chairman. You say as of this moment you do not know
that any Communist works were purchased while you were in this
job?
    Mr. Barrett. That is correct.
    The Chairman. From your testimony evaluating the type of
witnesses who appeared before the committee, I assume that you
are aware of the testimony that was taken here, and you would
not go before a committee and evaluate our work and describe
our witnesses unless you followed the testimony.
    Mr. Barrett. I am aware of a great deal of the testimony
and I am aware of what was printed in the press and most of
what was carried on the television.
    The Chairman. Are you aware of the fact that this staff has
checked with the State Department and verified that works of
well-known Communists or individuals who refused to testify as
to whether they were Communists or not, that those works have
been purchased? Are you aware of that?
    Mr. Barrett. No, I do not happen to be aware of that.
    The Chairman. Well, let me ask you this: Had you known that
Communists' works were being purchased for use by the
information program, would you have approved of that?
    Mr. Barrett. Not for any use on the open shelves available
to the general public abroad.
    The Chairman. That is what I am speaking of, for use on
open shelves.
    Mr. Barrett. You understand that I would advocate having
them on restricted shelves for use of the staff and for use of
well-known anti-Communists in the towns concerned.
    The Chairman. Do you know who was responsible for selecting
the books while you were in the State Department?
    Mr. Barrett. No, I do not. There was a very elaborate
system set up as I recall. I believe, and this is memory--I am
almost certain of it--the American Library Association
participated, and so on, at my request. After a little flare up
on an entirely different subject in the summer of 1951, I asked
a special committee be set up under the auspices of the U.S.
Advisory Commission on International Education, or Educational
Exchange, to review all of the books and all of the magazines
going into the libraries and the general policies being
followed in that connection. That report was not completed
until I was out of office.
    The Chairman. You refer to the ``well-rehearsed
allegations.'' Will you explain what you mean by that? You
said, ``and well-rehearsed allegations made elsewhere by a
handpicked group of disgruntled and frightened little men.''
    Mr. Barrett. I would say, sir, that my impression has been
that the testimony was well-rehearsed; and I remember, for
example, one case when you turned to Mr. Cohn, and you said,
``Mr. Cohn, you have been through this witness's testimony
three times. I wonder if you can get the right answers.''
    Mr. Cohn. Three times. Mr. Barrett, would you think it
would be proper for us to put a witness on the stand without
talking to the witness first to find out whether or not the
witness had any information to give the committee?
    Mr. Barrett. No, Mr. Cohn, I would not, nor would I think
it well to put a witness on the stand, frankly, to make
allegations against an individual without talking to the
individual against whom the allegations have been made.
    The Chairman. Do you know of any individual against whom
allegations have been made who was asked to be heard by this
committee who has not been given the right to appear?
    Mr. Barrett. I do not. I am aware of the fact that there
are individuals in Germany, for example, about whose record I
know almost nothing, who have not yet appeared.
    The Chairman. Mr. Kaghan, for instance?
    Mr. Barrett. Yes, sir, and I know that Kaghan was the name
of one, and I know that there were witnesses who were subject
to televised allegations that were not heard publicly until
very, very much later, and, very frankly, gentlemen, I feel
that that is unfair.
    The Chairman. You have been in this work a long time, so
maybe you can be of some benefit to the committee. Let us take
Kaghan for example. Do you think it would be unfair to show
that a man had been writing following the Communist party line
and is now in a high position in Germany and that he flunked
his security test? Do you think that we should keep that--and a
signer of a Communist party petition--would you say that we
should not expose that fact, that that would be unfair to him?
Or would it be unfair to the people if we failed to expose it?
    Mr. Barrett. I would not think, if those conditions are
true, that you should decline to bring out that information;
you have a duty and a responsibility to bring out any such
information, if you have such information as that. I do think
that in fairness to a witness under the American principles of
fair-play that the gentleman should have a chance to testify in
his own behalf regardless of what the record may show.
    The Chairman. Do you know of anyone who has not been given
that chance?
    Mr. Barrett. I repeat, Senator, that I am not aware that
any steps have been taken toward that.
    The Chairman. You have a perfect right to shout against
high heaven, and we did not bring you in to criticize you for
having screamed against the committee, but you indicated here
that you had information which we do not have, and we would
like to get it, and you referred to a handpicked group of
disgruntled and frightened little men. We ask you to name them.
And of the witnesses that have been called, you say Nancy
Lenkeith you think was one of the handpicked persons, and you
think McKesson was the other.
    Mr. Barrett. Disgruntled.
    The Chairman. McKesson, whose advice has now been followed
by Mr. Johnson. If you are merely criticizing the committee
because they are exposing your activities that occurred in the
past, then we have no interest in examining you further. If you
have information for us, as you indicated you did, that you can
tell us about a well-rehearsed witness or well-rehearsed
allegations, if you know that our staff is rehearsing the
witnesses, handpicking them, that is a pretty serious charge,
you see. I do not hardly think that a man doing as high a job
as you did in the State Department would make that statement
unless he had some information to back it up.
    Now, if you know who handpicked the people, we would like
to know it. You are testifying as an expert on this, and you
should know that we have offered the State Department the right
to have any witness they cared to have called in. I do not want
to waste any more time at all on this; and if you were just
making the usual screaming and shouting against the committee,
and if you have no evidence of well-rehearsed allegations, and
the only two disgruntled people you can name are Miss Lenkeith
and this very, very respectable and outstanding engineer, Mr.
McKesson, let me say that I do not think that you impress the
committee. At least you do not impress me with your statement
that McKesson was a disgruntled employee. McKesson has
impressed me as an outstanding engineer and a very high quality
individual. If you know of any other disgruntled person who
testified, we would be glad to have you tell us about them.
    Mr. Barrett. Senator, may I speak to that?
    The Chairman. You may speak to that.
    Mr. Barrett. May I have a few moments?
    The Chairman. With as much length as you care to.
    Mr. Barrett. All right. Thank you.
    The Chairman. May I say you might want to cover this while
you are talking, that there are some who might think that you
were the disgruntled individual, you see, no longer holding
this job and your activities have been exposed, and now you can
speak as long as you like, with that interruption.
    Mr. Barrett. Let me say, in the first place, senator, that
I genuinely feel it is unfair to say that my activities have
been exposed. That the program had faults under my supervision,
I have no doubt. Every large organization has faults. But no
complaint of any substance whatever came to my attention
without my having that investigated, and investigated whenever
possible by an organization outside of what is now the IAA.
    For example, when a complaint came that there was
mismanagement in the Radio Facilities Branch, I asked the
chairman of the National Association of Broadcasters to appoint
a committee of three to make a report, and that report is now a
matter of record.
    Mr. Cohn. Who was the chairman of that?
    Mr. Barrett. Justin Miller.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he appoint Mr. Hughes as one of them?
    Senator Symington. I think we should let the witness talk.
    Mr. Barrett. That report is now in the record and can be
found in the record of the Senate Appropriations Committee in
the spring of 1951.
    When complaints of other nature came to my attention, many
of them did, from many channels, I always had them
investigated. There were security complaints, or if I had any
security suspicions myself, I had them investigated by the
office under Mr. Don Nicholson, formerly with the FBI, and Mr.
Peurifoy's office. I feel that the record shows fully that
those transmitters were located--and they were only planned
during my period--but they were located according to the best
advice obtainable, and I think the record will show that.
    I would like to see the committee subpoena all of the
records and all of the correspondence on these transmitters,
because I think----
    The Chairman. It has been done.
    Mr. Barrett. And I would like to see all of the committee
members examine it, because I think that it shows very
conclusively that every effort was made to get the best advice
on them.
    Now, about disgruntled witnesses, sir, I expressed an
opinion much as the New York Times and other organizations have
expressed, and I said disgruntled or frightened witnesses. I
did not mean only two. I was interrupted by you, Mr. Chairman,
at the point where I finished naming them, the two.
    The Chairman. You may proceed.
    Mr. Barrett. If you want names, I would prefer not going
into personalities, but if you want them----
    The Chairman. It is a pretty serious general statement, and
I think you should give us names.
    Mr. Barrett. I think Mr. Thompson is a disgruntled witness.
Mr. Thompson had been demoted in the organization. I think that
Mr. Virgil Fulling was a disgruntled witness, because Mr.
Fulling had been in the organization for a long time and had
been passed over many times to my knowledge, and so on. I
think, incidentally, that he gave very extreme testimony that
can be refuted if the record is looked at with regard to such
things as whether the word ``anti-Communist'' had ever been
used to his knowledge.
    I believe it will be found, and I suggest the witness look
at the scripts of two days before, to see if the word was not
used fourteen times in scripts of that particular desk, on two
days before this incident was supposed to have occurred.
    I think you have had many frightened witnesses, sir, and I
came in here today as a frightened witness myself, I suppose,
but people do not relish appearing before this committee. I
think Dr. Wilson Compton must have been frightened because he
had looked fully into these transmitters, and he had made an
investigation of many weeks of the transmitters before he took
office in the IAA.
    I gathered from his published testimony before this
committee that he felt those transmitters were mis-located,
canceled, and so on, and he went before the Hickenlooper
committee some days later and, as I recall, subject to check,
he testified that he felt those transmitters were right and
that they should go ahead. He had canceled them not because of
the alleged sabotage and things of that sort.
    The Chairman. May I interrupt you as you list these names?
You list him as one of the ``handpicked group of disgruntled
and frightened little men?''
    Mr. Barrett. I would not pick him as handpicked.
    The Chairman. You would not say he was a frightened little
man, would you?
    Mr. Barrett. I would say there was some evidence of fear in
that, by virtue of the fact that his testimony given before the
Hickenlooper committee subsequently indicated that he felt that
the transmitters were still okay and that they should be
proceeded again.
    The Chairman. Was it your thought we should not have called
Mr. Compton because he was frightened?
    Mr. Barrett. No. I was glad to see you call him, and I only
regret, senator, that in connection with Mr. McKesson's
testimony you did not call some of the large number of people
who had originally participated in the siting of those
transmitters.
    The Chairman. We had some sixty-seven or seventy witnesses
appear before the committee, and you have named four of them
that you thought were disgruntled. Did you have any others in
mind?
    Mr. Barrett. A great deal of time has been given to those
four.
    The Chairman. May I say this, Mr. Barrett: If you are
merely making a general statement, and that statement has been
made by other people, a general criticism of the committee, and
if you did not have information yourself of what you considered
well-rehearsed testimony or disgruntled people, I am not going
to try to badger you for names. The reason you are called here,
some of those over on the Hickenlooper committee felt that if
you knew of this, and this was called to my attention by a
member of that committee, that if you knew of something like
this, we should hear about it. I know that the other members of
the committee would like to know if my staff has been
rehearsing witnesses.
    Mr. Barrett. I suggest you ask your staff that.
    The Chairman. Do you know of any rehearsing? You made a
serious charge, you see, against my staff, and if you do not
know of any rehearsing, it is all right.
    Mr. Barrett. I regret to say that you made that charge when
you turned to Mr. Cohn in one case and said, ``Now you have
been through this witness's testimony three times; let me see,
will you see if you can get her to give the right answers.''
    The Chairman. Who was that?
    Mr. Barrett. Miss Lenkeith; and I just happened to be
watching you on television, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You think what you have just said is in context,
Mr. Barrett?
    Mr. Barrett. I think you should consult the record on it,
because I will not say that my memory is infallible on that,
and I think it would be well to check the record.
    The Chairman. Is that the only indication you have of any
rehearsal of the witnesses?
    Mr. Barrett. The fact that was visible on television, you
had a sheet in front of you that looked like questions and
answers to me from the way you worked from them.
    The Chairman. That would mean rehearsal? If I had questions
and answers in front of me, you think that that would mean that
I had rehearsed the witness or the staff had rehearsed the
witness?
    Mr. Barrett. It would imply it to me.
    The Chairman. It would imply that?
    Mr. Barrett. I would have to say that in fairness.
    The Chairman. You cannot tell us now who is responsible for
putting, or who has been responsible for putting the works of
Communist authors on the shelves?
    Mr. Barrett. Just a moment. Do you want to leave this thing
on which you asked me to make a statement of disgruntled and so
on?
    The Chairman. I thought that you had finished giving us a
list of these people. If you have some more disgruntled people
in mind, let us have them.
    Mr. Barrett. You spoke of Mr. McKesson, and I do not care
to indulge in names before this committee, sir, but I think it
would be well for the committee to look into Mr. McKesson's own
background as thoroughly as they have looked into the
background of some of these other witnesses.
    The Chairman. Now just a second. You intimate that you know
something of his background of uncomplimentary nature. That is
your intimation. Do you know anything now about his background
that would interest the committee?
    Mr. Barrett. I know nothing that I can state as a fact, of
first-hand knowledge, sir, but there is enough talk around and
enough reports around.
    The Chairman. What kind of talk? I would like to know so
that we can check on it. I think we have looked into his
background as far as his employment record is concerned, and it
is rather outstanding. Now, if there is some talk around I
would like to know what it is. You see, when you come here and
say look into so-and-so's background, that means to me that you
know something of his background that is bad.
    Mr. Barrett. Senator, you have looked into the background--
I believe when a witness comes up with the kind of testimony
McKesson has, his background should be looked into fully.
    I would like----
    The Chairman. Will you tell us what those reports were that
you heard?
    Mr. Barrett. I would prefer not to, sir.
    The Chairman. I frankly do not care what you prefer. This
is a very important matter, and it involves what has been
referred to as sabotage of the information program. Mr.
McKesson is one of the witnesses upon whom we have relied
rather heavily, and he is making a study now, and we have
checked his background with RCA. He was a commander in the
navy, and we have checked his record in the navy, and we find
nothing of a derogatory nature whatsoever in his background.
    Now, if you have heard reports, we would like to know what
they are and who you heard them from.
    Mr. Barrett. I should like to suggest, Senator, that I do
not care to indulge in hearsay, but when I was in a responsible
position, I always did have hearsay thoroughly investigated.
    The Chairman. Well, we would like to get the hearsay, the
reports you heard.
    Senator McClellan. Let me ask you a question, please, sir.
What I am trying to determine now, so that I will know how to
judge this interrogation, are you telling the committee that
there is something, in your judgment, in the background or the
record of Mr. McKesson that if disclosed would reflect upon him
and discredit the testimony he has given the committee or
calculated to discredit his testimony to any degree?
    Mr. Barrett. I think that it might bear upon the question
as to whether he is a disgruntled employee or disgruntled
person.
    Senator McClellan. Does it go beyond this, that he is just
disgruntled?
    Mr. Barrett. No, I think it bears upon whether he is a
disgruntled person.
    Senator McClellan. Only that? It does not go into any
deeper phase than that, other than just he is unhappy about
something connected with his work?
    Mr. Barrett. That is correct, and he has a reputation for
being disgruntled in previous organizations.
    Senator McClellan. Well, I just wanted to see what the
extent of your charge was.
    The Chairman. When you talk about the rumors, you did not
want to put on the record here, you are talking about rumors of
his being disgruntled?
    Mr. Barrett. Yes, many rumors and reports, that is right
    The Chairman. And nothing except rumors of his being
disgruntled?
    Mr. Barrett. That is right. I would like to say in
connection with Mr. McKesson that without discrediting Mr.
McKesson, I think that there are signs in the testimony Mr.
McKesson was a very sincere man, even though he was unhappy
over what he thought was bad treatment at the Voice of America,
perhaps. But I think to get a really balanced picture, as I am
sure, Mr. Chairman, you want to do, that it would be wise to
subpoena the gentleman like those from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and other organizations, who
participated originally in the selection of these sites. I
think in order to get a balanced picture of that, it is
necessary to do that.
    Senator Mundt. It sounds like a good suggestion. Can you
give us the names of those, but we have been trying to find
some witnesses who would have a balance in this thing.
    We had a list, and the list did not stand up very well, and
you might know more about who to call than he did.
    Mr. Barrett. I know the people who worked on this whole
problem when I was in office, sir, and I believe some of those
names are on the piece of paper that I put out here a short
time ago.
    The Chairman. On your speech, you mean?
    Mr. Barrett. No, not on my speech. It is on this report.
    Senator Symington. Could I make a few observations?
    Senator Mundt. I would like to get these names while we are
on this subject, if we can.
    Mr. Barrett. Mr. Morris Pierce.
    Senator Mundt. Would you identify him?
    Mr. Barrett. Well, here are the names. You will find them
in this document.
    Senator Mundt. Let us put the document in the record and
that will take care of the matter.
    The Chairman. I may say for the benefit of the other
senators, that Morris Pierce is one of the individuals
originally suggested by Mr. Crosby, and we asked the State
Department to check into his testimony and see if it differed
with the testimony theretofore taken, and if they wanted him
called; and they notified us that they did not care to have Mr.
Pierce called.
    Senator Mundt. What apparently happened, Mr. Barrett, from
the evidence before this committee, is that some of the people
who seemingly originally suggested Baker East and Baker West--
--
    Mr. Barrett. After rather thorough study.
    Senator Mundt. They changed their minds.
    Mr. Barrett. That is correct; it may be correct.
    Senator Mundt. At least when Mr. Crosby suggested the
names, I gave them to Mr. Cohn, and he contacted them, and they
either said, ``There is no reason to call us; we now agree it
was a mistake,'' or for some other reason the State Department
said there was no use to ask them to appear.
    Mr. Barrett. Nonetheless, sir, I have the impression that
very serious charges have been made before this committee to
the effect that there was sabotage in the location of
transmitters. Now, if these gentlemen participated in the
selection of those sites on the basis of information obtained
from RCA----
    Mr. Cohn. What do you mean by ``these gentlemen,'' so that
we can get it clear?
    Mr. Barrett. The gentlemen whose names appeared in some of
these documents.
    The Chairman. You have a number of names. Do you want to
check the ones?
    Senator Mundt. Read the ones into the record that you think
would be good witnesses, because I would like to get down to
the iron bottom facts on this Baker East and Baker West.
    Mr. Barrett. The men who were involved were Dr. D. K.
Bailey, the propagation expert of the Bureau of Standards; Dr.
J. B. Wiesner, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
Mr. A. D. Ring; Mr. Morris Pierce; and then broader studies
that encompass this, encompass the entire Ring plan, were made
by Dr. E. M. Purcell, the Nobel Prize winner from Harvard and
Dr. W. W. Salisbury, director of research of the Collins Radio
Company; and Dr. L. V. Birdner, formerly of the Carnegie
Institution and now president of Associated Universities
Incorporated, Patchogue, New York, and he has a connection, I
believe, as supervisor with the Brookhaven operation.
    Those gentlemen originally participated in this.
    Mr. Cohn. This is in the Ring program but not Baker West?
    Mr. Barrett. Including Baker West.
    Mr. Cohn. You say they approved Baker West in Seattle?
    Mr. Barrett. I do not know, but they gave me an endorsement
of the Ring Plan as a whole.
    Mr. Cohn. But without pressing that point, they might have
endorsed the idea of having a station?
    Mr. Barrett. This was more than an idea, because at that
time the thing was mapped.
    Mr. Cohn. I am trying to get from you--I agree with you--
did they want the particular West Coast transmitter to be
located in Seattle rather than in California? Is that your
statement as to what they said?
    Mr. Barrett. I cannot say on that in detail, but I do know
that I asked them to study the entire program for me, and I
also asked Dr. Wilson Compton to spend several weeks before he
took office, consulting with engineers and let me know whether
the entire Ring Plan, including Baker East and Baker West, was
correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Did that finish your list of names on that?
    Mr. Barrett. Yes, except to say, sir, that if you had asked
me if I wanted to testify today, I would probably have said,
``No, thank you.'' If you had requested me to, I would have
done so. I think that you will not find many people of this
stature that are eager to come down and testify, and most will
beg off today if they are consulted.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you: You said that if you were
asked whether you wanted to come, you would perhaps say ``no.''
Do you feel that you have been mistreated or brow-beaten by the
staff of the committee?
    Mr. Barrett. No, I do not.
    Senator Mundt. As I understand it, Mr. Barrett, the last
three names that you have listed were people who were for the
Ring plan per se, including Baker West, but may not have
decided whether Baker West should be in Seattle or California;
but the first names were names which felt that the Baker West
was at the right place; is that correct?
    Mr. Barrett. Yes. I am not sure that the last group of
names specifically were investigated, and I am not sure that
they did not decide about the precise location. I do know that
they reviewed the program.
    Senator Mundt. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, if there are names
on that list that we have not contacted, we contact them,
because all of us are interested in having projection stations
at the proper places.
    Mr. Barrett. This might be of interest to the committee
too, and it is a statement prepared by Dr. Wiesner, at my
request, at a time when there were criticisms of the Radio
Facilities Branch, and I asked this group to give me their best
appraisal of the facilities branch and the personnel involved.
There is a list of names in here, and they did that along with
the other projects.
    The Chairman. We will mark that as an exhibit. Thank you.
    Mr. Cohn. I just wanted to say a couple of things here, if
I may. First of all, as to Dr. Compton being frightened and
then evidence of the fact he changed his testimony before the
Hickenlooper committee and then came out and said he thinks it
was all right to leave those two things where they are.
    Dr. Compton's words when he learned of our disclosures
concerning the Baker Wert contract were that, ``It was
fantastic,'' as I recall; and the minute the facts came out and
were developed, he ordered it canceled because he regarded it
as one of the most outrageous contracts he had ever seen.
    Mr. Barrett. Are you talking of location?
    Mr. Cohn. I am talking first of all as to contracts.
    Mr. Barrett. When I spoke of Dr. Compton, I was speaking of
locations.
    Mr. Cohn. He regarded Baker West as still located in the
proper place? That would be quite a surprising statement to me,
and I looked at the Hickenlooper record, and I do not remember
seeing that.
    Mr. Barrett. I would like to re-check the record as to
precise words, but the impression given was that he thought we
should go right ahead with those projects.
    Senator Symington. I would just try to be constructive
about this situation with you. You were running a big program
and you were trying to do a job quickly. Many a good plant has
a poor department in it. I agree with you entirely about Miss
Lenkeith; she did not impress me at all. But I think that you
ought to know--and you should not be in this work if you do not
try to be fair--that this fellow Harris, Reed Harris, gave us
five names to check like you are doing now, and three of those
five, to the best of my memory, agreed that the place the
station was was wrong. That is number one I want to comment on.
    Now, secondly, about McKesson. It happens that I disagreed
with the chairman and the staff about the ability of one of
these engineers that they thought was pretty hot. Perhaps I was
wrong. I studied a little engineering, but McKesson rather
impressed me, and I did not know about his record--I checked
his record in RCA personally, and I thought that based on what
he said, that he was right, and a fellow named Herrick was
wrong. I just want to present these from this standpoint.
    Herrick's record, incidentally, was checked, and he was
found to have no engineering background at all from the stand
point of education. I think that that is a fair statement.
    Another thing is that I have no idea, and have formed no
conclusions, and I have not been convinced there was any
conspiracy in this thing. Do not misunderstand me. But I do
think that you went a little strong on us here from the
standpoint of this is a full committee and not just one man. We
wired three fellows, and we got wires, and we took them up to
the chairman who demanded that they be heard, and they had not
been heard. Two out of those three said they did not want to be
heard, after they had wired and demanded to be heard, and I
just want to give you some of this stuff as I remember it.
    Now, one thing that I submit for your consideration, you
used the words ``disgruntled and frightened.'' Well, if I say
anything here, counsel, that is wrong, I want you to correct
me, and I want you to be sure that Mr. Barrett gets the
information properly, because I certainly want to be accurate.
Perhaps the thing that worried me the most was that I was in
New York one time, and I went up to the chairman's place to
tell him that I could not participate in a hearing the next
day, and he had a fellow in the State Department who was
certainly not disgruntled, and he was certainly not frightened,
and he had a very high job in the State Department
organization. I started counting the number of times that he
said, ``Senator, if you will look into this thing''--I do not
think it is fair to use his name--``if you will look into this
thing, you will find out that this is bigger than the Hiss
case.'' I would say he said that in my presence not less than
half a dozen times. He had just recently been promoted in the
State Department.
    Now, I have great respect for you and the work that you
did, but in trying to arrive at a decision on this Voice of
America, my impression is that it has been pretty inefficiently
managed, based on the witnesses. They have not been disgruntled
and have not been frightened; you are just getting started, and
I do not blame anybody for that. Some of them may have been
disgruntled, and some of them may have been frightened, but a
lot of them were not disgruntled or frightened, and it worried
me a little bit that you embrace this whole thing, from this
angle, because I think it is only fair to say that a lot of the
criticism has come from State Department.
    As to whether these people had an axe to grind, frankly, I
do not think that that was true about some of them, and I
wanted you to know that.
    Mr. Barrett. I appreciate your speaking so frankly, and I
would like to say, for your benefit and the benefit of the rest
of the committee, that I have a great deal of respect for most
of the members of this committee.
    Mr. Cohn. May I submit this record of Dr. Lenkeith's
testimony. I find no statement here about what he stated took
place; maybe he can find it.
    The Chairman. I called Mr. Barrett here principally for two
reasons; one was to see if he could tell us who picked the
Communist books while he was to a great extent in charge of the
program, and whether he knew about their being selected and
whether he approved of that. The other was upon the suggestion
of some of the members of the Hickenlooper committee, when he
said we had handpicked and well-rehearsed a group of
disgruntled and frightened little men.
    I think that you should know that as of now the record only
shows the names of four of those disgruntled people that you
named, and we have had a total of some seventy-two witnesses.
That may be a repetition of some, because some were called
several different times; but considerable over fifty witnesses
were called.
    Now, you do not designate them in your statement. If you
know of any more than four, good; and if you do not, that is
all right.
    Mr. Barrett. Senator, of those who were given national
television exhibition, it seems to me, and as I say, to
newspapers and others, it seems to be fairly evident that they
were.
    Mr. Cohn. Was McKesson on television?
    Mr. Barrett. I have forgotten.
    Mr. Cohn. I am quite sure he was not.
    Mr. Barrett. No.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: You were in the
department, and if someone from the opposition paper had made
the statement, you would pay no attention to it. But you were
in the department and many of these individuals who were
concerned, I assume, were known to you. Therefore, I assume
that you would be in a position to tell us which individuals
out of the some seventy or the number called, which ones you
consider disgruntled. Do you know?
    Mr. Barrett. Senator, you had two witnesses on there, Mr.
Dooher, and the chief of the Hebrew Desk Dr. Glazer.
    The Chairman. Would you call them disgruntled little men?
    Mr. Barrett. I would rather speak a little more precisely
on that.
    The Chairman. All right.
    Mr. Barrett. According to the testimony that appeared on
television, they were having certain of their operations cut
down. The department said, I believe, it was done on budgetary
grounds. Any executive in a government agency who is having his
division cut down can be assumed to be disgruntled.
    I have been in a situation somewhat like yours. I used to
have these cases coming to me many times, with violent protests
from this or that language desk because the budget for that
desk was being cut. I tried my best to have every one
investigated, and investigated well by individuals who----
    The Chairman. Just so you will not be unfair to Mr. Dooher,
are you aware he is a foreign service officer and his job does
not depend upon the Hebrew Desk, and he was requested, and he
has been promoted a number of times in the last year, and it
would appear to be anything but disgruntled on the basis of his
record.
    He said himself he was promoted so often and so rapidly in
the State Department he began to wonder what was wrong.
    Mr. Barrett. I believe, Senator, he used the charming line
that he was ``gruntled,'' did he not?
    The Chairman. That is right.
    Mr. Barrett. Actually, Senator, I am glad you brought that
out, because I do not mean that he was a person who had been
demoted, but it was my experience in government work that
anyone whose budget was being cut for some or all of his
operations became at least temporarily a disgruntled person.
    The Chairman. You have given us the names of six.
    Senator Mundt. I want that for committee guidance. Suppose
he was disgruntled, and I presume that you are right when a
man's budget is cut down. But we get a tremendous number of
witnesses before all of our committees to whom that has
happened, and does that make all of their testimony suspect?
    Mr. Barrett. A tremendous number of witnesses----
    Senator Mundt. Witnesses who come in, who are disgruntled
because they have not got a promotion or because their
department has not expanded or it has been cut down. Would you
suggest that their testimony is all suspect?
    Mr. Barrett. Oh, not all of it, no.
    Senator Mundt. It would seem to me we have got to rely on
their innate ability, and Mr. Dooher is a good honest public
servant, and I do not believe that because of the fact that he
was disgruntled he would misrepresent the case. It might open
his mouth to talk a little.
    Mr. Barrett. If I could answer Senator Symington's rather
long question
    The Chairman. Before you go into that, do you list Dooher
and Glasser as disgruntled little men? I am trying to get a
list of these.
    Mr. Barrett. I would say in their case that they were
unhappy men in the lower and medium echelons of the Voice of
America.
    The Chairman. Do you have any reason to think that they
were not telling us the truth?
    Mr. Barrett. I think that they were doubtless victims of
prejudice when, as I recall it, they indicated----
    The Chairman. Senator Symington has to leave and perhaps
you should answer his question.
    Mr. Barrett. I just wanted to say I appreciate what you
said and the spirit in which you said it. If my words have
sometimes been appearing a little strong, you must remember
that I was sincerely wrapped up in this work for two years, and
I believed very, very deeply that we have got to make this
operation strong, and it is the only way it can be done. It is
an indispensable part of overcoming these Communist gangsters,
that I believe that great harm can be done in things of this
sort unless it is handled----
    The Chairman. Do you think harm has been done?
    Mr. Barrett [continued]. On balance, yes.
    The Chairman. You think harm has been done?
    Mr. Barrett. Yes, and I would be glad to spell that out,
but I would be glad to spell out a suggestion, if I may.
    The Chairman. You may.
    Mr. Barrett. Regarding Reed Harris and the names that he
gave you, I can only say this, that I gave you these names in a
spirit of these being names that I know reviewed this plan on
my behalf at the time when I was in office. These are names, in
one case there, who specifically went over this Baker project,
and based their information on the propagation studies of the
Bureau of Standards, and the RCA, and I believe the Army Signal
Corps, and came up with a recommendation that Seattle was the
best site; and when questions were raised about it in 1951,
they reviewed again the MIT group and came up then with a
finding that it was the best site; and that is all available in
the correspondence and very voluminous correspondence that was
in existence when I was in office.
    As to what has happened since then, I do not know. I do
know that that was a case there. Seattle was pinpointed as the
place.
    The Chairman. I am going to have to leave and I would like
to ask you a question.
    Mr. Barrett. May I continue with Mr. Symington's question?
I have not intended to be, I repeat, unfair to the committee
and all of that. I repeat that I feel very strongly about this,
the disgruntled and frightened men. It is an impression that I
can probably buttress with other names if I went over a
complete list, and I think that in all sincerity I must say
that a committee like this is trying to get to the facts, and I
am sure that you are, and that you should certainly call as
witnesses the committees which Congress itself set up, and the
80th Congress by the way set up, to serve as watchdogs on
behalf of the Congress.
    I think you are familiar with the membership of one that
included people like Philip Reed, Mark May, head of the
Institute of Human Relations, and Mr. Cannon, former head of
the ASNE, American Society of Newspaper Editors, and Justin
Miller of the National Association of Broadcasters.
    They have been studying this program, with particular
reference to its impact abroad. They have been doing that for
five years and doing a very, very conscientious job. I think
their general findings have been false here and false there and
needed improvements there; but there has been consistent
improvement in the program.
    The Chairman. Could I ask you a few more questions?
    Senator Symington. Will you excuse me?
    The Chairman. I am going to have to leave very shortly. Do
you think it was improper for this committee to expose the fact
that Communist writers have their works on libraries throughout
the world, purchased by the United States? Do you think we
should have kept that a secret?
    Mr. Barrett. Do you want an honest reply? I do not think,
and I know you want an honest reply, I do not think that it was
unfair to expose the existence----
    The Chairman. Will you try not to give me a long lecture
because I have to leave. Do you think it was unfair or
improper? You can answer that yes or no.
    Mr. Barrett. I will have to qualify it. I would say no, but
I do consider it unfair, sir, to put Earl Browder on the stand
for a protracted hearing without informing the public of the
number of his books in existence or without finding out whether
any of them were actually purchased. And I doubt seriously if
any were purchased.
    The Chairman. Do you mean that if the books were used and
not purchased, that it would be all right to have them?
    Mr. Barrett. No; to have them at all, they would have to be
on restricted shelves for various specific use.
    The Chairman. For your information, a check was made by the
State Department and it was determined that Browder's books
were being used and it was all made a matter of public record.
    Mr. Barrett. Was it determined how many?
    The Chairman. They told us they could not tell us how many.
    Mr. Barrett. Was it determined whether they were open
shelves?
    Mr. Cohn. On open shelves; I am relying on what the State
Department tells us.
    Mr. Barrett. Very clearly there is no business having Earl
Browder's books on an open shelf.
    The Chairman. Let us get to the next point. Did you feel it
was improper to expose the mislocation of Baker West?
    Do you think that that should not have been done?
    Mr. Barrett. I will have to reword that one, sir.
    The Chairman. All right. You may.
    Mr. Barrett. I am not convinced yet that Baker West was
mislocated. I just do not know. I know that the original
location was based on the best advice I knew how to get, and I
do think that if there were charges it was mislocated, then all
of the best technicians who participated in the original
location should be called and heard even though some of them
may not want to be heard.
    The Chairman. I am going to have to leave, and I have
nothing further to ask. If you have any further questions, will
you proceed.
    Senator Mundt. Would you not feel that it served the public
interest to bring this controversy about Baker East and Baker
West to the point where it has now arrived, which is to stop
the contracts and stop the construction until Dr. Johnson and
his staff have an opportunity to try to assay and to evaluate
this very confusing welter of evidence that we have had?
    Mr. Barrett. I think certainly that Dr. Johnson should have
an opportunity to evaluate any confusing welter of evidence or
of testimony. I think it was unfortunate, sir, that charges of
sabotage, which to my knowledge have not been proved by any
means, were added at that time, and I think that it would have
been preferable for a committee with a great responsibility
that this one has to have sought out people who originally
recommended this, before airing one side of the case.
    Senator Mundt. That was really done. If an error was made
there, it was the error in behalf of Mr. Crosby who spoke for
the State Department, in submitting us names who, as I recall,
and as Senator Symington said, either agreed at this time with
the findings of those who said the location was bad, or who
gave reasons why they didn't want to testify and said they
could not testify on the other side.
    So that we did make an honest and conscientious effort to
bring into focus this other evidence. As a matter of fact, the
committee never did go so far as to arrive at conclusions on
it. We got into the picture of suspending operations at the
time when the testimony of the State Department was it was
costing us $1,000 a day to maintain the whole thing in the
status of suspended animation, which we said was ridiculous.
They even said they were spending $5,000 a year guarding a
piece of land out there. We said that is a waste of public
funds.
    Mr. Barrett. I think that where there is an allegation as
serious as sabotage, it would be well to summon the men
responsible for recommending the decision.
    Mr. Cohn. I was going to say this, you see Mr. Barrett, the
trouble is you closed the door the day you walked out of the
State Department and as of the time you left there is no doubt
that Dr. Wiesner and people at MIT thought Baker was properly
located. But if you had followed the transcript of the hearings
here you would find a memorandum of July 7, 1952, I do not know
if you have looked at it or not, from General Stone to Dr.
Compton, which sets forth the fact that Dr. Wiesner at MIT and
every one else concerned has after mature consideration changed
his mind about it and felt he was wrong, regardless of whether
he had been right originally, that it was mislocated, and that
there should be a prompt change in location from Seattle,
Washington to some point in southern California.
    Now, after that recommendation was made, General Stoner
wrote a memorandum saying yes, they make this recommendation
and I can't criticize it because nobody disagrees with them.
But if we do make the change there will be a congressional
investigation and we will have trouble getting funds from now
on, and so on and so forth, so we had better go ahead even
though it means we are going to have to worry about output
efficiency up at this place and we are going to be constantly
watched on that score from now on, and what we are doing is
``more than a calculated risk.''
    Now that happened after you left the department, and so the
record clearly indicates that Dr. Wiesner came in and said,
``Gentlemen, if I said this originally I was wrong.'' This is
on July 7, 1952, and it is now mislocated and he was joined in
that, by RCA and by Mr. James Welden, and by everybody else
concerned in the thing, and that was that. In spite of those
recommendations, they went ahead until this committee began its
hearings and as soon as it did the next day they suspended
this, and Mr. Reed Harris, himself, who I certainly don't think
can be called friendly to the committee, testified in open
session before us, that in his opinion on the basis of all of
this that Baker West was clearly mislocated and should not be
constructed in its present site.
    We have looked high and wide to find somebody who--Senator
Mundt has been asking about it--who will come in here and tell
us that it is in the right place, and we have found absolutely
nobody.
    Mr. Barrett. I believe if you will call that list of five
witnesses that Dr. Compton told me were originally given to
you, and not just invite them but subpoena them, you will find
that there is at least a serious question as to whether it
should be moved south or north.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, as to that list of witnesses, do you say
that Dr. Wiesner has been untruthful when he has talked to the
staff?
    Mr. Barrett. No, I would not say that of any of them, but I
would say this, sir, that engineers can indulge in a great many
``and/ors,'' and ``on the one hand'' and ``on the other hand.''
And I would think that this committee has almost an obligation
to hear that kind of testimony.
    Mr. Cohn. You know Dr. Wiesner is quoted in the memorandum
by General Stoner to Dr. Compton as saying he had agreed he had
been wrong originally and that this finding should be changed.
    Mr. Barrett. I would imagine having dealt with engineers as
much as I have that you should read the full letter of Dr.
Wiesner.
    Mr. Cohn. It was not a letter, it was an opinion expressed
in an oral conference. It was a unanimous opinion, and I might
say this to you, that this committee has since had the benefit
of the report from the chief of propagation division of the
Bureau of Standards worked on by his entire staff, which shows
that it is mislocated to the point that 90 percent of the time
on certain hours, key hours, 90 percent of the days, it will
require fifty times as much power if they go ahead at Seattle
rather than move to a more southerly location. So we have not
been able to get anybody who is going to tell us that there is
any serious question about it.
    Mr. Barrett. You know what the basic problem there is. The
basic problem is this: according to all of the best digests of
engineering information I have been able to get and some of the
key people I have talked to out of curiosity of late. The
northerly location in Seattle will give you a stronger signal
at peak periods when you do not have certain types of
interference.
    Mr. Cohn. Which is almost never.
    Mr. Barrett. Which is about 95 percent of the time, I have
been told.
    Mr. Cohn. That is very interesting because it is directly
against what anybody has said at any time, including the
original time when they recommended it to be located in
Seattle. So I would be very much interested to know who is the
authority for that statement. That would really be
enlightening.
    Mr. Barrett. I don't have authority to quote the gentleman
at this time. I don't feel free to do so. This is purely an
advisory opinion, and I think however that you will find some
substance to that if these five gentlemen are called. Let us
say anyway----
    Mr. Cohn. I assume you want to be fair about this, Mr.
Barrett.
    Mr. Barrett. Let us say 50 percent of the time. If it is
further south, you will get more consistent projection of the
signal but you will not have as loud a signal or as strong a
signal during the optimum periods. So it gets down to a
question of that sort. That seems to be the reason that the
engineers can quarrel over it a great deal.
    The point I am trying to make, Mr. Cohn, is that I don't
think that that kind of difference, and I don't think that that
fact that engineers have differed in the past or may have
changed their minds, would necessarily mean sabotage.
    Mr. Cohn. I think Senator Mundt has pointed out there has
been no conclusion arrived at by the committee. All that is
quite clear, is, and I don't say it would not be a reasonable
thing for somebody to at least look into, after the consistent
opinions expressed. Are you familiar with the testimony of Mr.
Pratt, the telecommunications adviser to President Eisenhower,
before this committee?
    Mr. Barrett. I have not had access to the transcript.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Pratt testified that he has been dealing with
the engineering department of the Voice of America, and IIA
over a period of time, in his capacity as telecommunications
officer. And he was appointed by President Truman and after
examination he was reappointed by President Eisenhower, and he
is one of the top men in the field and he has complete
responsibility to the president for all telecommunications
problems.
    Now, Mr. Pratt said in over a period of years in the course
of a pattern of dealing with the engineering department at the
Voice, and IIA, he found I think his words were ``Gross
incompetence throughout.''
    Now that is pretty serious and you wouldn't call him a
disgruntled employee, would you?
    Mr. Barrett. No, I would not, but I have got right here, a
statement signed by Mr. Wiesner and concurred in by Dr. Purcell
and Dr. Burgman and Dr. Salisbury, in which they make
statements to the contrary, and saying that there is evidence
of a great deal of competence in it and that the ring plan is
an ambitious step boldly conceived and in our opinion basically
sound, and that they were amazed ``to find that Mr. Herrick was
not a graduate engineer because we found him to be well trained
technically, able to participate actively in any discussion and
quick to grasp the point of any new idea. In addition to his
technical competence, he has a number of other characteristics
that make him an excellent chief engineer for this division.''
    All I am saying is that I asked these gentlemen to give me
their best opinions at that time, and they had been making a
profound study of the whole Ring plan.
    Mr. Cohn. Without getting into the argumentative stage, an
awful lot has happened and people have changed their minds and
the opinion of Mr. Herrick is so changed he has been demoted
and he was removed from his position up there, and at Senator
Symington's suggestion the committee conducted an investigation
and found that he took one year of pre-engineering and flunked
out and flunked I think every engineering course that he took.
Furthermore, that is one test and another test is as a
practical result the testimony before the committee has been
that he ran the department with considerable competence, and
the State Department has removed him from his position.
    Dr. Wiesner of course has a $600,000 contract as a result
of Mr. Herrick's intervention, and with Mr. Herrick's
department. Of course, Dr. Wiesner is the man who made a
mistake in an original selection of Baker West, which he has
now conceded was a mistake, conceded on July 7, 1952.
    Now, all of this happened since you left there and what
concerns me very much is the fact that in spite of all of those
things, you made that statement before the Hickenlooper
committee and you make those statements in here today and I
know you want to be fair about this. As Senator McCarthy said,
you're in the position of someone, you are not a newspaper who
doesn't know all of the facts, you are in the position of a man
who has great responsibility for all of this, and when you say
something I assume it comes with authority.
    Now you made very serious allegations, and I do not take
anything personally after this long in the game, although I
will say I never had anybody say such about anybody who held
public office that high who was insulting in an unwarranted way
as what you said.
    Mr. Barrett. May I speak to that for just a moment?
    Mr. Cohn. Surely.
    Mr. Barrett. There was one statement about allegations made
elsewhere about a handpicked group of disgruntled and
frightened little men. That was the one statement in which I
clearly had in mind the hearings before this committee.
    Now, there are other statements that have been so
interpreted, and unfairly so interpreted, and for example, ``a
real fight against Communist imperialism does not mean going
hog wild, misconstruing propaganda as a substitute for
action.''
    Now, I have never thought that this committee was guilty of
that. ``It does not mean letting childish headline-hunters
frighten us into such shrill and strident techniques as to
antagonize at the outset those we seek to win over.''
    In that case I will be honest with you, I had some of the
hearings of this committee in mind. I also had, however, many
others, who say the Voice should be more vigorously anti-
Communist. The Voice is already being criticized for being too
violently and shrilly strident in some areas.
    Mr. Cohn. You think I am being over sensitive about the use
of the word childish, that was not an allusion to my age.
    Mr. Barrett. I think you are being over sensitive.
    Mr. Cohn. It is used sixteen times in the statement.
    Mr. Barrett. I think in fact in one place I had some of the
youngsters who within the Voice of America think that any
effort by an ambassador overseas to tone down the output of the
Voice of America, believe it to be more effective if it
indulges in less name calling. I had in mind the young radio
desk officers who often feel that way.
    Senator Mundt. I am going to turn this over to Senator
McClellan because I have an office appointment. I want to ask
two final questions. One being whether you would agree with the
position that this committee has now taken in so far as Baker
East and Baker West is concerned, as being explored by the new
director of the Voice of America, who has access to all of this
testimony and all of the facts, that that is the place where
the decision should be made, since this unconscionable $1000 a
day suspension has been stopped and they have definitely
terminated it to take another look at it.
    Mr. Barrett. I think it should be studied in this way, on
the basis of all possible information.
    Senator Mundt. I don't think it would give us any help to
bring in reputable engineers to make them admit, which
apparently they would have to do, that their original statement
was wrong. They would say if they still think so that would be
one thing, but they are entitled to make a mistake, and we
didn't want to subpoena them over their objections to make them
admit that they were wrong. If you think that we should do
that, and to make it seem fair, we could do that but I wanted
your counsel on that. We thought the better place for them to
testify would be before Dr. Johnson's committees.
    Mr. Barrett. Perhaps at this late date, perhaps you are
right. I believe it was unfortunate that there was a
connotation of sabotage, which was not a conclusion of the
committee, I believe, but it was allowed to stand.
    Senator Mundt. Now, the other question, do you have in mind
any witnesses or have any people who might come to you, up in
the Voice of America, or down here because of your long contact
with the department, that you feel who should be called who
have not been called, and who can shed any additional light on
any aspect of this hearing?
    Mr. Barrett. I would personally think it would be to the
committee's advantage, in reaching its overall conclusion to at
least talk with, and not call as formal open session witnesses,
members of these advisory commissions because they have been
watching this program on behalf of the Congress for a long,
long time.
    Senator Mundt. I might say for your information we did
correspond with them.
    Mr. Cohn. With every one of them.
    Senator Mundt. About the decision which the Department of
State used to use certain kinds of Communist publications
abroad, and we asked them if that was correct, because the
State Department had said they got it from them, and I do not
know how many of them answered, but I do know I got about two
letters back, each one of which said it was confidential and we
don't want to appear, but we did make that decision but we
don't want to get up there and testify about it. So it was not
very helpful.
    Mr. Cohn. Some said they were misquoted; seven said that.
    Mr. Barrett. In that case, just because two of them happen
to have spoken to me, I think that some of the letters went to
the wrong commission, and there are two commissions. Senator
Mundt knows this, a lot of the letters went to the commission
on International Information.
    Mr. Cohn. You are now talking to us because we have been
talking to too many members of the commissions instead of not
enough.
    Senator Mundt. If you have any suggestions, and it could
well be that someone would say, ``Look, nobody has called me
and I think that I ought to be heard,'' and if there are such
names and you can give them to us, I am sure that we will be
glad to call them because we want to get at the facts
ultimately. As far as I know, every member of this committee
has said they want to see the Voice continued. Some have said
it with more enthusiasm and some with less, but I have heard
none of them say that they think it should be scrapped.
    We want to wind it up on a constructive note and to make
the best possible kind of suggestions and if you have witnesses
that you believe do come in and say, ``well, now, the line of
testimony you got on this phase or that phase is bad, and let
us get it right.'' We would like to bring them into the
committee room, except as I say on the engineering thing, which
is too technical for us to decide anyhow, and it seems to me
there we serve no good purpose in continuing discussion of
electronics which none of us understands.
    Mr. Barrett. Now, apropos of that, in the same Hickenlooper
statement, despite all we have heard today, the majority of
that statement was supposed to be on the constructive side, and
it was, I believe. It was based on the benefit of hindsight,
saying, ``I hoped my own hindsight would assist the foresight
of others.'' I can say as far as constructive suggestions are
concerned, those contained in the last four pages of the
statement may be worthy of the committee's attention. I
probably should not volunteer a statement, Senator Mundt, but
there is one thing that I would like to say because I feel it
very strongly as an American citizen. I feel that a great deal
of care should be exercised by a committee of this sort in the
open discussion of arrangements with other governments. I
regret to say that I think harm has been done in dealing with
pretty sensitive operations going on abroad in an open hearing
sort of way.
    Now, I grant you that the American people have a right to
know what is going on. I am one who has long advocated publicly
that there be a continuing committee to investigate this field.
So I am certainly not adverse to investigations. But I do think
that it is essential to handle with great care matters of
policy and operations that are carried on in other countries.
    May I go off the record for just a moment?
    [Off the record.]
    Senator Mundt. You have referred and a lot of other people
have referred in criticizing this committee, to these very
hearings, and I am not as allergic to the criticisms as some of
the other members of the committee, and Senator Symington who
is new in the legislative game. Having served on the House
Committee on Un-American Activities, I know what criticism is.
So it couldn't bother me.
    But on the very thing I think it should be understood that
this committee has no control over what is televised other than
that we can bar a television if we want to, but it isn't a
question of our inviting them to say this is the day the TV
will show and this is not. We have set up the rule temporarily
on a trial basis. We should not be the judge of different media
of communication, that is our decision, and if the hearings are
open to the press and to photographers and to the radio, it is
also open to the TV people if they want to avail themselves of
it without using a lot of lights and sounds and noises to
disrupt the committee, so it is not quite fair to say that we
televise one witness greatly and then not the other fellow. It
is the TV people who decide that, and that is a judgment made
by them and not us. I think that that should be in the record
because I think it is generally misunderstood. We said that
early in the game, did we not, Mr. Cohn?
    Mr. Cohn. Absolutely.
    Senator Mundt. They decide if Stassen comes it is a good
show and so they put it on and if somebody else comes they
don't put it on, and when Browder comes they think it is a good
show.
    Mr. Barrett. Because you and Senator McClellan are
interested in a strong Voice of America, I can only say on that
that on those days when you know that you are going to have
television on, I wish that you would put a witness----
    Senator Mundt. We do not know. We schedule the witnesses.
    Mr. Surine. At the specific request of Mr. Harris, the
television people stayed out an extra hour just to accommodate
Mr. Harris.
    Mr. Barrett. They may have in Washington but they didn't in
New York.
    Senator Mundt. At his request, and so we asked the TV in
the room, ``Will you go on for another hour?'' and they said
yes.
    Mr. Cohn. I am very glad you said that for the record,
because the fact is that we have absolutely no control and we
don't know on Monday, they didn't know they were going to
televise the thing until an hour before and they were going to
do UN and that was canceled and the last minute they came in
here.
    Senator Mundt. If we decided this was to be an open hearing
with you, the TV might decide to come in. They put their
machine up and it is still a decision which is tentative on our
part whether we should admit television or not, and many other
committees are dealing with that. We think we will give it a
trial and it may or may not be good public policy.
    Mr. Cohn. Before Senator Mundt goes, I think this is clear,
and you say you want a good Voice of America and a strong one,
and I think we all do. Now, you don't think and you are not
suggesting are you, that there should not be an investigation
on that when not only false but very grave faults come to the
attention of the committee, and do you feel----
    Mr. Barrett. I do not think if very grave faults came to
the attention of the committee, it should refrain from going
into those fully. I do think that it should use discretion in
what it makes public, and what it makes not public.
    Mr. Cohn. We have been trying to use the greatest
discretion we can.
    Mr. Barrett. I would like to see less of it public from the
nation's standpoint, that is all.
    I personally think that a committee that covers as wide a
field as this will have difficulty doing the continuing job
that needs to be done in this field, and that is why I have
personally advocated a joint committee with a continuing
charter to study this whole complex and extremely intricate
field.
    Mr. Cohn. A lot of this has been going on, you say there
are constant committees going around visiting just to correct
the situation, and apparently no one found out about this and
we found out about it. That is about the book situation.
    Mr. Barrett. Are you fully convinced that the books are on
the open shelves of many libraries?
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Barrett, there is no doubt about it, unless
the State Department's whole system is just phony from top to
bottom. Our lists, there is a file located in the Library of
Congress of what they call the master file which is made up as
a result of slips being sent over from the State Department
after receiving information from the field that such and such a
book has been placed on our open shelves. Now if that whole
file is out the window, I suppose that is one thing. But if the
file is accurate, as we have been told by the State Department
it is, or if there is any accuracy to it, there is not one or
two, but there are thousands of books by Communists on the open
shelves of the State Department libraries. I might say there is
no element of doubt here because we have actual witnesses, some
of whom have testified that within the last three weeks have
seen these books on open shelves and information centers, and
so I can say to you that there is no doubt whatsoever.
    Mr. Barrett. Are these books by Communists or Communist
books?
    Mr. Cohn. Books by Communists and Communist books.
    Mr. Barrett. Books by Communists are a good deal harder to
detect, like Dashiell Hammett.
    Mr. Cohn. These are books calling for the overthrow of the
United States government, and books published by International
Publishers, the official publishing house of the Communist
party, and books containing from cover to cover a number of
them, the Communist party line, written by present-day members
of the Communist party.
    Senator McClellan. The only surviving member of the
committee is about to depart, and before doing so I just want
to ask you one or two questions for the record, and then I
should like to make a little comment to the witness off the
record. I may preface my question with this statement:
    Obviously, and apparently and admittedly, some of your
testimony before the other committee was definitely intended as
criticism of the actions of this committee in the investigation
of the Voice of America. Was it your purpose in making that
criticism, which you had a right to make, whatever your
purpose, to be constructive or was it simply for the purpose of
affecting adversely the work of this committee in conducting
this investigation?
    Mr. Barrett. Senator McClellan, my purpose and I can say in
all honesty, was constructive. I believe that if we are going
to carry on a program of this sort in a field in which we
Americans are relatively inexperienced, just learning our way,
that it is necessary for us as a people to refrain from certain
things, and to refrain from over-estimating the value of
propaganda, falsely thinking it can be used as I said as a
substitute for action. I think it is important, knowing the
difficulty of recruiting good personnel I think it is important
to refrain from demoralizing an organization through criticism
of a one-sided nature, perhaps. I think that it is necessary to
do a great many of these things in here if we are going to
conduct an intelligent propaganda program. That is a reason,
sir, that I advocate a continuing congressional committee with
an investigating staff that can look into this thing, not just
for two months, but permanently.
    Senator McClellan. Well, I accept a number of things in
your prepared statement before the other committee as being
definitely intended as constructive suggestions or testimony
that you thought would be helpful in this matter. Certain
sentences or statements in your prepared statement to the
committee about which you have already been interrogated,
clearly imply, I think, that it was intended not to be so
constructive as it was to be destructive of the influence and
prestige of the committee. That is a reason I asked you that.
    For all purposes, I want to be as fair as I know how, and I
do not doubt that sometimes, and maybe more times than I
realize as a member of the committee, that some criticism of
the committee and of individual members of it may be justified.
I am not shielding anyone or trying to defend anyone that may
have transgressed at some stage in a proceeding. But I thought
it was a little bit, if I may say it this way, a little bit
severe to go before another committee and almost preface your
testimony or open your testimony with a definite criticism of
this committee which appeared to be for destructive effect
rather than for constructive purpose.
    Mr. Barrett. Well, sir, I understand your point, and I
appreciate it, and perhaps if I had had a little longer time to
prepare the statement I would have been more careful to word it
more tactfully. The deadline for it was backed up on me very
suddenly at the last minute. I was asked to appear before I
thought I was going.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you volunteer as a witness?
    Mr. Barrett. No, I was requested to appear. But let me say
this, sir, that I have seen this group and the Voice of America
and I twisted the arms of a certain number of good people to
get them on the group. They needed first-rate people, that is
one of the difficulties, and I have seen them, a few of them
happen to be friends, virtually ashamed of the fact that they
are working in the Voice of America due to the headlines
growing out of this inquiry. That has made me feel along with
some of the other facts that I have mentioned that the net
effect has been more harm than good.
    Senator McClellan. Then you think that the work of the
committee to date has done more harm than good? In other words,
it has not produced more constructive results than it has done
harm.
    Mr. Barrett. That is my sincere belief and no doubt some of
you will disagree with me.
    Senator McClellan. I am not trying to disagree, and I am
only trying to get the record clear.
    Mr. Barrett. Let me say that the publicity growing out of
some of the committee's activities has on balance done more
harm than good. I think that that is a fairer way to put it.
    Senator McClellan. You have a perfect right to evaluate the
work of the committee.
    Mr. Barrett. I did so only because you asked me.
    Senator McClellan. I did ask you, because you have
testified before another committee in which apparently you
evaluated it. Your testimony was given wide publicity, and has
caused some comments to be made and I want to say that I am not
now criticizing you for having given the testimony. I am trying
to get a record here whereby I can better evaluate the
testimony that you gave.
    Now, you have even in that testimony, repeated today, you
testified regarding people who were disgruntled. I wonder if
anyone could assume or there could be any possible implications
that because you formerly occupied the position that you did,
that one would be equally as justified in assuming that you are
momentarily unhappy, we will use that word, instead of
disgruntled, because an investigation of this agency is in
progress by a committee.
    Mr. Barrett. I am not now with the agency and I have not
been for more than a year, as you know. I feel very strongly
that the agency must be as strong as possible and therefore I
am unhappy when I think damage is being done to the agency, the
net effect through inquiries, but the net effect of which I
happen to think has done more harm than good.
    Senator McClellan. The only reason I am mentioning this and
putting this into the record, is simply because no matter what
the committee does, if it brings witnesses in here who are in
the service, or in the agency to testify in any degree critical
of anything that goes on, then the first thing we hear is that
they are disgruntled or unhappy people because their
suggestions were not adopted or because they did not get a
promotion or because they have since left the agency. So all of
these things, if they are to be evaluated and weighed in
connection with the testimony, and no credence is ever given to
good faith of witnesses who appear, who may have some position
or have had some position, then the whole investigation is
useless.
    You have to, I think, take each individual witness as he
testifies, with his background and with his demeanor on the
stand, and weigh it in the light of all of the circumstances.
    So I can agree as to one witness whose name has already
been mentioned. I did not get the impression necessarily that
the woman was disgruntled, but I certainly didn't give great
weight to her testimony. But some of the others whom you
mentioned, I thought were very sincere people and were trying
to be helpful to the committee.
    I have one other point I wanted to mention and to get your
views on this: This question of television has given me
considerable concern. I cannot make up my mind definitely
whether these hearings or hearings of this nature should be
televised. That is first because I can appreciate that the
lights and those things sometimes give the witness some sense
of uneasiness, or lack of being calm and so forth. At the same
time the hearings are public. Are not the rest of the people of
the nation who are citizens entitled to see if they can, and be
present at least by television, to witness the proceedings just
as much so as those who are permitted to come into the
committee room and witness in person?
    Now, that gives me concern. I don't know which is the right
answer. What is your view regarding it.
    Mr. Barrett. I can only give a partial view. I do not have
the overall answer. I should say it is important that when a
witness is called who is denouncing another individual that it
is important that some way be found to give the other denounced
individual an opportunity to answer as promptly as possible,
and also on television.
    Senator McClellan. I think that that is correct. And I do
not know of anyone who would object to that. The question is if
they are not immediately available and of course you just
cannot have them all here at the same time.
    Mr. Barrett. Scheduling is difficult, and all of that, but
I think great injustice is being done in that way.
    Senator McClellan. I think that there is a great problem
involved here, and I do not know how to solve it. I have been
giving it a good deal of consideration. I may ask you this,
too: Do you not agree that the committee could do better work
so far as the committee's tasks are concerned, and the Congress
itself, if all of the testimony should be taken in executive
hearings?
    Mr. Barrett. I would think so, very definitely.
    Senator McClellan. I think so, too, but if you undertake to
do that then you are having star chamber proceedings, and you
are denying it from the American public.
    Mr. Barrett. In a field as delicate as this, I would think
so.
    Senator McClellan. You see the problem we have. I would
like to find the right answer, but I am unable to do so as of
now.
    Mr. Surine. Mr. Barrett, you have had a high position of
responsibility in the State Department, in the past, and I
presume that you feel that at no time any individual should
make any charge unless he is careful to prepare the facts,
would you agree with that opinion?
    Mr. Barrett. What is that?
    Mr. Surine. That no individual of responsibility should
make any charge or statement without being fully prepared with
his facts carefully.
    Mr. Barrett. He should not make a factual statement without
being in possession of the facts.
    Mr. Surine. Do you agree with that or not?
    Mr. Barrett. I agree he should not make a factual statement
without knowing the facts.
    Mr. Surine. Prior to today did you know that we had worked
very closely with General Smith in connection with certain
matters in connection with this hearing?
    Mr. Barrett. No, I did not.
    Mr. Surine. Prior to today did you know that we worked in
connection with these books from an official list given by the
State Department, to us, books currently being used?
    Did you know that?
    Mr. Barrett. Yes, I do know that.
    Mr. Surine. Did you know that the books were on the open
shelves?
    Mr. Barrett. No, I did not know that.
    Mr. Surine. Prior to today.
    Mr. Barrett. I am not sure yet.
    Mr. Surine. Prior to today did you know that we had
contacted many, if not all, of the engineers that you suggested
as well as Mr. Harris, and did you know that?
    Mr. Barrett. I knew that the staff had done so, but I
didn't know the committee had done so.
    Mr. Surine. Prior to your testimony the other day, or prior
to today, you have made no effort to read the public printed
hearings that we have had before this committee, is that right?
    Mr. Barrett. I have not had access to them.
    Mr. Surine. You have open access to it.
    Another thing: Prior to today did you make an effort to
contact any staff member of this committee to straighten
yourself out on certain facts before you testified before the
Hickenlooper committee? That is prior to today or any other
day.
    Mr. Barrett. Did I make any effort to do what?
    Mr. Surine. To contact any staff member of this committee
to get your facts straight.
    Mr. Barrett. No. Now wait just a minute.
    Senator McClellan. Let the witness finish his answer, I
believe in letting the witness answer the question.
    Mr. Barrett. No, because there were no facts that I felt
that I needed from the members of the staff.
    Mr. Surine. Now, several of your answers you have stated
for instance on disgruntled employees, you furnished
information which was merely your opinion, or your belief or
hearsay. Do you as a man of responsibility not having
acquainted yourself with the facts, feel that it was
responsible to have made such charges?
    Mr. Barrett. I am sorry, but I have acquainted myself with
facts by reading every bit of newspaper copy and watching all
of the television shows that I could on it.
    Mr. Surine. Now, one other question. What was the nature of
your circumstances of hiring David Cushman Coyle?
    Mr. Barrett. Exactly as stated.
    Mr. Surine. I will withdraw the question.
    Mr. Barrett. I put out a statement on that which I will be
glad to make available to you.
    Senator McClellan. That gets into another field and I have
to leave at this point.
    We will recess at this time.
    [Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to
reconvene at the call of the chairman.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--In an open session during the morning of
April 1, 1953, the subcommittee heard from Freda Utley (1898-
1978), a former Communist party member then writing for the
anti-Communist periodical, The Freeman. She had published an
article, ``Facing Both Ways in Germany'' in The Freeman,
(December 15, 1952) critiquing the books stocked by American
libraries in Germany. In her testimony, Utley noted that the
original Four-Power occupation agreement in Germany had
prohibited sending anti-Soviet and anti-Communist books to
Germany, and that therefore none of the U.S. libraries had a
specific category on communism in their collections. She then
analyzed the catalogs for books by those she identified as
Communists or Communist sympathizers. Utley testified again in
public on May 5, 1953.
    Dan Mabry Lacy (1914-2001), who had headed the Information
Center Service program during the Truman administration, from
1951-1953, testified in closed session that afternoon, to
explain the libraries' policies for including books in their
collections. He was not called to testify at a public hearing.]
                              ----------
                        WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 2:45 p.m. in room 155 of the
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator John
L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Stuart Symington,
Democrat, Missouri.
    Also present: Roy Cohn, chief counsel; David Schine, chief
consultant; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk; John D. Leahy, deputy
assistant to the under secretary of state.
    The Chairman. Mr. Lacy, would you raise your right hand? In
this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Lacy. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Lacy, give us your full name.
        TESTIMONY OF DAN MABRY LACY, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
            AMERICAN BOOK PUBLISHERS COUNCIL, FORMER
       ADMINISTRATOR, INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION IN CHARGE
                 OF INFORMATION CENTER SERVICE
    Mr. Lacy. Dan Mabry, M-a-b-r-y, Lacy, L-a-c-y.
    Mr. Cohn. And where are you employed now?
    Mr. Lacy. I am managing director of the American Book
Publishers Council.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, you have been with the government; is that
right, Mr. Lacy?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes, since January 1936, until March of this
year.
    Mr. Cohn. January 1936, until March of this year. Could you
tell us what positions you held?
    Mr. Lacy. From January 1936 until December '41, I worked
for WPA and as assistant state supervisor and then state
supervisor and regional supervisor and assistant national
director of the Historical Record Survey.
    From December '41, until June '42, I was executive
secretary of the Committee on Conservation of Cultural
Resources, which was set up by the National Resources Planning
Board.
    From June '42 until July '47, I was with the National
Archives as assistant to the executive officer and later
assistant to the archivist, and later director of operations.
    From July '47 until September 1951, I was with the Library
of Congress as assistant director of its processing department,
and later deputy chief assistant librarian. I was on loan from
them----
    Mr. Cohn. Excuse me. Who was librarian, when you were
deputy chief assistant?
    Mr. Lacy. Luther Evans. He has been librarian since 1945.
    Mr. Cohn. You were up to the point where I think you said
in 1951 you were deputy chief assistant librarian of Congress.
    Mr. Lacy. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. You served in the Library of Congress first under
Mr. McLeish and than under Dr. Evans?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, to a pro forma sense I was there under
McLeish. I was actually serving as executive secretary of the
Interdepartmental Committee on Cultural Resources, which was a
committee of the National Resources Planning Board, but the
Library of Congress paid my salary for six months. I never was
in the agency.
    Mr. Cohn. Now we are up to 1951, and would you tell Senator
McClellan what you did from 1951 until you left?
    Mr. Lacy. From September 1951 through January of this year,
I was on loan from the Library of Congress to the State
Department as director of the Information Center Service to the
State Department, which has charge of the Washington
backstopping of the overseas libraries.
    Mr. Cohn. Then during that period of time, you were the
head of these information centers. Is that right?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes. I was head of the immediate service that
backstops them.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, as head of it, of course, you
were only the head of one of five subdivisions of the
International Information Administration?
    Mr. Lacy. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. You have the Voice of America, which is a
broadcasting subdivision, INS, the press and the movies, then
the Educational Exchange Service, which handles exchanges of
students and so on, and then you have the Information Center
Service, which sets up the libraries that this committee has
been investigating.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, it procures material for them and develops
operating policy. The library in each country is under the
ambassador and the deputy for field programs.
    Mr. Cohn. What interests us is your function as head of
these information centers, which contain these libraries.
    Now, Mr. Lacy, am I correct in assuming that you have
followed to some extent the hearings of the committee during
the last two weeks?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And the fact that there has been a disclosure
that books by Communist authors are on the open shelves of
various of these information centers?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, I think what Senator McClellan and the other
members of the committee would be very much interested in, and
I know Senator McClellan particularly, to who is responsible
for the fact that books by Communists were purchased and
allowed, and, assuming the initial purchase was made, who was
responsible for allowing them to continue on the open shelves
of these Information Centers, and why.
    Mr. Lacy. I think I could answer that most clearly and
probably with the least amount of doubling back for later
explanations if I could take about five minutes to go over the
general setup.
    Senator McClellan. I suggest you take your time to answer,
and answer thoroughly, giving such background as you think
pertinent.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, sir, there are presently, unless the number
has changed since I left the department, a number of months
ago, 199 of these libraries. Now, of this number, forty-nine
are in Germany, and were established by the army.
    Mr. Cohn. When were they established by the army?
    Mr. Lacy. In various dates. Well, as a matter of fact, I am
not technically accurate in saying all forty-nine were
established by the army. But on various dates from 1945 and '46
on up until the State Department took over the administration
of the information program in Germany. And the department
itself has opened a few since then in what were formerly the
French and British zones of occupation. The army had only the
American zone. Most of them were established about '47 and '48.
    Another batch of twenty-three are in Japan, established and
operated by the occupation there, and taken over by the State
Department in April of this past year.
    Another several were in Korea, and they were originally
established by the army there. Four or five in Latin America
had been established by the coordinator of inter-American
affairs in the war period.
    Most of the rest had originally been established by OWI,
during the war years. Of the total 199, perhaps twenty or
thirty were originally established by the State Department. I
don't have exact figures before me, and the twenty or thirty
may be off by as many as ten or fifteen, but that is the order
of magnitude.
    Now, all of those libraries inherited, when the State
Department took them over, the collections of books that they
had in them at that time.
    Mr. Cohn. Such as the army may have already stocked them
with?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes. Now, in the case of these German libraries,
and I should add also Austrian, when they were first started,
the initial book stock that was put in them was to a very
considerable degree the collections of books that the army had
had for recreational reading for American troops overseas, and
were not selected for this sort of purpose really. The troops
were being pulled out of most of them where these libraries
were being closed up and in a rather indiscriminate fashion
they turned them over to the libraries they had in Germany. So
that there was a large group of inherited collections.
    Now, to those, additions have been made in several
different ways. The State Department itself, regularly, since
it started administering this program, taking over the OWI part
of this program, in 1946, and the other elements from the army
at various later dates, has regularly sent out a monthly packet
of books selected here in Washington and sent to all or to all
in a given geographical area in the libraries overseas.
    This, during the period from the early period, was the way
in which most of the books, probably, were added--by these
packets selected here and sent out.
    But in addition to that, throughout the whole period, every
individual librarian has had a budget against which he could
order books from Washington. Now, when he ordered those, those
orders would come in and be reviewed by a geographic desk
officer for that area, and by a bibliographer, and if they both
approved it, the book would be bought. I should have added that
the book packet each month was picked up by a committee of
several members of the staff, who might be different in any two
months.
    Also, each post had a so-called general operating expense
allotment, from which they were able to buy materials locally
out of local book stores, and to that case they did not have to
get any Washington approval. Largely what they bought in that
case was locally published translations of American books that
had appeared in the local languages and were available in the
local book stores. But sometimes they would buy an ordinary
American edition of a book that was available in a book store
there if they wanted to save the several weeks or months it
would take to order them from Washington.
    In addition, private American citizens who might be living
in these areas and might have personal libraries of their own,
might, when they left town, just stop by and say, ``Look here.
Here are some books of mine I would be glad to give to the
library.'' And the local librarian might reject or accept them
at his discretion.
    Similarly, the Foreign Service Officer attached to the post
might do the same thing when he was attached to another post
and did not want to pack all of the books away to his library.
And organizations and frequently corporations that publish
house organs for their employees will frequently send them to
all the libraries overseas also. So that they got books into
the collections through all of this wide variety of ways.
    Now, I would like to say one further thing, if I may, sir,
which will, I think probably save explanation and answers to
future questions, about the state of our records, of what is in
the libraries overseas.
    Since the State Department started operating this program,
in '46, there is available to the department a complete record
of all the books that were selected here and sent out in book
packets. From about April 1947, there is a complete record on
slips of all of the books that were bought here, either at the
initiative of the department or at the request of the field.
But those records on slips in the department do not cover
materials acquired in all of these other ways, the ones that
were already in the libraries when the department took them
over, the ones that might have been bought locally, and all of
that sort of thing.
    Now, a considerable handicap in administering the program
was our ignorance of what else besides what we had bought here
might be in the libraries, or indeed what the State Department
might have bought in the first year it operated it, except for
the book packet.
    Senator McClellan. May I ask this question? I do not want
to interrupt you, but at that point may I ask whether, at any
time since 1946 or '47, the date you gave there--when the State
Department took this over--there has been any screening of
those books, any inventory of them or screening of them to
determine whether objectionable material was being made
available to those libraries?
    Mr. Lacy. That was the point I was just coming to, Senator,
if I may go on along that line.
    Senator McClellan. All right.
    Mr. Lacy. Just as I came with the project and with the
service in the State Department to September 1947, or a few
weeks before that--it was nothing that I initiated--they had
for the first time started on a comprehensive effort to build
up a complete catalogue of everything that was in all of the
libraries overseas, and they requested every library to send,
in whatever physical form it might be possible----
    Senator Symington. Who is ``they''?
    Mr. Lacy. The State Department, my predecessor.
    Mr. Cohn. Who is that?
    Mr. Lacy. Lawrence S. Morris.
    Mr. Cohn. Where is he now?
    Mr. Lacy. Unless he has changed in the last few weeks, he
is cultural affairs officer to the U.S. Embassy in Paris.
    Senator Symington. May I just interrupt a second?
    When you say ``they,'' you say you mean the State
Department. Where was he then?
    Mr. Lacy. The then title of the job was the chief of the
Division of Overseas Information Centers, but it was the same
job I subsequently occupied with a different title.
    Senator Symington. Was his headquarters in Washington?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes, sir.
    Senator Symington. And he is now in Paris?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes, sir.
    Senator Symington. When did he leave here and go to Paris?
    Mr. Lacy. In September of 1951.
    Senator Symington. How long had he been on the job when you
took over, roughly?
    Mr. Lacy. About a year or eighteen months, I believe, sir.
    Senator Symington. What did he do before then?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, he had been an employee in that division,
but not its chief, for some months before that.
    He had worked in OWI during the war, and so on.
    Mr. Cohn. Who is Mr. Morris's predecessor?
    Mr. Lacy. Karl Sauer, S-a-u-e-r.
    Senator Symington. And where is he now?
    Mr. Lacy. I don't know. I have the impression he is in
California, but I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. You were talking about Mr. Morris?
    Mr. Lacy. Correct. Mr. Morris is the one that is in Paris.
    Senator Symington. What does he do in Paris now?
    Mr. Lacy. He is the cultural affairs officer in the
American Embassy there. That means that he would have charge,
the general oversight, as a matter of fact, of all the
libraries in Paris, as part of that job, but also all the
exchange of students and professors and cultural affairs
generally to France.
    Senator Symington. Was his going from Washington to Paris a
demotion, or a transfer?
    Mr. Lacy. On the whole, I would say a promotion, sir.
    Senator Symington. A promotion?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, it didn't make any great difference in
grade or salary. I think by and large it would be considered a
more desirable job. It is about at the same grade.
    Well, sir, I was about to say Mr. Morris had initiated the
preparation of this union catalogue, listing all the holdings
of all the libraries overseas, from whatever source derived.
This was a very sizable undertaking and as a matter of fact the
catalogue, though nearly complete, is not yet finally
completed, because the funds we have had to work with in doing
it have been very limited, and a very small staff has been
employed. The Library of Congress has been actually doing the
work under contract to the State Department.
    Now, that catalogue, when it is finally finished, and it is
nearly finished now, will give us the first reasonably complete
record of materials that have, at some time, been in the
libraries. This is this catalogue, incidentally, that the
committee staff has been working with.
    This catalogue is subject, itself, to some limitations. It
is somewhat non-current. Not everything has been put in it.
Books that have been worn out or lost or removed by the local
librarians have not been--the corresponding cards have not been
removed from the catalogue here, so that the presence of a card
there shows that a book has been in the library and presumably
is still there but not necessarily.
    The librarians are instructed to report quarterly all the
books that have been worn out or removed, but in practice none
of them found the time to do the substantial amount of work
involved.
    Mr. Cohn. Outside of the compilation of this catalogue what
steps have been taken, what even elementary steps, to see
whether or not this collection has been infiltrated with
books----
    Mr. Lacy. The only systematic check has been in connection
with the information centers in Germany, where the collections
were on the whole in the worst shape and were most
miscellaneously received.
    Mr. Cohn. You would say that was the fault of the army. In
other words, they made the collections?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, fault? I doubt if I would have done any
better if I had been doing it at that time under those
circumstances. I do not mean to be critical of the army. But I
mean it was an inherited situation, that they had had to throw
in very hurriedly and with great difficulty.
    We sent a member of our staff over who spent several weeks
screening materials out of the collection.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Lacy. That was before I came with the staff. It was, my
impression is, in the summer of 1950, but it may have been in
the spring of '51.
    Mr. Cohn. You see, we had testimony this morning, Mr. Lacy,
from Freda Utley, who had just returned from Germany in the
last six weeks, and she gave a rather disturbing picture of the
libraries over there.
    Mr. Lacy. I have seen Miss Utley's article.
    Mr. Cohn. Yes, she said there were books by Ilya Ehrenburg,
one of the top propagandists of the Soviet Union, still in 1952
listed in the catalogue for the information centers over
there.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Ilya Ehrenburg, The Tempering of Russia (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1944).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senator Symington. Listed in the catalogue?
    Mr. Cohn. Listed in the catalogue, actually listed.
    Senator McClellan. I believe she said she did not actually
see the book.
    Mr. Cohn. No, she said she saw the listing in the 1952
catalogue.
    I forgot which one of the information centers that was.
    Mr. Leahy. That was issued by the center.
    Mr. Cohn. Yes. And just to give you a picture, here, she
named the Communist party members whose books they were
stocking, William Mandell, I recall, and Howard Fast, and some
others, particularly Mandell. Then she said in the China
section, for instance, there were almost no books which were
anti-Communist, and there was a slew of literature by the pro-
Chinese Communist school; in other words, Agnes Smedley, a
Communist, Anna Louise Strong, a Communist, Owen Lattimore, who
has been found by the Senate Judiciary Committee to have been a
conscious, articulate tool of the Soviet conspiracy. This was
as of two months ago. I was wondering how they missed that in
that screening.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, sir, I do not know what the actual facts in
the situation are. Karl Baarslag of the American Legion, who I
understand was to have testified this morning, too, happened to
come into my office about a day after I first saw Miss Utley's
article. I think probably it had been out for two or three
weeks before I saw it. He had himself made a check in Germany,
which he had been led to make by seeing an advance copy, I
think, of Miss Utley's article, and he told me that while he
was himself not pleased by all of the stuff he found he had
come to the conclusion that her statement, or at least the
implications or inferences from then, and those made by
Westbrook Pegler about the same time were unfounded, or only
partially founded.
    I am not trying to say Mr. Baarslag said he liked or
approved of the stuff, but he said in his opinion it was not
nearly as bad as they had depicted.
    Senator Symington. May I ask this question? You are in the
middle of a narrative, telling us about the job. How close are
you to being finished?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, I think about one minute would finish up
what I had to say.
    Further than that, I have taken action from time to time on
individual titles that had come to my attention. I did not
attempt, while I was in the State Department, to make any
exhaustive, systematic, down-through-the-catalogue check on
this point, partly because I knew I was going to be there only
twelve or fourteen months, and because there were some
tremendously difficult jobs of getting materials out that I
wanted to got done; partly because the spot checks I made here
and there on individual titles didn't lead me to believe that
the situation was one that was serious or difficult.
    Mr. Cohn. I just wanted to ask you this, now. You see, we
went into this thing cold, and we were just told where this
catalogue was located, where this file was located, Mr. Schine,
Mr. Buckley, and a couple of others went over there and within
a matter of three or four hours discovered the fact that books
by Earl Browder, William Z. Foster, and so on and so forth,
were listed.
    Why should not at least things that elementary have been
picked up?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, the State Department tells me--I have been
away from there, of course, during all of this time, and I
haven't made any personal checks.
    When I found out I was going to testify, I did ask them----
    Mr. Cohn. I might ask you this: You agree those books
shouldn't be there?
    Mr. Lacy. I agree completely with respect to Mr. Browder
and Mr. Foster.
    The Chairman. The thing I should like to know, and it
should not be too difficult: Some of you in charge of this
program should be able to tell us who, what individual, John
Jones or Pete Smith, got these Communist books. Who screened
then? What person?
    Mr. Lacy. I think that could be answered, Senator, only
with respect to a particular copy of the particular book, since
if you count all of them----
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: During the period, we
will say, of September 1952, was there not some individual or
individuals responsible for the purchase or the acquisition of
books?
    Mr. Lacy. There were a great many people who shared this
responsibility, sir.
    The Chairman. And does each individual library have the
right to acquire books by gift or purchase?
    Mr. Lacy. It has the right to accept books by gift. It has
a very limited budget, not one that our office----
    The Chairman. Then let us say the Library of Congress
bought or obtained on a gift twenty, thirty, or forty Communist
books. Was that action ever screened or supervised by anyone
back here in Washington?
    Mr. Lacy. It would have been very unlikely to have come to
any specific attention here, except over a period of a good
many months. The presumption would be that the librarian in
Paris would be perfectly competent to deal with it.
    Mr. Cohn. You mean somebody could donate books by William
Z. Foster and nobody would check with you, with your division
in Washington?
    The Chairman. I have this question in mind: Let us take the
book of Earl Browder. We know it is in the several libraries.
    Mr. Cohn. There are three different books.
    The Chairman. And how many volumes all told?
    Mr. Cohn. I don't know. I would say five or six, all told.
    The Chairman. I wonder if it is not possible to find out
from the purchase orders or from any other papers, who got that
book, who was responsible for getting Earl Browder's book and
putting it in a certain library?
    Mr. Lacy. I was told, sir, that no copy of Browder's book
was ever bought by the department. There were, I believe, four,
but your statement that there were five may be correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Let's take four.
    Mr. Lacy. I am just doing it out of recollection here.
    They were discovered in the union catalogue.
    Senator Symington. In the union catalogue?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes, sir. This is the one that was started being
prepared a year and a half ago.
    Senator Symington. Where were the four Browder books?
    Mr. Lacy. One in London, I believe, sir, one in
Johannesburg, I believe. There was a Spanish translation of one
of his books in one of the libraries in Latin America, which
the people at State told me today they had a report had been
removed in the summer of '52, but the card hadn't yet been
killed in the catalogue here. And there were one or two other
locations, I remember.
    The Chairman. I was going to ask if there was some way of
finding out who was responsible for placing those books in
those four different libraries.
    Mr. Lacy. If the book is still present in one of the
libraries, which would be questionable, since the cards that
brought them in were probably filled out in the field two years
ago, and I am sure as soon as any American member of the staff
noticed the book there or anybody borrowed it and called it to
his attention, he would remove it, but if the book is still
physically there, there would probably be a date stamp on it,
indicating the date when it was acquired by the library.
    You could find out from that who was the librarian at the
time. It would be a fairly difficult problem to find.
    Senator Symington. Who would be the one that put the book
in? Could the book just be brought in and put in voluntarily,
given, you might say? Could a Communist in Johannesburg bring
an Earl Browder book in, and would it be accepted by the
library and the American setup?
    Mr. Lacy. That would be conceivable. In Johannesburg we
have never had funds to have a professional American librarian.
We haven't had at many of these libraries. That could happen.
    Senator Symington. You say, then, the State Department did
not buy the books in question?
    Mr. Lacy. So I am told, sir.
    Senator Symington. Then what other ways could they get it?
They could get it by gift, you said.
    Mr. Lacy. They could have had it in an OWI library that the
State Department took over.
    Mr. Cohn. I wonder if we could find out who told that to
Mr. Lacy, that the State Department did not buy those books. I
will tell you why I want to know.
    Whoever knew they didn't buy it might be in a position to
give us some more information.
    Mr. Lacy. Oh, I stopped by the department after you called
me yesterday. I stopped by the department yesterday.
    Mr. Cohn. I was just wondering if there is someone over
there who could tell us something. If someone knows enough
about it to be able to tell you with reference to the specific
Browder book, ``We did not buy it. That was a gift''--I think
that person might be in a position to give us some information.
    Mr. Lacy. Perhaps I should have been more precise. We
didn't buy it from April 1947 on. It is conceivable it might
have been bought in '46, because they didn't have as good
records then.
    The Chairman. Let us stop right there. You mean from April
'47 on you could tell who purchased each book?
    Mr. Lacy. You can tell that the book is purchased. I don't
think you can tell which employee--Well, it might be possible,
through a fairly elaborate piecing together of the operations
memorandum from the field requesting the book and other sorts
of operating files, whose initials were on it. I don't think
the actual D88-12, so called, which is the actual order form,
shows any initials of who purchased it.
    The Chairman. When Louis Budenz testified, he said he
thought it was as a result of a Communist in that program that
those books were purchased. Therefore, it would be very
important, if you have a record of the purchases, to run it
down, would it not, to find out who is purchasing the books of
well-known Communists? I can understand anyone going out and
purchasing the book of an undercover Communist. You do not know
all of them. But men like Foster, Browder, Agnes Smedley, that
whole list.
    Mr. Cohn. And Aronberg.
    Mr. Lacy. May I make a statement here, sir, that I think
really bears on this question? That is that the checks that
they have made at the department indicate almost no purchases
of, so to speak, Communist books by publicly known Communist
authors. That is not to say no books are in the files. I am not
challenging the findings of the committee on this.
    For example, what I have been told as the basis of their
checks is that they find no record of any Browder book having
been bought by the department, though some copies were found, I
think four or five, in the libraries. They found no record of
any Foster book having been either bought or having been in the
libraries. I don't know, how the discrepancy exists on that.
    The Chairman. You say ``they'' found no record. Who over
there told you this? Who gave you the information?
    Mr. Lacy. The particular person I was talking to is Mr.
Simpson, who is the division chief under Mr. Humphrey, who
deals directly with the libraries concerned.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Simpson. Do you know his first name?
    Mr. Lacy. Thomas W.
    The Chairman. When was Mr. Lacy there?
    Mr. Cohn. He was in charge of these information centers
until January of this year.
    Mr. Lacy. If I might run down through two or three more of
those, the only ones of his books that were bought in any
quantity, more than one or two copies, were the Maltese Falcon
and the Glass Key, both of which were bought in the fall of
1948.
    The Chairman. Now, let me ask you this: If this man Simpson
is making this survey to find out how many books there were,
when they were bought, has he attempted to find out who bought
them?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, Senator, who bought them--there is never
any one person who buys one of these books.
    Mr. Cohn. But there is for this reason, Mr. Chairman----
    The Chairman. Somebody finally signs the order for the
book, or some group of people. The book does not materialize
out of thin air.
    What I am trying to get is this, and we seem to have
tremendous difficulty in running it down. When you say, ``We
found that Dashiell Hammett's Maltese Falcon was purchased on
such and such a date in '48,'' if they can discover that, and
the exact date it was purchased, can they or can they not find
out who purchased it?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, they would know that was bought in a
fiction book packet, so-called. This was three years before I
came into the department, and I was told there was a
considerable request in the field for a representative
collection of American novels of various types. They wanted to
include a few detective stories. Probably the two best-known
American stories, detective stories, abroad are his Glass Key
and Maltese Falcon. I have read them both. They have no
discernible, to me, Communist content.
    The Chairman. Will you stick to the question?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes, I was wandering.
    This was picked by a committee, who got up this book
packet.
    The Chairman. Pardon me for interrupting you, but I am
trying to get down to the bottom of this if I can. You say they
can find out the name of the individual or the committee that
picked, for example, Earl Browder's book or any other of those
books.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, not Browder's. That was not picked here in
the department, sir, according to the records.
    The Chairman. Can they find out who purchased the other
books?
    Mr. Lacy. In terms of things that came in from the army, it
would be extremely difficult. There would be no one record that
would show it.
    I should have said, in finishing the answer to Senator
McCarthy's question, that the things that went into a book
packet to go to all libraries overseas were picked here, and
those two novels, The Glass Key and The Maltese Falcon, of
Dashiell Hammett's, were in that category. You could properly
hold the chief of the service at the time, I think, responsible
for that, in the sense that the committee submitted the list of
books to go out in the packet to him, and though he didn't go
back and read every book he read the list and approved it. He
normally did not see the individual orders that came from the
field on some one book.
    Now, the actual purchase orders that we have kept--or I say
``we,'' I mean the State Department now--my impression is,
though it has been months since I have actually looked at any
of them, that they show the initials of any of the clerical
people who did the typewriting and the clerical work on it. The
authority for purchasing could probably be dug up for each
individual title, but not out of any neat file filed by author.
It would probably be to a post chronological file that would
list all the operational memoranda that had come in from Paris
or Johannesburg that month requesting books. And by running
through that chronological file, if you know the month the book
had been bought, you could probably, from the initials there,
see who had audited it from the field, and probably the two or
three people over whose desk it had passed. I am afraid I am
making this seem very complicated, but I am afraid the fact is
that it is complicated.
    Senator McClellan. I think the implication or understanding
I get from your testimony is that apparently there is no
central authority.
    Mr. Lacy. No one person approves every single book.
    Senator McClellan. No one individual that you can hold
responsible. It is a diversified responsibility.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, I would certainly expect, sir, to have been
held responsible myself, at least in a general sense, for books
that were purchased during the time I was there. That doesn't
mean I would have bought every one of them if I had acted on
every one, say more than I would have broken a window like my
five year old kid did, but: he is my kid, and he is under my
discipline, and I am responsible.
    Senator McClellan. Well, what I am trying to emphasize, I
may say, is that in an operation of this magnitude requests are
made, they come in, and they are perhaps not adequately
screened, and it is difficult to say, especially in these
cases, where the library itself in the field may have bought a
few books or may have accepted donations. There is no central
responsibility.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, sir, no one person physically could screen
all of the, say, two or three hundred thousand requests to
purchase or not to purchase that ultimately resulted in buying
the 130,000 or 250,000 books.
    Senator McClellan. They never will be able to control those
things or adequately screen them unless there is some central
authority that all of these requests have to pass through and
get approval of. Why has there not been established such a
central authority, so that we could make certain?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, there is, sir, in the sense that the chief
of the division is. Now, no one person could physically, in
eight hours a days, fifty weeks a year, see every request that
comes in that has to be distributed among a number of people.
    Senator McClellan. I can appreciate that. No president of
the United States can perform all of the duties that are
imposed upon the president. But he does establish, and we have
established for him, certain agencies that are responsible to
him for doing certain jobs, performing certain functions of
government.
    Now, this thread has run throughout this whole picture. To
me there has never been that firm, definite, centralized or
localized responsibility.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, I appreciate there has been, sir, so far as
books purchased in Washington have been concerned. The title of
the job has changed from time to time, but under the chief
there has always been one person who, at the libraries, has
this particular responsibility, and under him there has always
been a bibliographic section. But I think sir, that actually
there has been less than the testimony indicated thus far
before the committee would suggest, less than that testimony
would suggest, of inadequate screening to our actual purchases.
    I pointed out the records that have been reported to me
indicate, as I said earlier, no book by Foster and no book by
Browder purchased; of Hammett only these two detective stories,
purchased over four years ago, that have been American classic
detective stories. They have been made into movies and sold in
hundreds of thousands of copies in this country before Hammett
had ever become widely known publicly as a Communist.
    Of the books by Mr. Stern, the only one bought in large
quantities was one published jointly by the New York Academy of
Medicine, the Medical Association of the State of New York, and
the Commonwealth Fund, which was a survey of health services,
state, local, and federal, and came out under eminently
respectable auspices at a time when he was not publicly known
as a Communist.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Bernhard J. Stern, American Medical Practice in the
Perspectives of a Century (New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1945).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Only three copies I believe of the book of Mr. Allen were
bought, none within the last four or five years. Only one copy
of a book by Mr. Mandell was bought, and that, I believe, in
1946.
    In the case of Mr. Seaver, the only one of his books bought
in any quantity was a rather standard anthology of American
humor, of selections from Mark Twain and Washington Irving, and
so on, that was widely and generally reviewed, at a time when
Mr. Seaver was not known as a Communist.
    I am told that no copy of any of Mr. Lattimore's books has
been bought since his indictment, and that the only one bought
in any considerable number was his Pivot of Asia, which is the
only more or less standard American scholarly work on Mongolia.
    Of Mr. Rosinger's books, none were ever bought in large
quantities, and the general understanding in the scholarly
field is that Rosinger left the party some time ago, even
though he has refused to testify; and the only one bought in
recent years has been the one called State of Asia, which he
didn't write but edited, which was published by an eminently
respectable publisher, and which I read myself, and at least
detected no Communist leaning in it. This was not written by
Rosinger. He contributed one or two essays to it.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Lawrence K. Rosinger, The State of Asia: A Contemporary Survey
(New York: Knopf, 1951).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Now, when that is compared with a figure on the other side
of the fence, the American Legion got up two lists at different
times totaling some 190 books which they recommended as reading
on the subject of communism.
    Now, of those books, over 19,000 have been bought by the
department, or nearly 19,000. 18,500 have been bought by the
department and put in the libraries overseas. And we have had
special editions printed of some of them and have given nearly
40,000 copies of them away. We have subsidized the export
through commercial channels of 120,000 copies. And we have
published over 30 of them in translation, in a total of 115
languages. And well over a million copies of these books on the
American Legion's anti-Communist reading list have actually
been published by us in local languages and distributed
overseas.
    Now, when this is compared with the one copy of this and
the one copy of that and the three copies of the other to 1946,
I think you see, sir, that there has been an overwhelming
concentration on specifically anti-Communist sentiment.
    Senator McClellan. I think the list recommended for
distribution by the American Legion is very commendable.
    Mr. Lacy. But this adds up to thousands of copies.
    Senator McClellan. And you make that comparison with some
three or four books here, the authors of which have been
mentioned, when actually the testimony is that there are a good
many of such books and authors.
    Mr. Lacy. I have no question that there are a good many
books written by authors who are members of the Communist
party, purchased at a time when they were not widely known as
members of the party, or when the books seemed quite remote
from their party affiliation. The standing directives of the
department at the time I came in and subsequently had not
required any check on the author himself when he was not
publicly known, and when nothing in the book itself suggested
it.
    Now, as I have said, in the case of this man Stern, the
book itself was a straightforward survey of medical services,
published by the New York Academy of Medicine.
    Mr. Cohn. Which Stern was this?
    Mr. Lacy. Benjamin. The one bought in large quantities.
    Mr. Cohn. Bernhard Stern?
    Mr. Lacy. Bernhard Stern, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. How about Understanding the Russians? \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Bernhard Stern and Samuel Smith, Understanding the Russians: A
Study of Soviet Life and Culture (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1947).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Lacy. One copy of that has been bought.
    Mr. Cohn. Why should that have been bought?
    Mr. Lacy. God knows. It was bought in 1948. I have no idea.
I am not personally familiar with the book.
    My guess would be that the normal thing would be that
probably some librarian in the field sees a reasonably
favorable review of it in the New York Times book review
section or something like that and orders it, and it comes in
here, somebody looks at it, finds it has a reasonably favorable
review, and it is approved, without any very close check.
    Now, in getting two million volumes into those libraries
overseas, this means that two million decisions were made. It
really means many more million were made, because there were
many decisions made not to put books there by thousands of
people in hundreds of agencies over the years.
    I really feel it is surprising that so few objectionable
books went through. Something like Hammett's Maltese Falcon----
    Senator McClellan. There has been an order, and I will rely
on the staff to state just what that order is, of recent date,
regarding the removal of certain books and publications from
these libraries.
    Just what is that order?
    Mr. Schine. In substance, Senator, it orders the
information center libraries to remove from the shelves books
carrying the Communist party line, or by Communist party
members, which have been placed there in entirety without
explanation, and which have served the Communist party rather
than the United States.
    Senator McClellan. The point I was wanting to make was that
during the tenure of your service in the capacity of director
of the Information Center Services, did a sufficient number of
instances come to your attention regarding books of this
character, carrying this objectionable material, to warrant you
in considering issuing an order similar to that recently
issued?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, the general policy that we were following,
sir, was not very different from what I just stated, with this
exception: that where the book itself was irrelevant to
political considerations, when it was something like a
detective story, let us say, we did not feel that it was
necessary to assess the author's own politics. No, sir. Here
were the cases that came to my attention, of works that seemed
to me positively and specifically objectionable while I was
there. Now, let me say that those come to my attention more or
less in the normal course of business. I didn't make a
systematic effort to go through the whole collections.
    There was a biography of Paul Robeson by a woman by the
name of Evelyn Graham, which was sent in by someone who had
found it in an American library in, I believe, Oslo, but I am
not certain of the city.\20\ It came in through the security
division of the State Department. The security division made a
check of the sort the committee has been speaking of to try to
determine who had been responsible for its purchase. It was
found that it was bought in 1946, in about twenty copies. They
were able to assure themselves that one of a group of employees
of four or five probably was involved. That is, it was done in
that section. All of them had impeccable records, I was told by
the security division. Only one still was employed there, I
believe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Shirley Graham Du Bois, Paul Robeson, Citizen of the World
(New York: J. Messner, 1946).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The book had been very favorably reviewed at the time it
was issued, and the security division concluded there was no
reason to suppose that there had been any deliberate
malfeasance.
    I examined the book. It was a juvenile teenage biography of
Paul Robeson. One chapter of it was peculiarly objectionable
because in recounting Robeson's conversion to communism, it
simply lifted an article that Robeson wrote or had had written
for him some years before and parroting the Communist line in
that one chapter. I have no reason to suppose that the author
did this on purpose. I suspect she just didn't know much about
what she was doing and was writing fast and used the nearest
source. I directed that that be removed from all the libraries.
I did similarly with an anthology of recent American literature
from 1914 to 1939, because it included the work of several
Communist poets, and not merely included them but included them
in notes that suggested that the most vital writing being done
in the U.S. was being done by a Communist. This was a book that
had been remanded after copies were no longer selling, after it
had been replaced by another edition, and a number of copies
had been bought at five or ten cents a copy. That was killed
before it was actually available. And there were one or two
other specific cases.
    Senator McClellan. Let us get right down to something
concrete. In view of your past experience in this service, and
what has come to light thus far in the course of these
hearings, that part of it at least with which you are familiar,
what suggestions or recommendations would you make as to how we
may in the future avoid the placing in the libraries of books
that are objectionable and that follow the Communist party
line? What would you recommend be done? How can this situation
be corrected and prevented from recurring?
    Mr. Lacy. I don't know, Senator, that there has been any
effective showing that books bearing the Communist party line
have been being currently, that is, in the last two or three
years, acquired for the libraries.
    Senator McClellan. No, the testimony is before the
committee that a number of them are still catalogued.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, sir, I think there are two questions. What
ought to be done about removing those now present, and about
the current acquisition.
    Senator McClellan. An order has already been issued now to
remove them. But I am trying to see now how we can tighten up
the administrative forces in the agency so as to prevent a
recurrence of these things.
    Mr. Lacy. I think, sir, that they are tight enough. Well, I
don't think any possible system can guarantee that nothing will
ever go wrong, to this or to any other system.
    But I don't think there has been any testimony that
suggested that the current purchasing of the department--and I
don't mean to say in my period there, but in the time over the
last three years or so--has been such as to sustain the
Communist party line, except in very isolated or special cases.
    Senator McClellan. I can very well see that Communists who
were interested in promulgating their propaganda, and so forth,
would very willingly, probably, contribute to the libraries
books of that nature. It would not be necessary to purchase
them. How can we guard against that occurring?
    Mr. Lacy. I think the circular that has now been issued
will unquestionably make the librarians in the field tend to
fall over backwards, and I suspect that they have been doing
this for some time anyway since people became more conscious of
this issue, to look gift horses in the mouth. If the objective
is to go beyond that and say that we must erect measures to
make sure that no Communist's book, even a covert Communist's
book, shall be purchased, even though the book itself may not
be perceptibly related to the Communist line, you pose, as
Senator McCarthy indicated a while ago, a much more difficult
problem. There are eleven to twelve thousand books published
each year in this country, of which perhaps about a thousand
would come up for some sort of decision, and in addition
several thousand requests would come up at any given time for
books published in previous years.
    Now, to attempt to screen all of those authors concerned in
cases when the book itself has nothing to suggest, like one of
the Dashiell Hammett who-dunnits, that the author was a
Communist and where the author is not notoriously one, is an
extremely difficult job. You can, of course, run a check
through, say, the House Committee on Un-American Affairs files
and through other agency files, and pick up all the derogatory
information that is there. This means that a very high
proportion of authors will have one or more accusations against
them of this sort.
    As Secretary Dulles said the other day in connection with
Mr. Bohlen's nomination, he understood there was derogatory
information in Secretary Dulles' own files. If one took the
flat rule, ``Look, we won't ever enter an area of doubt, and if
any accusation has been made about anybody his book doesn't go
to the library,'' then you eliminate a very high percentage of
all the materials, which you work with.
    Senator McClellan. Why could we not do this: Why could
there not be established a centralized committee to pass on all
books before they are placed in those libraries? In other
words, from time to time they could consider books, those that
were requested and those that are not, and give us approvals,
saying, ``Here is an approved list. These books may be accepted
and placed in a library.'' And other books not included in that
list from time to time would have to be screened. And get that
central committee or authority to give its approval before a
book could be accepted and put on the shelf.
    Mr. Lacy. Did you mean, sir, a committee of the department,
or a committee of outside officers?
    Senator McClellan. Within the department you could
establish it, so that the responsibility would actually be
somewhere.
    Mr. Lacy. Essentially, this was what we had proposed to put
into effect just before these hearings opened, and I understand
the department has bought substantially no books since the
hearing started, until it could get its position clarified.
    What I had proposed to do at that time was to let a
committee operate in the staff that would probably come out
with fifty to a hundred books a month in advance of
publication, working from the daily proofs, that would be clear
in terms of utility and suitability for the program for
purchase by any library that wanted it.
    We were going to print cards for each of these and send
those cards out air mail in advance of publication to any
library. Then any library that wanted to buy one of these could
just stamp its name and write one of the copies and mail that
to our office in New York for clearance.
    Senator McClellan. That is something along the line.
    Mr. Lacy. Then any other one they wanted that was not in
that list would come through the department for clearance
there.
    Senator McClellan. And have to be cleared.
    Mr. Lacy. Yes. And we had set up a review and appraisal
unit in the bibliographic section to prepare those cards. I
think the first batch of copy for the cards had just been sent
down to the Library of Congress, which was going to print the
cards for us in the printing office there. That was suspended
because of the hearing here. But it is very similar to what you
propose. I don't think an outside committee will work. You
can't find anybody with the requisite competencies, who can
devote the time.
    Senator McClellan. I was suggesting machinery within the
agency itself.
    Mr. Lacy. Yes, sir.
    Senator McClellan. In other words, it seems to me there
could be an approved list, of maybe a thousand, or I do not
know how many, but books which we know from reputation are
books that are in keeping with our philosophy of life and
government, that might be made available or be approved for use
in those libraries. At the same time, there could be also
issued a list of books that are disapproved. Then you would
have the area of books, of literature, that had not been passed
upon. And in that area, certainly, the requesting authority, if
it is a library in Germany or somewhere else, before acquiring
that book, or if it does acquire it by gift, before making it
available to the public, could see to it that it should be
submitted to this authority and that clearance is obtained.
Some system needs to be developed and put into effect.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, what had been proposed to go into effect,
as I said, just as the committee hearings started, and which
led to a sort of suspension of the plans until the whole
situation could be reviewed by the new administration, was very
similar to that, sir, except that it didn't include provision
for drawing up a negative list of harmful books, on the
assumption that they wouldn't consider buying a book in the
first place unless there was some evidence that it was
positively useful.
    Senator McClellan. Well, the negative list was just a
suggestion. I do not know whether the time should be spent on
that or not. But certainly this is a program that has great
potentiality for good, and if misused, if poorly administered,
if carelessly administered, can possibly produce equally as
much harm as good.
    Mr. Lacy. This whole problem, sir, depends a good deal on
whether, in applying any of these criteria, you are speaking
specifically of actual Communists. If so, removing every book
in the collections by any person who actually was a Communist
would remove a relatively small total number, and it certainly
wouldn't do any harm.
    The problem that I think tends to come up is this: People
who have been told in effect, ``My God, you are fired if you
ever let a book by a Communist get into the collections,'' then
start saying, ``Well, I will play it safe, and this whole area,
of a broad group of people, I won't put in.''
    This would lead to this sort of thing. To take an example,
out of the air, probably the most widely reviewed, most widely
talked about poetry issued last year was a collected volume of
poems of Mr. McLeish. Mr. McLeish is very widely and favorably
known abroad.
    Mr. Cohn. Where?
    Mr. Lacy. By intellectuals.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, are we trying to reach intellectuals, or
are we trying to reach the bulk of the people?
    Mr. Lacy. With the libraries, when you have one small
library of twelve thousand volumes serving a country of thirty,
forty, or fifty million people, which can't physically deal
with more than a few thousand a week and where the language is
essentially a foreign language----
    Mr. Cohn. Doesn't Mr. McLeish have somewhat leftist views?
    Mr. Lacy. I doubt if his political reputation is very
widely known, certainly not as widely known as his reputation
as a poet.
    Mr. Cohn. Doesn't the wide discussion of his leftist views
in this country seep abroad through news dispatches and the
fact that he has been a public figure, a figure of public
controversy? Isn't that just as likely to get abroad?
    Mr. Lacy. I think not, sir, because the coverage of much
news in foreign newspapers is incredibly poor. You may get two
or three inches in a foreign paper about American political
developments, whereas among people whose interest is in
intellectual fields, they will probably have read his books.
    Senator McClellan. Are we maintaining these libraries
primarily for the intellectuals of other countries?
    Mr. Lacy. ``Intellectuals'' may be a bad choice of words,
sir. It seems to me the primary audience that they need to
reach are primarily two kinds of people. One kind of people
through whom information derives from the libraries is likely
to be disseminated to the people at large----
    Senator McClellan. Like lecturers?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes, and radio commentators, authors, and so
forth. The other people are people who make decisions or who
influence decisions. I don't mean to say that ordinarily you
can expect a British or French cabinet officer to use our
library in Paris, but there is a daily loan truck service
between the American library to London and the various ministry
libraries in the British ministries, and their information
about the United States is largely derived from being able to
borrow those books.
    One of these libraries is on the average about the size of
the Bethesda Public Library out here, or one of the very
smallest branches of the D.C. Public Library. There are eight
in all of India. There are seven in all of France. These are
obviously not instruments which could hope to have a mass
impact directly on the whole population. They have to reach
their result through these relatively selected groups.
    Senator McClellan. What I am trying to do is to evaluate
the whole program so far as maintaining the libraries is
concerned.
    Mr. Lacy. That is the group I think we want to reach, sir,
through all of our means. It would just be fantastic if we
tried to reach every single individual in these countries.
    Senator McClellan. I understand, but I am asking these
questions so as to evaluate the entire program of maintaining
the libraries.
    Mr. Cohn. We can only reach intellectuals, if they alone
are impressed with Archibald McLeish----
    Senator McClellan. Well, the point I am trying to get at is
just how much we are actually spending.
    Mr. Cohn. I think it is about $4 million a year.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, about $5 million to the Information Center
Service, of which about a million and a quarter goes to
purchase books for the collections of these libraries. That is
not the total cost of the libraries, however. There are
salaries for the employees.
    Mr. Cohn. What would you estimate as the total cost of the
libraries?
    Mr. Lacy. Four to five million, on a guess. But that is a
very rough guess, because lighting is paid for out of the
Foreign Buildings authorization, and the general guess is that
a book cost estimate would be about a quarter of the total
project.
    Senator McClellan. It is not a question of how much the
books cost. It is a question of how much we are paying for the
service. Now, what is the value of the service to us in this
warfare, in this cold war, this ideological warfare? That is
the thing that I am trying to weigh for the moment, whether we
are getting value received, whether this expenditure can be
justified.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, the libraries, sir, are used by about a
hundred thousand people a day worldwide. This is a fairly
select group basically. I mean, it is by and large a good deal
higher level group than the run of the mill population, and
would have some influence.
    Senator McClellan. We can very well appreciate that many of
the masses, of course, will never be interested in reading any
book.
    Mr. Lacy. The people who get there, rather than getting a
five-minute, let us say, radio broadcast, or something,
normally got a continuous exposure, so to speak. They may
borrow a book, which they read for several hours, and get a
fairly concentrated dose of attention.
    This means, all told, let's say, close to 35 million people
a year will have used the libraries. They will have had a
pretty intensive amount of use of them, as opposed to the
quicker business of just reading a news dispatch.
    It is by far the cheapest of the five operations. I am
prejudiced, of course. I could quote two outside sources.
    When Senator Fulbright was making his investigation as
chairman of the subcommittee Senator Hickenlooper is now
chairman of, he asked every ambassador or chief of mission to
report his estimate of the relative value of the various types
of operations being carried on. He split it down into the five
media services, because each of the ten or eleven kinds of
activities were listed.
    Mr. Cohn. I suppose the libraries come out first.
    Mr. Lacy. No, second.
    Mr. Cohn. How did the Voice of America rate?
    Mr. Lacy. Last. Incidentally, Mr. Cohn, I think probably
those returns are classified and perhaps the specific stuff
should be struck from the public record.
    Mr. Schine. You were responsible for the library program;
right?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes, from September '51 through January of this
year.
    Mr. Schine. Now, this program was designed to fight
communism, wasn't it?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, it was designed to support the foreign
policy objectives of the United States, and that, of course, is
one of the principal ones. It has other things to do, too.
    Mr. Schine. Who did you discuss the implementation of this
program with? Which of your superiors did you outline the plans
for the library program with?
    Mr. Lacy. For the first few months after I was there, from
September until about January, my superior officer was Dr.
Johnstone. I was out of the country about five weeks of those
ten weeks, and I saw relatively little----
    Mr. Shine. In other words, Dr. Johnstone helped you to
decide how you were going to operate?
    Mr. Lacy. To a very slight degree.
    Mr. Schine. In other words, you were completely
responsible?
    Mr. Lacy. I have relatively little detailed supervision. I
was given wide freedom, yes.
    Mr. Schine. In other words, you can be given credit for all
the virtues and can be blamed for any of the mistakes.
    Mr. Lacy. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. You were responsible for the objectives? Or
were you responsible for the interpretation of the objectives?
    Mr. Lacy. I was not, of course, responsible for the
objectives of American policy. As to how the library service
carried out its part----
    Mr. Schine. I am not talking about procedures, now. I am
talking about the implementation of the objectives or the
interpretation. Whom did you discuss policy with?
    Mr. Lacy. Reed Harris, Dr. Compton.
    Mr. Cohn. Bradley Connors?
    Mr. Lacy. Not much. Connors was primarily interested in the
fast media, the day to day.
    Mr. Schine. Who interpreted the directives for which the
IIA was responsible? You, or Reed Harris, or both of you put
together?
    Mr. Lacy. I don't think it can ever be put in any----
    Mr. Schine. Well, you had to have a clear-cut conception of
the objectives. Right? Therefore, you had to interpret the
objectives to order to implement them.
    Mr. Lacy. I am not sure that we mean the same thing by all
of the words there, but yes.
    Mr. Schine. Now, what about the procedures for carrying out
those objectives that you interpreted? Who was responsible for
the procedures?
    Mr. Lacy. I developed most of them to be used in
consultation with the staff. They were generally approved at a
higher level.
    Mr. Schine. Who approved the procedures which you
developed?
    Mr. Lacy. They would normally go through the assistant
administrator for administration, Mr. Kimball.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Kimball approved the procedures which you
developed for implementing the objectives. Right?
    Mr. Lacy. They would go through his office. They would
normally get final approval by Dr. Compton. But almost always
they would be approved substantially as I recommended them.
    Mr. Schine. I want to ask you one more question about the
libraries. What percentage of the books in the libraries,
were--and I say ``were,'' because you are not there any more--
were while you were there in the local place where the library
was?
    Mr. Lacy. That would vary very widely, from almost none in
Burma or Siam, up to, say, 20 or 25 percent in Spanish or
French or Italian using countries.
    Mr. Schine. In other words, the greatest percentage of
local language books was 25 percent, and the rest would be in
English, I imagine.
    Mr. Lacy. Yes. What we would do would be to use all of the
books that related to the United States and its international
objectives that were available in the local language, and that
we felt were useful, and we would put the rest of them out----
    Mr. Schine. In other words, if a person wanted to go into a
library and read either for pleasure or education, he either
had to speak English or have an interpreter with him to read 75
percent or more of the books that were in the library?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes. Well, if he wanted an Italian book, he would
normally go to an Italian library, not to ours. If there were
an Italian translation of an American book available, we would
have it in ours. But, of course, the question is not ``Do we
refuse to use the local language?'' We used every bit of it
that was available that was useful.
    Mr. Schine. Of course, on a psychological warfare level,
usually, in order to get to the minds of men, you make it easy
for them, don't you?
    Mr. Lacy. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. So it would probably, in your opinion, have
been better if the books could be in that language?
    Mr. Lacy. We spent an equal sum to that we used on the
libraries in subsidizing translations, and so on, of our books
we wanted to use in the program.
    As I indicated, of the books on this American Legion list
alone, we published well over a million copies, or subsequent
to the publication well over a million copies.
    Mr. Schine. I have one final question, sir, and this deals
with personnel. Since this is a program designed to carry out
the American foreign policy objective of trying to counter
Communist propaganda, and I use your language as to the
objectives, who was the expert on the tactics, the strategy,
the party line, the history of communism? Who specifically was
there to recognize the Communist party line and prevent it from
being kept on the shelves of the overseas libraries?
    Mr. Lacy. Do you mean within the information administration
as a whole?
    Mr. Cohn. Within your program.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, the chief of our Planning and Evaluation
Branch would be, I suppose, more nearly than any other one
person the one that had the duties that corresponded to that.
    Mr. Schine. What was his name?
    Mr. Lacy. Arthur Vogel, V-o-g-e-l. And he was in that
position the last six or eight months I was there.
    Mr. Schine. And he is your expert on communism, and he is
supposed to be the one to recognize the party line and keep it
off the shelves?
    Mr. Lacy. That is not exactly what I would say. He was, the
last six months I was there, my general assistant for policy
and evaluation and planning operations, including this sort of
thing. None of the media services except to some extent the
Voice, which had to operate with a certain measure of autonomy,
because it was in New York, and because it had to be able to
move within an hour, was encouraged to build up a strong staff
of ideological experts. We did not want half a dozen groups of
experts on the Communist party line around. We would actually
rely on Mr. Connors' staff.
    Mr. Schine. You have no method within your division, within
your immediate division, for ascertaining whether a book was
Communist party line, and you depended on Mr. Connors' staff to
do that for you?
    Mr. Lacy. Not in the sense that Mr. Connors' staff was
expected to read books and evaluate them. Our normal
bibliographic section was supposed to do that. All sorts of
aids were available in spotting the Communist party line, such
as the Division of Research on Eastern European Affairs, which
puts out analyses of Russian propaganda developments. And those
were available to our staff.
    The Chairman. Were you aware of the fact that the
information program was obtaining these books by Communist
authors?
    Mr. Lacy. I was aware of the possibility that a book in
itself thought to be unobjectionable might well be obtained by
a Communist author. That is, I recognized that we didn't have a
systematic procedure that was endeavoring to uncover every
potential.
    The Chairman. Was there any program sent out to the various
libraries and those that were purchasing the books and
obtaining them, not to obtain books by Communist authors?
    Mr. Lacy. There was not one in those, terms, sir. The whole
tone and implication and meaning of all of the various
directives was: You don't use a book unless it serves some
specific and positive purpose; those terms, rather then the
negative terms.
    The Chairman. So that, I do not want to misstate your
position at all, but was it your position that it was up to the
purchasing agent or committee, call it what you may, to buy
books on the basis of what they contained, and that you had no
concern with whether or not they were written by Communist
authors?
    Mr. Lacy. This is close to it, sir. If I could state it in
my own words, I would say it would be very simple, that there
was no point spending the taxpayers' money for a book unless it
served our useful purpose in our total activity, and if it did
serve such a useful purpose, that was the criterion we went on.
    Now, if the author were notoriously a Communist, this
would, of course, establish a prima facie presumption that the
book was adverse to our purposes, and one that would very
rarely be overcome.
    The Chairman. By hindsight, now that you say you had no
experts on communism in your Division, in view of the fact that
you had no experts there, then you had no one who could detect
the Communist line, I assume.
    Mr. Lacy. I wouldn't move from one to the other, sir. I
think that to recognize the Communist line in a book doesn't
always require an advanced state of expertise as a student of
contemporary Russian ideology. The more you know, the more
specifically and better you can do it, of course.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: Would you favor today
the banning of all books by Communist authors in the
Information Program Libraries?
    Mr. Lacy. I would have no objection to it, sir, if it were
easily or operationally feasible to determine who are Communist
authors. I can conceive that there would be grave difficulties
in trying to avoid that question by removing everybody about
whom any criticism that suggested that he might possibly be a
Communist had been lodged. If you confined it to people--well,
let me say, for example: We have specifically damned the use of
any publication issued by any organization on the attorney
general's list of subversive organizations. There we had an
objective, clear and plain.
    The Chairman. When was that?
    Mr. Lacy. Oh, before I came on the staff. I don't know how
long before. But that had been a long standing policy, I
suppose from the time the attorney general's list was set up.
    If there were a similar list of people specifically
identified as Communist, I would go about it differently.
    The Chairman. Forgetting for the time being the difficulty
of knowing who is a Communist and who is not, and I know it is
impossible for you or anyone else to have the names of all of
the underground Communists of the country, so forgetting for
the time being the difficulty, do you think that the books of
Communists should not be used?
    Mr. Lacy. Certainly no book in any way supporting a
Communist position should be used, sir, and I would say that
only in extremely rare positions and cases would a book by a
Communist who practiced as such not be one that supported the
Communist position. If we wanted to be philosophical about it,
I suppose we could think of rare cases that would be
exceptions, but they would be so few as to be negligible, I
think.
    The Chairman. Another element, of course, to be considered
is whether you have dignified such works.
    Mr. Lacy. That is one reason, sir. For that reason we have
never used Paul Robeson's recordings in the department
overseas, although there is nothing political to his singing a
song. But it was disadvantageous to give him the prestige
involved in that.
    The Chairman. Could you give us any suggestions as to how
we can find out who has been the individual who has been
responsible for getting all those Communist books into this
program?
    Mr. Lacy. I am sure you would find, Senator, that there
isn't any individual, in the sense that Mr. Budenz supposed as
a probability the other day. I think that actually, when you go
down case by case, at least among the witnesses who have
testified before the committee thus far, in almost every case
those books that were bought were either ones that did not
themselves suggest any Communist content, or they were bought
at a time when the people were not publicly known to be
Communist, or both, and the occasional exceptions to this were
so scattered as to place and date as not to suggest any pattern
of a particular type.
    Mr. Cohn. We had the testimony of Miss Utley this morning,
for instance. She said: ``I looked at every single book in the
section on China and the Far East, and there was nothing,
absolutely nothing, with the anti-Communist approach, and
everything they had there was of the Lattimore school.''
    Now, you have this. Mr. Rosinger, who testified before our
committee and claimed the privilege as to whether he was a
party member, has dozens and dozens of these books spread all
over the key centers, the information centers, throughout the
east and China and Singapore and all that. Now, this man,
Rosinger, testified over a year ago in the public session
before the McCarran committee and refused to answer as to
whether he was a Communist party member, and so did a slew of
other authors, and hundreds of them are on the shelves.
    Mr. Lacy. Dozens, in the case of Rosinger's case.
    Mr. Cohn. I would say to the case of Rosinger, Agnes
Smedley, Owen Lattimore, Phillip Jaffe, and so on and so forth,
thousands. Now, how can that be? In Lattimore's case, Ordeal by
Slander was purchased. It was only written in 1950. Now, who
could conceivably think that that book was going to give a true
picture of American life and our fight against communism?
    Mr. Lacy. Well, I don't think anybody would. There were two
copies of that purchased.
    Mr. Cohn. Johannesburg, South Africa.
    Mr. Lacy. No, sir, I think in that case it was New Delhi
and Calcutta. My guess on what happened on that--and this is
only a guess; I don' t know it to be a fact--would be that an
Indian acquaintance or friend of Lattimore's well known in
India came into the embassy and said, ``I understand my friend
Mr. Lattimore has been in serious difficulties to the States
and that he has published a book. Could you let me see a
copy?'' And my guess would be that their guess was that they
would do more harm by refusing to let him see it than
otherwise. I do not know, but that would be my guess.
    Mr. Cohn. Isn't it possible to check on that? That is a
very recent purchase.
    Mr. Lacy. We could check on that.
    Mr. Cohn. And I think this Mr. Simpson you mentioned might
be the key to this. Because he was able to tell you that a book
was not purchased, was a gift, and all that.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, he was just reporting to me findings made
from working in the files.
    Mr. Cohn. But you see, this is not as isolated book. This
is a real pattern. The books go into the the thousands, to the
point, as I say, on this China and Far Eastern situation, where
there is nothing but the Communist side. That is as of February
of this year.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, Brain Washing in Red China--we had a
special edition of that printed for our special use in ten
thousand copies for our giving away all over the world.
    Mr. Cohn. Has any of that gotten to Germany?
    Mr. Lacy. I am sure they have copies of the book in the
information centers. They were not widely distributed to
individuals to Germany, because it is in English and we are
primarily concerned with India and Burma in that case.
    Mr. Cohn. Miss Utley testified this morning that that book
is not in any of the information centers in America.
    Mr. Lacy. My guess would be that she is mistaken.
    Mr. Cohn. She had the catalogues.
    Mr. Lacy. Well, I only know, as I say, what Karl Baarslag
told me. He had been there, and he told me what he saw.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, did you read Mr. Baarslag's article?
    Mr. Lacy. No, I had written him a long letter about the
thing, which got held up in the correspondence review section
in the secretary's office because I had used two ``since's'' in
the same sentence, and he didn't get it until the day after
that article was written, and I got a very nice note from him
saying he had not read that when he wrote his article, and that
he and I were not, in our thinking, very far apart. I would be
glad to show you a copy of that.
    Mr. Cohn. I think that is all we have of Mr. Lacy.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lacy. Sorry to keep you so
long.
    [Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the hearing was recessed to the
call of the chair.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
                              ----------
                         FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 1953
    [Editor's note.--The Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations heard testimony from the editor of the New York
Post, James A. Weschler, in executive session on April 24,
1953. The subcommittee published this hearing in 1953.
    In his book, The Age of Suspicion (New York: Random House,
1953), Weschler explained that he told reporters gathered
outside the closed hearing room the substance of his testimony
and that he would ask that a transcript of the hearings be made
public. He also asked that the American Society of Newspaper
Editors study the transcript, ``since it seemed clear that I
had been questioned, not as the author of some undesignated
book found in some library overseas, but as the editor of a
newspaper that had been fighting Joe McCarthy.''
    The chairman responded to his request with a telegram:
``Shall be glad to recommend that your testimony be made public
in accordance with your request. Assume they will have no
objection. Procedure has been to allow witnesses to correct
record for errors before making public, if witness desires to
do so. Customary procedure is to withhold making executive
testimony public until witness has completed his testimony.
Will you therefore please immediately furnish the list of
people known to you to be active in the Communist Movement
while you were an officer in the Young Communist League and
subsequently thereto, as ordered by this committee. You may
also furnish any additional exhibits, as you indicated was your
desire.''
    Wechsler telegraphed in reply: ``I shall submit the list
because I do not propose to let you distort or obscure the
clear-cut issue of freedom of the press involved in this
proceeding.
    ``I have always responded freely to questions asked of me
by authorized government agencies and I shall not permit you at
this late date to create any impression to the contrary.
    ``You are obviously trying to use a Senate committee to
silence newspaper criticism of your activities . . .
nevertheless, so that the record may be perfectly clear, I have
answered all your questions and intend to continue to do so
until the Senate itself acts to curb your abuse of your
investigative functions.
    ``When I submit the list I shall make appropriate comment
with regard to the limited time period more than fifteen years
ago in which I had personal knowledge of individual Communist
membership and the injustice that may be done to individuals
who, like myself, long ago severed their affiliations with
communism and have subsequently been active opponents of all
forms of totalitarianism.
    ``I will ask your committee at that time to decide whether
the inclusion of such a list in the record is proper or
desirable. But I will allow nothing to stand in the way of the
publication of a transcript which will reveal beyond the
dispute the invasion of press freedom that you have undertaken.
. . .
    ``Once the transcript has been released it will be for the
public, the press and the Senate to decide whether this fishing
expedition directed at a newspaper and its editor has any
relevance to a hearing ostensibly called because a book I wrote
reportedly appeared on the shelves of an Information Service
library somewhere overseas.''
    To this, the chairman replied: ``Received your wire in
which you still take the position that your Communist
activities are immune from investigation because you are an
editor. You are advised that there is no privileged position
insofar as our investigation is concerned. You requested that
the record be made public. The committee has authorized me to
make it public. I understand from your wire that you now want
to check the record before it is made public. I shall be glad
to extend this courtesy to you. You may contact Mr. Cohn, chief
counsel, and arrange a time to inspect the record and make such
corrections as you desire.''
    James Wechsler then returned for a second meeting with the
subcommittee in executive session on May 5, 1953.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--Theodore Kaghan (1912-1989) served from
1950 to 1953 as deputy director of public affairs for the
United States High Commission in Germany. From April 4-21,
1953, during the congressional recess, chief counsel Roy Cohn
and consultant David Schine had conducted a highly publicized
tour of the overseas libraries in Paris, Bonn, Berlin,
Frankfort, Munich, Vienna, Belgrade, Athens, Rome, and London.
    In an article on ``The McCarthyization of Theodore
Kaghan,'' The Reporter, 9 (July 21, 1953), Kaghan wrote that
when he first learned that his name had been mentioned in
testimony before the subcommittee as a security risk, he had
taken the matter lightly: ``I knew that I had been cleared for
loyalty and security, and I waited for the Department of State
to send me some kind of instructions, advice, or information,''
but the State Department said nothing, and he learned that his
case was ``under review.'' Cohn and Schine met with Kaghan in
Bonn, and afterwards Cohn told the press that Kaghan had such
strong inclinations towards communism that he had telephoned
Senator McCarthy to recommend calling him before the
subcommittee. Kaghan replied with a statement to the press in
which he labeled Cohn and Schine as ``junketeering gumshoes.''
He returned to Washington to testify in executive session on
April 28 and in public on April 29 and May 5, 1953.
    After the hearings, the State Department requested Kaghan's
resignation, although the department subsequently cleared him
of allegations of Communist sympathies. He became a United
Nations correspondent and foreign affairs columnist for New
York Post.]
                              ----------
                        TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 11 a.m. in room 357 of the
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator
Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator John L.
McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Stuart Symington,
Democrat, Missouri.
    Also present: Roy Cohn, chief counsel; David A. Surine,
assistant counsel; G. David Schine, chief consultant; Daniel
Buckley, assistant counsel; Herbert S. Hawkins, investigator;
Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk; Mason Drury, State Department
liaison with the Senate; Frances Knight, assistant deputy
administrator, State Department.
    The Chairman. Will you stand and raise your right hand? In
this matter now in hearing, do you solemnly swear to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do.
    TESTIMONY OF THEODORE KAGHAN, (ACCOMPANIED BY HENRY J.
                          KELLERMANN)
    The Chairman. Mr. Henry Kellermann is here. He is the
public affairs supervisor of the Bureau of German Affairs is
that right?
    Mr. Kellermann. That is right, called supervisor.
    The Chairman. And you would like to sit in this morning if
the committee has no objection?
    Mr. Kellermann. If I may, Senator.
    The Chairman. I do not think we have any objection, do we?
    Senator Dirksen. No.
    Senator Symington. No.
    The Chairman. You may stay.
    Your name is Theodore Kaghan?
    Mr. Kaghan. That is right, yes, sir.
    The Chairman. What is your title?
    Mr. Kaghan. Acting deputy director, Office of Public
Affairs.
    The Chairman. And who is the director?
    Mr. Kaghan. Alfred Boerner, B-o-e-r-n-e-r.
    The Chairman. You are acting director. Where is Mr.
Boerner?
    Mr. Kaghan. Mr. Boerner is in Germany. I am acting deputy
director.
    The Chairman. And you at times act as deputy to Mr.
Boerner?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Who was your predecessor? Mr. Lewis?
    Mr. Kaghan. No. Mr. Burkhardt, I think, was the last
deputy. Mr. Boerner was deputy director before I was.
    The Chairman. What was Mr. Lewis' job?
    Mr. Kaghan. Mr. Lewis was chief of the radio branch, if you
mean Mr. Charles Lewis.
    The Chairman. Yes. Can you tell us the official reason for
his having left?
    Mr. Kaghan. He told me he wanted to go back into private
life.
    The Chairman. Were you ever a member of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Was your wife ever a member?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever belong to any Communist
organizations such as the Young Communist League?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, not the Young Communists League. I did
not belong to any organization that I knew to be a Communist
organization.
    The Chairman. Did you ever sign a Communist petition?
    Mr. Kaghan. I signed a Communist nominating petition.
    The Chairman. And the man whose petition you signed was a
Communist, was he?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, he was. I assume he was. He was running on
the Communist party ticket.
    The Chairman. And you say at that time you were yourself
not a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Kaghan. That's right.
    The Chairman. What years did you sign a petition or
petitions?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think it was in the late thirties, possibly
'39.
    Senator Dirksen. May I ask at this point, are you on duty
in Germany?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Or here?
    Mr. Kaghan. In Germany.
    Senator Dirksen. Is that your regular place of duty?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. I was curious when you said deputy
director of the Office of Public Affairs.
    Mr. Kaghan. In Germany.
    Senator Dirksen. Can you clarify that just a little?
    Mr. Kaghan. Of the High Commission in Germany.
    Senator Dirksen. I see. So you are associated with HICOG in
Germany?
    Mr. Kaghan. HICOG; yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. And how did you get your appointment?
    Mr. Kaghan. I came to Germany from the position I held in
Austria. I was asked to come to Germany by the then director of
public affairs.
    Senator Dirksen. And you were transferred then on your own
request from Austria to Germany?
    Mr. Kaghan. I was transferred partly on my own and I assume
by negotiations which must have taken place on a higher level.
    Senator Dirksen. And how were you appointed in Austria?
    Mr. Kaghan. I was transferred to Austria from the Office of
War Information in New York, transferred to Austria in 1945.
    Senator Dirksen. And how was that transfer made? Was that
by direct appointment through somebody here?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know whether it would be called a
direct appointment. It was a transfer, an administrative
transfer, about the details of which I wouldn't know.
    Senator Dirksen. Let me just get this straight now. Were
you in OWI when Elmer Davis was the administrator?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Did this happen at that time?
    Mr. Kaghan. I'm not sure whether he was still the
administrator.
    Senator Dirksen. What year was that?
    Mr. Kaghan. 1945.
    Senator Dirksen. You left New York and went to Austria on a
transfer basis in 1945?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. And you were probably on duty at Munich?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir; in Salzburg and then in Vienna.
    Senator Dirksen. And you were how long in Austria?
    Mr. Kaghan. To 1950.
    Senator Dirksen. Five years?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir, not quite.
    Senator Dirksen. Then you were transferred----
    Mr. Kaghan. Then I was transferred to Frankfort.
    Senator Dirksen. You asked for the assignment to Frankfort?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Who was the high commissioner at that
time?
    Mr. Kaghan. Mr. McCloy.
    Senator Dirksen. So it had to be done at his request or on
the part of somebody in Austria?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. And who was in charge of the office in
Austria when you were there?
    Mr. Kaghan. Ralph Nicholson.
    Senator Dirksen. Was that also the Office of Public
Affairs?
    Mr. Kaghan. He was the director of the Office of Public
Affairs.
    The Chairman. Will you hand the petition to the witness?
    Mr. Kaghan, will you examine that document handed to you
and tell us whether that is your signature?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir, it is.
    The Chairman. Who were you rooming with at that time?
    Mr. Kaghan. A man named--310 West 47th Street--Ben Irwin, I
believe. Ben Irwin, I believe, was living with me at that time.
    The Chairman. Was he a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think he was. I have no definite proof that I
would be willing to use in a court of law, but I assume that he
was.
    The Chairman. You think he was at the time you were rooming
with him?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes.
    The Chairman. How long did you live with him?
    Mr. Kaghan. I can't tell you exactly, sir. I don't
remember. I think it was less than a year. It may have been a
year or so.
    The Chairman. And as far as you know, he is still a member
of the Communist party?
    Mr. Kaghan. I have no idea, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you know Israel Amter? \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Israel Amter (1881-1954), the Communist party candidate for
governor of New York in 1932 and 1942 and for the U.S. House of
Representatives at large from New York in 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Kaghan. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Would you care to explain to us why, if you
were not a member of the party itself, you would sign a
nominating petition for a man you knew to be a Communist?
    Mr. Kaghan. My recollection of this matter is not too
clear.
    I recall vaguely that Amter was being kept off the ballot
by political maneuvering and it was my opinion that although I
did not believe in communism as a political philosophy, that a
man had a right to be on the American ballot to be voted
against and I did not vote for Mr. Amter, but I thought he had
a right to be on the ballot.
    The Chairman. What maneuvering was keeping him off? I
understand that just by getting a sufficient number of names he
would go on the ballot.
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir; that is the point of the petition,
but I do not recall what the facts were about keeping him off
the ballot. I merely remember that I was indignant that an
American couldn't get on the ballot even though he was a
Communist, because I didn't understand communism at that time.
    The Chairman. We do not find any news stories about that
time in regard to any maneuvering to keep him off. I understand
that all he needed were the signatures of a certain number of
people and he would get on; is that not correct? This party or
any other party?
    Mr. Kaghan. I assume that was so and I wouldn't doubt that
there may not have been anything that kept him off the ballot.
It was my impression at that time that there was.
    The Chairman. What is this maneuvering that you are talking
about?
    Mr. Kaghan. It was my impression that there was some reason
they wanted to keep him off the ballot. I may have been
listening to people who wanted my signature. I couldn't swear
that there was anything. I assumed there was.
    The Chairman. Did you support this Communist?
    Mr. Kaghan. I signed the petition. I did nothing further
about him that I can recall.
    The Chairman. Did you support him at the election?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not vote for him. I did not support him
at the election.
    The Chairman. In this petition, you say, ``I intend to
support him at the ensuing election.'' That is what your
affidavit says. Do you claim now that is false?
    Senator McClellan. I would like to know the time of this.
    The Chairman. 1939. For your benefit, Senator, this is
Theodore Kaghan who is deputy acting director of public affairs
of HICOG. He has testified that he lived with a man he knew to
be a Communist for about a year. That is about the extent of
his testimony so far, plus the fact that he signed this
petition.
    Senator McClellan. That is sufficient, Mr. Chairman. I just
wanted to get the time. It probably is already in the record,
but I wanted to get the time of this.
    Mr. Kaghan. Sir, I don't see where it says I would support
him.
    The Chairman. I will read it:
    I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a duly
qualified voter of the borough for which a nomination for
councilman is hereby made, and have registered as a voter
within the said borough within the past eighteen months; that
my place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature
hereto and that I intend to support at the ensuing election,
and I do hereby nominate the following-named person as a
candidate of the Communist Party for nomination for councilman
to be voted for at the election to be held on the 7th day of
November, 1939.
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not recall supporting him.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Kaghan, how old were you at that time?
    Mr. Kaghan. Twenty-seven, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. At the time you signed that petition had
the character and the nature of the Communist movement occurred
to you, that it was a destructive force?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir; I had no fear of the Communist party
as a political force in America at all. I didn't realize it was
a menace until sometime later.
    The Chairman. Mr. Kaghan, you have done considerable
writing, have you not?
    Mr. Kaghan. I have done some writing, sir.
    The Chairman. Would you say your writing follows the
Communist line or not?
    Mr. Kaghan. I would not say so, sir.
    The Chairman. Would you say it does not follow the line?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, I would not say that either, sir.
    The Chairman. You would neither say it follows the line or
does not follow the line?
    Mr. Kaghan. I would say neither.
    The Chairman. Do you think it follows the Communist party
line?
    Mr. Kaghan. I would say that the Communist party would
probably have approved of some of the things I wrote and
probably disapproved of some of the things I wrote.
    The Chairman. What are some of the things you wrote that
they would approve of; do you know?
    Mr. Kaghan. I have heard that they approved of a play that
I wrote.
    The Chairman. How many plays of yours have they taken some
part in having published or advertised?
    Mr. Kaghan. I couldn't say, sir. I don't recall beyond that
one. There may have been another one, but I don't recall the
name of it.
    The Chairman. You do not recall the name of your plays?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, I do not.
    The Chairman. You do not recall the names of the plays that
you wrote?
    Mr. Kaghan. I wrote several one-act plays, sir, which I do
not recall the names of.
    The Chairman. And you say the Communists approved of one.
You do not know which one they approved?
    Mr. Kaghan. I know they approved of the play called Hello,
Franco.
    The Chairman. Let me read from one of your plays, if I may,
and see if you recognize it.
    Now, Gordon wouldn't have been shot if he hadn't been a
Negro worker. There was no reason for his being shot, except
that the top didn't think his life was worth anything. It was
purely a case of race discrimination of the worst type, equal
to the lynching business going on in the South. The Communist
Party is fighting militantly against that and the mass funeral
demonstration is a protest against the discrimination, the
rising tide of fascism, because such acts on the part of
officials is only an indication of the brute force of fascism.
The Communist Party wants to unite all workers in a struggle
for their rights against the decadent system of capitalism.
    Do you recognize that as your work?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't recognize it, but if you say it is in
the play, I assume it is in the play.
    The Chairman. Just hand it to the witness, please, Ruth.
    Before looking at that, would you say that follows the
Communist party line right down to the last comma?
    Mr. Kaghan. I would say it follows the party line at that
time, yes.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you a question. Were you a member
of the Communist party at that time? Were you a member of the
Communist party when you wrote that?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you ever solicited to join the party?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think I was, sir. I'm not sure that it was an
outright solicitation to come and join the party, but I know I
was being worked on.
    The Chairman. You said you roomed with a man you knew to be
a member of the Communist party. Would you name some of your
other friends, if you had any other friends, who were also
members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't recall any that I knew that I knew were
members of the Communist party except that one, who is pretty
clearly a Communist.
    The Chairman. You say you did not have any other friends
whom you knew as members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Are there any others that you suspected were
members?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, because it was difficult to say in
those days who was and who wasn't because a lot of people who
were not talked a lot of stuff that the Communists would be
talking.
    The Chairman. What is the name of this play that has been
handed to you?
    Mr. Kaghan. Unfinished Picture.
    The Chairman. And you wrote that, did you?
    Mr. Kaghan. I wrote Unfinished Picture, yes, sir.
    The Chairman. What year did you write that?
    Mr. Kaghan. 1935.
    The Chairman. Would you say that that was approved by the
Communist party?
    Mr. Kaghan. I wouldn't say so.
    The Chairman. You think they would disapprove of it?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know what they would have done. Maybe
they did approve it. Maybe they didn't.
    The Chairman. Will you say it does follow the Communist
line?
    Mr. Kaghan. The play does not, sir.
    The Chairman. The play does not?
    Mr. Kaghan. As I recall it.
    The Chairman. Would you hand that back to me?
    Were any of your plays produced by the New Theater League?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir; Hello, Franco, was produced by the
New Theater League.
    The Chairman. Did you recognize the New Theater League as a
Communist-controlled organization or not?
    Mr. Kaghan. I didn't recognize it then, but I feel that it
is or was, feel now that it was.
    The Chairman. You know now that it was Communist controlled
at the time they produced your play?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think it was. I think now that it was.
    The Chairman. Do you claim that play did or did not follow
the Communist line?
    Mr. Kaghan. The play was probably along the same lines,
yes.
    The Chairman. Pardon?
    Mr. Kaghan. The Communist party agreed with the play, yes.
    The Chairman. In other words, you admit that play did
follow the Communist line?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir. I say the play probably was approved
by the Communists. It was not written along a Communist line
with communism in mind.
    The Chairman. You feel that it did follow the Communist
line either accidentally or otherwise?
    Mr. Kaghan. I prefer to stick it to what I said, sir, if I
may, that it was agreeable to the Communists.
    The Chairman. Well, I do not want to ask you questions that
will be impossible for you to answer, but I do think you can
answer the question as to whether or not you feel that play
followed the Communist line. I am not asking you at this time
whether you were conscious of that at the time you wrote it or
not. The question is: Do you feel that play did follow the
Communist party line?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think it did.
    The Chairman. Did anyone help you to write it?
    Mr. Kaghan. It's possible that Irwin did have something to
do with some of the rewrite or polishing. He helped me in plays
and dramatics and he probably did.
    The Chairman. Did he help you with any of your other plays?
    Mr. Kaghan. He did not help me with that play that you have
there, since it was written in college.
    The Chairman. Who helped you with this play?
    Mr. Kaghan. Which, sir?
    The Chairman. This one that we were just looking at,
Unfinished Picture.
    Mr. Kaghan. I wrote that myself. I write all my plays
myself as far as I can remember. In writing a play, one talks
to all sorts of people. Some people suggest things. Unless the
play is a collaboration job, it is the play of the author.
    The Chairman. Let me read some lines from another of your
plays, if I may. See if you recognize these lines:
    Communists are people too. They have their individual
personalities like everybody else. They don't start raving and
ranting at the drop of a hat. They have been taught to see what
the blinders are which the capitalist press puts on its
readers. Our papers tell the naked truth. We don't fool
ourselves. We don't fool others. We don't fool others and we
don't fool ourselves.
    When you say ``Our papers . . . we don't fool others,''
whom were you referring to?
    Mr. Kaghan. I have no idea, sir. I don't recall who is
speaking in that play, what the lines were, or what the reason
was.
    The Chairman. These are words you put in the mouth of one
of your actors. You say ``Our papers tell the naked truth.''
That means the Communist papers?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know, sir. I haven't read the play
lately.
    The Chairman. We will refer you to the play and see if you
can help us out. I am going to hand this play to you and refer
you to page thirty-seven.
    Mr. Kaghan. It seems to be a character in the play saying
that. I don't know who the character was and I don't recall the
details of the play except that the play was an argument, as I
recall it, for some way out of the depression, and it was about
a family in which one of the children was for communism and one
was against communism, and I do not believe that the play as a
whole resolved itself in favor of communism because I didn't
believe in communism.
    The Chairman. For the benefit of the senators present, may
I say that the staff has read the entire play, gone over it
carefully, and they report that it is strictly the Communist
party line and Communist propaganda from beginning to end.
    Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, there might be a
difference of opinion about it. It is a matter that is on file
here, is it not, where it could be inspected?
    The Chairman. Yes, sir. In this case, I thought for the
senators who do not have a chance to read it, we would let them
know the staff has reviewed the play and let them know their
analysis of it.
    Mr. Kaghan. May I say that play was written at the
University of Michigan, and I received the Avery Hopwood award
on the basis of judgment by three impartial judges, and I don't
know whether any of them were Communists, but I don't think so.
    The Chairman. Who were the three judges?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't recall, sir. They always had three
judges. I don't know who they were.
    Senator Symington. From what you say, might it be possible
that you had one person in the play arguing against communism,
and one person in the play arguing for communism?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir; I think it must be very likely.
    Senator Symington. Does the staff feel that way about it or
not?
    Mr. Cohn. It follows the Communist line from top to bottom.
    The Chairman. Let me read the last two lines, if I may.
Here is the conclusion:
    Yes, go and lie down in my room. Smell the dust and ashes.
Julius, why don't you start burning the whole mess now, you and
your Reds. Why do you leave me to look at the wreckage? Why
don't you burn it? What are you writing pop for?
    The other character:
    There is not enough wreckage yet, my child. We have to
wait.
    Mr. Kaghan, under the administration of the present
Information Service of HICOG, did you put out a history a short
time ago distributed in Germany?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not, sir. The Office of Public Affairs
had something to do with a history. They did not put it out.
    The Chairman. Were you acting deputy director when it was
put out?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, I had nothing to do with that.
    The Chairman. What was your job at the time this----
    Mr. Kaghan. That started, sir, before I came to Germany. It
was well under way, I believe, when I came to Germany.
    The Chairman. What is the name of the history?
    Mr. Kaghan. I believe you must be referring to the
Synchronaptesche Weltgeschuchte, which is a synchro-optical
world history. Am I correct, sir?
    The Chairman. That is the history of what?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think it is the history of the world, and
it's not a history; it's a synchro-optical scoreboard, as far
as I can see.
    The Chairman. Who wrote that history?
    Mr. Kaghan. Somebody named Peters put it together.
    The Chairman. Was Peters a well-known Communist?
    Mr. Kaghan. I have no idea, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you know now that he was a Communist or
not?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not, sir.
    The Chairman. Who published it?
    Mr. Kaghan. A private German publisher. I don't recall the
name.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether the publisher was a
Communist?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not. I had nothing to do with that book
and I might say if I had seen it----
    The Chairman. You said you did not know whether Peters was
a Communist; is that right?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not.
    The Chairman. You do not?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not know. Some people say he is and some
people say he isn't.
    The Chairman. Do you have any reason to believe that he is?
    Mr. Kaghan. Our security people in Germany--I assume this
does not get into the public prints--our security people in
Germany said that he was and one of our press officers repeated
that and I understand that Peters is contesting that and making
quite a fuss about the fact that he isn't and has said that he
is going to sue.
    The Chairman. Just so there is no misapprehension, we are
making you no promise as to whether this evidence will be made
public or not. You will be asked certain questions, and answer
them. I noted your statement that you assume this will not get
into the public press. The committee will give you no guarantee
as to what will be done with this.
    Mr. Kaghan. Can give me no guarantee?
    The Chairman. No guarantee whatsoever; just so you
understand that.
    Has the book been withdrawn?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think it has. We don't own the book. As far
as I can recall, the Office of Public Affairs got some copies
of the book and did not distribute it or recall those that had
been distributed.
    The Chairman. How much did you--by you, I mean the Office
of Public Affairs--pay toward the publishing of this book?
    Mr. Kaghan. As I recall, it was something like $50,000, in
terms of paper.
    Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt? The
Office of Public Affairs paid out $50,000 on the publication of
this book or the purchase of it?
    Mr. Kaghan. They contributed paper to a certain amount.
    Senator McClellan. In value?
    Mr. Kaghan. In value.
    Senator McClellan. You mean that is the American taxpayers'
money?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't think it's taxpayers' money. I don't
know the technique of it. It was counterpart funds.
    Senator McClellan. Is not that the equivalent of taxpayer
money? Those funds that are made available to us are made
available on the basis of taxpayers' money that we spend.
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir. Some people say they are and some
people say they are not.
    Senator McClellan. I do not care what anybody says. There
would not be any counterpart fund if there were not any
American taxpayers' dollars. Were we spending money for this
book? I am not passing on the book. I do not know yet.
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    Senator McClellan. It was either taxpayers' money or
counterpart funds that were available for our expenditures?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    Senator McClellan. So we are out around $50,000 in value?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes.
    The Chairman. Did you have anything to do with the
publication of that book and the distribution of it?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you know it was being distributed?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir. The first I heard of it was when I saw
a copy of it.
    The Chairman. When was that?
    Mr. Kaghan. Some months ago.
    The Chairman. Did you take any steps to have it withdrawn?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir; I was not acting deputy, now that I
think of it, because, when I first saw the book, I was in the
information division and I looked at it and made some
uncomplimentary remarks about it. I did not read it. I just
looked at it.
    The Chairman. How long have you been acting deputy?
    Mr. Kaghan. Four or five months.
    The Chairman. Four or five months?
    Mr. Kaghan. Was it about four or five months?
    Mr. Kellermann. I think that is correct, yes,
    The Chairman. When was the book withdrawn?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know the exact date, sir.
    The Chairman. Roughly about how many months ago? Was it
about a month ago?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, it was more than that. It was three or four
months ago. The exact date is available, I am sure, in the
Department of State.
    The Chairman. But you say you were not responsible for
having it withdrawn?
    Mr. Kaghan. I was consulted. I was in meetings where the
matter was discussed and I thought it was not a very good book
to have out.
    The Chairman. It was withdrawn on grounds it was written by
a Communist author, was it not? That was the reason it was
withdrawn?
    Mr. Kaghan. I'm not sure that that was the reason. I think
it was withdrawn because there were things in it which were
what we thought to be a Marxian interpretation of history.
    The Chairman. In other words, you withdrew it because you
thought it followed the Communist line?
    Mr. Kaghan. We would do it because some people read it and
discovered it followed Marxian concepts of history. I haven't
read it enough to know whether it follows the Communist line.
    The Chairman. You seem to distinguish between the Marxian
concept of history and the Communist line. I do not quite
follow your distinction.
    Mr. Kaghan. Well, socialism, I assume--I have always
assumed is a brand of Marxism.
    The Chairman. Who was responsible in the Office of Public
Affairs for the expenditure of $50,000 on this book?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not know the details, sir. There was a
report written on it, which I am sure is available in the
Department of State.
    The Chairman. You do not know?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You have no knowledge?
    Mr. Kaghan. Have no knowledge of that.
    Senator Dirksen. May I ask a question?
    The Chairman. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. How large is this Office of Public
Affairs?
    Mr. Kaghan. At the present moment, there are almost
thirteen hundred people in it, Americans, and about twenty-five
hundred Germans.
    Senator Dirksen. Are they all located at Frankfurt?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir; the headquarters is in Bonn. They are
located all over Germany.
    Senator Dirksen. And your headquarters is where?
    Mr. Kaghan. In Bonn, in Mehlen at Bonn, German capital.
    Senator Dirksen. I wanted to ask what are the general
duties and functions of this Office of Public Affairs?
    Mr. Kaghan. To further American foreign policy, to make the
German people understand and follow American principles and
leadership in international matters, and to build up the
support, confidence, and trust in the United States.
    Senator Dirksen. And how do you go about those objectives?
    Mr. Kaghan. We do it with the press, radio, film, whatever
mass, media we can, whatever influence we can bring to bear on
individuals in opinion forming areas--German congressman and
senators, and publishers, and school teachers, and whoever we
think can influence the general public, and keep Germany
solidly on our side.
    Senator Dirksen. That includes writing articles for
newspapers?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not write articles for newspapers, but it
includes publishing a newspaper. We publish an American-owned,
government-owned daily newspaper in Germany in the German
language which many Germans think is the best newspaper in
Germany, and it carries editorials and news material furthering
American foreign policy and combating the Soviets and
communism.
    Senator Dirksen. Is it a throw-away, or is it done on
subscription?
    Mr. Kaghan. It is not, sir. It is a daily newspaper with
about 200,000 circulation, which sells for 15 Pfennigs, and it
does not get thrown away at all.
    The Chairman. Is that Die Neue Zeitung?
    Mr. Kaghan. That's Die Neue Zeitung. It's published in
Frankfurt and Berlin.
    The Chairman. What does that cost per year?
    Mr. Kaghan. It has cost us about $3 million a year. I'm
sorry to say I am not prepared for budgetary matters. I didn't
bone up on that at all.
    The Chairman. Do you know under what authority that is
being done? I do not recall that Congress ever giving the
Office of Public Affairs the right to spend $3 million a year
in the newspapers.
    Mr. Kaghan. General Eisenhower started the Die Neue
Zeitung. As far as I know, there was a message from him
announcing its beginning which appeared in the first issue
under the military government.
    The Chairman. You say Eisenhower started it. That was
during the occupation when their were no other German papers
and it was felt necessary to publish it and this is a
continuation after all the German newspapers have been running?
    Mr. Kaghan. I didn't get the question.
    The Chairman. I say you gave Eisenhower as the authority
for starting it. I am talking about the authority for running
that after there are other German newspapers adequately
supplying the German people. General Eisenhower I understand
ordered this paper opened up when there were no other
newspapers in Germany.
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, there were other newspapers in
Germany.
    The Chairman. There were?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. How many?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know. There were a few other
newspapers.
    Senator Mundt. That is published or edited by Mike Fodor in
Berlin, is it not?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    Senator Mundt. I would like to say I have seen several
copies of the paper. I know Mr. Fodor very well and I think the
paper is doing a very commendable job in Berlin.
    Mr. Kaghan. I wish to say that that paper is directly under
my supervision and has been as long as I have been in Germany.
    Senator Mundt. The paper is to be made available to East
Germans who slipped through the lines and picked up and there
is a considerable number of every edition that goes back behind
the Iron Curtain through Berlin to be made available to them,
and they also run on the building a sort of flicker
announcement such as they have at Times Square and it was from
that flicker announcement that the East Germans first learned
that Stalin had died and that Gottwald died.
    Senator McLellan. I believe you said it cost about $3
million a year?
    Mr. Kaghan. I believe that was the figure last year and the
year before.
    Senator McLellan. In round numbers?
    Mr. Kaghan. In round figures.
    Senator McLellan. How much of that is recouped by the sale
of the paper? In other words, how much a deficit is there?
    Mr. Kaghan. There is an income from circulation and
advertising which does not equal that amount, but I can't give
you the figures. I do not have those figures. There is a
considerable amount of money returned.
    Senator McLellan. But there is a deficit in the cost of it
that has to be made up out of tax funds or counterfunds?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. We were told by the editor of the paper, Mr. Hans
Wallenberg--is that his name?
    Mr. Kaghan. That's right.
    Mr. Cohn [continuing]. That the total cost of the paper is
slightly over $4 million a year, that there is a return of a
little over $1 million a year, which does not go back to the
State Department appropriation, but which goes to the general
fund, so that the net loss to the taxpayers a year is close to
$3 million a year.
    Senator McLellan. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to get
something in the record to indicate the loss.
    Mr. Kaghan. I question the word ``loss'' sir, to the United
States. It is considered to be one of the most prominent,
competent, and strongest anti-Soviet newspapers in Germany.
    Mr. Cohn. Are not you yourself planning to cut down from a
daily to a weekly because you realize it is no longer needed as
a daily paper in Germany because there are hundreds of other
newspapers which are anti-Communist and saying the same things?
    Mr. Kaghan. We are considering that, yes. It is still what
I said it was, but it could be in my opinion effective as a
weekly and that is being considered, but not approved. It has
not been agreed to and plans for its future are still being
worked out. My point is to save the paper.
    The Chairman. Does the Office of Public Affairs also
operate swimming pools?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. In Berlin?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir. I have never been in touch with any
material which would indicate we ran swimming pools.
    The Chairman. Would you know if they did?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, I would be likely to know if we did. It is
possible that I wouldn't know.
    The Chairman. It is possible you might not?
    Mr. Kaghan. Possible I might not know.
    The Chairman. Do you operate a rabies vaccination center?
    Mr. Kaghan. Sir?
    The Chairman. Do you operate a rabies vaccination center?
    Mr. Kaghan. I doubt that we operate it openly, sir, if
there is such a thing.
    The Chairman. You doubt that we operate it openly?
    Mr. Kaghan. Doubt the Public Affairs operates anything like
that. They may have contributed to something like that for
anti-Soviet purposes in Berlin. I wouldn't know.
    The Chairman. You contributed money?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not.
    The Chairman. Did you contribute money to the building of
swimming pools?
    Mr. Kaghan. I believe HICOG contributed something to the
building of that Berlin swimming pool. I am not sure that it
was Public Affairs.
    The Chairman. You are not sure?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir. It may have been HICOG as a whole.
    The Chairman. Do you know Joe Barnes?\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Joseph Barnes (1907-1970) was foreign correspondent and
foreign editor of the New York Herald Tribune, deputy director of
Atlantic Operations of the OWI, editor of the New York Star, and editor
at Simon and Schuster. In 1948 he assisted General Eisenhower with the
preparation of his book, Crusade in Europe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, I know Joe Barnes.
    The Chairman. Quite well?
    Mr. Kaghan. I used to know Joe Barnes fairly well. He was
not an intimate friend.
    The Chairman. Did he ever hire you?
    Mr. Kaghan. He may have had something to do with my being
hired on the Herald Tribune back in 1935 or '36.
    The Chairman. Did you know he was a Communist then?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not know.
    The Chairman. Do you know he is one now?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not.
    The Chairman. Do you know it has been testified by a great
number of witnesses that he was an active member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Kaghan. I haven't read the testimony, sir. I have been
out of the country and I haven't followed those things as
closely as other people. It is not known to me.
    The Chairman. When do you say he might have had something
to do with your being hired?
    Mr. Kaghan. He was on the paper, I think, when I got there.
I am not positive of that, but I think he was.
    The Chairman. What year did you get there?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think 1936.
    The Chairman. How long did you stay?
    Mr. Kaghan. Off and on til 1942.
    The Chairman. You were on the foreign desk when Joe Barnes
was foreign editor of the Herald Tribune, were you?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, I think he was, but he was not my direct
supervisor.
    The Chairman. He was not your direct supervisor?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You worked in the same office?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir; if you can consider the editorial
floor was one great big open office with parts blocked off, he
was not in the part where I was.
    The Chairman. Do I understand your statement to be that at
the time you roomed with this man whom you said you knew was a
Communist you did not think communism was a threat? Is that it?
    Mr. Kaghan. That's right.
    The Chairman. When did you first think that communism might
be a threat?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know that. I don't know that there is a
specific time before my real personal contact with communism
and the Red Army and the Soviets, which was in Austria.
    The Chairman. In other words, that is the first time that
you began to feel that communism----
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, that was not the first time. That was
when I was confirmed in my suspicions and these suspicions had
been growing for a long time. I don't know how far back they
went, but I am sure they went back at least to '39 because I
was already sneering at people who were trying to explain the
Nazi-Soviet pact.
    The Chairman. Your job over in Germany is to fight
communism?
    Mr. Kaghan. That is part of the job. My job is to build a
position of strength for the United States in Europe so that
communism can be fought.
    The Chairman. You say you have working under your
supervision how many people?
    Mr. Kaghan. There is only one American directly under my
supervision. The rest of the Office of Public Affairs is under
the supervision of the director. I more or less assist the
director.
    The Chairman. When you were acting director, how many had
you under your supervision?
    Mr. Kaghan. Oh, there would be about 240; around 240, I
think is the figure. I am not sure of the number of slots that
are not filled at this point. Those are details that I am not
prepared to answer. It is close to 250 Americans and about 2500
Germans.
    The Chairman. In other words, about 2,750 under your
supervision?
    Mr. Kaghan. If that is the figure.
    The Chairman. Has it ever come to your attention that you
had a Communist lecturing the German people?
    Mr. Kaghan. I heard just before I left that there was a
question about some lecturer, whose name I don't recall, who
lectured in Munich, which, in fact, Mr. Cohn and Mr. Schine
apparently came upon. That was the first I heard of it and I
don't know much more about it than that.
    The Chairman. It has been brought to your attention that
the information program had a Communist lecturing the people?
    Mr. Kaghan. Not in those terms, not that he was a
Communist.
    The Chairman. Have you heard the content of any of his
lectures?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, I have not.
    The Chairman. Have you ever heard him lecture the people
that Malenkov is a peace-loving man and if war came, it would
be our fault?
    Mr. Kaghan. I have heard that he is said to have made some
remark about Malenkov, something along the line he was for
peace. That's as much as I heard about what he said.
    The Chairman. Did you take any steps to have his lectures
discontinued then?
    Mr. Kaghan. It was not referred to me. It was referred to
Mr. Boerner and I believe he did take such steps.
    The Chairman. Do you know for a fact that this man has been
lecturing since?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, I do not.
    The Chairman. Did you check on that? Did you not interest
yourself?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not. I interested myself in the fact that
Mr. Boerner was handling that matter and was in direct touch
with the public affairs office in Munich and when I was
preparing to come over here, they were talking about
discontinuing the man's lectures.
    The Chairman. They were talking about discontinuing him?
    Mr. Kaghan. I overheard one-half of one part of the phone
conversation in which Mr. Boerner said, ``Get rid of him,'' or
words to that effect.
    The Chairman. Do you think a serious mistake has been made
if he gave some lectures since your department discovered he
was lecturing the people that Malenkov was peace loving and
that Russian educational system should be adopted in Germany?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know that he said that.
    The Chairman. Would you say a serious mistake was made if
he were kept on?
    Mr. Kaghan. If a man is giving lectures favoring the Soviet
Union, he certainly should not be kept on.
    The Chairman. As acting deputy director, I assume you took
some interest in this when you heard that this man was
lecturing along the Communist line. My question now is: Do you
think it is a mistake to have kept that lecturer on?
    Mr. Kaghan. It is a mistake to keep a Communist or
Communist-inclined person. I do not know the facts of this
case.
    The Chairman. Mr. Kaghan, would you say that your own plays
would have been of some value in achieving your purpose over in
Germany so that the people could have read them?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't think so now, no, sir.
    The Chairman. In other words, do you think these would have
been very bad plays for the people over there to read?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, I think so.
    The Chairman. You say you changed since then.
    Mr. Kaghan. I think so. I think those would be bad plays. I
haven't read them, but I assume they would be bad plays.
    The Chairman. Have any charges been filed against you under
the security regulations or under the loyalty security program?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know what the technical phraseology
would be for charges filed. Am I permitted to talk about
security matters?
    The Chairman. You are permitted to answer that question.
    Senator Symington. I suggest that if the witness feels that
he might be violating security, he be allowed to talk to the
committee off the record.
    The Chairman. We have a representative of the security
division of the State Department here if there is anything
wrong. If there is anything in the record that would violate
our security, we can certainly delete it.
    Senator Symington. You are going to have a franker witness
if he feels that there is no chance of what he says being put
in the paper than you are going to have if he feels what he
says is going to be put in the record.
    The Chairman. Mr. Symington, I think this witness is under
oath and I think he should be required to answer the questions.
If the security representative of the State Department feels
that the material should be deleted, I think we should delete
it.
    Would you answer that question, please?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir. Would you repeat the question, sir?
    The Chairman. The question was: Have letters of charges
been served on you under the loyalty security program since
this committee brought some of your activities to light?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, not since.
    The Chairman. Not since. When were letters of charges
served upon you at any time?
    Mr. Kaghan. I received an interrogatory in 1950. I think it
was asking questions about my past, which I filled out and
returned through channels to Washington.
    Senator McClellan. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Senator McClellan.
    Senator McClellan. Is that routine? Has that been largely
routine on all employees?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, I don't think that all employees get
an interrogatory. I think they get one when there is something
to ask of a serious nature.
    Senator McClellan. I did not know whether it was a routine
check that was made, or whether it was something peculiar or
special in your case.
    Mr. Kaghan. To my knowledge, it was peculiar to my case.
    The Chairman. Had you applied for a job with the Voice of
America?
    Mr. Kaghan. I am unwilling to say, sir, that I specifically
applied. There was discussion and correspondence about my
working for the Voice. I recall getting a letter asking if I
would be interested in taking over the Austrian desk of the
Voice in exchange for sending the head of the Austrian desk of
the Voice to Austria to take over the newspaper, and as far as
I can recall, I said I was not interested in that kind of a
job.
    They may have asked me about other jobs, but I don't
remember specifically applying for a job in the Voice.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether a security check was made
on you to determine whether you would qualify for the job with
the Voice under Public Law 402?
    Mr. Kaghan. I would not know, sir, that any specific check
has been made for the Voice itself.
    The Chairman. Had you heard that you did not pass that
security clearance?
    Mr. Kaghan. I heard it through reading the newspapers in
Germany.
    The Chairman. When did you first hear that?
    Mr. Kaghan. I assume it would be the day after the hearing
where Mr. Thompson made the allegation.
    The Chairman. That is the first time you had any reason to
believe that you had flunked the security clearance?
    Mr. Kaghan. It was the first time I had heard a specific
statement saying that I had applied for a job in the Voice and
that I flunked a security test.
    The Chairman. Had you before that any information at all to
indicate that you did not favorably pass the security test?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. You had no information of any kind?
    Mr. Kaghan. Not to my knowledge.
    Senator Dirksen. How would that appear in the newspaper, in
what form?
    Mr. Kaghan. It was a report of a hearing, sir, of this
committee in which Mr. Thompson stated that I had applied for a
job at the Voice and had been turned down for security reasons.
    Senator McClellan. In other words, the first you had
knowledge of it was the news story reporting the hearing in New
York City at which Mr. Thompson testified?
    Mr. Kaghan. That's right. I heard about it from the
Associated Press in Germany.
    The Chairman. Mr. Kaghan, I am a bit puzzled about one
thing. You have a record here of having signed the Communist
petition, having lived with a member of the Communist party,
having written plays which you say were acceptable by the
Communists and produced by a Communist front. Then you were
hired to head the information program to fight communism in
Germany. I wonder just what you did between 1939 when you say
you began to realize the dangers of communism and the time that
you got this very, very important job heading up the entire
information program in HICOG. What did you do to convince the
people who hired you that you were a real fighting anti-
Communist?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't think the people who hired me were as
much concerned about my being a real fighting anti-Communist as
they were in my being a loyal American who was competent to do
a certain type of job.
    I worked on the foreign desk of the Tribune. I went to the
Office of War Information at their request in 1942. Mr. Edward
Barrett hired me.
    The Chairman. Let me put it this way then: Do you know of
anything you did between 1939 and the time you got this job
heading up the information program to indicate to the people
who hired you that you were anti-Communist? Let us leave out
the fighting part.
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes. I did not go along with any Communist
activities that I know of and I believe it was known, and in
Austria I ran a newspaper which was very strongly anti-
Communist. In 1946 in Austria, I was asking for more leeway to
expose the Russians. I did that in Austria when the American
policy there was to take it easy because General Clark had
difficulties of a bigger nature than I understood, and I worked
through Austria getting a reputation for being an anti-
Communist fighter, which the chancellor of Austria has just
commented upon in a letter to me, if I may read a paragraph, in
which he states:
    Through your various activities here in Austria where we
had to, and still have to, withstand strong Communist pressure,
you placed yourself very clearly in line with the Austrian
Federal Government. I remember clearly how you courageously and
with disregard of personal danger faithfully took the side of
the Austrian Government during the October revolution when the
Communists in Austria wanted to seize power by force.
Therefore, I really can't believe it Mr. Kaghan, that people
are seriously going to jump on you, and I just had to tell you
this as an old friend because I know you so well as a democrat
and as an anti-Communist.
    Senator McClellan. What is the date?
    Mr. Kaghan. 15 April, but I received it last week.
    Senator McClellan. Figl?
    Mr. Kaghan. Chancellor Figl.
    Senator McClellan. In the publication of that paper do you
have editorial clippings that would establish clearly the
policy that you pursued in the paper?
    Mr. Kaghan. Sir, I have not had time to collect them, but
they certainly exist in the State Department. I have a column
here in 1946 which does that, but there are dozens and dozens
of editorials. I did not write one every day, but I wrote many
and it was not editorials alone. Not all people read
editorials. More people read news. It was the handling of news
which the chancellor commented on here, ``It was in your
handling of news.''
    Senator McClellan. That is one aspect of it. I think you
might have further evidence with respect to your own editorials
which express your views that possibly had been used.
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir, I have editorials like that. They can
be clipped from the State Department, and I will be glad to get
them and have them transmitted. I do not have them with me.
There must be dozens of them.
    The Chairman. Did you ever tell the FBI or any government
agency about this Communist that you were rooming with? Did you
ever tell them that he was a Communist?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't think I said specifically he was. I
think I told them that I thought he probably was. I would not
make a specific statement that he was because I might have to
prove it in court some day.
    The Chairman. Did you ever go to the FBI or did you tell
them when they were investigating you? Did you ever voluntarily
go to the bureau and say, ``Here is a man who is a Communist?''
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. The only information you gave them was when
they were investigating your activities?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. In living with this Communist for a year I
assume you must have gotten to know some other Communists.
    Mr. Kaghan. I assume I did, but not know so well that I
would know who they were.
    The Chairman. In other words, you cannot remember the names
of any others?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Not a single one?
    Mr. Kaghan. Well, I remember the name of a girl he was
going to marry. I don't know whether he did or not. She
probably was in the same sense that he was. I don't remember
her name.
    The Chairman. It seems to follow a pattern, Mr. Kaghan,
pretty much. It is pretty much the same pattern. You cannot
remember a single name of any Communist except the one that the
FBI had already exposed.
    Mr. Kaghan. In '30s Communists didn't stick out as
Communists. There were a lot of people who were very left and
very pink and they were not members of the Communist party, and
those who were didn't identify themselves, and I ran into a lot
of them because I didn't appreciate the danger communism was at
that time, didn't understand them.
    The Chairman. Did you recognize communism as a danger at
all?
    Mr. Kaghan. In the '30s I recognized it as a philosophy
that could not be of any importance in the United States.
    The Chairman. When you say you intend to support a
Communist candidate and you signed a petition to that effect
did you really intend to support him at that time?
    Senator Mundt. What year was that?
    The Chairman. 1939.
    Mr. Kagan. I'm not sure I did. I do not recall supporting
him.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether you intended to support
him when you certified that you were going to support him?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not recall how determined I was to support
him. I only recall that I thought he ought to be on the ballot
to carry out American principles.
    The Chairman. However you thought communism was a danger?
    Mr. Kaghan. I thought communism was un-American.
    The Chairman. However, you certified you would support a
Communist; is that correct?
    Mr. Kaghan. To get on the ballot.
    The Chairman. You did not say you will support him to get
on the ballot. You say: ``I intend to support him at the
ensuing election.''
    My question is: Is that a correct statement, or were you
making a false statement at the time?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't believe I was making a false statement,
but it says, ``I intend to support'' and maybe I did intend to
support him at that time. I don't recall.
    The Chairman. If you intended to support him how do we
reconcile the fact that you say you did think communism was a
danger at that time and un-American?
    Mr. Kaghan. Because as far as I knew about it, it was a
philosophy, a political philosophy, which couldn't possibly get
anywhere in America because it had no appeal to Americans and
there was no reason for communism in America.
    Senator Mundt. What was it that impelled you to support him
at that time?
    Mr. Kaghan. The fact that I thought a man who had
principles like that and ideals like that ought to be on the
ballot to be voted against as well as for.
    Senator Mundt. As I understand the chairman, you signed an
obligation to support him at the polls, not to get him on the
ticket.
    Mr. Kaghan. It says ``I intended to support him.''
    Senator Mundt. I wonder what impelled you to intend to
support him.
    Mr. Kaghan. I probably overlooked the ``intend to support''
in the interest of getting the man on the ballot.
    Senator Mundt. Was he a friend of yours?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not know him, sir.
    Senator McClellan. I would just like to make this comment
for you to elaborate on if you care to. I have listened very
attentively to your testimony, and I want to commend you for
being very frank and, apparently, sincere in everything you
have said, and that is the only conflict that arises in my
mind, that here you are declaring an intent to support a
Communist candidate and at the same time say that that
philosophy was not needed in America and had no appeal to
America and you did not regard it as of any great importance.
Yet you were initiating or helping to initiate an action to
place a Communist on the ballot. That seems a little
inconsistent to me. Elaborate on that any way you can.
    Mr. Kaghan. I agree with you. I assume that probably I
signed that petition like one signs petitions. You don't read
all the print that goes with it when you are told that they
need five thousand or whatever it was signatures to get a man
on the ballot and ``Will you sign?'' and I signed. I mean, to
get a man on the ballot.
    Senator McClellan. You mean you probably at the time did
not recognize the full significance and import of the printed
petition?
    Mr. Kaghan. I probably did not, sir.
    Senator McClellan. You are not clear about that?
    Mr. Kaghan. I was thinking, as far as I can recall, of the
man's right to be on an American ballot.
    Senator Mundt. Let me get to the question that the chairman
asked a little earlier, about which I am somewhat curious: If
you had signed that petition before you were employed by the
government, and if you had written plays--I was not here for
the full testimony; I may be wrong--that the Communists
approved of before you signed that petition, before you got
your government job, and if you had been rooming with a
Communist prior to that time, what was it that transpired
between the time that these incidents took place and the time
that you went to work for the government, which would have
convinced your future employer, number one, that you were not a
Communist, and, number two, that you would be the type of
fellow that would be fighting against Communists?
    Mr. Kaghan. Well, I was working on foreign news during the
war--I don't have any dates straight, but I think the Finnish
War was involved there. During the time that I was working on
the foreign desk of the Tribune was a lot of war news,
naturally, but it was after the Soviets had fixed it for the
Nazis to make the war, and I couldn't possibly have trusted
them in any way, and I am sure that I made myself clear to
anybody I may have talked to about it.
    Senator Mundt. Did you write any by-line or stories for the
Tribune about that time that would indicate it?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, that was not my job. My job was to
edit what other people wrote.
    Senator Mundt. How did you first come in contact with a
government job?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know who told me. Somebody in the
newspaper--I don't know who it was--told me. Word got around
that the government was looking for foreign news editors to get
into the Office of War Information, and I went over and talked
to Edward Barrett, who later became assistant secretary of
state, and it was he who persuaded me to take the job.
    Senator Mundt. Was he then with OWI?
    Mr. Kaghan. He was with OWI.
    Senator Mundt. And he was the man who brought you? He was
the man who brought you in?
    Mr. Kaghan. He was the man who brought me in.
    Senator Mundt. And did you work with OWI through to the end
of the war?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, I worked with OWI through to the end of
the war, and then I went overseas.
    Senator Mundt. To Austria?
    Mr. Kaghan. To Austria.
    Senator Mundt. What were the circumstances by which you
went from OWI to Austria?
    Mr. Kaghan. It was an administrative transfer. I went from
OWI into what would be considered the field, except when I got
over there it became the Information Services Branch, which was
part of what I think was the Psychological Warfare Branch that
came up from Africa and Italy, and occupied Austria, and when I
went over there I went on an occupation mission which very soon
became, clearly, a mission against the Soviets and against
communism, because it became clear in very short time that
these people had different ideas than we had about post-war
Europe.
    Senator Mundt. Your job in Austria was to edit this paper
which has been referred to in the letter by the chancellor?
    Mr. Kaghan. One of my jobs in Austria was to edit the
paper. I also had responsibility for all newspaper operation
news agencies, pictures, magazines, pamphlets, leaflets and at
one time radio.
    Senator Mundt. When did you go to work for what is now
known as IEA or the International Educational and Exchange
Administration?
    Mr. Kaghan. I never did go to work for them myself. I was
carried along, and whatever changes occurred occurred back here
in Washington while I was abroad. The OWI sent me abroad, but
when I got there it was not OWI; it was Information Services
Branch of the U.S. Army, and I stayed with the army until I
went to Germany. When I got to Germany I was in the high
commissioner's office, and the high commissioner was--I don't
know when he was IEA. The information operation became IEA only
recently. I worked in Austria under Lt. General Geoffrey Keyes.
    The Chairman. Did you ever go to any Communist meeting?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think I did. I don't know which ones were
Communist and which ones were not, but I went to meetings which
I feel now were probably Communist.
    The Chairman. You actually know that you went to a very
sizeable number of Communist meetings, do you?
    Mr. Kaghan. I wouldn't say sizeable. I was not much of a
meeting-goer. I went to several meetings.
    The Chairman. You held some in your home, did you not?
    Mr. Kaghan. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Not to your knowledge?
    Mr. Kaghan. No.
    The Chairman. You had meetings in your home, did you not?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not recall having political meetings.
    Mr. Cohn. What about the Communist you were living with?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not recall having political meetings
there, although he may have had people in there which could be
construed as a meeting.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether this Communist roommate
had Communist friends in there and had a meeting in your home
or in that home shared by the both of you?
    Mr. Kaghan. It is likely. I do not recall any specific
meeting.
    The Chairman. You recall that there were meetings, do you
not?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not recall that there were such things as
meetings.
    The Chairman. There were a group of Communists in that
place?
    Mr. Kaghan. There was company, sir. He had people in.
Whether they were Communists or not I couldn't say. I assume
some of them probably were.
    The Chairman. How many meetings did you go to outside of
your home that you now recognize as Communist meetings?
    Mr. Kaghan. I couldn't say, sir. I don't recall.
    The Chairman. More than a dozen?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't think so. It's possible, but I don't
think so because I didn't like to go to meetings.
    The Chairman. Would you say around a dozen?
    Mr. Kaghan. I wouldn't like to make any specific figure. I
went to several meetings in my time.
    The Chairman. Did you go to less than a half dozen? Or is
it your testimony that you do not know whether it was more or
less than twelve?
    Mr. Kaghan. It is my testimony that I went to a number of
meetings which I believe were Communist meetings now.
    The Chairman. Did you know that they were Communist
meetings then?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know in every case that they were. I'm
not sure which ones were and which ones weren't.
    The Chairman. However, you know that some of them were
Communist meetings?
    Mr. Kaghan. I knew that some of them could have been
Communist meetings. I don't recall clearly whether they were
ever publicly or openly identified as Communist meetings. It
wasn't significant.
    The Chairman. Mr. Kaghan, you say you did not like to go to
meetings, so it must have been an unusual meeting that got you
to go there. Therefore, I assume when you went to a meeting you
knew who was meeting and what was the purpose.
    Mr. Kaghan. Not always.
    The Chairman. Sometimes. How would you happen to go?
    Mr. Kaghan. There would be a meeting for a specific
political purpose which I would be asked to go to. If I was
interested in the subject or if I was interested in the speaker
I might go. I don't recall which ones those would be. I was a
sucker in those days.
    Senator Mundt. What were some of these announced political
purposes, Mr. Kaghan?
    Mr. Kaghan. Sir, I don't recall that, but in most cases I
think they were short-range objectives of the Communists, if
they were Communist meetings. The short-range objectives are
the objectives which the Communists always put in front of you,
whatever they were doing, and if I happened to be interested in
something----
    Senator Mundt. You cannot remember any of the topics
discussed?
    Mr. Kaghan. I cannot remember. I can remember only one
meeting that the topic was something that I can recall, and
that was the Soviet-Nazi pact, and I cannot recall where it was
except this was in New York.
    The Chairman. You cannot recall where it was?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you recall where any of these meetings
were held?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Not a single meeting?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Even though you went to the meetings you do
not know the name of a single person who attended them?
    Mr. Kaghan. Well, this fellow Irwin usually, often was with
me.
    The Chairman. In other words, as of now, the only Communist
that you can identify is the one who has been well known as a
Communist. You cannot give us the name of any other Communist?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Of all the people who attended these meetings
you cannot name one Communist?
    Mr. Kaghan. They were not identified as Communists, itself.
    The Chairman. Can you give us the name of anyone who came
into your home, or your friend's home?
    Mr. Kaghan. No. I do not recall anybody. Those days are
pretty dim in my memory. I don't remember the names. If I heard
some names I might recall that I met them at that time.
    The Chairman. What was the name of this woman whom you said
was a Communist?
    Mr. Kaghan. I said there was a woman that he married or may
have married that I thought might have been a Communist as he.
    The Chairman. Do you know her name?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't recall her name.
    The Chairman. Do you know a Colonel Lawrence Ladue?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not recall Colonel Ladue.
    The Chairman. You worked under him?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes.
    The Chairman. You know that he gave a report on your
activities?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not know that.
    The Chairman. You worked under him for how long?
    Mr. Kaghan. I'm not sure. It was in Austria.
    The Chairman. 1946?
    Mr. Kaghan. It would have been 1946.
    The Chairman. This is the time during which you say you
were running this paper and fighting communism; is that right?
    Mr. Kaghan. Right.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether Colonel Ladue reported
that you insisted on publishing articles from TASS and you
insisted on printing news from the United States concerning
rapes and lynchings, and that you were very friendly with the
Russians and wanted to accept an invitation to visit Russia,
and Ladue refused to allow you? Do you remember if he issued
such a report?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not know that.
    The Chairman. Did you insist on printing dispatches from
TASS?
    Mr. Kaghan. I insisted on having the liberty to print
dispatches from TASS.
    The Chairman. In other words, you insisted on printing them
and using your own judgment on what to print?
    Mr. Kaghan. Just my own judgment.
    Senator Mundt. What was your purpose in that?
    Mr. Kaghan. In order to use their own material to expose
them, where I thought I could use it for that purpose.
    Senator Mundt. Do you very frequently find TASS publishing
things that are detrimental to communism?
    Mr. Kaghan. If printed in conjunction with something else
it can be very detrimental. It is a technique which we are now
using, using their own words and their own statements written
at another time, in juxtaposition, which exposes them as being
liars, and I thought we could do some of that if I had the
liberty to use their material. I remember there was some kind
of an argument about using TASS at all, and I wanted the
freedom to use it when I could use it against them.
    The Chairman. You wanted the right to use their dispatches
in toto without making any comment on them? You were not going
to use them editorially?
    Mr. Kaghan. I was going to use them in news, depending upon
how they could be played. I wouldn't write an editorial into a
news story, no, sir.
    The Chairman. In other words, you were going to write the
TASS dispatch?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Copy it?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir; I was going to take the TASS dispatch
which I thought might prove a point on our side and use it.
    The Chairman. By using it you were going to----
    Mr. Kaghan. Reprint part of the dispatch. Now, in printing
a news story you can cut it off. If it's too long you cut it,
or I can rewrite it and give the gist of the TASS dispatch and
credit TASS with it and say that is what it says and here is
another story which tells something entirely different, an
entirely different story.
    The Chairman. Did you insist to Ladue that you had the
right to print stories of rapes and lynches in the United
States?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't recall insisting on rapes and
lynchings. I would believe that that would be part of a
discussion on how to run a newspaper.
    The Chairman. Do you remember that you did on occasion
insist on running stories of lynches and rapes in the United
States?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not remember it, sir, but I am pretty sure
that I insisted on the right to use my judgment on how to play
stories which might be used by the Communist press in Vienna
and printed their way, and I thought it would be better to give
the straight facts our way on certain occasions. That would not
be often, but if something happened over here that reflected on
the credit of the United States I wanted the right to print the
story in the American way and not just leave it to the
Communists to print it their way.
    The Chairman. Did Colonel Ladue take the position that you
were too friendly to the Communists?
    Mr. Kaghan. Not to me he didn't.
    The Chairman. He never did?
    Mr. Kaghan. Not that I can recall. He may have concerned
himself with it. He may have said something about that subject,
but I was not too friendly with the Communists, so I don't
imagine----
    The Chairman. Do you not know that that was his position,
that he let it be known that he felt you were too friendly with
the Communists?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not recall that he said that. He may have
said that on some occasion. We had to work with Soviets and I'm
not sure he said I was friendly with the Communists or Soviets.
We had to work in a city surrounded and filled with the Soviet
army and Communists. It was Red Vienna.
    The Chairman. You just got through telling us that you were
insistent that you be allowed to get tougher with the
Communists than you were allowed to do. Now, Ladue is the man
you would insist to if you did any insisting; is that correct?
Do you follow me, sir?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, but it wouldn't always have been Ladue. He
was not there all the time. I think Ladue came after Colonel
Grogan. I believe it was Colonel Grogan, General Clark's public
relations man. It could have been that I had the same argument
with Colonel Grogan or with General Clark on how to handle
propaganda, whether to use the enemy's stuff against them or
not. There was always some fear that using the enemy's stuff at
any time was dangerous, and naturally it always is.
    The Chairman. Were you invited to visit Russia?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't recall that I was.
    The Chairman. You do not recall that you were?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not.
    The Chairman. If you had been you would remember that,
would you not? It is no small event in your life to be invited
to visit Russia at a time very few Americans were allowed in
there? If you were invited you would remember, would you not?
    Mr. Kaghan. If I had a formal invitation to visit Russia I
think I would remember it, but I do not recall any such formal
invitation was given to me. There may have been some
conversations between me and one of the Russian officers that
we had to work with in the Allied Council or in the press
field. I am not sure. I don't deny that I received such an
invitation. I say I do not recall it.
    The Chairman. Do you recall having sent a memorandum to
Ladue? Do you recall having sent a memorandum to him to the
effect that you had received an invitation and you wanted to
accept it?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not recall it.
    The Chairman. Do you say now you did not send such a
memorandum?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not say so. It is possible that I sent
such a memorandum if I received such a memorandum. The first
thing I think I would do would be to tell my superior officer.
    The Chairman. However, you do not recall now asking
permission from Ladue to visit Russia in 1946?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not recall it.
    The Chairman. Your testimony is that it may or may not have
occurred, but you do not remember it?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not remember it.
    The Chairman. You cannot swear it did not happen?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, I would not say it did not happen. It
was not unlikely. The Russians were also engaged in
psychological warfare.
    The Chairman. Did you ever belong to the Abraham Lincoln
Brigade?
    Mr. Kaghan. I am not sure that I did. I would not say that
I did or didn't. I was sympathetic with the Abraham Lincoln
Brigade. I'm not sure that I belonged to it.
    The Chairman. You know it has been designated as a
Communist front?
    Mr. Kaghan. I know that now.
    The Chairman. Did you have anything to do with the New
Theater League?
    Mr. Kaghan. They produced my plays and I was in and out of
there very much.
    The Chairman. You wrote for them, did you not?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, I think I did.
    The Chairman. Did you know it was a Communist-controlled
organization?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not know it was a Communist-controlled
organization. I thought it was very far to the left, and that
there were Communists in it, and Irwin was in charge of it, so
it was pretty much under Communist influence I thought.
    The Chairman. In other words, at the time you were writing
for it you knew it was very far to the left and you knew that a
Communist was in charge of it?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you agree with the philosophy expressed
by the New Theater League?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't recall what their philosophy was. I
know that they helped produce plays of social protest. I think
that was the phrase in those days, and I was writing plays of
social protest because they were very dramatic.
    The Chairman. Did the plays that you wrote represent your
thinking?
    Mr. Kaghan. Not necessarily. They represented my dramatic
interpretation of events at the time. I would not deny that
there was some of my thinking in the plays, but I can't say,
not recalling specifically the full text of any play, that it
represented my thinking all the way through or its final
conclusion. It depended on the dramatic situation that
developed.
    Senator Mundt. Have you written any plays on the other side
of the coin opposing or exposing communism?
    Mr. Kaghan. No. I think I have done better than that in
fighting communism. I have been over in Europe doing it where
it's a very serious, imminent and present danger and threat in
the physical form of the Red Army. I haven't written any plays
for a long time and I have not had occasion to use that theme.
    The Chairman. Have you kept Communist books on the shelves
of the information library, HICOG?
    Mr. Kaghan. We have taken off all the books they have
ordered removed, ordered by the State Department.
    The Chairman. Prior to the order that came out recently
after this committee started to work, had you been maintaining
works of Communist authors on your bookshelves?
    Mr. Kaghan. There were books on the bookshelves that yes,
Howard Fast, I believe, was on the bookshelves, some of the
bookshelves.
    The Chairman. And is it true that there are a number of the
works of Communist authors on your bookshelves?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know that it's true.
    The Chairman. Were you not ever curious to know what kind
of books you were putting out in Germany?
    Mr. Kaghan. I assume the man in charge of the library was
taking care of American interests and seeing to it that the
wrong kind of books did not get on as well as he could. I did
not read the books. I didn't have a catalog and I didn't have
responsibility until recently for anything in the book field. I
didn't have a listing of the books.
    The Chairman. Did you take any interest in that at all?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, I took an interest in it.
    The Chairman. Were you ever curious to know whether you had
Communist works on the bookshelves? Did it ever enter your
mind?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, it never occurred to me that that was a
problem.
    The Chairman. And the man in charge of bookshelves was
working under you when you were acting director?
    Mr. Kaghan. When I am acting director.
    The Chairman. And do you think that it was right or wrong
to keep the works of Communist authors on your bookshelves?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think in general it's wrong.
    The Chairman. In general you say it is wrong?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes. All the books that I know of, books like
Howard Fast's about America, I think that's wrong to have on
the bookshelves.
    The Chairman. Are you going to take steps if you return to
your job to discipline the man responsible for that?
    Mr. Kaghan. That would be the duty of the director.
    The Chairman. Are you going to recommend that he be
disciplined? Are you going to recommend that he be disciplined
or removed?
    Mr. Kaghan. I should have to consult the State Department
before I would take action on that. It's a matter which
involves more than myself.
    The Chairman. What is your position? Do you think that the
individual responsible for putting Communist books on our
shelves over there should be called to give an account for
that?
    Mr. Kaghan. If there is any person who is putting Communist
books on our shelves I think he should be called to account.
    The Chairman. You just got through saying there were these
books on your shelves. Someone put them there.
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir, but I'm not sure it was the man in
Germany.
    The Chairman. Whoever it is, you think he should be called
to account?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think an explanation would be useful.
    The Chairman. An explanation?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you think there can be any satisfactory
explanation to putting Communist books on your shelves over
there?
    Mr. Kaghan. In my opinion, no, but other people might think
so.
    The Chairman. However, in your opinion, it is improper?
    Mr. Kaghan. It's improper.
    The Chairman. And you think it should not have been done?
    Mr. Kaghan. I think it should not have been done.
    The Chairman. Do you think that those Communist books were
placed on the shelves as a result of incompetence, or
deliberately to sabotage our efforts to fight Communists?
    Mr. Kaghan. I would say it would not be easy to ascertain.
I don't know why they would be there. I would have to talk to
the persons involved and the persons responsible directly for
listing and putting and buying those books. I don't know.
    The Chairman. If you had the right to discharge the man who
purchased those Communist books, books by known Communist
authors and placed them on our shelves, would you fire him?
    Mr. Kaghan. If they were known Communist authors, yes.
    The Chairman. Who over in your department is in charge of
the library?
    Mr. Kaghan. In my department it's a man named Dunlap.
    The Chairman. How long has he been in charge?
    Mr. Kaghan. He's been in charge of the American houses,
which include the libraries, for, I think, less than two years.
    The Chairman. Who is responsible for the publication of the
history book by Mr. Peters?
    Mr. Kaghan. I am not sure that I can place the
responsibility on that, sir. There has been a lot of reporting
on that, and I am not sure they have nailed down which specific
person or persons is directly responsible.
    The Chairman. Has there been an attempt in your department
to nail down specific person or persons?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, there has been, and we are working on it
in Germany, and have been as soon as we discovered it.
    The Chairman. You say that the Communist books are being
taken off the bookshelves now. How many books have been taken
off the shelves?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not have the figures, sir. The directions
or instructions to take books off the shelves come from the
department, and they are carried out by the man who has charge
of the books, and I think it may be a dozen by now or something
like that.
    The Chairman. A dozen different books, or dozen different
authors?
    Mr. Kaghan. Dozen different authors, I think.
    The Chairman. You do not know how many books?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you taken off the shelves the works of
any authors who were not called before this committee?
    Mr. Kaghan. I could not answer that offhand, sir. I would
have to look at the record.
    The Chairman. Were you not concerned?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know who was called in front of this
committee.
    The Chairman. Did you get any report from your people since
Mr. Dulles ordered those Communist books taken off the shelves
as to how many volumes were to be taken off the shelves?
    Mr. Kaghan. Whatever instructions we got to take books off
the shelves we followed out immediately. How many there were I
couldn't say right at this moment.
    The Chairman. What was the instruction? Did it name the
authors?
    Mr. Kaghan. It named the authors who should be removed, and
they were removed.
    The Chairman. Did you not have a blanket instruction to
remove the works of all known Communist authors?
    Mr. Kaghan. At one time I think there was some general
instruction, the famous ``Et Cetera'' instruction. I don't
recall the specific wording of that. But we required
clarification of just what was meant.
    The Chairman. Do you know Pauline Royce?
    Mr. Kaghan. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Do you know a Gladys Ruth Green?
    Mr. Kaghan. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Just one other question. Your testimony today
is that you do consider it improper to have the works of
Communist authors in our libraries, and if you had the power to
fire the individual responsible for putting them there, you
would do that; is that correct?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: there has been some
discussion about the necessity of having the public affairs
officers read Communist books to be able to follow the
Communist line and that sort of thing, and I do not think
anyone on this committee would question the wisdom of that. I
assume if you want to fight Communists you must know what they
are saying. Let us have it clear now that the books in the
libraries were available for the general public and were not
there merely for the Public Affairs Office; is that right?
    Mr. Kaghan. That's right.
    The Chairman. I assume we both agree that there should be
no ban against the officials in charge of the library or
officers over there having any Communist books that they felt
necessary in order to acquaint themselves with what the
Communists were doing; is that correct?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Mr. Cohn has some questions.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been known by any other name?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, I was born Theodore Cohen.
    Mr. Cohn. How is that spelled?
    Mr. Kaghan. C-o-h-e-n.
    Mr. Cohn. Was your name legally changed?
    Mr. Kaghan. It was legally changed in the state of New
York.
    Mr. Cohn. In what year?
    Mr. Kaghan. 1942.
    Mr. Cohn. And have you ever been known by any names other
than those of Cohen and Kaghan?
    Mr. Kaghan. In college I used a middle name, Theodore Kane
Cohen.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever use the name Kane?
    Mr. Kaghan. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Was Kane your middle name?
    Mr. Kaghan. It was a name I put in as my middle name.
    Mr. Cohn. You just put it in?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you born with a middle name?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, I was not. I may have used the name Kane
when I was trying to avoid being known as Jewish.
    Mr. Cohn. Pardon?
    Mr. Kaghan. I may have used the name Kane when I was trying
to avoid being known as Jewish.
    Mr. Cohn. You were trying to avoid being known as Jewish?
When?
    Mr. Kaghan. In my youth I had some foolish notions and
there were probably inhibitions involved and I may have used
that.
    Senator Mundt. Did you ever publish any books or plays
under a pseudonym?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. I do not understand what you wanted to avoid or
why you wanted to avoid being known as Jewish.
    Mr. Kaghan. Because I was a foolish young man.
    Mr. Cohn. How old were you then?
    Mr. Kaghan. Oh, I was probably in college. I was in my
early twenties. If I went out with girls whom I didn't want
them to know I was Jewish I might have done that.
    Senator Mundt. At what age were you when you changed your
name legally?
    Mr. Kaghan. I was thirty, and it was done legally, but I
had been using that name consistently since 1935, when I was
twenty-three.
    The Chairman. I am going to ask you to look at this
Communist petition, and ask you if you know the person who
signed as a witness.
    Mr. Kaghan. I can't make out the name.
    Mr. Cohn. The first name is Gene, apparently, G-e-n-e.
    Mr. Kaghan. It could be O'Shea, or it seems to be O'
something, but I don't know what it is.
    Senator Mundt. Could Gene have been the first name of Mr.
Irwin's girlfriend?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't think so, doesn't sound familiar.
    The Chairman. Mr. Kaghan, I note that the press quoted you
as referring to our investigators as gumshoeing junketeers; is
that a correct description? First, let me ask you were you
correctly quoted by the papers when they said that you referred
to our two investigators as junketeering gumshoes?
    Mr. Kaghan. That is correct.
    The Chairman. Do you think that is a correct description?
    Mr. Kaghan. Well, it's a phrase which I described them
rather dramatically, and I used it because I thought they were
going about a very serious business in a very superficial way.
    The Chairman. You said they uncovered this Communist
lecturer. Do you think that was a pretty good service? You had
a lecturer over there preaching the Communist line and the two
gumshoeing junketeers uncovered this Communist lecturer. Do you
not think that might be worthwhile, that the trip was
worthwhile for that reason, if for nothing else?
    Mr. Kaghan. Sir, I don't know that the lecturer was a
Communist. I didn't say he was. I heard there was somebody who
lectured that might be considered Communist by somebody.
    Senator Mundt. Assuming for the sake of the question,
without going into the merits of it, that he was, would you
then say that the trip was worthwhile?
    Mr. Kaghan. If the two young men had discovered a Communist
lecturing in the American houses, I am not sure the way they
were conducting the trip it would have paid off either if they
found only one Communist. I think eventually if he was a
Communist he would have been found out anyway.
    Mr. Cohn. Of course, he was found out by somebody from your
department, and after he was found out he gave nine more
lectures. Do you know that?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not know that.
    Mr. Cohn. So, apparently, the finding out was not enough.
How many Communists do you say should have been found out in
order to make the trip worthwhile?
    Mr. Kaghan. That's a question that is almost impossible to
answer. You can't go by the volume. If you found a hundred
Communists they might not be as valuable as one other Communist
that you didn't find. It depends on where the guy is and what
he is up to.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you done anything about finding Communists?
    Mr. Kaghan. That isn't my business, to find Communists. We
assume our people are security cleared, and I depend on our
security people for that.
    The Chairman. I am very curious to know what the two
investigators did that you condemned over there and what you
felt was wrong.
    Mr. Kaghan. Well, in the first place, they came to Germany
and avoided seeing me until late in the afternoon, and a little
bit before they left. My name had been kicked around in
hearings and I expected to have a chance to talk to them. I
expected to brief them on public affairs and what we are doing,
and they avoided me, and when they finally did see me it was
fine, I appreciated that, and then they went up to Berlin and
they made a statement to the press that I had Communistic
tendencies, which I couldn't let go by without a statement. In
addition to that, they were carrying out what I consider a
serious piece of business in Europe which takes a little bit
different technique in some cases than it does here. They came
over there and by their activities I think reflected discredit
on this committee and the Senate.
    The Chairman. Tell us what the activities were. So far you
said they saw you late in the afternoon instead of the morning.
Number two, you said they went to Berlin and said you had
Communistic tendencies.
    I may say that, from the evidence before us, considering
the plays that you wrote, the fact that you had books by
Communist authors on your bookshelves, did nothing about it
until the new State Department forced you to get them out, the
fact that you lived with a Communist and attended Communist
meetings, might justify almost anyone saying you had Communist
tendencies, so that, so far, I do not think you have convinced
us that they have done anything too wrong. You said they had
other activities. What were the other activities that brought
this discredit to the men?
    Mr. Kaghan. In saying that I had Communistic tendencies. I
don't quarrel with their right to say that if they thought I
had them. I don't think they should have said it in the city of
Berlin where the Communist menace is a serious thing. I do not
think they should have said it to the press before they were
pretty sure about it. The over-all situation they created was
one of giving the Germans a chance to jump on the United States
and on this committee and on the Senate for doing things which
the Germans really did not understand, and we hadn't a chance
to explain, and here they were raising an issue in Germany
which had been a domestic matter largely, and brought it into
not just the German press but the entire European press.
    The Chairman. Just to get the time sequence straight, did
you not call them names first publicly, calling them gumshoeing
junketeers before they said you had Communistic tendencies?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, I did not. I called them after they
said I had Communist tendencies, and had told the press in
Berlin that.
    The Chairman. Had you made no statement about them at all?
    Mr. Kaghan. I had made no public statements about them at
all.
    The Chairman. Had you or anyone in your department, to your
knowledge, helped write the stories covering their trip to
Germany?
    Mr. Kaghan. Not to my knowledge and I doubt very much if
anyone would because material that was printed about them was
not doing the United States any good.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Kaghan, let's see if we can get some of
the facts here.
    Number one, for your information, no one ever said anything
about your having Communist tendencies. The only thing that was
ever said was a reference to the public testimony in public
record of this committee up to the time prior to your trip to
Europe. Not one word was said beyond the contents of that
public record. There was a specific reference to what that
public record demonstrated in the form of three documents: this
petition, which was in evidence in public session; and, two, of
your plays and the fact that one of them has been produced by
the New Theater League and referred to in the Daily Worker on a
specific day.
    Nothing was said beyond that and if you had taken the
trouble to be in touch with us or inquire from Mr. [John]
Slocum, you would have found that to be the fact.
    The second thing is you say you are offended because we
didn't see you until the afternoon and ask you about public
affairs. The first point is Mr. Boerner who is the public
affairs officer, had made an arrangement to see us and meet
with us in great length and discuss the Office of Public
Affairs and I think it was our option to talk to him rather
than with you.
    The second point is when we did see you was it not a fact
that the very first question I asked you you refused to answer?
I asked you whether or not you had signed this Communist party
petition and you said you wouldn't tell us.
    Mr. Kaghan. I answered the question.
    Mr. Cohn. Eventually you did, after I reminded you of the
directive of Mr. Dulles saying you were required to answer.
    Mr. Kaghan. Then I answered the question.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you answer the question when I asked you to
name Communists that you knew?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not think it was wise to name Communists
in an open session like that when there were people around who
had no immunity and you had no immunity, and I said I was
prepared to name them right here. May I correct you on another
point? I do not believe you could have made any arrangements to
see Mr. Boerner at the time you saw the press at three o'clock
because we hadn't been able to find Mr. Boerner.
    Mr. Cohn. We had been able to find Mr. Boerner before we
left the United States so I don't think that you are quite
accurate in that.
    Mr. Kaghan. Mr. Boerner's wife couldn't find him.
    Mr. Cohn. I am not going to get into a lengthy discussion.
Mr. Boerner went to the Hotel Royal in San Remo for his
vacation. We planned it well in advance and the day before we
left the United States people from the department had been in
touch with Mr. Boerner and he was going to meet us at one of
two places. The time was not fixed, but we knew we were going
to see him as we did. Is it not a fact that attacks not on us,
but on Senator McCarthy, on Secretary Dulles, and President
Eisenhower, and on the United States, appeared well in advance
of our visit in papers financed by HICOG?
    Mr. Kaghan. Would you repeat that?
    Mr. Cohn. Would you repeat it to him please, Mr. Reporter?
    [The record was then read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Kaghan. Criticism of the United States and the
secretary of state and of the senator could very well have
appeared in all kinds of papers at one time or another in
advance of your visit.
    Mr. Cohn. You say could very well have. Don't you ever read
of any attacks----
    Mr. Kaghan. There is always criticism of the United States.
There is always criticism of personalities and policies of
people. The implication that there was any connection between
the German press to whom we had given assistance and attacks on
the senator or on the government is not true.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think it is a wise policy on the one hand
to have the taxpayers of the United States lose $3 million a
year on one paper--by the way, that is many, many times the
entire amount of money spent for a whole information bureau in
some of the key areas in the world where the Communist movement
is much stronger than in Germany. Do you think it is wise to
publish a newspaper at the loss of $3 million a year and, on
top of that, to finance some other papers and to have the end
result some vicious attacks in some of these ninety-six papers,
some twelve of them anyway, on President Eisenhower, Secretary
Dulles, and the United States of America as a whole?
    Do you think that is good policy?
    Mr. Kaghan. That isn't the policy, Mr. Cohn. We have been
trying to bring up a proper western press and a press which
will be free of Communist threat and Communist influence and
not the influence and Nazi control and we do not dictate to
them what they should say. Some of them criticize Senator
McCarthy and some other papers criticize Senator McCarthy and
they have a right to do so and if we try to stop them, they
would think we were----
    The Chairman. I am not concerned with the criticism of
McCarthy. I am somewhat concerned that you are subsidizing
papers that make it attacks upon the secretary of state and our
president. They are the representatives of the American people.
As far as attack on McCarthy is concerned, I have no concern
with that at all.
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not agree. I don't believe it was
subsidizing the press in the strictest sense of the word. We
have arranged for a revolving fund in which they can borrow
money to make themselves free of left and right wing control.
    The fact that they criticize the United States in
individual cases I think is not as dangerous as if the entire
German press were opposed to the United States or were under
the direct influence of the Soviets or Communists.
    Senator Mundt. Let me ask you a question about the two
papers, Mr. Kaghan, that are published entirely with the United
States funds, the one in Frankfurt and the one in Berlin.
    Do they engage in the policy of criticizing the secretary
of state or the United States senator or the president?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, they do not. They avoid that sort of
thing. They try their best and do a wonderful job of explaining
what the policy of the United States is as expressed by the
secretary and president.
    Senator Mundt. So these articles which appeared in the
press supported by the revolving fund do not appear in the
papers supported by the United States fund?
    Mr. Kaghan. They do not.
    Senator Mundt. Let me ask the staff if they refute that.
    Mr. Cohn. You mean the Die Neue Zeitung?
    Senator Mundt. I think that's the name.
    Mr. Cohn. No, we did not find any attacks in the paper that
was wholly paid for by the United States rather than partly
financed. There were hundreds of attacks in these other papers,
some of them strictly vicious.
    Mr. Kaghan. If you will check into that revolving press
fund you will find that it's been a very successful effort to
solidify the German press and get it independent of political
influences which would make it dangerous to the United States,
and at the present moment, Germany is going further and further
toward our side.
    We still haven't got Germany on our side. They still
haven't signed these contracts and even when they do we have to
have the German people with us, and halfway through Germany are
the Russians, and we have to keep going at them and the
newspapers are one of our weapons.
    The Chairman. Do you know Hans Wallenberg?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes.
    The Chairman. Have you ever heard that he was a member of
the Communist party?
    Mr. Kaghan. I have not.
    The Chairman. You have not heard that he is a member of the
Communist party or ever was? Have you ever heard he followed
the Communist line?
    Mr. Kaghan. I have heard that there has been derogatory
information about Hans Wallenberg. I don't know specifically
what it was, but I have heard there was.
    The Chairman. Has he to your knowledge been accused by
anti-Communists of following the Communist line?
    Mr. Kaghan. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. What other names has Wallenberg been known
as?
    Mr. Kaghan. To my knowledge, I only know him by Hans
Wallenberg.
    The Chairman. You say to your knowledge he was never
accused of being a member of the Communist party. You have
never heard that?
    Mr. Kaghan. Never heard that.
    The Chairman. Never heard anyone accuse him of it?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you standing on the word ``member''? You have
been told there was derogatory information to the effect that
he has been connected with the Communist movement.
    Mr. Kaghan. I have been told that there was derogatory
information about him which was of a political nature.
    Mr. Cohn. Involving Communists. I am going to suggest there
are people who say they told you this.
    Mr. Kaghan. You may, but whether it was Communist or
whether it was left winger or not----
    Mr. Cohn. You know he wasn't a Nazi. That is what I am
trying to get at.
    Mr. Kaghan. I can't say I remember specific words.
    Mr. Cohn. Did the information contain left wing activities
or Nazi activities?
    Mr. Kaghan. Left activities.
    Mr. Cohn. I want to ask you this. By the way, before we
leave this last point, you say that none of the people
connected with your office supplied any of this information to
the German press; is that right?
    Mr. Kaghan. Which information?
    Mr. Cohn. Information concerning our trip.
    Mr. Kaghan. Well, if the press called up and wanted to know
where you were, I assume Slocum might have told them.
    Mr. Cohn. As a matter of fact, you had somebody tailing us
twenty-four hours a day and sending in reports.
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. Who did?
    Mr. Kaghan. Office of the high commissioner had a man
attached to you who was your escort.
    Mr. Cohn. I don't know what he was. He kept saying he was
merely going on the same conveyance because he had to meet
Congressmen, Congressman Corbett or somebody. I walked in on
him when he was phoning and he was reading a list of the
witnesses we had interviewed, what we had for lunch, how much
the check was, and a lot of other things, and I do not know
that those items, mostly inaccurate--by the way, some of the
actual questions we had asked some of the witnesses involving
security in the HICOG offices. In the German press. Now, they
must have come from someplace.
    Mr. Kaghan. They did not come from my office. I do not know
where they came from and I did not assign the escort officer to
you. He was not responsible to me.
    Mr. Cohn. You were worried about the influence on the
United States and all that. You read that article in the
Abenpost, did you?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did.
    Mr. Cohn. You did?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, and I regretted the appearance of that
article.
    Mr. Cohn. The article contained that information, a good
part of it lies, and, first of all, I am asking you this: What
was done when you saw in that article a list of questions we
had asked the witnesses? The State Department asked us to see
certain witnesses. We saw them in confidence in the office of
one of the high officials of HICOG, and then we pick up a
newspaper and find a list of questions we asked.
    Mr. Kaghan. What could be done to a German newspaper that
had these?
    Mr. Cohn. Well, this is one of our financed papers, first
of all, but the second point is this: What was done about this
official who apparently had given this information to the
newspapers?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know which official gave it and it was
not out of my office.
    Mr. Cohn. They printed his name, one named Frank Milk.
    Mr. Kaghan. He's not an official of mine.
    Mr. Cohn. He is connected with MSA under this information
program.
    Mr. Kaghan. He's not in the information program.
    Mr. Cohn. It is not under him?
    Mr. Kaghan. It's under him, yes.
    The Chairman. Who assigned this man to follow Mr. Cohn and
Mr. Schine?
    Mr. Kaghan. A man was assigned to escort them.
    The Chairman. Use any term you want. Who assigned him?
    Mr. Kaghan. I assume it was Mr. [Glenn] Wolfe. I'm not
sure.
    The Chairman. Who is he?
    Mr. Kaghan. Executive director of HICOG.
    The Chairman. He was an officer in HICOG?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you know that he was reporting on the
activities of Mr. Cohn and Mr. Schine?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not. He never called me.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Mr. Slocum?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether or not this man called Mr.
Slocum? You are under oath.
    Mr. Kaghan. I know that.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know that he was calling Mr. Slocum?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know whether he called Slocum. Slocum
was the press officer and had to handle this program and had to
keep up with where you were and had to know what was going on
in order to answer questions in the press. We were trying to
help this situation along, not make it worse.
    The Chairman. You were aware of the fact that Mr. Cohn had
told this escort that they wanted no part of him and that he
trailed----
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, I did not know that they told him
that.
    The Chairman. You did not know that?
    Mr. Kaghan. I did not know that.
    The Chairman. Did you know that Mr. Slocum was getting
reports from him as to where they ate and what time, and whom
they had lunch with? Did you know that?
    Mr. Kaghan. I wasn't aware of it, but I'm not surprised.
    Senator Mundt. You say you knew Mr. Slocum was getting
reports?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes. It was his business to know whether or
what the congressional visitors were doing or senatorial
investigators were doing, where they were, so that answers from
the press could be taken care of. The trouble arose from the
press conference, not from us. The American press started this.
    Senator Mundt. What did Mr. Slocum do with the information
he got? What would he do with it?
    Mr. Kaghan. If the Associated Press wanted to know where
they could get a hold of Mr. Cohn at any specific time, it
would be up to Mr. Slocum's office to inform them and if they
wanted to interview him in one city or another in Germany it
would be up to Mr. Slocum to tell them which city they were to
send somebody.
    The Chairman. You mean that you are entitled to spend money
to keep track of congressional investigators so you can tell
the press where they are? Is that part of your function?
    Mr. Kaghan. I wouldn't put it that way, sir.
    The Chairman. You just said that his job was to be able to
tell the press where Cohn was.
    Mr. Kaghan. To give answers to the press' questions?
    The Chairman. If we send fifty people to Europe
investigating, do you say it is your job to be able to tell the
press any time where they are and what they are doing?
    Mr. Kaghan. The high commissioner's office is supposed to
be able to supply the press with as much information as
possible so they may do their work and report back to the
American public what is being done in Germany and who is
visiting there.
    The Chairman. Mr. Kaghan, if we send investigators out in
the United States, the State Department does not send or put a
tail on them so they can tell the press where they are.
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. If we send a man down into Mexico, as far as
I know, the State Department does not put a tail on them.
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, and I assume they don't give press
conferences at every stop.
    The Chairman. You mean because they give a press conference
you felt that you were entitled to pay travel expenses for a
man to tail them through Germany and report to Mr. Slocum; is
that correct?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, that is not correct.
    The Chairman. Then on what theory did you feel it was
proper or one of your subordinates, to take this man and pay
his traveling expenses--you are paying his salary, too--to tail
two investigators and pay for long distance phone calls
reporting to Mr. Slocum where they were and what they were
doing? On what theory, do you justify that expenditure?
    Mr. Kaghan. I cannot justify it because it is not my
business. He didn't work for me. I didn't put him on the job
and I didn't ask him to call and he didn't report to me.
    The Chairman. You were Slocum's superior officer?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, sir, and he stayed right in his office and
didn't go anywhere.
    The Chairman. You knew that he was having this man tail
these two men?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, he did not work for Slocum either. He
worked for Mr. Wolfe.
    The Chairman. Did they know that this fellow was tailing
these investigators?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir; I was assuming that he was an escort
officer.
    The Chairman. Did Mr. Slocum have discussions with you on
the reports he got from this tail?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, he certainly had discussions with me. He
is always telling me what he is doing or what is going on in
Germany.
    The Chairman. He told you about this man phoning in the
reports?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, not specifically. He at one time or
maybe three or four times could have said [Bill] Montecone, the
escort, told me. I didn't pay any particular attention to
whether he heard they had a press conference there.
    The Chairman. Do you know that Slocum was getting telephone
reports on the trip that Mr. Cohn and Mr. Schine were making?
Did you know that?
    Mr. Kaghan. I knew that he got a report or two. I don't
know that he was being reported to.
    The Chairman. Do you think that it was a proper expenditure
to pay the expense of this man to follow these two young men
and report on what they were doing? Do you think that was a
proper expenditure of your Public Affairs Office?
    Mr. Kaghan. The Public Affairs Offices did not spend any
money on this man who went with them as escort officer and if
anybody had sent anybody to follow them and report on them I
would think that would be unjustified and uncalled for, but the
man went as an escort officer, as is normal with VIP's who come
to Germany.
    The Chairman. You just said it was necessary so you could
report to the AP where they were. You do not think that is
correct, do you? You do not think the expenses are justified so
you could tell the AP where Cohn was?
    Mr. Kaghan. I had nothing to do with the expense. The man
didn't work for me. I didn't send anybody to follow them or be
with them.
    The Chairman. Do you think it would be a proper expenditure
by HICOG to pay this man's expenses to follow Cohn and Schine
through Europe and report by long distance phone to Slocum what
they were doing? Would that be a proper expenditure?
    Mr. Kaghan. If anybody followed them to report on what they
were doing, it would not be a proper expenditure in my office.
    The Chairman. I have nothing further.
    Mr. Cohn. Just one or two things. When you were in Vienna--
this is December of 1947--we have some information concerning
the conversion of five thousand shillings by you. Do you recall
that incident? Could you clear that up for us?
    Mr. Kaghan. No. I recall some incident about it. There was
a conversion that went on in Austria. There were all sorts of
problems connected with it. I am not familiar with the details.
    The Chairman. Did you make any profits from that?
    Mr. Kaghan. I didn't make any profit from any of my years
in Germany and my bank account will show it, or in Austria.
    Mr. Cohn. What was your relation with this conversion of
these five thousand shillings?
    Mr. Kaghan. I don't know exactly what my relationship was
officially. The newspaper must have had a bank account which
must have been involved in the conversion. Possibly that is
what you are talking about, and I had something to do with that
bank account.
    Mr. Cohn. This involved you personally. I will tell you
exactly what I am talking about. It was an investigation of
possible payroll padding in March of 1949 by the provost
marshal. In the course of that, you were interviewed and
evidence had been developed that you had converted five
thousand shillings through fellow employees in December of
1947? Do you recall that?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, I do not recall the details of that.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you not recall the question by somebody in the
provost marshal's office?
    Mr. Kaghan. Vaguely, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you recall about that?
    Mr. Kaghan. Not a word that the provost marshal asked me or
any of his agents asked me, and I don't recall that it was
specifically me or there was something I knew about or was
supposed to know about.
    Mr. Cohn. It was supposed to be specifically you, but you
say you do not recall?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever contribute any money to the
Communist party?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir, not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Did you ever give Ben Irwin any money?
    Mr. Kaghan. I may have loaned him money.
    The Chairman. I believe you said that you told Mr. Cohn
that you would not name the Communists you knew over in
Germany, but you would do it before this committee. Will you
name those Communists now?
    Mr. Kaghan. I have named Ben Irwin as the person I thought
was a Communist.
    The Chairman. That is the only one you know?
    Mr. Kaghan. That is the only one I feel pretty sure was a
Communist and I do not recall the names of others who were.
    The Chairman. Do you know any Communists working for HICOG
in Germany?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You do not know of any?
    Mr. Kaghan. I do not know of any Communists working for
HICOG.
    The Chairman. None that you suspect of being Communist?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Any that you suspect of being sympathetic to
communism?
    Mr. Kaghan. No, sir.
    The Chairman. None whatsoever?
    Mr. Kaghan. None whatsoever. If I knew of any sympathetic
to communism that were working for me I would fire them.
    The Chairman. If you knew any who felt the way you did in
1939, would you fire them?
    Mr. Kaghan. In 1939?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes, I would.
    The Chairman. You would fire them?
    Mr. Kaghan. Yes. If he didn't know any more about communism
than that, I would fire him.
    The Chairman. We will adjourn until 10:30 in the morning at
which time we will have a public session.
    You may have counsel in case you care to have counsel with
you. If you have counsel, you are entitled to advise with
counsel at any time you care to and discuss any matter with him
at any time you want to. If a matter comes up where you think
you need a confidential conference with counsel any time during
the hearing, we will try and provide a room to which you can go
and have such a conference. It is just up to yourself whether
you want counsel or not. We do not let counsel take any part in
the proceedings.
    [Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., Tuesday, April 28, 1953, the
executive session was concluded.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
                              ----------
                          TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1953
    [Editor's note.--James A. Wechsler returned to testify in
executive session a second time on May 5, 1953. Ten days later
the transcripts of both the April 24 and May 5 sessions were
made public, and the subcommittee published them later that
year.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--Poet, novelist and editor Millen Brand
(1906-1980) testified again in public session on May 6, 1953.]
                              ----------
                          TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 3:30 p.m. in room 357 of the
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri; Senator Henry M.
Jackson, Democrat, Washington.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Howard Rushmore,
research director; \23\ Donald A. Surine, assistant counsel;
Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Howard Rushmore (1914-1958) served as the subcommittee's
director of research from April 1 to July 12, 1953. The former film
critic for the Daily Worker fell out with the Communist party in 1939
over its criticism of his review of Gone With the Wind. Rushmore became
a feature writer for William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal-
American. He testified before the House Un-American Activities
Committee about the Communist leanings of prominent Hollywood actors
and writers, and before the permanent subcommittee on March 5, 1953,
about Reed Harris. Rushmore quit the subcommittee following a dispute
with Roy Cohn and afterwards publicly criticized Cohn and Senator
McCarthy. He became editor of the magazine Confidential, but later
testified against the magazine in court. The New York Daily News dubbed
him a ``turncoat of many colors.'' Roy Cohn observed that Rushmore had
``a mental quirk which resulted in his trying to hurt everyone he had
ever worked for.'' In 1958, Rushmore shot and killed his wife and
himself in a New York City taxi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand? In this
matter now in hearing, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Brand. I do.
                   TESTIMONY OF MILLEN BRAND
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Brand, your full name is Millen, M-i-l-l-e-n,
Brand, B-r-a-n-d?
    Mr. Brand. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your present business affiliation?
    Mr. Brand. With Crown Publishers.
    Mr. Cohn. Crown Publishers in New York?
    Mr. Brand. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. That is a very large publishing firm, is it not?
    Mr. Brand. Fairly large.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you been with
them?
    Mr. Brand. About a year.
    Mr. Cohn. You have been with them for about one year. Mr.
Brand, are you now or have you ever been a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Brand. I refuse to answer on the grounds of the Fifth
Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Brand, are you the author of some books?
    Mr. Brand. That is right.
    The Chairman. May I ask a question? Are you a member of the
Communist party as of today?
    Mr. Brand. I refuse to answer on the grounds of the Fifth
Amendment.
    The Chairman. You understand, Mr. Brand, that this
privilege under the Fifth Amendment is not a privilege that can
be lightly taken, it can only be taken if you honestly feel
that a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you?
Therefore, I will ask you do you honestly feel if you were to
tell the committee whether or not you are a Communist today,
tell them the truth, that answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Brand. I refuse to answer on the same grounds.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer that question. I
understand you do not have counsel here, so I will try and go
over this again.
    A witness cannot be forced to testify against himself. The
only right you have to refuse to answer this particular
instance that we are talking about, is that if you honestly
feel that a truthful answer would tend to incriminate yourself.
If you feel that you would incriminate yourself for perjury,
you cannot refuse to answer.
    The committee must decide in each instance whether you have
the right to refuse to answer. Before we can determine that, I
ask you the simple question of whether or not you feel that a
truthful answer to the question of whether or not you are today
a Communist might tend to incriminate you. If you honestly feel
that it would tend to incriminate you and you tell us that,
then you are entitled to refuse to answer. If you do not, we
would order you to answer the other question. Do you
understand?
    Mr. Brand. You mean I would be in contempt if I refuse to
answer?
    The Chairman. If you refuse to answer whether you
truthfully feel, that you honestly feel, that the truthful
answer would tend to incriminate you, then I would order you to
answer.
    Mr. Brand. I have to ask you for fairness on this because I
am unfamiliar with this.
    The Chairman. It is a question I have asked other
witnesses, and I have taken the same position with them. I may
say this, that if at this point or at any other point in the
proceedings you feel that you need the advice of counsel, we
will be glad to let you obtain a lawyer who can advise you on
that. We do not want to take advantage of anyone at any of
these hearings.
    Senator Symington. May I ask a question?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Symington. Do you feel that you are a good
American?
    Mr. Brand. You see, I am at a complete loss here because I
don't know what questions are permissible and what are not.
    Senator Symington. How old are you?
    Mr. Brand. I see what you mean.
    Senator Symington. If you see what I mean, you are not at a
complete loss, are you?
    Mr. Brand. Naturally I can say how old I am.
    Senator Symington. What is your age?
    Mr. Brand. Forty-seven.
    Senator Symington. At forty-seven you ought to know whether
or not you believe you are a good American, should you not?
    Mr. Brand. There is a question involved here. I suppose
actually I should say I am, but there is a question that I do
not know the area where you----
    Senator Symington. Why do you not say? If you feel you are
a good American, why do you not say you are a good American,
and if you feel you are not, why do you not say you are not?
    Mr. Brand. I do feel I am a good American.
    Senator Symington. You do feel you are a good American?
    Mr. Brand. Yes.
    Senator Symington. Then if you do you would not want to
belong to any organization that is committed to destroy the
United States by force and violence?
    Mr. Brand. Well, I would like to say again that you are
probably very experienced in framing these questions----
    Senator Symington. Mr. Brand, you are looking at the
greenest senator that ever hit Washington. I am not even a
lawyer. Just from the standpoint of common sense, I am
wondering why if you felt you were a good American you would be
ashamed to tell the chairman of the committee, why you would be
ashamed to say you once had been a Communist.
    Let me ask you one more question. Do you think you could be
a Communist as of today and still be a good American with the
condition of the world as it is?
    Mr. Brand. I think I should refuse to answer that.
    Senator Symington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I am going back to the other question. The
original question was are you a Communist as of today. You
refused to answer that on the ground that the answer might tend
to incriminate you. In order to determine whether you are
entitled to that privilege, I asked you the question whether
you felt that a truthful answer to that question of whether or
not you are a Communist as of today might tend to incriminate
you.
    You have been ordered to answer that question. If you
refuse, I will ask the committee to hold you in contempt. If
you want the advice of counsel, we will give you a recess and
let you get counsel, sufficient time to get a lawyer from
wherever you want to get him.
    Mr. Brand. You mean I will still be able to come back this
afternoon?
    The Chairman. If you can get a lawyer here in town,
certainly. We will adjourn and give you time to come back this
afternoon.
    Mr. Brand. I don't even know the name of a lawyer, and I
hadn't thought it would be necessary. I will take your word for
this.
    The Chairman. I may say that if I were your lawyer
representing you, I would advise you that you must answer
whether you think a truthful answer would tend to incriminate
you.
    Mr. Brand. Then I will say yes.
    The Chairman. Then you are entitled to privilege.
    Mr. Cohn. You are the author of some books, are you not?
    Mr. Brand. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Name them.
    Mr. Brand. Outward Room.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Millen Brand, The Outward Room (New York, Simon and Schuster,
1937).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. Written when?
    Mr. Brand. Between 1933 and 1936.
    Mr. Cohn. What else?
    Mr. Brand. The Heroes.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Millen Brand, The Heroes (New York : Simon and Schuster,
1939.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. Written when?
    Mr. Brand. Approximately a year later.
    Mr. Cohn. What else?
    Mr. Brand. Albert Sears.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Millen Brand, Albert Sears: A Novel (New York : Simon and
Schuster, 1947).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. Written when?
    Mr. Brand. You really mean when published?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Brand. That was published in 1946.
    Mr. Cohn. What else?
    Mr. Brand. That is all.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a Communist at the time you wrote any of
those books?
    Mr. Brand. I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. You refuse as to all three?
    Mr. Brand. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you in consultation with any of the members
of the Communist party concerning any of those three books?
    Mr. Brand. I refuse to answer on the same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Brand, have you ever written any book
reviews?
    Mr. Brand. Yes, I have.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever write any for the New York Times?
    Mr. Brand. I don't believe so.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you write one for the New York Times which
appeared December 22, 1946?
    Mr. Brand. I don't recall having written one.
    Mr. Cohn. For what publications have you written book
reviews?
    Mr. Brand. Saturday Review of Literature.
    Mr. Cohn. When you wrote book reviews for the Saturday
Review of Literature, were you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Brand. I refuse to answer on the same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. What else besides Saturday Review of Literature?
    Mr. Brand. New Masses.
    Mr. Cohn. New Masses. What else?
    Mr. Brand. I don't recall any others.
    The Chairman. Mr. Brand, I am not going to try to advise
you here, but this committee knows that there has been a period
of time during which unless you were either a member of the
Communist party or your writings were friendly to it, you had
great difficulty getting a favorable review in many of the
leading publications whose reviews determine to a great extent
how many books would be sold.
    I can see how some authors who were in financial straits
might have gone through the motions of being friendly to the
Communist party in order to get their works sold. You are going
on a public hearing tomorrow. This is the first time you have
testified. You can do yourself, I think, a great deal of damage
or a great deal of good by deciding whether or not you want to
come in and very frankly tell the committee whether you were a
member of the party, why you became a member, if you are still
a member why you remain in it.
    I personally have respect for the Communists who have
enough guts to stand up and say, ``Sure, I am a Communist, and
here's why I am a Communist.'' It is not a criminal offense to
be a member of the Communist party unless you are a wilful and
knowing member, knowing that its object is to destroy the
United States government by force and violence.
    So that unless you are part of that conspiracy to overthrow
the government by force and violence, a frank and honest answer
cannot hurt you. You have to decide what you want to do, but
you have a very important decision to make here between now and
tomorrow. For your own benefit I think you should think it over
carefully.
    Do you agree, Senator?
    Senator Symington. I agree, Mr. Chairman. I suggest that
the witness see a lawyer and come in tomorrow.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever engage in Communist espionage with a
man named Arthur Adams?
    Mr. Brand. I refuse to answer on the grounds of the Fifth
Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this----
    The Chairman. You refuse to answer whether you engaged in
espionage with Arthur Adams on the ground that if you told the
truth that might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Brand. I think probably I should see counsel because
this is----
    The Chairman. You may.
    Mr. Brand. I hardly know my way around here.
    Senator Symington. Mr. Brand, the way that you are acting
makes me feel personally that you are ashamed of being a
Communist and that you do not know how to express it because
you are afraid it might hurt you. Now if I am wrong in that,
you at least are leaving the implication with the committee
that you are a Communist.
    As the chairman pointed out, it is not illegal and why do
you not say so and get it over with so that we can find out the
rest of the questions that they want to ask with respect to the
inquiry?
    Mr. Brand. You see, I don't agree in not wanting to answer
these questions that I am admitting these things that you say
seem.
    Senator Symington. Why do you not agree?
    Mr. Brand. It is just a conviction of mine.
    Senator Symington. What is the conviction?
    Mr. Brand. I just expressed them.
    Senator Symington. Say it again.
    Mr. Brand. My conviction is that it doesn't establish the
fact that I am guilty of these things because I refuse to
answer questions about them.
    Senator Symington. What is the reason that you refuse to
answer?
    Mr. Brand. The main thing is that I would like to keep my
privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. He has indicated he wants to see a lawyer and
I think he should be allowed to do so.
    Mr. Cohn. One question, Mr. Chairman. Is your Communist
party number 79353?
    Mr. Brand. I refuse to answer on the grounds of the Fifth
Amendment.
    The Chairman. You would prefer getting a lawyer?
    Mr. Brand. Yes.
    The Chairman. You may do that, and we will hear you in
public session, tomorrow morning at ten o'clock in room 318.
    Mr. Cohn. What are some of the books that have been
published by your firm since you have been with it?
    The Chairman. I think in view of the fact that he has
indicated he wants counsel, I do not think he should be asked
any more questions.
    [Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the committee proceeded to other
business.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--John L. Donovan (1910-1976) did not
testify in public session.]
                              ----------
                         WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 1:45 p.m. in room 428 of the
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Also present: Francis Flanagan, general counsel; Donald
Surine, assistant counsel; Howard Rushmore, research director;
Robert Morris, counsel, Senate Internal Security Subcommittee.
    Senator McCarthy. In this matter now in hearing before the
committee, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Donovan. I do.
    Senator McCarthy. Give your name and address for the
record.
    Mr. Donovan. John L. Donovan, 3439 7th Avenue, Los Angeles,
18, California.
                  TESTIMONY OF JOHN L. DONOVAN
    Mr. Morris. Mr. Donovan, were you born in New York?
    Mr. Donovan. I was born in Worcester, Massachusetts.
    Mr. Morris. And in your early days you lived in New York
City?
    Mr. Donovan. I lived in New York City between 1924 and 1925
and between 1928 and 1933.
    Mr. Morris. Did you go to Columbia University?
    Mr. Donovan. I attended Columbia University and was
graduated from there.
    Mr. Morris. What degree did you obtain?
    Mr. Donovan. Bachelor of arts in 1931, master of arts 1932,
in June, and I attended for an additional year, until June
1933.
    Mr. Morris. While you were at Columbia University and while
you were in New York, were you a member of the Young Communist
League?
    Mr. Donovan. I was not.
    Mr. Morris. Were you a member of the Communist party at
that time?
    Mr. Donovan. I was not.
    Mr. Morris. Did you know James Wechsler in that period of
time?
    Mr. Donovan. I did.
    Mr. Morris. Did you know him to be a member of the Young
Communist League?
    Mr. Donovan. I did not.
    Mr. Morris. Did you meet him under any circumstances which
would warrant his concluding that you were a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Donovan. Not to my recollection, although through close
relationships among persons he may have gathered I was a
member.
    Mr. Morris. You did join the Communist party sometime
subsequent to your stay in Columbia?
    Mr. Donovan. That is correct.
    Senator McCarthy. I think you should tell him that Mr.
Wechsler submitted his name as a member of the party.
    Mr. Morris. That is why I was asking those questions, Mr.
Chairman. Now, Mr. Donovan, did you join the Communist party
when you were in Washington?
    Mr. Donovan. I joined the Communist party when I was in
Washington, D.C.
    Mr. Morris. Who induced you to join the Communist party?
    Mr. Donovan. I went to a person named Eleanor Nelson, who
was a member of the government employees' local union in the
Department of Labor to ask her advice about certain union
problems. I was president of the local union of government
employees myself. She asked me why I did not joint the
Communist party, and I did join.
    Mr. Morris. Were you assigned to any unit at that time?
    Mr. Donovan. Not immediately.
    Mr. Morris. Did you subsequently come to belong to a unit?
    Mr. Donovan. I did subsequently.
    Mr. Morris. Will you tell us the circumstances of your
being made a part of a particular unit of the Communist party?
    Mr. Donovan. I joined the Communist party in very late 1935
to the best of my recollection. I was told by Miss Nelson that
I would be notified by someone what to do. I was living at that
time in a house in Washington with four individuals, one of
whom was Victor Perlo, a mathematician I had known at Columbia,
and had understood to be a Communist, although without specific
legal knowledge, and three individuals whom I understood
definitely not to be Communists, and whose names I am putting
in the record with the full feeling that they were not then,
and to the best of my knowledge have never since been
Communists. The names are Sigmund Timberg, Bruno Schachner and
Aaron Muravchik. All of these were young attorneys whom I had
known at Columbia in the undergraduate school. I had known them
as not being Communists.
    Mr. Morris. You put that in the record, Mr. Donovan----
    Mr. Donovan. I put it to explain my participation in the
Communist party cell because I want it known where I lived and
with whom at this particular time.
    For some weeks after being told by Miss Nelson that I would
be invited to a meeting, nothing happened. One night around
April of 1934, I was approached by Victor Perlo in the house
where I lived, and told I should attend with him a Communist
party meeting. I want to say at this time that I was quite
drunk, very drunk, but nevertheless got up and went with him
somewhere and met in a meeting with several people, none of
whom--and I regret very sincerely--I remember at the present
time, nor have I any recollection of the general business of
the meeting, except as it seems to have affected me.
    I was then president of a local union of the AFL government
employees union, and had been active in taking up problems of
overtime and minor grievances of one kind or another, which
were blown up in the Washington, D.C., newspapers as major
incidents because of newspaper tendencies. There was some
discussion at this meeting regarding the possible promotion of
individuals present, including me, within government
employment. The question as it affected me was that I had been
active in the government employees union, and should withdraw
as rapidly as possible from that activity and drop out of the
union, in order that I might be available for advancement and
pushing up the ladder in government employment.
    Mr. Morris. That is in line with Communist technique?
    Mr. Donovan. In line with the Communist policy. That is my
recollection of the meeting.
    I left there and returned to my drinking for the evening.
That is all I remember about it, Senator.
    Mr. Morris. Did you become the head of a unit in the NRA?
    Mr. Donovan. I subsequently became the head of the unit of
Communist party members who were members of the local union,
Lodge No. 91 of the American Federation of Government Employees
at the NRA.
    Mr. Morris. And you were the head of the Communist cell in
that unit?
    Mr. Donovan. I was.
    Mr. Morris. Who were the Communists in that unit?
    Mr. Donovan. The Communists in the unit originally were
Henry Rhine, Jessica Buck, and one minor clerk-typist or file
clerk whose name I don't remember. It has not returned to me.
That was at the beginning.
    At subsequent times, as my employment in the NRA went
forward--I am getting ahead of the thing to which I will return
in a moment if you please--it is my recollection that Arthur
Stein was a member of the union, a girl named Rose Clinton was
a member of the union, and there may have been in and out one
or two other persons whom I do not recollect, that is, whose
names I do not recollect, but I do vaguely remember one or two
other persons.
    Mr. Morris. Did you meet with any other units?
    Mr. Donovan. I was discharged from the NRA in June of 1934,
if I remember correctly on June 18, 1934, by General Hugh
Johnson, the administrator of the National Recovery
Administration. The discharge was the conclusion of the
handling of a minor internal employee grievance concerning a
stencil cutter, I believe, in the stenographic pool who had
lost her job under what appeared to the local union to be
unfair circumstances.
    In handling the case, General Johnson stated to me
personally that a job would be obtained for the individual in
another government agency, and it was my feeling that this
would straighten the whole thing out. But after three or four
weeks no job had been obtained and nothing seemed to be
happening, so I led a committee which waited in General
Johnson's anteroom at a time when there was apparently a great
deal of tension in the air, of which I was not aware, and I was
fired the evening of the same day that that committee went into
the office.
    It became something of a publicity because during the
summer of 1934, terminating on August 10, 1934, in my
reinstatement in the NRA after a hearing before the National
Labor Relations Board.
    Coincidentally with this incident at the conclusion of
which I was fired, there was before the NRA a decision on the
cotton garment code, in which Sidney Hillman, a member of the
NEA Labor Advisory Board was advocating a 10 percent increase
in hourly wage rates, and a 10 percent decrease in maximum
weekly hours. Assigned to prepare economic material for a brief
for Mr. Hillman had been A. G. Silverman, the chief
statistician of the NRA, and I gather this from subsequent
reports--it is not of my own immediate knowledge--apparently in
entering the discussions with the officials of the NRA and
representatives of the cotton garment industry, Hillman took
the brief before him for the first time, and it proved
something entirely different from what he had intended to
prove. Rather than proving a case for an increase in wage rates
and a decrease in hours, it showed the degree of non-compliance
with the then minimum and maximum effected.
    Hillman blew his top and talked to Dr. Gustav Peck who was
the executive director, I believe, of the NRA. Peck, if I
recollect this correctly, was supposed to have taken on Hillman
and a Brannigan took place, a very violent argument took place,
during the course of which Silverman was either forced to
resign or fired.
    At any rate, he was off the payroll, which made him off the
payroll at approximately the same day or a day or two after I
had been discharged by General Johnson.
    Within the next seven days Silverman approached me with the
proposal that we link his termination and my termination----
    Mr. Morris. Was Silverman to your knowledge a Communist?
    Mr. Donovan. He was not at that time to my knowledge a
Communist, although shortly thereafter it came to my knowledge
that he was. He put some pressure upon me. I argued just as
vehemently that we had a union case which had some possibility
of successful conclusion, but that there was no possibility
were we to join up a controversy between a major figure in the
American Federation of Labor, namely, Sidney Hillman, and the
chief statistician of the NRA over a question of applicability
or competency with what was a straight employee grievance, and
a subsequent discharge of a union officer.
    I do not know how many days, it might have been a week or
two, that this argument between Hillman and a few friends of
Hillman in the NRA and me individually took place. Usually
these arguments took place at the newspaper club because I was
not working, and that is where I spent my days, drinking when I
had money.
    Within the next ten days or two weeks after my discharge, I
was called to a meeting where I met a number of individuals who
worked within the NRA, and whom I knew to be employees of the
NRA, but whom I had not known until that time as Communists. I
don't know who told me to come to the meeting.
    At the meeting as I remember, and I remember pretty
accurately on this--to begin the meeting was he lived in the
apartment of Bob Coe. I do not know the address or the relative
location--present were H. E. Silverman, Bob Coe, Henry Collins,
Henry Rhine, myself, and an individual who represented the
Communist party from outside. He was obviously the guy in
charge. In fact, it was said that he represented Harold Ware,
who was out of town doing something. He was known as John
Herman. The chap was probably six feet one or six feet one and
a half tall, rangy, American type, an educated accent, a
moustache on the auburn side, and hair while not balding, not
too thick or too clustered hair. I don't remember the color of
his eyes.
    Mr. Morris. Do you know whether that was John Herman's
right name or not?
    Mr. Donovan. I do not, and I assume that was not his
correct name. The other things I remember about Herman is that
Herman apparently was a writer and the estranged husband or
boyfriend of another writer named Tess Schlinger. I do not know
how I gather this. This is a definite recollection, however.
Probably in the gossip after the meeting was over about who
this guy was.
    The subject matter of the meeting was to persuade me to
link the Silverman termination with the union case of which I
was the apex. This I vigorously refused to do, using all of the
arguments as to how things are handled practically in unions,
and why this should not be done, and would complicate
needlessly and get into a long drawn out fight that had nothing
to do with the immediate issue.
    Herman was something of a theoretician and asked me if I
espoused the theory of tailism, which I did not know much
about. I did not know whether I did or not, but I knew what I
knew.
    The meeting wound up without me having agreed or without
having any decision to compel me having been set down. But here
were a bunch of guys that had not been active in the union,
except for Rhine, here were some new people that I had not
known as Communists previously who obviously knew nothing about
union, and to me they were presuming to tell me how to run my
business, and I didn't like it.
    Thereafter within a short period of time, possibly a week
or so, another meeting was called to which I went, and I don't
know where it was. I am not sure whose house it was. I seem to
recollect it was Nathaniel Weyl's apartment, but quite possibly
it was not. It was a garret apartment, a full top floor. I
remember this distinctly because the bed at one side, and a
number of chairs scattered around, and scatter rugs on the
floor. It was the middle of summer, extremely hot, and the
meeting lasted endlessly. In fact, it lasted as I remember
until nearly four o'clock in the morning.
    At one part as I got tired I lay on the floor and looked up
at the ceiling where the peak of the roof came together and I
remember the tie strips across there.
    Present at the meeting according to my recollection both of
whom I am sure were Harold Ware, John Herman, Eleanor Nelson,
Henry Rhine, Jessica Buck, Bob Coe, Victor Perlo, H. E.
Silverman, Henry Collins, and although I am not sure of this, I
seem to remember Nathaniel Weyl. I could be wrong.
    I was drinking in those days and this is nearly twenty
years go. I don't want to state positively what I don't
recollect positively.
    There were two subjects for discussion in the six-hour
meeting. One was bringing the Silverman case into a joint issue
within the union which I debated with all I knew. The strongest
person for joining the case was Bob Coe. Silverman did not take
too strong a part. Bob Coe took something with a part. From
time to time Herman came in with various arguments which seemed
irrelevant and from time to time Ware said we should do it
anyhow.
    The upshot of it was, however, that the meeting there
decided against bringing the Silverman termination into the
union fight at that time.
    However, there was a second issue on which the argument
lasted even longer. A number of the people, prominently Coe and
Silverman, insisted that the fight being conducted by the union
should be made more militant and that a meeting of the union
should be called and a decision of the union made for the union
members to go out and picket the Commerce building.
    Of course, this appeared to me to be incredible as a
position, because win or lose, the case was going along all
right, and being conducted as I felt, then--I would have done
it differently now--a union case should be handled.
    They insisted upon it. I explained at great length here are
125 people out of about 3,000, innocent, honest, hardworking
people who probably had been out of jobs for a long time, and
they needed jobs. They simply would never be able, even if they
got a union meeting vote, to go out and picket, more than
themselves and possibly five or six or seven suckers to go out
there and picket, and that they would all be canned from the
government, and they would look like a bunch of idiots.
    This went on, and it would just about be decided, and then
it would resume, and the argument would be gone over and over
again, until four o'clock in the morning when it was finally
decided that I was under instructions and the rest were to help
me to persuade the union to take this action.
    I walked down the stairs, I remember it very vividly, with
Harold Ware up the street toward a traveled thoroughfare to get
a taxicab home. On the way walking up the street I said to
Ware, ``Those guys don't know anything. They don't understand
these things. But surely you must understand that they are
wrong, that this is wrong, that this is crazy.'' We didn't
agree or disagree.
    I left him when I took a cab one way and he stood there
waiting for another, and the subject never came up again of the
Silverman case, or people coming out to picket on the picket
line. It never came up in the union. Moreover, all of these
people except Henry Rhine and Jessica Buck dropped out of
activity in connection with the Donovan case until the very
last day when the hearing was being held in the NRA--or rather
before the National Labor Relations Board--at which time I
remember Silverman in the audience, and I remember Bob Coe,
jumping up at one point and interrupting Dr. Gustav Peck's
testimony to contradict him at one point.
    That is my last connection within the Communist party,
although I continued to work in the NRA, I continued to drink
at the newspaper club or at cocktail bars, or around at
cocktail parties raising money for this or that, but these
people, along with a great many other people in the district--
this was my last organizational connection, shall I say, with
any of these individuals, except Eleanor Nelson, Henry Rhine
and Jessica Buck. The others dropped. As a matter of fact,
Senator, they began gradually to walk away and avoid and
conspicuously get me out of their hair from this time forward.
    Mr. Morris. You did not leave the Communist party at that
time?
    Mr. Donovan. I did not.
    Mr. Morris. You do not know any more secret Communists than
you have told us about?
    Mr. Donovan. I do not know any more secret Communists. I
know people whose names have come forward in the various
investigations. I have known of reputations, but to know them
in terms of having been there and knowing definitely, I don't.
    Mr. Morris. You stayed on with the Communist party for a
while?
    Mr. Donovan. I stayed on with the AFL unions within which
the Communists penetrated in a number of agencies and where
they had definite influence in several of the local unions.
    Mr. Morris. How long did you stay there?
    Mr. Donovan. I stayed there from the summer of 1934.
Incidentally, right after this meeting which I described in the
attic apartment, I was invited, I forget by whom, to a meeting
of a different kind of cell, namely, a cell within the
government employees union, and that process was the rest of my
organizational connection in Washington.
    Mr. Morris. You were invited to this other meeting?
    Mr. Donovan. I was invited to a different meeting.
    Mr. Morris. Did you go?
    Mr. Donovan. I did.
    Mr. Morris. Who was there?
    Mr. Donovan. If I remember correctly, and I do remember the
individuals I should state correctly, a man named Blumberg from
Baltimore, Maryland, who was the key person in charge for the
Communist party from the outside. Eleanor Nelson from the Labor
Department who was the key person in charge in Washington.
There was myself and a gray-haired woman with glasses, rather
pretty middle-aged face, on the thin spinsterish side, whose
name I do not recollect. She was a member of the National
Federation of Federal Employees. I can't for the life of me
recollect her name. She was there, and in this particular cell
for only a few more meetings, and then dropped out for whatever
reason I don't know. I don't know where she went or what she
did. She was a government employee and a member of the National
Federation of Federal Employees.
    Mr. Morris. Were you in these other meetings that she
attended and then dropped out?
    Mr. Donovan. Yes, I was at two or three such meetings
during the summer.
    Mr. Morris. Have you ever met Alger Hiss?
    Mr. Donovan. No.
    Mr. Morris. Did you ever attend a secret meeting of the
Communist party with Alger Hiss?
    Mr. Donovan. To my knowledge, I never knew him to the best
of my knowledge. I recognized his name as a new name in my
cognizance.
    Senator McCarthy. This fellow John Herman, he would not
have been Alger Hiss, would he?
    Mr. Donovan. No. I had seen Hiss's picture repeatedly and
he would not have been.
    Mr. Surine. You now recall another person who was at his
meeting with Al Blumberg, is that correct?
    Mr. Donovan. That is correct.
    Mr. Surine. What was her name?
    Mr. Donovan. That was Al Blumberg's wife, as I understood
it, named Dorothy Rose. She was a rather slight, thinly pretty
brunette woman with black or very dark brown hair who usually
sat in an outer room or on the edge of the meeting, not taking
an active part, but apparently waiting for her husband to get
through with the meeting.
    Mr. Surine. In connection with all of these meetings which
you have described, they were officially called Communist
meetings. There was no one there except Communists? That was
your understanding?
    Mr. Donovan. That is correct.
    Mr. Surine. They were actual members of the party?
    Mr. Donovan. These were official Communist meetings and
according to my understanding they were definitely Communist
party meetings, and all of the people who were there were to my
understanding members of the Communist party.
    Mr. Surine. In connection with Eleanor Nelson, have you had
occasion to either follow her career or her activities after
you knew her personally in the Communist party movement?
    Mr. Donovan. I knew that subsequent to my leaving
Washington in March or April of 1936, that in 1937 there was
established a CIO United Federal Workers Union of which she
became the secretary treasurer, and when I returned to
Washington looking for a job in the autumn of 1937, I saw
Eleanor Nelson several times and spoke to her several times.
    Mr. Surine. At the time when you did see her, were you
still a member of the Communist party or considered yourself to
be a member?
    Mr. Donovan. I had stopped paying dues, and I was in bad
standing in a fight with various people in the Communist party.
She talked to me, but I was not invited to any meetings or to
any official gatherings.
    Mr. Surine. Do you know who she later married?
    Mr. Donovan. No, I do not, sir.
    Mr. Morris. You know she was married to Paul Porter?
    Mr. Donovan. I knew she had been married to Paul Porter. I
think she had been divorced or estranged before I met her.
    Mr. Morris. You knew her marriage to Paul Porter was not a
happy one?
    Mr. Donovan. I heard this. I did not know of it to my own
knowledge.
    Mr. Surine. While you were active in that period in the
Communist party meetings here in Washington, were there any
statements made officially at these meetings or by any of the
other Communists concerning whether or not they had sources in
Washington newspapers?
    Mr. Donovan. No, I don't recollect any such.
    Mr. Morris. I would like to have the record show when you
broke off with the Communist party. I know it was an indefinite
time, but I would like to get your best recollection.
    Mr. Donovan. My best recollection is in the spring of 1937
or the winter of 1938.
    Mr. Morris. And you have been organizing against the
Communists since that time?
    Mr. Donovan. I have been organizing against the Communists,
although I have been in contact with Communists in Washington,
and the South, down until June of 1939, at which time I helped
throw all the Communists that I could think up and dream up or
suspected out of the Workers Alliance in a local branch of the
Workers Alliance in Atlanta, Georgia.
    After that in September 1939, I got drunk and went out with
Harry Scott, who was the key Communist in Atlanta to his house,
and began to upbraid him and beat him up a little bit with my
fists. In connection with this he called the police, and I took
a duck around the corner while the sirens were there, and when
I thought it was time to come out, I came out, but my shirt had
been torn in the scuffle and the police picked me up, and I had
a half pint of gin in my pocket so they booked me, I think, as
drunk and disorderly.
    I got a lawyer there, Joe Jacobs, who had me bailed out in
the morning. I appeared in the court in the morning, and Scott
was there to press charges. I asked for a postponement which I
got for three weeks. I went down at the time I was supposed to
appear on the instructions of Jacobs, the attorney.
    Scott was there apparently to press charges, but on
instructions from Jacobs I went over and whispered to the clerk
that I would like to have it dismissed and the clerk whispered
to the judge on the bench, and the judge, when the case was
called on the calendar, said, ``Case dismissed,'' and Scott
looked perplexed, and I have not seen him since.
    Mr. Surine. During the period of 1934 to 1937, when you
state that you finally broke definitely with the party, did you
ever receive any official instructions from a Communist party
member, either to take some form of action or to do something?
    Mr. Donovan. I received official instructions from Eleanor
Nelson in connection with a meeting which was held over the
case in which I was involved when I was fired. I received
instructions to mention the name of a committee they had going,
a joint committee for unity of government employee unions. This
incidentally was the connection of this gray haired woman with
these meetings. I remember now. I received an instruction in
the meeting to be sure to give credit to this joint committee
in a sort of victory meeting which occurred after I was
reinstated.
    Apparently I gave credit to the union and to the
international union, and E. Claude Babcock, and everybody else,
but psychologically I slipped on this joint committee and got
hell about it.
    At the next meeting, Blumberg said, ``What do you mean not
carrying out instructions.'' I can not remember definitely
instructions to do this or that.
    Mr. Surine. I was wondering particularly the years 1936 and
1937, whether or not you still were receiving any kind of
suggestions or instructions from persons whom you knew to be
Communists, and who were passing on to you these suggestions as
Communists or these instructions.
    Mr. Donovan. The last instructions I got from Donald
Henderson when I went to Colorado for Henderson.
    Mr. Surine. In what year was that?
    Mr. Donovan. Henderson made an arrangement with me to go
there in the late spring of 1936. I finally got there, driven
out there by him, in early August 1936. I had three
instructions; one, to build a confederation of agricultural
workers, AFL federal unions, in the mountain states.
    Mr. Surine. Is that what they call the Yucca Pow Wow?
    Mr. Donovan. No, this was the conference of the AFL
agricultural workers set up as a semi-voluntary organization
under the Colorado State Federation of Labor and a general
authorization for establishing such things.
    The second instruction was to get out a newspaper in
Spanish for these agricultural workers unions and to set up a
format similar to Henderson's organizer paper.
    The third instruction I got from Henderson was to keep away
from the Allender family who were the titular heads of the
official open Communist party in Denver.
    Mr. Surine. Did you follow those instructions?
    Mr. Donovan. I followed along with the state federation in
setting up the confederation of AFL unions. I got out three or
five issues of the paper. It was quite a job. I had two years
of Spanish about eighteen years before in high school, so what
I did mainly was to take up the paper and it would take eight
or nine days to get out four pages with my knowledge of
Spanish. I did largely keep away from Allender. Occasionally he
would pop over with ``Let's do this.''
    The last thing that he came over specifically for was to
get delegates elected to the AFL convention in the fall of
1936. After that I was a maverick, apparently an uncontrollable
item and apparently they didn't care too much about it. I was
largely in disagreement.
    I met my present wife in Colorado, and she was an organizer
for the Denver Trades and Labor Assembly, and we made common
cause, and see to it that the Communist party program did not
go forward.
    Mr. Surine. While you were in Denver and in occasional
contact with Allender and these others, were you in contact
with other Communists out there whom you now can identify as
being Communists?
    Mr. Donovan. I remember the Allender family as being a
Communist family there. Probably all of the members were not.
But one of them, Bill, went to Spain. A second one was one of
the key officers of the Workers Alliance. A third was a young
kid who ran errands for his brother, who was a district
organizer of the Communist party. I don't know about all the
rest of them. I cannot identify any of these people in terms of
having been in official Communist party meetings with the
exception of Allender, who acted officially as the district
organizer.
    Mr. Morris. You say you have never attended a meeting with
Alger Hiss?
    Mr. Donovan. That is correct.
    Mr. Morris. Have you ever attended a Communist meeting with
Lee Pressman?
    Mr. Donovan. I never have attended a Communist party
meeting with Lee Pressman.
    Mr. Morris. With Nathan Witt?
    Mr. Donovan. I never have attended a Communist party
meeting with Nathan Witt.
    Mr. Morris, With Nathaniel Weyl?
    Mr. Donovan. I seem to remember having attended Communist
meetings with Nathaniel Weyl, namely, this meeting in the loft.
But other than that I do not recollect.
    Mr. Morris. You knew he was a Communist?
    Mr. Donovan. Yes, I knew he was a Communist.
    Mr. Morris. And you met him from time to time?
    Mr. Donovan. I met him while he was at Columbia in the
spring of 1933, and he made no bones about being a Communist.
In fact, I met Eleanor Nelson through Nathaniel Weyl.
    Mr. Morris. How many occasions altogether did you meet
Nathaniel Weyl in Washington?
    Mr. Donovan. Probably fifty occasions at bars or in the
newspaper club, or around.
    Mr. Morris. But you have only one recollection at a
Communist party meeting?
    Mr. Donovan. Where I seem to remember he was there.
    Mr. Morris. Mr. Donovan, have you made disclosures to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation of all the facts you are
putting in our record?
    Mr. Donovan. I have to the best of my recollection. I wish
to say, however, for the record that I was interviewed by the
FBI on three or four occasions in Los Angeles, and at that time
I lied to the FBI about my Communist party membership and about
certain relationships with individuals. I regret the lie. I am
very sorry for it. I want to state for the record that my
reasons for lying were that I hesitated to embarrass the
persons and organizations with whom I am now associated on the
West Coast, including certain conservative branches of the
American Federation of Labor, the one union by which I am
employed. I hesitated to embarrass my wife and other friends.
Most particularly I hesitated to embarrass my brother, who is a
rather conservative member of Congress. Other than that, I had
certain resistance. My father was in the labor movement. I have
been in the labor movement off and on a long time, and I had an
emotional resistance against bearing tales. I am, however, glad
that I am finally getting this lie off my shoulders.
    Mr. Rushmore. You say, Mr. Donovan, that you have been
active in fighting Communists in the AFL in Los Angeles. Would
this statement of yours be supported by such well known
opponents of communism as Roy Brewer, Howard Costigan and
others?
    Mr. Donovan. I think this statement would be supported by
virtually every important leader of the American Federation of
Labor in Los Angeles. I can not know about all. I believe
Costigan would support this statement. I think and hope that
Roy Brewer would support this statement. Among others there
were letters on record from Abe Muir, who was general executive
board member of the Carpenters Brotherhood in California about
work which I did in switching plants from the Communist
dominated Furniture Workers Union over to the Carpenters. There
are other items of record of this sort, and records which I can
obtain from 1937 forward. That is within the labor movement.
    In the general community I am sure that any number of
substantial and respectable government employees and people in
political life, including U.S. judges, and people from both the
Democratic and Republican parties would testify to my
reputation as being a person opposed to communism.
    The same thing is true of substantial and reputable anti-
Communist religious leaders in the community. There are
undoubtedly, however, individuals who may feel because of
suspicions tracing from my past membership in the Communist
party, who may feel I may still have some Communist in me.
    [Thereupon at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee recessed subject
to call.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--In October, 1948, James Aronson (1915-
1988) and Cedric Belfrage (1904-1990) launched the National
Guardian, a weekly paper that Aronson described as ``non-
Communist leftist.'' Earlier testimony by Elizabeth Bentley,
confirmed by the Venona intercepts, had revealed that Belfrage
made contact with Soviet espionage agents during World War II.
In 1947 the FBI questioned Belfrage, who admitted to having
provided confidential information to the Soviets but denied
that he had been a Communist.
    When Aronson and Belfrage were subpoenaed to testify before
the subcommittee in 1953, the National Guardian declared it ``a
move to persecute and if possible intimidate the editors of an
independent news-weekly, which has opposed the policies of war,
repression and plunder of the Eisenhower Administration and the
pervious bi-partisan administration of President Truman.'' In
his book, The Press and the Cold War (Boston: Beacon Press,
1970), Aronson wrote that ``we were not Communists, but . . .
we felt it was our right--our duty--to remain silent before a
committee of Congress which we felt had no authority to inquire
into our beliefs and associations.'' He described the National
Guardian as ``an independent and independently-owned newsweekly
which took strong issue with basic governmental policy, foreign
and domestic,'' and he denied that it adhered to an
``international Communist conspiracy.'' Aronson and Belfrage
explained that they invoked their Fifth rather than First
Amendment rights at the advice of their attorney. ``Our lawyer
had reasoned in a four-hour argument that if we invoked the
First we would almost surely be cited for contempt, be
convicted, and, in the existing climate, go to prison. He said
the National Guardian would suffer and perhaps even be forced
to suspend publication if its two chief editors were jailed.''
    Following their testimony at a public hearings on May 14,
1953, Cedric Belfrage was arrested on a deportation warrant and
held on Ellis Island until he was released on bond on June 10.
He was ordered deported on December 9, 1954. After losing his
appeal, he was again arrested in May 1955 and deported to Great
Britain in August 1955. After Belfrage's deportation, James
Aronson continued to publish the National Guardian until 1967,
when he resigned in a policy dispute with ``New Left'' members
of the staff. They changed the paper's name to the Guardian.]
                              ----------
                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 2:25 p.m. in room 457 of the
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington; Senator Stuart
Symington, Democrat, Missouri.
    Also present: Roy Cohn, chief counsel; Howard Rushmore,
research director; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
    The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
    Mr. Counsel, who is your first witness?
    Mr. Cohn. First, Mr. Chairman, we can have Mr. James
Aronson.
    The Chairman. In view of the fact that it is an executive
session, we will ask everyone except the witness and his
counsel to leave the room.
    May I say, sir, I am sorry we do not have a room for you to
wait in, but there is a great shortage of rooms, so we will
just have to ask you to wait outside.
    Would you stand and raise your right hand, Mr. Aronson?
    In this matter now in hearing, do you solemnly swear to
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
    Mr. Aronson. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. May we get counsel's name for the record, please?
    Mr. Dambroff. Yes, Nathan Dambroff, D-a-m-b-r-o-f-f.
    The Chairman. Will you have the record show that the
committee has received unanimous consent of the Senate to sit
today for this hearing.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Aronson, were you ever with the United States
government in Germany?
TESTIMONY OF JAMES ARONSON (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, NATHAN
                           DAMBROFF)
    Mr. Aronson. Yes, sir, I was.
    Mr. Cohn. And from what year to what year?
    The Chairman. May I interrupt, before you start?
    I did not read it myself, but one of the senators said that
either you or the other witness or both of you objected to
being called on such short notice.
    If you find that you are asked a question which requires
more time for an adequate answer, we will give you whatever
time you need to prepare your answer.
    Mr. Aronson. Thank you.
    Mr. Dambroff. Fair enough.
    The Chairman. And I think this is your first appearance
here. We have the rule that your witness can consult with you
at anytime he cares to, at any time during the questioning. If
you want to have a private conference with him, while we do not
have another room, this is a large room, and you may have
complete security and secrecy. You can go back to a corner of
the room and discuss the matter at any time.
    We do not, however, allow counsel to have any part in the
proceedings except to advise his client.
    Mr. Dambroff. Can I refer any questions to you myself?
    The Chairman. Any questions you want to have asked, either
Mr. Cohn or myself will be glad to ask them for you.
    Mr. Dambroff. Or can I raise a point with you directly?
    The Chairman. Well, we have not allowed that in the past.
In other words, objections----
    Mr. Dambroff. No, not objections, really, but an
explanation which might be helpful.
    The Chairman. I would suggest that we do this. It would be
better, if you want to raise a point, to discuss it with your
client, and let him raise it.
    Mr. Dambroff. I will just refer it to you, for you to rule
on it.
    The Chairman. We do not have any great formality. We try to
accommodate the witnesses as well as we can, and the attorneys.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Aronson, I didn't get those years.
    Mr. Aronson. You asked when I was in Germany for the
government. I was in Germany, I would say, from the end of July
1945 until about the middle of March 1946.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, was that your first government service?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And by whom were you employed? The military
government?
    Mr. Aronson. I was employed by the Office of War
Information.
    Mr. Cohn. By OWI?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes. And I think you know the procedure. When
you go overseas, you go under army supervision and discipline.
    Mr. Cohn. Right.
    Mr. Aronson. And I believe in Germany we were employed by
the War Department. I think so.
    Mr. Cohn. I see. But your hiring was by OWI, and then,
since things were under military control, you were subject to
their rules and regulations?
    Mr. Aronson. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did you leave government service in the
middle of 1946, after you left Germany?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes, shortly after my return.
    Mr. Cohn. While you were in Germany, from July 1945 until
about the middle of 1946, exactly what position did you hold in
OWI?
    Mr. Aronson. My title was press control officer.
    Mr. Cohn. Press control officer?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, in that capacity, did you have anything to
do with the licensing of newspapers in Germany?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes. I had no direct work in the licensing,
but I was in a position where I made certain recommendations in
regard to licensing.
    Mr. Cohn. To whom did you make those recommendations?
    Mr. Aronson. To my superior.
    Mr. Cohn. Who was that?
    Mr. Aronson. At that time it was Luther Conant.
    Mr. Cohn. Luther Conant?
    Mr. Aronson. C-o-n-a-n-t.
    Mr. Cohn. That is not Dr. Conant?
    Mr. Aronson. No, that is not Dr. Conant.
    Mr. Cohn. Any relation?
    Mr. Aronson. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. And you would make recommendations concerning the
licensing of newspapers. Is that right?
    Mr. Aronson. Well, at that point, several newspapers had
been licensed, you see, and I was sent out on field trips to
give reports on prospective licensees or people who had been
selected as licensees, to give a report back to my immediate
superior.
    Mr. Cohn. All right. In other words, you were the press
control officer, and OWI, military government, was then in the
process of deciding which people were suitable to receive
licenses to go into the newspaper business?
    Mr. Aronson. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. And that was your job.
    Mr. Aronson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, let me ask you this. During that time were
you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Aronson. I must refuse to answer that question, on the
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You are entitled to refuse.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you now a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Aronson. I must refuse to answer that on the same
grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. I see. While you were in Germany as press control
officer, were you in contact with any members of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Aronson. I don't quite understand that question. Do you
mean members of the American Communist party, or the German
Communist party?
    Mr. Cohn. Well, I mean members of the Communist party be it
American or German.
    I will withdraw that question and put it this way: Were you
in contact with any Communists while you were in Germany at
this period of time?
    Mr. Aronson. May I consult counsel on that?
    The Chairman. Surely. At any time, feel perfectly free to
consult.
    [Mr. Aronson confers with his counsel.]
    Mr. Aronson. Well, to the best of my recollection, I had no
contact with American Communists or with German Communists,
except that in an official capacity, for example when I visited
newspapers which had been licensed which had German Communists
as members of the license board, or perhaps--and this is
something which is conjecture--whether applicants for licenses
for German newspapers were Communist and I came into contact
with them in an official capacity.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know of any of them that were Communists
or that you believed to be Communists?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes, there were a few who had already been
licensed in the German press. I think I can give you the names
of two on the Frankfurter Rundschau.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you do that?
    Mr. Aronson. There was Arno Rudert, A-r-n-o R-u-d-e-r-t,
and Emil Carlebach, E-m-i-l C-a-r-l-e-b-a-c-h.
    Now these people had been selected along with, I believe,
two Social Democrats and a Catholic Centrist, and a non-party
person, as the license board of the Frankfurter Rundschau.
    Mr. Cohn. Are those two still there, do you know?
    Mr. Aronson. I believe Rudert is still there as one of the
co-publishers of the paper.
    Mr. Cohn. And he is a Communist?
    Mr. Aronson. He was at the time.
    Mr. Cohn. He was a Communist at the time.
    Mr. Aronson. He was known as a Communist at the time.
    The Chairman. I missed something that you said there, Mr.
Aronson. You said that two Communists and two Social Democrats,
and a Catholic Rightist, I believe----
    Mr. Aronson. Catholic Centrist. I think the Center party
was the Catholic party.
    The Chairman. They were selected for what task, did you
say?
    Mr. Aronson. As a board of licensees. In other words, they
were the people who were granted permission to publish a
newspaper in the German language, under a license issued by
American military government.
    The Chairman. I see. Who is in charge of the American
military government there? I should know.
    Mr. Aronson. Well, the information control chief was
Brigadier General Robert A. McClure.
    Mr. Cohn. Who was the high commissioner, then? Do you know?
    Mr. Aronson. Well, there was General Eisenhower, to begin,
and then General Clay. I believe he was the successor.
    The Chairman. Were you there when McCloy was high
commissioner?
    Mr. Aronson. I don't believe so.
    The Chairman. We can check those dates.
    Mr. Aronson. I believe he became high commissioner after I
was returned to this country.
    Now, there was one other known Communist who was a member
of the license board of the newspaper in Heidelberg. That was
the Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung, R-h-e-i-n N-e-c-k-a-r Z-e-i-t-u-n-g.
His name was Agricola, A-g-r-i-c-o-l-a. And the other two
members of that board were the man who is now the president of
the German Republic, Theodore Heuss, H-e-u-s-s, and the third
person was, I believe, a member of the Social Democratic party.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, with the licensing of how many newspapers
were you connected, Mr. Aronson? With the licensing of about
how many newspapers?
    Mr. Dambroff. Excuse me one moment, please.
    [Mr. Dambroff confers with Mr. Aronson.]
    Mr. Aronson. I should make it clear that I had nothing to
do with the licensing of the boards of either of these two
newspapers, and directly I had nothing to do actually with the
licensing of any newspapers in a capacity where I had any
decision.
    Senator Symington [presiding]. Counsel, will you continue?
    Mr. Cohn. Now, what we would be interested in is this: How
did you happen to get with OWI, Mr. Aronson? Did you apply, did
they ask you to come, or what?
    Mr. Aronson. Well, I believe it happened this way. There
was an acquaintance of mine named Bennett Ellington, who, I
believe, had served--I am not sure, but I think--with the
Office of Strategic Services, who had been in Italy and had
come back. He called me up, and we had lunch together and he
asked what I was doing, and I told him. And he asked whether I
would be interested in going to Germany. He said they were
looking for people who had a reasonable command of the German
language, and who were working newspaper men. I said I would.
    Mr. Cohn. Excuse me. What newspaper were you with at that
time?
    Mr. Aronson. At that time I was with the New York Post.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party then?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question on the
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Symington. You were with the Post from when to
when?
    Mr. Aronson. From 1940 to 1946.
    Mr. Cohn. Go ahead. I interrupted you.
    Mr. Aronson. And I applied for the position. I believe the
man whom I applied to was Mr. James Clark. And I was hired. I
went through a preliminary training course in New York.
    Mr. Cohn. Was there any security check on you, do you know?
    Mr. Aronson. I believe there was. I received a security
card.
    Mr. Cohn. At the time you received your security card, were
you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question also,
on grounds of strong principle, under the----
    Mr. Cohn. On the grounds of what?
    Mr. Aronson. Strong principle, under the grounds of the
Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. I don't know about the strong principle.
    Senator Symington. In other words, if you did not have
strong principle, you would admit you were a Communist? Is that
right?
    Mr Aronson. I must refuse to answer that question also
Senator, on the same grounds.
    Senator Symington. Could I ask one more, Roy?
    If you did not have strong principles, you would say you
were not a member of the Communist party? That is the way I
would prefer to put the question.
    Mr. Aronson. I must give the same answer.
    Senator Symington. Thank you.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, you say you took a training course in OWI?
Is that right? And when did you go with OWI, exactly?
    Mr. Aronson. I believe it was late spring of that same
year, 1945.
    Mr. Cohn. Late spring of '45. After you finished your
training course, you went over to Germany. Is that right?
    Mr. Aronson. To England, for two weeks. I waited for orders
from Germany, and went into Germany.
    Mr. Cohn. I don't think you told us with the licensing of
how many papers you were connected when you were in Germany.
    Mr. Aronson. Well, I wasn't actively connected with the
licensing of any newspapers. My function was more that of
survey and report officer. I was attached to headquarters.
    Mr. Cohn. On how many newspapers did you make reports as to
whether or not they should be licensed?
    Mr. Aronson. I would say about four.
    Mr. Cohn. About four newspapers. Were any of those four
licensed?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Were all of them licensed?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What are the names of those newspapers?
    Mr. Aronson. Well, there was the Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung,
which I have given you.
    Mr. Cohn. Yes?
    Mr. Aronson. The Wiesbadener Kurier, W-i-e-s-b-a-d-e-n-e-r
K-u-r-i-e-r.
    Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir?
    Mr. Aronson. The Tagges Spieger, T-a-g-g-e-s S-p-i-e-g-e-r.
And let me see, Oh, yes. The Hessische Nachrichten, H-e-s-s-i-
s-c-h-e N-a-c-h-r-i-c-h-t-e-n, in the city of Kassel.
    Mr. Cohn. Very good. Now, are all four of those papers
still being printed? Do you know that, just for our
information?
    Mr. Aronson. I could not say.
    Mr. Cohn. How about the Tagges Spieger? Is that being
printed, do you know, in the western sector of Berlin, or in
the eastern sector?
    Mr. Aronson. To the best of my knowledge, it is.
    Mr. Cohn. In which sector?
    Mr. Aronson. In the western zone, western Berlin.
    Mr. Cohn. Were there any Communists connected with any of
these four newspapers?
    Mr. Aronson. There was, as I told you, one Communist
connected with the----
    Mr. Cohn. That is Agricola?
    Mr. Aronson. That is it--with the Heidelberg paper.
    Mr. Cohn. That is the Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes. I think there was one connected with the
Hessische Nachrichten. I think that is all.
    Senator Symington. How did you know that he was a
Communist? Did you hire him as a Communist?
    Mr. Aronson. I didn't hire them, Senator. But the way
people were given licenses was whether they fell within the
directives which were given us by General Eisenhower at the
time, that is, over his signature and his orders.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, who was in actual charge of the program?
    Mr. Aronson. General McClure.
    Mr. Cohn. General Robert McClure; is that right?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes. And the condition was that applicants for
license must have had a record of anti-Nazi activities, must
have had no connection with the Nazi press, and must have had a
record of no political activity, I believe.
    Mr. Cohn. What if they were Communists?
    Mr. Aronson. There was nothing in the directives that
prevented Communists from being licensed.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you think it was a good policy to license a
Communist?
    Mr. Aronson. We were following the directives.
    Mr. Cohn. You say the directive left it open. Right?
    Mr. Aronson. I beg your pardon?
    Mr. Cohn. You say the directive left it open. It did not
have any restriction.
    Mr. Aronson. That is right. There was no restriction in the
directives. And the purpose was a rather new experiment in
German newspapers, which was to license supra-party papers. Up
to that point, the German press was a party press, and the
directives and the purpose of the plan was to engage people of
several political parties to form a board of licensees.
    Mr. Cohn. In certain cases, you thought it was all right to
have Communists among them. Right?
    Mr. Aronson. I would like to consult counsel before I
answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Surely.
    [Mr. Aronson confers with his counsel.]
    Mr. Aronson. I would like to answer that question. Are you
ready?
    Senator Symington. Yes. Go ahead.
    Mr. Aronson. I would like to answer it this way, that my
personal opinion did not enter into the question. I had no part
in policy-making nor in the formation of the directives, and my
job was to follow out the directives. There was nothing in the
directives which--well, I would say I was following out the
directives, and let it go at that.
    Mr. Cohn. You say the directive left the question of
communism open. In other words, there was no restriction, as
there was in the case of Nazi background?
    Mr. Aronson. There was simply no question about it at the
time.
    Mr. Cohn. All right. It didn't arise. The directive didn't
say, ``Go ahead and license Communists,'' and it didn't say,
``Don't license Communists.'' In other words, it was a matter
of discretion. There was no restriction against it and there
was no direction to do it. You were one of the people doing
this. You didn't have the final say. I want to know what your
opinion was.
    Mr. Aronson. I had no part in the licensing.
    Mr. Cohn. You made recommendations, didn't you? You went
out and made surveys and checks, the way I might go out and
make an investigation and come back and make a report? And
certainly you had some part in it. You didn't have the final
say, but you had a part in it. I think that is a fair
statement. You made surveys on these four newspapers, and you
made recommendations. You had a part in it. I want to know what
your thinking was at that time.
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question, on the
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. That is your privilege.
    Senator Symington. Could I just interrupt? I would like to
ask you a couple of questions, if I may.
    Do you think you are a good American?
    Mr. Aronson. I do, sir.
    Senator Symington. Well, if you were a good American, you
would not be a member of any organization which was committed
to the overthrow of the United States form of government by
force and violence, would you?
    Mr. Aronson. No, sir, I would not.
    Senator Symington. In other words, if you had been a member
of the Communist party--this is not a question but a
statement--as I see it, if you had been a member of the
Communist party, which many other Americans have been, and have
seen the wrong, and then have left it, you could still be a
good American. But based on what is going on to the world
today, it is my thought that you could not be a good American
and at the same time still be a member of the Communist party.
    I respect people who have had the courage to come here, or
at any time in their life left the Communist party because they
felt it was wrong.
    But why, if you are a good American, you should be afraid
to say that you had once been a member of the Communist party I
do not understand.
    Mr. Aronson. I must refuse to answer that question,
Senator, on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Symington. Well, to me that simply means that you
are still a member of the Communist party. Is that correct?
    Mr. Aronson. I must also refuse to answer that question
sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Aronson, did you make a speech at a
Communist rally recently on the question of your part in
licensing newspapers in Germany?
    Mr. Aronson. I must refuse to answer that question, on the
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you read an account in the Daily Worker of
such a speech, from the last few weeks?
    Mr. Aronson. I must refuse to answer that question also.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you in that speech brag about the fact that
you had placed these newspapers in what you called democratic
hands, and that this committee and the State Department is now
trying to make the reactionary?
    Mr. Aronson. I must refuse to answer that question, on the
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did you know a man by the name of Cedric
Belfrage in Germany?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he a Communist?
    Mr. Aronson. I must refuse to answer that question, on the
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have access to any classified
information of any kind?
    Mr. Aronson. May I consult counsel on that?
    Mr. Cohn. Certainly.
    [Mr. Aronson confers with his counsel.]
    Mr. Aronson. I believe I did, as part of my job.
    Mr. Cohn. What was my last question?
    Mr. Aronson. Your question was: did I have access to
classified information.
    Mr. Cohn. I am sorry. You did have access to classified
information?
    Mr. Aronson. As part of my job, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever communicate that classified
information to any unauthorized person?
    Mr. Aronson. To the best of my knowledge, I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. What was Belfrage's job in Germany?
    Mr. Aronson. He was also a press control officer.
    Mr. Cohn. He was a press control officer. Right?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he hold equal rank with you?
    Mr. Aronson. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, how many press control officers were there?
    Mr. Aronson. That I don't know, either. There were several.
    Mr. Cohn. Several. Three, or four, or four or five?
    Mr. Aronson. More than that. There must have been fifteen
or twenty.
    Mr. Cohn. Fifteen or twenty. He was one.
    Mr. Aronson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What was your salary at this time?
    Mr. Aronson. I really don't recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Give us an approximation as best you can.
    Mr. Aronson. I would say something like $5,000 a year, or
$4400 to $5100.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have any discussions with Mr.
Belfrage? Did you have contact with him in Germany?
    Mr. Aronson. I had contact with him, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you and he ever discuss the fact that you
would try to get some of these newspapers in the hands of
Communists, you and Belfrage?
    Mr. Aronson. I would like to consult counsel on that.
    [Mr. Aronson confers with his counsel.]
    Mr. Aronson. The answer is no.
    Mr. Cohn. You did not?
    Mr. Aronson. We did not.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you discuss communism with him at all?
    Mr. Aronson. I discussed my work with him.
    Mr. Cohn. The question was: Did you discuss communism?
    Mr. Aronson. I refuse to answer that question, on the
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you did discuss your work with him?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. And you refuse to answer whether or not you
discussed communism with him. Did he know you were a Communist?
    Mr. Aronson. I must refuse to answer that question on the
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Under what circumstances did you leave OWI?
    Mr. Aronson. Resignation.
    Mr. Cohn. Was it a requested resignation?
    Mr. Aronson. It was not.
    Mr. Cohn. You just decided to----
    Mr. Aronson. To go back to my newspaper career.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know a man by the name of Russell Nixon
in Germany?
    Mr. Aronson. I did not know him in Germany.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know him any place?
    Mr. Aronson. I would like to consult counsel.
    [Mr. Aronson confers with his counsel.]
    Mr. Aronson. I have met Mr. Nixon since Germany, and I know
him as an official of the United Electrical Workers.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know what position Mr. Nixon held in
Germany?
    Mr. Aronson. No, I do not.
    Mr. Cohn. You know he was there, do you not?
    Mr. Aronson. I believe I know he was there, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Can you give us any idea of what he did there?
    Mr. Aronson. No, I cannot.
    Mr. Cohn. You have no idea about that. Is Mr. Nixon a
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Aronson. I have no information on that.
    Mr. Cohn. Your answer is that you don't know?
    Mr. Aronson. I say I have no information on it.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, do you know whether or not he is?
    Mr. Aronson. I certainly have no way of knowing.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, I don't know whether you have no way of
knowing. If you were a member, and he was a member, maybe you
went to meetings together. The question is: Do you know whether
or not he is a member of the party?
    Mr. Aronson. I do not know.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever discussed communism with Mr. Nixon?
    Mr. Aronson. I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever discussed the Communist party with
him?
    Mr. Aronson. I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know James Matles?
    Mr. Aronson. I may have met him once.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Julius Emspak?
    Mr. Aronson. I may also have met him once, perhaps just to
shake hands, and that is all.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Owen Lattimore in OWI or any place
else?
    Mr. Aronson. I don't know Owen Lattimore.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you voluntarily resigned from the
department, or OWI. That was part of the State Department?
    Mr. Aronson. I believe it became State Department, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And you submitted your resignation to the
department in the middle of '46. What did you do after that?
    Mr. Aronson. I went back to work for the New York Post.
    Mr. Cohn. Oh, you went back to work for the New York Post.
    Mr. Aronson. I was on leave of absence.
    Mr. Cohn. Who was editor of the New York Post when you went
back there? Do you know?
    Mr. Aronson. Ted O. Thackery.
    Mr. Cohn. When did Mr. Thackery leave?
    Mr. Aronson. Well, I left the Post before Mr. Thackey did.
    Mr. Cohn. Oh, you left before he did. Now, when you went
back to the New York Post, were you a member of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question on the
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. I see. Now, you left the New York Post when?
    Mr. Aronson. In the fall of 1946.
    Mr. Cohn. And where did you go then?
    Mr. Aronson. To the New York Times.
    Senator Symington. I wish you would tell these people on
this committee whether or not you are a Communist now. I do not
see why you will not, if you think you are a good American.
    Mr. Aronson. Is that in the form of a question, Senator?
    Senator Symington. No. I am just giving you my opinion. I
would not think that anybody who felt he was a good American,
based on things that are going on in the world, would want to
come down here and say that he would not be glad to say he was
not a member of the Communist party.
    Mr. Aronson. I respect your opinion, Senator.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, you say you went to the New York Times in
what year?
    Mr. Aronson. In the fall of 1946.
    Mr. Cohn. When you were with the New York Times, were you a
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question on the
same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long were you with the New York Times?
    Mr. Aronson. I was with the New York Times from 1946, the
fall of '46, until the spring of 1948.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you do with the New York Times?
    Mr. Aronson. I wrote for the News of the Week in Review on
the Sunday Times.
    Mr. Cohn. And during that period from '46 to '48, when you
were with the News of the Week in Review, were you a member of
the Communist party?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question also on
the same grounds.
    The Chairman. May I ask you this question also. I assume
you will refuse to answer. You have a right to.
    At the time you were writing for various papers, were you
under orders of the Communist party as to how you should slant
your writings?
    Mr. Aronson. The answer to that question is no.
    The Chairman. Did you ever get any instructions from the
Communist party as to your writings?
    Mr. Aronson. The answer to that question is also no.
    The Chairman. Were there ever any suggestions as to how you
should treat the news in regard to certain matters, certain
individuals, with any members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Aronson. The answer to that question is also no.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever discuss your work with any member of
the Communist party when you were with the Post or Times?
    The Chairman. Your writings?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question on the
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. I did not get the answer to the last question.
    Did you discuss your writings with any member of the
Communist party when you were with the New York Times?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question, on the
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you discuss it with any member of the
Communist party when you were with the New York Post?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer, on the same grounds.
    The Chairman. When you were writing for any newspapers, did
any member of the Communist party ever advise with you or
discuss your writings, how you should write, how you should
treat the news, certain people or subjects?
    [Mr. Aronson confers with his counsel.]
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question, on the
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you know any men who are now Communists
who are in any news media, that is, newspapers, radio,
television?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question,
Senator.
    The Chairman. Do you know any Communists who are now
working on either of those two papers you are working for, the
Post or the Times?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that, on the same
grounds.
    The Chairman. And I assume if I asked you about the papers
individually, your answer would be the same?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes, it would be.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you go after you left the Times in '48?
    [Mr. Aronson confers with his counsel.]
    Mr. Aronson. Well, I continued to be a newspaper man, but I
must decline to answer that question on the grounds of the
Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, you continued to be a newspaper
man, but you won't tell us with what publication you were
connected, exercising your Fifth Amendment privilege?
    Mr. Aronson. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you connected with the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Aronson. I was not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been connected with the National
Guardian?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question, on the
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you today connected with the National
Guardian?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question, also
on the same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. And you won't tell us whether or not you are a
member of the Communist party today?
    Mr. Aronson. I decline to answer that question also.
    The Chairman. Roy, just for the record, I think you should
describe the National Guardian.
    Mr. Cohn. I think the National Guardian has been described
in testimony before the committee as a magazine under Communist
control following the Communist line and having on its staff a
considerable number of members of the Communist party.
    Senator Jackson. Where is it published?
    Mr. Cohn. New York, Senator. It is a national magazine. It
is published in New York.
    I think, for the benefit of Senator McCarthy and Senator
Jackson, I will ask you this question again.
    Did you, within the last few weeks, make a speech at a
Communist rally stating that you had been the one who had
helped set up German newspapers following what you described as
the democratic line, and that the State Department and this
committee are now trying to make these papers reactionary?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question, on the
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Jackson. Well, did you make that statement, without
reference to where it was said.
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer the question, on the
some grounds, Senator.
    Senator Jackson. You were on the OWI payroll in 1945 and
1946?
    Mr. Aronson. Part of '45 and part of '46.
    Senator Jackson. Was that the only government service you
had?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes, sir.
    Senator Jackson. Part of '45? When in '45?
    Mr. Aronson. From the late spring of '45--well, I was in
Germany in July of '45. I was on the OWI payroll, I would say,
from about May of '45 until the end of March, '46.
    Senator Jackson. That is the only federal employment you
had?
    Mr. Aronson. Yes, sir.
    Senator Jackson. Do you recall signing an affidavit in
connection with your employment that you were not a member of
any organization advocating the overthrow of the government by
force?
    Mr. Aronson. I must refuse to answer that question on the
grounds of the Fifth Amendment, Senator.
    Senator Jackson. Did you sign such an affidavit?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. I have nothing more of this gentleman.
    The Chairman. Just one or two other questions.
    Did you ever have a security or loyalty hearing when you
got your job with the State Department?
    Mr. Cohn. After you got the job?
    The Chairman. Before or after.
    Mr. Aronson. There was no hearing. I received security
clearance, and I received a security card before I went
overseas.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party when you
received that security clearance?
    Mr. Aronson. I must refuse to answer that question.
    The Chairman. Were you ever asked by anyone as to whether
you were a member of the Communist party in connection with
obtaining that security clearance?
    Mr. Aronson. I must decline to answer that question,
Senator.
    The Chairman. Mr. Cohn and Mr. Jackson, I just asked the
witness whether he had ever been asked by anyone whether he was
a member of the Communist party in connection with his
obtaining a security clearance. He has declined to answer. I do
not think he has any constitutional right there.
    Mr. Cohn. Generally speaking, offhand, I can see where he
would have a right. In other words, if he signed an affidavit
denying that he was a member of the Communist party, and he was
a member of the Communist party, he might be guilty of filing a
false statement under the jurisdiction of a government agency,
and might be guilty of a crime, and he might be within his
right in so answering the question.
    However, apparently the only affidavit he signed for
government employment was in 1945, and that would be barred by
the statute of limitations.
    Senator Jackson. But Congress could remove that.
    The Chairman. I have just asked him if anyone ever asked
him. That is just checking on the type of security regulations
they had, and I think he should be ordered to answer that.
    Senator Jackson. I think he ought to be ordered to answer
it. The question can be passed on later, but we might as well
make the record now. Because I do not see that that would tend
to incriminate him. The witness, as I understand the Fifth
Amendment, can raise the privilege even though the tendency to
incriminate is very slight. But I do not think that the
question that was put goes to the truth of whether he was or
was not a Communist. It goes to the question whether a question
was asked, just the act of the asking of the question.
    The Chairman. And the purpose, I may say, is just to check
on the type of security regulations the State Department had at
that time. I am curious to know whether they cared whether he
was a Communist or not. I will have to order you to answer.
    Mr. Aronson. I have no recollection that I was asked that
specific question.
    The Chairman. As far as you can recollect, when you were
hired, nobody displayed any interest as to whether you were a
member of the Communist party or not?
    Mr. Aronson. I have no such recollection.
    Senator Jackson. Do you recall whether there was anything
in the questionnaire that you may have filled out?
    Do you recall whether the question was written or oral, or
both?
    The Chairman. He said he did not recall any question being
asked at all.
    Mr. Aronson. That is correct. I have no recollection of any
such question being asked of me.
    Senator Jackson. Either written or oral?
    Mr. Aronson. That is correct.
    The Chairman. I think that is all. Thank you very much.
    We will ask you to return at ten o'clock tomorrow to room
318. And you understand you will have the same right in so far
as counsel is concerned in public session as in executive
session.
    Is the other man your client also?
    Will you ask him to come in?
    Will you raise your right hand, sir?
    In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Belfrage. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Your name is?
   TESTIMONY OF CEDRIC BELFRAGE (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL,
                        NATHAN DAMBROFF)
    Mr. Belfrage. Cedric Belfrage.
    Mr. Cohn. B-e-l-f-r-a-g-e?
    Mr. Belfrage. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Belfrage, have you ever been employed by the
United States government?
    Mr. Belfrage. Employed by the United States government?
    Mr. Cohn. Is that such a difficult question?
    Mr. Dambroff. It is.
    Mr. Belfrage. It is rather a difficult question to answer
directly to.
    Mr. Cohn. Maybe I can amplify it a little bit.
    Were you a press control officer in Germany at any time?
    Mr. Belfrage. I was.
    Mr. Cohn. By whom were you employed?
    Mr. Belfrage. I was directly employed by the Ministry in
London.
    Mr. Cohn. And what was your connection with the United
States government?
    Mr. Belfrage. I was under American army officers. I was in
SHAEF, which was Anglo-American.
    Mr. Cohn. Who employed you?
    Mr. Belfrage. The Ministry of Information.
    Mr. Cohn. The Ministry of Information in London?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a British citizen?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a British citizen now?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And how long have you been in this country?
    Mr. Belfrage. I came here first in 1926.
    Mr. Cohn. I see. And how long did you reside here?
    Mr. Belfrage. Well, I have resided here as an immigrant, in
the status of an immigrant, since 1937.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever applied for citizenship?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. When?
    Mr. Belfrage. In 1937.
    Mr. Cohn. And what happened to your application?
    Mr. Belfrage. What happened to it?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Belfrage. Well, I was unable to complete it at the time
when I was permitted to complete it or would have been able to
complete it, because I was then working for the British
government, so it was impossible.
    Mr. Cohn. So it lapsed?
    Mr. Belfrage. It lapsed, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever reapply?
    Mr. Belfrage. No, I did not. I asked to reapply. I am
sorry. I asked to complete the original application, since I
had been overseas functioning in the war, and I was told that I
couldn't do so.
    Mr. Cohn. When were you told that?
    Mr. Belfrage. In 1945.
    Mr. Cohn. Since that time, have you filed any new
application for citizenship?
    Mr. Belfrage. No, I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. And under what circumstances are you resident in
this country now?
    Mr. Belfrage. As a resident alien, as a British immigrant.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Belfrage. I am sorry. I feel that any answer I might
give to that would be used only to crucify myself and other
innocent persons, and I have to refuse to answer, under the
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer, if that is the
ground on which you are refusing.
    Mr. Dambroff. He has mentioned the Fifth Amendment,
Senator.
    The Chairman. You can only refuse to answer if you feel
that a truthful answer would tend to incriminate you. Let me
ask you this question. Do you feel that a truthful answer as to
whether or not you were a member of the Communist party today
would tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Belfrage. I must refuse to answer that, on the grounds
of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer that.
    Mr. Dambroff. He said he refused under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. The chairman's question is as to whether he is
exercising his privilege in good faith.
    Mr. Dambroff. Yes, of course he is.
    The Chairman. I have asked you the question whether you
feel that a truthful answer to the question whether you were a
member of the Communist party would tend to incriminate you.
And for counsel's benefit, let me say this. Some witnesses
refuse to answer on the grounds that perjury would tend to
incriminate them. They are not permitted to so refuse, on that
basis. I have asked the witness the preliminary question as to
whether he feels that a truthful answer to the question of
whether he is a member of the Communist party today would tend
to incriminate him.
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes, I do.
    The Chairman. Then you have the right.
    How long have you been in the country now?
    Mr. Belfrage. Well, I think I just answered that question,
Mr. McCarthy. I came here first in 1926, and I have been back
and forth a great deal. But I have been residing here since
1937.
    Mr. Cohn. You have been here steadily since what period of
time?
    Mr. Belfrage. Well, the last time I came back in 1945.
    Mr. Cohn. You have been here from 1945 to 1953, as a
resident alien?
    Mr. Belfrage. I was also a resident alien before the war.
    Mr. Cohn. But during the last eight years you have been a
resident alien in the United States?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. During that period of time, have you been a
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Belfrage. I again must refuse to answer that, on the
same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Have any immigration proceedings ever been
brought to seek your deportation?
    Mr. Belfrage. No.
    Mr. Cohn. They have not.
    Senator Jackson. I want to get his residence. You came over
in 1926 the first time?
    Mr. Belfrage. That is right, sir.
    Senator Jackson. And how long were you here then?
    Mr. Belfrage. Well, I went back and forth a lot. I was a
freelance writer.
    Senator Jackson. A freelance writer?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. You went back and forth to where?
    Mr. Belfrage. To England.
    Senator Jackson. To England?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. Who were you writing for?
    Mr. Belfrage. Various publications about the movies. I was
a movie expert.
    Senator Jackson. A movie critic?
    Mr. Belfrage. Well, at that time. Originally I was writing
for fan magazines.
    Senator Jackson. How long did that continue?
    Mr. Belfrage. I was writing for fan magazines and similar
publications until 1930.
    Senator Jackson. Then what happened?
    Mr. Belfrage. In 1930, I was employed by Samuel Goldwyn to
go back to England as his representative, publicity
representative.
    Senator Jackson. How long were you in England then?
    Mr. Belfrage. I continued with Mr. Goldwyn until 1931, for
one year, and then I was employed by the London Daily and
Sunday Express as a movie critic.
    Senator Jackson. How long did you stay on in that capacity?
    Mr. Belfrage. In that capacity I was there until 1936.
    Senator Jackson. Until 1936. And then you came back to the
United States?
    Mr. Belfrage. Then I came back to the United States.
    Senator Jackson. And you stayed in the United States from
1936 for how long?
    Mr. Belfrage. I have been here ever since, except that I
have made two trips, I think, or three trips, possibly, back to
England.
    Senator Jackson. Have you been any place besides England?
    Mr. Belfrage. In my life?
    Senator Jackson. No, I meant since you came to the United
States originally in 1926.
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes, sir. I have been to quite a number of
countries. I have been to practically every country in the
world.
    Senator Jackson. You were in the Soviet Union at what time?
    Mr. Belfrage. I was there in 1936.
    Senator Jackson. In '36. When were you there after that?
    Mr. Belfrage. I haven't been there since.
    Mr. Cohn. How long were you there in '36?
    Mr. Belfrage. About three or four weeks.
    Senator Jackson. In what capacity?
    Mr. Belfrage. I went there on a vacation. I also wrote some
articles.
    Senator Jackson. Whom did you write the articles for?
    Mr. Belfrage. The News Chronicle in London.
    Senator Jackson. The News Chronicle. Anyone else?
    Mr. Belfrage. I don't recall writing for anyone else.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever written for the Daily Mail?
    Mr. Belfrage. I don't recall ever writing for them.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever written for the Daily Mirror in
London?
    Mr. Belfrage. I don't recall it.
    Mr. Cohn. The Manchester Guardian?
    Mr. Belfrage. No, sir. I never have.
    Senator Jackson. When you entered the United States, or re-
entered, on various occasions, you were required to fill out
certain application forms, or not application forms but certain
matters relating to immigration?
    Mr. Belfrage. I presume so, yes. It is a normal procedure.
    Senator Jackson. You did. And do you recall questions with
reference to whether you believed in anarchy, communism or
advocated the overthrow of the government by force and
violence?
    Mr. Belfrage. I refuse to answer, on the grounds of the
Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Jackson. You are relying on the Fifth Amendment in
answer to that question?
    Mr. Belfrage: That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, how long were you in Germany as a press
control officer?
    Mr. Belfrage. About eight months.
    Mr. Cohn. And when was that? '45-'46?
    Mr. Belfrage. January '45 until, I think, the end of
September or maybe the beginning of October.
    Mr. Cohn. And who was your immediate superior?
    Mr. Belfrage. Well, there was rather a complicated chain of
command. The man in charge of the Press Control Division of the
whole outfit was Luther Conant.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he an American?
    Mr. Belfrage. An American, yes; an American civilian.
    Well, no, I wasn't, really, because I was attached to a
specific command. This thing varied. I was in various
situations. But I was attached to a specific command under
Colonel John B. Stanley.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he an American?
    Mr. Belfrage. An American colonel, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Was General McClure in overall charge?
    Mr. Belfrage. He was in charge of the whole thing.
    Mr. Cohn. At that time. When you were a press control
officer, were you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Belfrage. I decline to answer, sir, on the grounds of
the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. I see. What were your duties as press control
officer, very briefly?
    Mr. Belfrage. To explore the ground with regard to the
setting up of new newspapers, since all the old ones were being
abolished, and working under the army directive to make
recommendations with regard to possibilities of plants which
were available.
    Mr. Cohn. And licensing?
    Mr. Belfrage. And in regard to licensing.
    The Chairman. Was one of your functions to attempt to get
newspapers sympathetic to the Communist cause?
    Mr. Belfrage. No, sir. That was not one of my functions.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you attempt to do that?
    Mr. Belfrage. No, I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. You did not?
    Mr. Belfrage. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You were not influenced one way or the other?
    Mr. Belfrage. Not in any way.
    The Chairman. Did you try to get newspapers that were anti-
Communist and pro-American?
    Mr. Belfrage. There was no question of their being pro-
American.
    The Chairman. Did you try to get newspapers in the set-up
that were anti-Communist and pro-American?
    Mr. Belfrage. I was trying to get newspapers that were as
near as possible to the American ideal of a newspaper, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you trying to get newspapers that were
anti-Communist?
    Mr. Belfrage. That was not in the directive.
    The Chairman. I do not care what was in the directive.
    Mr. Belfrage. I did not, because if I had it would have
been against my orders.
    The Chairman. The directive was signed by whom?
    Mr. Belfrage. General Eisenhower.
    The Chairman. And you say there was nothing in that
concerning communism?
    Mr. Belfrage. Nothing whatever.
    Mr. Cohn. Did it tell you to license papers that were
Communist?
    Mr. Belfrage. Not that I recall. This matter was discussed
at some meetings I was at.
    Senator Jackson. Did anyone talk to you or did you have any
conversations with anyone who tried to influence your decisions
in recommending a Communist paper?
    Mr. Belfrage. No.
    Senator Jackson. You did not discuss the subject?
    Mr. Belfrage. We were not allowed to set up any kind of
party papers of any sort, either Communist, Social Democratic
Centrist, or anything else.
    Senator Jackson. I do not mean in a formal sense, but
covertly or otherwise.
    Mr. Belfrage. No.
    Senator Jackson. You had no conversations with anyone?
    Mr. Belfrage. With regard to?
    Senator Jackson. With regard to setting up, say, a certain
newspaper which would have as its masthead and title anything
but ``Communist,'' but would in fact be a Communist paper?
    Mr. Belfrage. No, sir. I had no such conversations.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know James Aronson?
    Mr. Belfrage. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know him over in Germany?
    Mr. Belfrage. I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he a member of the Communist party then?
    Mr. Belfrage. I decline to answer, sir, on the grounds of
the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever discuss with him the possibility of
putting any of these papers in the hands of Communists?
    Mr. Belfrage. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You did not?
    Mr. Belfrage. No. You mean in the exclusive hands of
Communists?
    Mr. Cohn. We are not talking about going about this as an
open matter. As Senator Jackson explained, we are not talking
about that. We are discussing this, and I think you can follow
it from the standpoint of what the duty of a Communist would
be, assuming you were a Communist at that period of time,
namely, without openly disclosing what you were doing, trying
to get as many papers as you could in the hands of people who
would be sympathetic with the Communist cause. I want to know
whether or not you ever discussed that with Mr. Aronson.
    Mr. Belfrage. I would like to discuss that with counsel, if
I may.
    Mr. Cohn. Surely.
    [Mr. Belfrage confers with his counsel.]
    Mr. Belfrage. No, sir, I never had any such discussion, Mr.
Cohn. I never had any such discussions with Mr. Aronson, and I
didn't in fact work with Mr. Aronson on the selections of any
editors. We went on one field trip together.
    Mr. Cohn. In connection with which paper?
    Mr. Belfrage. That was in Bremen. He came along with me,
because he had just arrived, and I was the most experienced
person in the field, and he was sent by his superior.
    Mr. Cohn. Concerning how many papers did you make
recommendations during your eight months there?
    Mr. Belfrage. About four or five, I would say.
    Mr. Cohn. Can you give us their names?
    Mr. Belfrage. The Aachener Nachrichten, A-a-c-h-e-n-e-r N-
a-c-h-r-i-c-h-t-e-n, is the first.
    Mr. Cohn. Where is that?
    Mr. Belfrage. In Aachen. That was before the end of the
war. It was while the war was going on.
    The second one was the Frankfurter Rundschau.
    Mr. Cohn. Were there any Communists on the Frankfurter
Rundschau when you recommended its licensing?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What were their names?
    Mr. Belfrage. Arno Rudert, A-r-n-o R-u-d-e-r-t, Emil
Carlebach, C-a-r-l-e-b-a-c-h, and I believe, but I am not quite
sure--No, I think those were the only ones.
    Mr. Cohn. Are either of those still with those papers?
    Mr. Belfrage. Rudert is still the editor.
    Mr. Cohn. He is still the editor. Did you have anything to
do with this revolving fund established, that you might have
read about in Germany, for the purpose of financing some German
newspapers?
    Mr. Belfrage. I never heard of that.
    Mr. Cohn. Were we giving any financial assistance to any of
these newspapers at the time you were there?
    Mr. Belfrage. No.
    Mr. Cohn. We were merely saying which could go into
existence and which could not?
    Mr. Belfrage. That is right. There was no need to, because
only one was licensed in each town, and it had to be a broad,
non-party paper for everybody, and everybody read it
immediately.
    Mr. Cohn. You said you talked about looking at plants. I
don't remember whether it was you or Mr. Aronson who talked
about looking at plants.
    Why was that any of your business?
    Mr. Belfrage. It wasn't my major business. There was a
printing expert there.
    Mr. Cohn. I am not talking about you personally. In other
words, if our only job was to license papers and decide which
should be in existence and which shouldn't----
    Mr. Belfrage. The first thing was to decide whether they
should be published, and where, because there was much
destruction.
    Mr. Cohn. We gave then no money?
    Mr. Belfrage. No, I don't recall any money being given to
them.
    Mr. Cohn. They would need some money to buy equipment. You
don't recall anything about that?
    Mr. Belfrage. They were given it. Take, for example, in
Frankfurt. The only building that was possible to use for the
purpose was part of a building that had formerly been the
Frankfurter Zeitung--no, another Frankfurter paper. The
Frankfurter Zeitung was demolished.
    Mr. Cohn. You gave us two, the Frankfurter Rundschau and
the Aachener Nachrichten. What were the others?
    Mr. Belfrage. There was one in Bremen. I forget the name of
it.
    Mr. Cohn. And the fourth?
    Mr. Belfrage. And Kassel.
    Mr. Cohn. Kassel. Would that be the Hessische Nachrichten?
    Mr. Belfrage. I am afraid I can't remember if that was the
name of it or not.
    Mr. Cohn. Was Kassel in the British zone?
    Mr. Belfrage. Not at the time I was there, no. I didn't do
any work in the British zone.
    Mr. Cohn. And you left in about September of '45; is that
right?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you resign, or what?
    Mr. Belfrage I was requested to leave by General
Eisenhower, for the reason that I was the last lone Englishman
left in the American zone.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he personally request you to leave?
    Mr. Belfrage. I had a telegram signed by him.
    Mr. Cohn. You keep saying ``by General Eisenhower.'' I
think that carries the implication that he spoke to you.
    Mr. Belfrage. No. I had a telegram signed by him.
    Mr. Cohn. You do not know General Eisenhower?
    Mr. Belfrage. No.
    Mr. Cohn. It was probably somebody fifty steps down the
line.
    The Chairman. What did the telegram say?
    Mr. Belfrage. It was to this effect, that in view of the
fact that all the functions in the American zone were now being
put in the hands of Americans, I was requested to leave by a
certain date.
    Mr. Cohn. Was this merely a routine thing?
    Mr. Belfrage. I guess so. I don't think that there was
any--I don't know of any comparable case. I was the only non-
American in that particular outfit that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. How did you happen to be there?
    Mr. Belfrage. Well, because I was the first person to go in
on this work.
    Mr. Cohn. Who sent you in originally?
    Mr. Belfrage. Well, I went to Paris. I went to Paris
shortly after the troops arrived in Paris. And I was there for
a number of months doing very little.
    Mr. Cohn. Who sent you to Paris?
    Mr. Belfrage. Well, I was under orders from SHAEF. I was
attached to the Press Control Division. It was then called the
Psychological Warfare Division of SHAEF, and then it was later
called the Information Control Division. And I was sent to
Paris, and I waited there for a long time, and then I was sent
into Aachen. I was with the first team of about five people
that went into Aachen to start the first paper.
    Mr. Cohn. You were hired originally by the British Ministry
of Information?
    Mr. Belfrage. That is right, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Who there hired you, by the way?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes, I can remember who it actually was. It
was a man called Herbert. He was a newspaper man.
    Mr. Cohn. With what paper? Do you know?
    Mr. Belfrage. He was with the News Chronicle. He had been
with the News Chronicle. I think he went back to it after the
way.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he a Communist?
    Mr. Belfrage. I have no means of knowing what he was.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he know you were a Communist?
    Mr. Belfrage. He didn't know anything about me.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he ask? Did anybody ever ask?
    Mr. Belfrage. Nobody ever asked those questions.
    Mr. Cohn. Has anyone in any governmental capacity ever
asked you that question?
    Mr. Belfrage. Anyone in any governmental capacity? I don't
recall it.
    Senator Jackson. When you filed your application for
citizenship in 1937,was any such question asked then?
    Mr. Belfrage. I don't think so. I don't recall it.
    The Chairman. Would you say that a man could be loyal to
America and at the same time loyal to the Communist teachings?
    Mr. Belfrage. I decline to answer, Senator, on the grounds
of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. I am not sure if you were asked this question
before or not.
    Do you believe it would be well to overthrow the government
of the United States by force and violence if communism could
not be imposed on this country by peaceful means?
    [Mr. Belfrage confers with his counsel.]
    Mr. Belfrage. Mr. McCarthy, I will have to decline to
answer that question, on the ground of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this. Do you belong to an
organization which advocates the overthrow of the British form
of government and the establishment of a Communist form of
government in Britain by force and violence?
    [Mr. Belfrage confers with his counsel.]
    Mr. Belfrage. I must decline to answer, again, Mr.
McCarthy, on the ground of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Incidentally, did you know Mr. Lattimore?
    Mr. Belfrage. No. I don't think I ever met him, sir.
    Senator Jackson. What is your present employment?
    Mr. Belfrage. I decline to answer that on the grounds of
the Fifth Amendment, sir,
    Senator Jackson. What did you do after you came back in '45
from SHAEF?
    Mr. Belfrage. The first thing I did: I wrote a book about
the whole experience in Germany under a Guggenheim Fellowship.
    Senator Jackson. What was the name of the book?
    Mr. Belfrage. It wasn't published.
    Senator Jackson. It was not published? Why was it not
published?
    Mr. Belfrage. Because my publisher in England--it was
written for a publisher in England--went out of business just
before he got to the point. He was a new publisher who formed
after the war, and he went out of business.
    Senator Jackson. You did not try to have it published here?
    Mr. Belfrage. I did.
    Senator Jackson. What was it about?
    Mr. Belfrage. It was an account of the work we did, a full
account.
    Senator Jackson. Then what did you do?
    Mr. Belfrage. After that I wrote another book called Abide
With Me.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Cedric Belfrage, Abide With Me (New York: W. Sloane
Associates, 1948).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senator Jackson. Abide With Me?
    Mr. Belfrage. Right.
    Senator Jackson. Where was that published?
    Mr. Belfrage. It was published by Sloane Associates in New
York. It was a novel.
    Senator Jackson. When was that?
    Mr. Belfrage. About '47.
    Senator Jackson. Then what did you do after that?
    [Mr. Belfrage confers with his counsel.]
    Senator Jackson. After you wrote the novel.
    Mr. Belfrage. I have to decline to answer that, sir, on the
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Jackson. And from that time up to now, you decline
to answer as to your employment, on the grounds of the Fifth
Amendment?
    Mr. Belfrage. That is correct, sir.
    Senator Jackson. Have you had any query from the
immigration authorities?
    [Mr. Belfrage confers with his counsel.]
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes, about, I would say, three or four years
ago, I was asked to go down to the immigration headquarters.
    Senator Jackson. And they asked you some questions?
    Mr. Belfrage. They asked me some questions.
    Senator Jackson. What did they ask you?
    Mr. Belfrage. Well, in effect they asked me if I would
answer certain types of questions, and I said I wouldn't.
    Senator Jackson. You refused to?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. Did they ask you whether you were a member
of the Communist party?
    Mr. Belfrage. They didn't ask me any specific questions.
    Mr. Cohn. They just asked you if you were asked certain
questions, would you answer?
    Mr. Belfrage. They said they wanted to investigate me. I
said, ``What do you want to investigate?''
    He said, ``Your associations and your writings.'' I think
that was the wording they used. And I said that I would not
answer questions on those things.
    Senator Jackson. They did not put any specific questions to
you?
    Mr. Belfrage. No. They indicated that they might, but they
never did.
    Mr. Cohn. Of course, they agreed to abide by your decision
that you should not be asked those questions, apparently.
    Mr. Belfrage. That was all that happened on the occasion
when I went there.
    Senator Jackson. When was that?
    Mr. Belfrage. It would be around 1949 or '50. '49, I would
think. It might have been 1950.
    The Chairman. Who asked you the questions down there?
    Mr. Belfrage. I don't recall his name, Mr. McCarthy.
    The Chairman. Was it a man, or a lady?
    Mr. Belfrage. A man.
    The Chairman. Did they indicate any interest in any
Communist activities you might have had?
    Mr. Belfrage. They didn't indicate at all.
    The Chairman. Well, you said that they were interested in
your associations and your writings. Was there any indication
as to what associations they were concerned with?
    Mr. Belfrage. No indication whatever.
    The Chairman. Did they ask you whether or not you would
tell them whether you had been a member of the Communist party,
if they asked you that question?
    Mr. Belfrage. No.
    The Chairman. And when you told them you would not answer
the questions for them, what happened then? Did they pat you on
the back?
    Mr. Belfrage. They were quite friendly, and said I would
probably hear from them again. But I did not.
    The Chairman. I would say you probably will hear from them.
    Senator Jackson. You are aware of the fact that an alien
who is a member of the Communist party or advocates or believes
in the overthrow of the government by force and violence, among
other things, is subject to deportation?
    Mr. Belfrage. Obviously, yes.
    Senator Jackson. Do you believe you are subject to
deportation?
    Mr. Belfrage. I refuse to answer, on the grounds of the
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. If you were drafted into the British Army or
into the United States Army, would you be willing to fight
against the Communist aggressors at this time?
    Mr. Belfrage. I refuse to answer, on the grounds of the
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. You refuse to answer?
    Mr. Belfrage. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you think that the system of government in
Russia today is superior to the system in Britain?
    Mr. Belfrage. I refuse to answer, on the grounds of the
Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Jackson. If you were given a draft call at the
present time, or to the future, as long as you are here, would
you turn it down and refuse to serve? I believe you have a
right as an alien to elect whether or not you will accept or
not. What would you do, under the circumstances, if you
received notice of a call?
    Mr. Belfrage. I refuse to answer, on the grounds of the
Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Jackson. You mean you would be incriminated, you
will incriminate yourself, if you say whether you would or
would not subject yourself to the draft.
    The Chairman. I do not have any further questions of the
witness, I don't believe.
    Mr. Belfrage, you will be ordered to return at ten o'clock
in the morning to room 318. And you will have the same rights
of counsel in public session as you have had in the private
session.
    I may say that we will ask an immigration officer to be
present at tomorrow's hearing.
    [Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to
reconvene at 10:30 a.m., Thursday, May 14, 1953.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--Film maker Julien Hequembourgh Bryan
(1899-1974), after graduating from Princeton and attending the
Union Theological Seminary, traveled widely taking 16mm film
that he sold to motion picture companies. In the 1930s, he
conducted extensive lecture tours, during which he showed film
footage he had shot in Russia in 1932. He was in Warsaw in 1939
when Germany invaded, an experience recorded in his book Siege
(New York: Doubleday, Doran, 1940), and film, Warsaw: 1939. In
1940, the Office of Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs,
headed by Nelson Rockefeller, hired him to make films on Latin
America. The State Department then contracted with Bryan to do
similar films about other lands. His work came to the attention
of David and Ella Mills, whose Davella Mills Foundation granted
him $300,000 to underwrite a non-profit film company. Bryan's
International Film Foundation specialized in ethnographic
films, including Peoples of the Soviet Union, which he produced
in 1946 and revised in 1952. Later in the 1960s, his company
made numerous films on Africa, Israel, Japan and the Pacific
Islands. The subcommittee did not call Bryan to testify in
public session.]
                              ----------
                         TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 10:30 a.m. in room 357 of the
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator John
L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Stuart Symington,
Democrat, Missouri.
    Also present: Roy Cohn, chief counsel; G. David Schine,
chief consultant; Henry Hawkins, investigator; Ruth Young Watt,
chief clerk.
    The Chairman. Who is your first witness?
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Julien Bryan, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Julien Bryan?
    Mr. Bryan. I am Julien Bryan, and this is my attorney,
Edward Watts.
    The Chairman. Would you raise your right hand?
    Do you solemnly swear, in this matter now in hearing before
the committee, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Bryan. I do.
    The Chairman. That is your counsel with you?
 TESTIMONY OF JULIEN BRYAN (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, EDWARD
                         E. WATTS, JR.)
    Mr. Bryan. That is my counsel, Mr. Watts.
    Mr. Cohn. I didn't get the name.
    Mr. Bryan. Edward E. Watts, Jr.
    The Chairman. Mr. Watts, the rule adopted by the committee
is that you can consult with your client at any time you care
to. If at any time you feel you want a conference with him, we
will try to arrange a private room for you to have your
conference. You may feel perfectly free to talk to him at any
time. We do not, however, allow counsel to take any part in the
proceedings other than to freely advise his client.
    Mr. Watts. May I ask a question?
    The Chairman. Surely.
    Mr. Watts. I believe up to last week, Mr. Bryan has never
testified in a Senate or congressional hearing, and up to now,
I have never attended one in any capacity. And now in one week,
he is being a witness for the second time, and we are a little
disturbed and confused by it all. I wondered if I could ask
what is the purpose of his testimony?
    The Chairman. We would be glad to answer that.
    Mr. Watts. And whether any public use is to be made of it,
and also, if a transcript is made, whether we would have an
opportunity to look at it to correct any inadvertent errors, or
perhaps to offer to supplement anything that we weren't
prepared to answer at this time. That is a big question, with a
lot of pieces.
    The Chairman. Number one, the reason he is here is because
we are investigating all phases of the information program. I
understand he has had a great deal to do with the motion
picture phase of it. And counsel has many questions to ask on
that.
    The next question is as to whether any public use will be
made of the material taken today. Most likely, Mr. Bryan will
be called for public session, I don't know. Whether the
transcript will be made public or not is a matter for the
committee to decide later. At this time I have no idea what his
testimony will be.
    The investigators and counsel seem to think he is an
important witness. For that reason, he is here.
    You will be allowed to examine the transcript and correct
any typographical errors and such like. Whether the witness
will be allowed to change answers to questions in substance is
a matter that the committee would have to decide. In other
words, to make myself clear, and I am not intimating that this
witness will do that, but let us say the witness comes in and
freely perjures himself in the first half of the hearing, and
in the second half he is caught up on his questions, and he
knows that he is caught. In a case like that, normally, he
would not be permitted to go back and change those first
answers. I am not indicating that this witness would, you
understand.
    This is Senator Symington, and Senator McClellan and
Senator Potter.
    Mr. Counsel?
    Mr. Bryan. May I ask who you are?
    Mr. Cohn. My name is Cohn. I am the counsel. I called you
on the telephone and asked you to come down.
    Mr. Bryan, you have done considerable work for the State
Department, have you not?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. How many films have you produced for the State
Department?
    Mr. Bryan. I have made roughly twenty-three for the
coordinator of inter-American affairs, which was pre-State
Department, and blended into this; and I think something like
fourteen or fifteen for the State Department.
    Mr. Cohn. What is the last film you made for the State
Department?
    Mr. Bryan. It is a film that is called Bennington Story.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, do you have any existing contracts with any
government agency at the moment?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Cohn. With what agency?
    Mr. Bryan. With Point Four.
    Mr. Cohn. TCA?
    Mr. Bryan. TCA. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. And what is the extent of the contractual
commitment there?
    Mr. Bryan. You mean in terms of films, or money? Or what is
your question?
    Mr. Cohn. Give us both.
    Mr. Bryan. There are four films, one each on Jordan,
Israel, and Iran, and then one overall picture for American
use, a 27-minute film on the three countries.
    Mr. Cohn. What is the amount involved? How much do they pay
you, gross, for the four?
    Mr. Bryan. $40,000. It is important in these things, I
think, Mr. Counsel, to mention the reels, the quantity. There
are two reels each of the three Middle East films for use in
that area. That makes a total of nine reels, for $40,000.
    Mr. Cohn. Nine reels for $40,000. Now, could you give us an
approximation as to how much money you have been paid, gross,
by the United States government over a period of years for
production of these films? I understand it can't be an exact
estimate in any sense.
    Mr. Bryan. I think that would be difficult, but I would say
something around approximately $300,000 over a period of twelve
years.
    The Chairman. May I interrupt? Who is the man with the
machine?
    Mr. Bryan. May I explain, Mr. Counsel? The young man is Mr.
Alexander who has been my personal operator on and off for
twenty years in the showing of pictures. If there is any
occasion to show films here, he is here. I think he is good.
    He was a captain in the army in the last war.
    The Chairman. That is okay. I just wanted to inquire about
that.
    Mr. Cohn. You would say approximately $300,000?
    Mr. Bryan. I would say over the twelve-year period it was
something in that neighborhood.
    Mr. Cohn. And you just completed a film for the State
Department, and you are under contract to do three films for
TCA at the moment.
    Mr. Bryan. Those films are about finished. As a matter of
fact, the three TCA films for abroad have been delivered
abroad, where they will complete the soundtrack in their own
language. They are for local use. The American version film
will be finished within two or three days. The work is
completed. I mean, there are no new contracts. Is that your
point?
    Mr. Cohn. I just wanted to get the contractual status.
    Mr. Bryan. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Bryan, have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Bryan. I have never been a Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. You have been a follower of the Communist line,
have you not?
    Mr. Bryan. I would say not.
    Mr. Cohn. You would say not?
    Mr. Bryan. I would say not.
    Mr. Cohn. You gave that testimony under oath.
    Senator Symington. The witness is under oath, is he not?
There is no use in insulting him on that.
    Mr. Cohn. I merely asked him a question. I didn't think it
was an insult.
    Mr. Bryan. I would like to make a very simple answer on
that. I do not think I have followed the Communist line.
    Years ago I went to Russia. I took pictures over there.
This may be discussed later. But I do not think that I have
followed the Communist party line.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever belonged to any organization listed
by the attorney general as subversive?
    Mr. Bryan. I belonged some twenty years ago to the
American-Russian Institute. I was a subscriber to a magazine
called Soviet Russia Today. I believe the subscription to that
was $5 a year or some such amount as that, and that, like
subscribing, say, to the National Geographic, made me a member.
    At the moment I can think, sir--I haven't memorized the
list of the attorney general, I can think of no other group
like that.
    Mr. Cohn. I will see if I can refresh your recollection.
    First of all, were you on the National Committee of the
National Convention of Friends of the Soviet Union in 1933?
    Mr. Bryan. I was not, and my name has been listed for many
years. It was first printed in The Red Network by Elizabeth
Dilling.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Elizabeth Dilling, The Red Network; A ``Who's Who'' and
Handbook of Radicalism for Patriots (Kenilworth, Ill.: privately
printed by the author, 1934-1936).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. Yes?
    Mr. Bryan. To my knowledge I was never on this national
committee or ever notified of it, but it has been on the record
a long time.
    MF. Cohn. Did you sue her for libel, or did you ask her for
a retraction?
    Mr. Bryan. No, I did not. May I explain?
    Mr. Cohn. I don't think that means too much one way or the
other.
    Mr. Bryan. May I only say that I never met her. But when
this was printed, in 1933 or '34, Mr. Chairman, when I was
lecturing in California, at Redlands University, and it was
printed in the local press, then I went down and we had a long
meeting with the local paper and the people who printed this,
in which this and other statements which were false were
printed about me at that time. I did not sue Elizabeth Dilling.
    Mr. Cohn. That is all right.
    The Chairman. May I say that while the question is proper I
do not think the fact that you do not sue someone who may say
something that is untrue can be used as any indication that the
article was true. There have been a thousand people that I have
not sued that have said things I think are completely untrue.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been connected with this
organization, the Friends of the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Bryan. I recall no connection of any kind, except
because of this paper that was mentioned--your question may
come later--the picture; I think at one time they bought
certain of my photographs, which in the meantime, Mr. Counsel,
I was selling to the New York Times and to any other agency
that would buy them.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had any connection with the
magazine known as New Masses, which is a Communist magazine?
    Mr. Bryan. I have had no connection with the New Masses, to
my knowledge, in any way, except in one period; and between '33
and '36 or '37, my lecture bureau was asked if I would lecture
at Washington Irving High School in New York on a fee basis, a
small fee. The lecture bureau was accepting any lecturers at
that time, from Catholic organizations, from universities, from
YWCA's. This is my trade, earning my living by lectures. I
accepted at that time. That was the extent of my connection
with the New Masses.
    Mr. Cohn. I don't think you told us. This lecture was under
the sponsorship of the New Masses, this particular lecture?
    Mr. Bryan. That is my understanding, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know at that time that was a strictly 100
percent owned and controlled Communist organization?
    Mr. Bryan. No, I didn't. This was seventeen years ago, '36
or '37, and maybe it was my error, sir, in not investigating at
that time, but if I lectured before a Catholic group or before
another group, a university----
    Senator Symington. What did you lecture about?
    Mr. Bryan. At that time I was lecturing, sir, with
photographs of the Soviet Union. I had made several trips over
there at that time.
    Senator Symington. Did you go into any political or
ideological aspect in your lectures?
    Mr. Bryan. In my own opinion, not. I lectured as I am doing
today, all throughout America. And I was lecturing at that time
also on Japan and China, as honestly and fairly as I know. I
may have made mistakes, but these were my convictions and I had
no control by the Communist party, either of the Soviet Union
or of this country. I was not going to them for advice. I was
speaking and answering questions which I received. I may have
been wrong at times, but this was my conviction.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you say anything at all critical of the
Soviet Union?
    Mr. Bryan. I certainly did.
    Mr. Cohn, not only in this lecture but in many lectures at
that time, it was not only what I said, but I showed, I
believe, an honest picture of the Soviet Union. I showed, for
example, that Russian farmers at that time working under very
real obstacles, with mud, with tractors broken down. I showed
pictures of Kulaks who had been arrested or were about to be. I
spoke German, for example, in those years, and I still speak
it, to the Kulaks. And that was the beginning, as early as
that, when I learned that there were some pretty dirty things
going on over there.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did you point out any of those things when
you lectured under the sponsorship of the New Masses?
    Mr. Bryan. I do not recall verbatim the text of seventeen
years ago, but in every lecture that I gave at that time, I
described it with pictures. May I say there was no chance at
any time of getting certain things like pictures of the GPU
prison camps. I knew that when I went there. But I got as many
pictures as I could to give a complete picture of conditions in
the Soviet Union.
    Senator Potter. Did I understand you to say that you spoke
there under the auspices of some lecture bureau?
    Mr. Bryan. There is a lecture bureau; the old gentleman has
since died.
    Shall I go on?
    His name is William B. Feegens. He has since died. For
fifteen years he was my lecture manager. People in Washington
must be familiar with a lecture manager. He made these
bookings. Perhaps there were bookings I didn't entirely agree
with. But unless there was some very pronounced objection, I
took it, and I gave my story. And I would say during those
years I lectured as I do today before a very wide variety of
cultural groups, including Roman Catholic seminaries, which, if
they wanted this type of thing--and they somehow believed that
what I had was authentic and good--I spoke for them. They gave
me my fee, I always answered questions afterwards, with very
few exceptions. I have even showed pictures similar to this at
Fordham University in recent years.
    Senator Potter. How many lectures did you give for the New
Masses?
    Mr. Bryan. I gave one, and that was booked by Mr. Feegens.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Bryan, you spent considerable time in
the Soviet Union, and I think as this testimony goes on, you
will find you had considerable connection with activities
concerning the Soviet Union, due to your trips there and your
lectures and the movies you have made about the Soviet Union,
and communism. Now, can you conceive of a Communist owned and
controlled organization sponsoring a lecturer who would say
something on the public platform critical of the Soviet Union?
And if you can, I would like to know of any such instance.
    Mr. Bryan. I think I can, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, would you tell us about that?
    Mr. Bryan. The best example is our American press there
today. They are allowed in for good reasons, apparently.
    Mr. Cohn. Excuse me. Maybe I can save a little time here.
    I meant a lecturer paid for and sponsored by a Communist
owned and controlled organization in the United States. Did you
ever hear of such an organization? I am not talking about the
status of the American press in a foreign nation. I mean did
you ever hear of a 100 percent Communist organization, an arm
of the Communist party in the United States, putting on the
lecture platform under its sponsorship a lecturer who was
critical of the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Watts. May I speak to my client a minute?
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    [Mr. Watts confers with Mr. Bryan.]
    Mr. Bryan. I think the answer is very simple. The New
Masses asked me once. I did it once.
    Senator Symington. I am getting a little involved here.
    You were working for a living. Is that right?
    Mr. Bryan. That is right, sir.
    Senator Symington. And you made up moving pictures?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes, sir.
    Senator Symington. And you offered yourself for sale on a
proper, normal, capitalistic basis of wanting to make a
lecture. Is that right?
    Mr. Bryan. I think that is correct.
    Senator Symington. All right. Then you have an agent, and
he books you at various places.
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Senator Symington. In some places they were leaning more
toward one country, in some places toward another?
    Mr. Bryan. That is right.
    Senator Symington. And in this particular case, you made
one lecture before the New Masses when you presented one
picture you had taken in Russia?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Senator Symington. I just wanted to be sure I understood
it.
    The Chairman. May I say for the benefit of the witness. The
reason you are called in executive session is because if these
questions were asked of you in a public session before the
senators have a chance to examine and determine where they
think the truth lies, it would create an impression that we
thought you were Communistically inclined. That is the reason
you are called in executive session.
    Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.
    The Chairman. The fact that those questions are being asked
does not mean that the senators have any feeling one way or the
other on it. You are merely here and asked to give answers to
questions.
    Mr. Bryan. May I go further and say that I want to answer
any question you bring up? To my knowledge there is nothing
that I have to hide, and I should like to be very frank with
you all.
    The Chairman. I may say it is counsel's task to vigorously
examine any witness, and the mere fact that he asks you a
question carries no intimation at all.
    Okay, Mr. Counsel.
    Mr. Cohn. So we have now this lecture under the sponsorship
of the New Masses. The next thing is this: Did you in your
experience ever hear of the Daily Worker favorably reviewing a
series of films about the Soviet Union which were critical of
the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Bryan. Actually, Mr. Counsel, I never did. And some
years later I was pointed out two or three paragraphs, after,
may I say, fifteen years, which reviewed something in the Daily
Worker.
    Mr. Chairman, I don't take the Daily Worker, and I am not
actually, either then or now, daily familiar with it. So if
there were some reviews or comments which were either favorable
or unfavorable, I did not see them at that time.
    Mr. Cohn. I have here a documentation, and I have copies of
the Daily Worker. I think they reviewed not one but four or
five of the films you made in the Soviet Union--or I have
three, rather. I thought there were four or five. Each one was
given what we might call a rave notice by the Daily Worker.
    Senator Potter. When was that done?
    Mr. Cohn. That was up through 1947, Senator Potter.
    Now, would you agree that those films certainly could not
have been critical of the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Bryan. I have not seen, Mr. Counsel, the review, and
therefore what they said I honestly don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Let us take the film People of the USSR. Do you
regard that film as critical of the Soviet Union? That is being
shown through 1952. It is being shown right up to the present
time.
    Mr. Bryan. That is being shown today. I have that picture
here,
    Mr. Cohn. Except where it has been banned in various
places.
    Mr. Bryan. I have the picture here. May I throw some light
on this picture?
    Mr. Cohn. I would like an answer.
    Mr. Bryan. What would you like?
    Mr. Cohn. I would like to know first whether you regard
that picture as in any wise critical of the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Bryan. I think I need to explain the status of the
picture. May I take a moment to do that?
    Mr. Cohn. Why, surely.
    Mr. Bryan. Good. This picture is largely composed--this is
a picture with a sound track on it--it is largely composed of
material which was shot in the Soviet Union from 1933 to 1937.
This is what we call ``library'' footage. After the war, in
1945, at the time we were coming to the end of the war, and in
a period of at least normal, to most of us, friendly relations
with the Soviet Union, this film was edited. We believed then,
maybe wrongly, that, having been friendly with the Soviet Union
during the war, some sort of reasonable peace could be worked
out.
    Senator Potter. This was when the co-existence policy was
in effect?
    Mr. Bryan. This was in August 1945, when we began it, at
just about the time, August and September, of the atomic bomb
and the surrender of the Japanese. Therefore, with the state of
mind of the country, of our own State Department, of our own
government, of most members, I believe, of Congress, we were
hopeful, because of our being allies with Russia and England
during the war, that something on a friendly basis for world
peace could be worked out.
    The film was edited, and the text issued at that time.
    A year and a half ago, since this film had rather broadcast
use in this country, and we were proud of it, we arranged to
issue a new release through McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
They have what they call text film. They liked the film, the
officials there did. They did not press us to revise it.
    I felt myself, because of the greatly changed climate, the
actions of Russia in the last few years, if this film were to
be used in 1952 and '53, it warranted a new edition.
    So in the last eighteen months, we have made that new
edition. I have brought it here today, and if you like at a
later time we can show you the old edition. But I believe that
this film today--I have the text of it here.
    Mr. Cohn. This is the new edition?
    Mr. Bryan. The new edition.
    Mr. Cohn. When was this made?
    Mr. Bryan. Between a year and eighteen months ago. The
picture was not changed. It is the narration which has been
changed.
    The Chairman. For the information of the senators, so that
you will have a better picture of why the witness was brought
here, and for the information of the witness also, we contacted
the State Department some time ago, when we learned that there
was to be a $240,000 contract given to the International Film
Foundation.
    Mr. Cohn. You are the director of that?
    Mr. Bryan. I am the executive director.
    The Chairman. And we have been informed by the security
division of the State Department that after a check of the
background of Mr. Bryan, they have canceled out the contract on
the ground that they felt he was not a good security risk, and
his background is such that he should not be producing films
for the department.
    I may say if this record is made public, I wish you would
check with me first and get the permission of Mr. Ford, who
gave us the information, to have that made public.
    I thought the senators would want to know that.
    Mr. Cohn. There is further information along that line, Mr.
Chairman.
    Did you apply for an appointment with HICOG at any time?
    Mr. Bryan. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. In any capacity?
    Mr. Bryan. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, the files of the Department of State
indicate that Mr. Bryan was to be employed as a consultant with
HICOG in April of 1951.
    Mr. Bryan. Yes. I didn't apply. I was approached by State.
I didn't apply.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, you were approached. You knew you were
under consideration for the position?
    Mr. Bryan. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. And as of April 12, 1951, Mr. Bryan was rejected
for security reasons by the Department of State. That is
reflected in a letter from the State Department to David
Wilkin, W-i-l-k-i-n, an Official of HICOG. That letter I
understand, is available, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bryan. This is all news to me, the story of the
cancellation of the contract. I canceled the contract. That has
been offered to me, and I, after many months had been in
process, contracted to go and set up school for the training of
young men in Indonesia, in which we were to employ eight young
Americans to go out there, who were skilled in the motion
picture industry. The Indonesian government and our government
officials over a period of fifteen months approached me on this
thing. Apparently there were some twenty of us considered, and
I was asked to go, of the twenty. I have been over recently, in
October, November, and December, in the Middle East, on the
Point Four job. They cabled me, our government and the
Indonesian government. I received a cable from my office saying
that both the Point Four officials and the Indonesian
government demanded that I come back immediately--this was
during the month of November '52--if I were to get this
contract.
    I mean, is this fair? This is the approach that the
officials of Point Four of State Department and the Indonesian
government took. Mr. Watts is my counsel. He was present. They
said unless I hurried back I would not be given the contract.
Mr. Watts and three of my staff, four of them all together,
came down and spent all day here with the Point Four officials
and with the officials of the Indonesian government to iron out
certain points in the contract. The contract was offered me and
was finally turned down by me because of financial reasons.
    The Chairman. When was the contract offered you?
    Mr. Bryan. It was in tentative offering for two or three
months, Mr. Chairman, and was finally offered me definitely in
early January.
    The Chairman. Early in January of this year?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes.
    The Chairman. I think, then, to have the record complete I
should read into the record the letter from the Department of
State, dated January 21, 1953, if the senators will bear with
me.
    My Dear Senator McCarthy: Your letter of December 30, 1952,
addressed to the Secretary of State has been referred to me for reply.
    As Administrator of the Technical Cooperation Administration, I am
glad to transmit the following information.
    The proposed contract referred to in your letter between the
Republic of Indonesia and the International Film Foundation has not
been signed. It is part of a project set up originally by the Mutual
Security Agency in response to a request from the Indonesian government
for technical administration and rehabilitation and development of film
and radio communications for educational purposes in support of
Indonesia's economic development program. The project became the
responsibility of TCA on July 1, 1952, and the United States program of
technical cooperation in Indonesia was transferred from Indonesia to
the Technical Cooperation Administration. TCA is not a signatory to the
contract. The contracting parties are to be the Indonesian government
and the International Film Foundation.
    However, since the contract is part of a joint program, and U. S.
funds are involved, TCA is responsible for advising the parties on
technical financial and legal aspects of the contract.
    The contract calls for a U. S. contribution of approximately
$240,000, under TCA authority, to make grants to countries
participating in the technical cooperation program. The contribution of
the Indonesian government is estimated at slightly more than this
amount in the form of counterpart funds, housing, per diem, travel in
Indonesia, and laboratory and studio construction costs.
    When we have completed an examination of the information developed
on Mr. Julien Bryan and the International Film Foundation, TCA will
make a recommendation to the Indonesian government as to whether or not
the contract should be signed.
            Sincerely yours,
                                             Glen R. Adams,
                                                Administrator, TCA.
    I may say that subsequently to that we received information
from the State Department that you were recommended against,
after they had completed the examination which they refer to in
this letter, on security grounds. This is dated January 21. It
seems to be in direct conflict with your statement that you
were offered the contract before that and could have had the
contract before that time.
    Mr. Bryan. I will stand by my statement. The only thing at
the end, in early January, was the question of certain figures.
I had made a bid, Mr. Chairman, on this, along with others, and
they had accepted my bid for roughly $200,000, plus some
additional things that came later. Anyway, it was accepted. Mr.
Watts, if you need him, could testify to that, because he was
here, and I was not. I was in Europe.
    But the general thing at the end, in the last discussion,
had to do, in a joint round table conversation with me, with my
accountant or controller, and six of the officials of the TCA,
in which we were trying to decide on the exact amount of
overhead which would be allowed to me and my foundation for
this very difficult work abroad.
    The final discussion--it was offered, and the final turning
down by me was that they cut, frankly, something like $20,000
off of the original amount which several months before we had
agreed on.
    I talked to Mr. Watts, who is not only my attorney but is
president of our foundation, and I talked to our bankers in New
York, and they definitely advised against accepting such a
contract, which was too risky for us. They felt the margin was
too small.
    The Chairman. Did the security department of the State
Department turn down any of your films? In other words, ban
them? Did the State Department ban any of your films?
    Mr. Bryan. I am little puzzled. Do you mean any of the
films I have made for it?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Bryan. I have never heard of such a thing. May I say I
have just come from the Middle East and Turkey, Egypt,
Yugoslavia, and to my great pride as an American citizen, my
films made long ago for the State Department are being used
very widely, and in between thirty and forty languages.
    The Chairman. The question was: Do you know whether or not
they ever turned down one of your films because they claimed it
was procommunist?
    Mr. Bryan. I know of no such films of any that I made for
the government. There was a discussion on one film, which our
foundation made some years ago, on racial prejudice, called
Boundary Lines, and there was some question within the
department of whether that would be useful in certain
countries. To my knowledge, it was never turned down, and to my
knowledge, it is still being used. This was not a film made for
the State Department.
    Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say
something here. I do not quite know where we are going on this,
and I do not want to be premature with respect to the counsel's
questions. But at one time while our relationship with Russia
was very friendly, we had an organization that came over here,
and every businessman in America knew about it, called AMTORG.
And they set up an office in New York. And the long and short
of it was that they had a lot of money and they wanted to do
business with the United States.
    Now, this man says he is not a Communist, he never has been
a Communist, and he has no Communist leanings. Suppose the
General Electric Company builds a dam and the vice president in
charge of sales, or a salesman, went over there, associated
with Communists, dined with Russians, had his picture taken and
put in the paper, wrote letters saying that he thought Russia
was a wonderful country, and so on and so forth, in an effort
to get this business for the General Electric Corporation. I
mention it to you because I know they did a great deal of this
type and character of work.
    I think there are some of the things that the State
Department has done in the past that are similar to what
perhaps some other people do. Therefore, whether or not he has
been accepted or rejected by security in 1951 is something I
think, based on testimony here--incidentally, I have never seen
this man before--you would be skeptical of if it went the other
way. I know I went down to AMTORG as a business man trying to
get business from AMTORG. This was before they were fighting on
our side, and so forth. If they said, ``We would like you to go
to the Soviet,'' everybody in those days was anxious to do
business with Russia. Unless there is some tie-in with the
Communist party, I do not see what there is in this.
    The Chairman. May I say that we cannot determine whether
there is a tie-in until we finish the examination. I know
nothing about this man. I have never seen him before. We have
the information that he has been turned down in 1953 on
security grounds. I would be curious to know why. We have the
information that some of his films have been found
unsatisfactory. I saw one of his films, entitled Bennington
College, one that is being distributed throughout the world. I
could find nothing pro-Communist in the film. If you will
pardon me, Mr. Bryan, I found it completely insipid. I do not
think it would educate anyone in the world about America. It
was one of those things you would look at for two minutes, and
you could not help saying, ``My God, are we paying money for
this?'' Nothing of a pro-Communist nature; just completely
valueless. And you see, as well as examining into any possible
pro-Communist background, I am just curious to know about that.
    Senator Symington. I think if the guy bought it, it was a
good film from his standpoint, even though it might have been a
poor one from yours or mine.
    The Chairman. So we are interested in how much is paid for
those films and why, for example, they distributed a film like
Bennington College. I may say I have asked the staff to examine
all the films made by this firm.
    Let me ask you one question before counsel proceeds: Is
your foundation tax-exempt?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes, sir, that is correct.
    The Chairman. It pays no taxes whatsoever?
    Mr. Bryan. I don't think it does. As to social security we
began without that, and my understanding is that we now pay.
But as far as the corporation is concerned, we are a tax-exempt
corporation.
    Senator Symington. May I ask you a question there?
    What is your return? What do you get?
    Mr. Bryan. Well, that is rather interesting. I get
officially $22,500 a year. This year I have gotten nothing, and
I have loaned the foundation $2,000. Last year I got almost my
full salary. The year before I got $6,000.
    Senator Symington. What was your full salary?
    Mr. Bryan. The full salary when the foundation began, eight
years ago, was $20,000. This was determined by the board of
trustees of my foundation and the board of trustees of Davella
Mills, which is the foundation which gave us this grant.
    Senator Symington. Just as a matter of interest, what is
your net return after taxes on your $22,000 salary?
    Mr. Bryan. I would say something like $15,000. This was
determined--may I say one thing, Mr. Chairman--this was
determined some years ago, in 1945, by the board of trustees of
both of them, and my salary was set at $20,000.
    That was the way it was based. Mr. Watts--and you could use
him if you wish to--could verify or check this. It was based
largely on what my earnings had been in my lectures and as a
private individual.
    The Chairman. I am not criticizing what you got. I am just
curious to know about the tax exempt feature. How many other
officers of the corporation draw a salary?
    How many other people in the corporation draw a salary?
    Mr. Bryan. None.
    The Chairman. In other words, you are the only person.
Except your salaried employees?
    Mr. Bryan. That is right. And may I say: This is a little
foundation. If we have a hard year this year--I am not
apologizing to anybody; I believe in what I am doing. I believe
it is one of the most American things I can do, to make these
films to show all over the world to create better
understanding. This year I not only have gotten zero since
January, but I am in $2,000 that I have loaned the foundation.
I don't apologize for that. I want this work that I am
interested in to continue.
    Senator Symington. I suggest you answer questions, rather
than giving talks.
    Mr. Bryan. Okay. Sorry.
    Senator Symington. May I ask: Who was on the foundation
besides yourself?
    Mr. Bryan. I think an important thing is this little
booklet here. This is all listed.
    The Chairman. Mr. Bryan, I know you are trying to answer in
detail. You may take as much time as you care to, but you are
giving lectures instead of answering. Senator Symington asked
you who is on the foundation besides yourself?
    Mr. Bryan. Mr. Edward Watts, who is my attorney and is here
today----
    I had better just read them.
    Mr. Cohn. Is Mr. Owen Lattimore still on your education
committee?
    Mr. Bryan. We had, eight years ago, an advisory council.
That advisory council was abolished about eighteen months to
two years ago. Mr. Lattimore was originally on it.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he on it at the time of its abolition
eighteen months ago?
    Mr. Bryan. The advisory council, of about twenty people,
had never met.
    Mr. Cohn. Maybe you didn't understand my question.
    Was Mr. Lattimore a member of the advisory council at the
time it was abolished?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes, he was.
    Mr. Cohn. That is all I wanted to ask you.
    Mr. Bryan. May I ask you, Mr, Symington. Do you want the
others, quickly?
    Senator Symington. Yes.
    Mr. Bryan. Besides Mr. Watts and I, Paul Braisted, Thurston
Davies, William Halstead, Ruddick Lawrence, Hazard Reeves,
Thomas C. Roberts, Lorimer Slocum, and Theodore C. Speers.
    The Chairman. Where does Mr. Slocum work?
    Mr. Bryan. Young and Rubicum. He is one of the vice
presidents.
    The Chairman. I am a bit curious, in view of the fact that
we are checking into this matter of tax free foundations over
in the Appropriations Committee. I would like to ask you a
couple of questions on that, which really have nothing to do
with the films you produced.
    How much attorneys' fees do you pay a year out of this
foundation? In other words, what does Mr. Watts draw?
    Mr. Bryan. I am not sure of what the entire amount has
been. He has mostly volunteered his services, Mr. Chairman, for
me. In probably six or seven years, we may have paid $2500.
    The Chairman. Have any of the members of your family been
on the payroll of the foundation?
    Mr. Bryan. No.
    The Chairman. Any relatives at all?
    Mr. Bryan. No.
    Mr. Cohn. I would like to quote from the Daily Worker of
May 15, 1947; referring to a review of a one-reel film of yours
entitled ``Religion in Russia,'' by David Platt, the official
reviewer of the Daily Worker.
    Julien Bryan took these pictures on one of his recent trips
to the Soviets. Bryan introduces the film to the audience.
    He apparently had been present at a meeting at which you
presided and introduced the film. ``He,'' meaning you,
says he had no trouble penetrating into the Iron Curtain. The
Soviet authorities gave him permission to shoot wherever and
whatever he pleased. He reports that some 8,000 churches are
open in the USSR. Later a Roman Catholic priest in Moscow is
heard saying, ``The Soviet authorities have done remarkably
well to uphold religious worship.'' Those who prate so loudly
about the lack of religious freedom in the USSR owe it to their
conscience, if they have one, to see these uncensored pictures.
    That is the Daily Worker of May 15, 1947.
    Mr. Bryan. I am a little confused by this. This, whatever
you have just stated, is a statement on a sound track of a
Catholic priest in Moscow?
    Mr. Cohn. That is right. It is a film you took.
    Mr. Bryan. I did not take it. This is part of a Pathe News
thing, and you are either misreading, or the statement is
incorrect. This was made by Pathe News, a one-reel release.
    Senator Symington. I do not think you should say the
counsel is misreading anything.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you take the pictures, or not?
    Mr. Bryan. I did not take the pictures of the Catholic
priest. I was there under UNRRA for three months.
    The Chairman. Did you show the picture?
    Mr. Bryan. I took the pictures, Mr. Chairman, of the first
part of this description.
    The Chairman. Mr. Bryan, the Daily Worker refers to a
certain film. The question is: Were you showing that film?
    Mr. Bryan. No, I didn't show it. I made this for Pathe
News.
    Mr. Cohn. Right.
    Mr. Bryan. May I explain?
    Mr. Cohn. Surely.
    Mr. Bryan. I made the first part of it, and the Pathe News
people decided to add some material they had obtained of an
actual synchronized voice tract of a Catholic priest in Moscow,
who, frankly, I have never met and have never seen. They added
that to some material, let us say, six or seven minutes, which
I took of the Russian churches.
    Now, it needs this explanation, if you will allow me one
second. The point is that what I said now and in my lectures
all over America I still say today, that Stalin changed the
whole policy at that time, during the war, and allowed the
churches which had been closed to be reopened. He did it
because of public relations. He was losing his people.
    The Chairman. Can I get back to this question? The Daily
Worker says you were showing a certain film. Question: Were you
showing that film? Regardless of whether you took it or Pathe
took it, regardless of who dubbed in the priest's voice, did
you show that film?
    Mr. Bryan. This Pathe release obviously I didn't show. This
was released by them to the theater.
    The Chairman. Never mind about ``obviously'' you did not.
Did you, or did you not?
    Mr. Bryan. It is not as simple as that.
    Senator Symington. Go ahead. Take your time and answer the
question.
    Mr. Bryan. I want to take my time, because this is very
important to me and to my integrity.
    Senator Symington. Forget your integrity; answer the
question of the chairman, will you?
    Mr. Bryan. I took two things over there. I took pictures on
the condition of Russian churches today. I took a small amount
of footage which was released by Pathe.
    Mr. Watts. May I interrupt just a second?
    [Mr. Watts confers with Mr. Bryan.]
    Senator Potter. The witness is prepared to answer the
question now.
    The Chairman. You were explaining whether or not you had
shown this film.
    Mr. Bryan. I may have shown this one-reel Pathe News
newsreel once or twice, but this had a sound track on it. And,
Mr. Chairman, I don't lecture with a film with a sound track on
it. That was made for the theater, period.
    The Daily Worker's review there I had never seen, and I did
not know about that.
    The Chairman. We are asking you a very simple question. We
are not accusing you of anything. The Daily Worker says you
showed a film extolling the complete religious freedom in
Russia. You say there was the voice of a priest dubbed into
that film by somebody else. I merely ask you the simple
question: Is it true that you showed that film? And who paid
you for it?
    The first question is. Did you show this film as described
by the Daily Worker?
    Senator Symington. With the sound track that the Daily
Worker reports.
    Mr. Bryan. I might have once or twice, privately, but never
for a lecture. This was made by Pathe News, so I had no control
over this.
    Senator Symington. You made the pictures, and they made the
sound track?
    Mr. Bryan. As far as I recall, they called me in and dubbed
in my voice at that time, and then they released this picture.
But I do not think the review in the Daily Worker which is read
here is honest or accurate. Because all over America at that
time, today and then, I was lecturing on how these people still
were fighting for religious freedom in spite of Stalin and the
Kremlin.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Bryan, maybe this will help clarify it a
little more. I am reading from the Daily Worker of Monday,
February 10, 1947, the same column. It says:
    Julien Bryan, documentary film producer mentioned above--
    It refers to the fact above that at some meeting a picture
of yours called People of the U.S.S.R. was shown. Did you make
such a picture?
    Mr. Bryan. This is the picture which we have discussed, and
of which we have the revised version here.
    Mr. Cohn. And that picture, you will agree, has been banned
in certain school systems throughout the country as Communist
propaganda.
    Mr. Bryan. I think that it has. It has been banned.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think that the education officials were
right, or wrong, in banning this as Communist propaganda?
    Mr. Bryan. I think they were wrong.
    The Chairman. Has the information program used that film
since it has been banned by the schools?
    Mr. Bryan. May I say as far as I know the State Department
has no connection with these films on the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to
insert in the record an article from the Chicago Sunday
Tribune, dated March 23, 1952, entitled ``Parents Object and
Red Movie is Impounded.''
    The Chairman. Very well.
    [The material referred to is as follows.]
    Parents Object and Red Movie is Impounded
    Twin Falls, Idaho, March 22 (Special)--School authorities
said here today that a film, ``Peoples of the USSR,'' obtained
from Washington State College for the elementary school audio-
visual program, has been impounded after a single showing
because of complaints that it contains Communist propaganda.
    Arthur Kleinkopf, Curriculum Director for the Twin Falls
schools, said the film will be sent to the Senate Internal
Security Committee in Washington for an investigation into its
source and into responsibility for propaganda statements in an
accompanying sound track.
    Kleinkopf said this film was shown Tuesday to fourth,
fifth, and sixth grade students in the Washington school here.
He said Virgil Allen, principal of this school, reported to him
that the film was objectionable and that he canceled further
showings.
Board Studies Film
    He said the decision to impound the film for congressional
investigation was made yesterday after a special showing before
the School Board and the National Affairs Committee of the
local Chamber of Commerce.
    Claude Detweller, a local businessman, said the Chamber of
Commerce became interested when parents of children who had
seen the film reported their children came home with high
praise for Russia.
    ``Boy, things are sure nice in Russia,'' one youngster told
his parents, telling about the film.
    ``We could have peace if we could just get together,'' said
another pupil who had seen the movie, ``Russia Wants Peace.''
    Detweller said the scenes depicted in the film were not in
themselves necessarily objectionable but were made so by the
commentary. He said children in a playground in a Russian
industrial city were described as having been born in Detroit
and brought to Russia by their parents in a search of
happiness.
Court Scene Described
    Another scene showed a court trial in which a man unable to
get along with his neighbors was fined one half of six months'
pay by Russian judges. This was explained as evidence that
Russia permits no-racial intolerance.
    ``We want Congress to find out if this commentary was
supplied when the film was produced in 1946 or if it was
recently dubbed in,'' Detweller said.
    Dr. W.A. Pearl, Acting President of Washington State
College, was reached by local school authorities in Seattle,
where he is attending a convention. He said he would order
rescreening of all films in the library, which is maintained
jointly by the college with the University of Washington and
the Central Washington College of Education.
Film Made in Russia
    Glen Jones, Director of the Washington State College's
Community Service Department, which issues films from the
library to schools in Washington and Idaho, said in Pullman,
Washington, he is certain there has been no substitution of
comment or any other tampering with the film's sound track.
    He said the film was made in Russia in 1946 by Julien
Bryan, an American producer of documentary films, and was
released to the college by the International Film Foundation.
He said he understood this is an organization formed to
distribute Bryan's documentaries.
    ``This is one of 76 films booked by the Twin Falls schools
from our library for showing between mid-February and mid-May''
he said. ``It has been a popular film and we have had no
previous complaints about it.'' Our records show the film was
issued previously to Twin Falls in September 1950.
    Mr. Cohn. Now I am reading from the Daily Worker of
February 10, 1947:
    Julien Bryan, documentary film producer mentioned above, is
now in the Soviet Union making a new series of 16 mm films for
distribution in this country. Bryan, who is Executive Director
of the International Film Foundation, recently cabled his New
York office that he spent several weeks in Minsk ``making
pictures of the rebuilding of hospitals, schools, orphanages
and factories from the utter devastation of Minsk.'' The
producer praised the cooperation he had received from Soviet
authorities. ``We photographed freely on the streets and
bridges and had no police interference, no civilian
questioning, and no hostility; only friendliness.''
    Is that an accurate quote?
    Mr. Bryan. I presume it is. May I ask the date of that?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes, surely. I read it before. Monday, February
10, 1947.
    Now, my next question is this: Are people from your company
frequently in communication with the film critic of the Daily
Worker?
    Mr. Bryan. I don't know, Mr. Counsel, that they have ever
been.
    Mr. Cohn. I was just wondering how the film critic of the
Daily Worker could get the text of a cable you sent your
office, and say, ``Bryan, who is now in Russia, recently cabled
his New York office,'' and then set forth the text of the
cable. Obviously they must have obtained it. I was wondering
who in the foundation had communicated the text of your cable
referring to the great cooperation you were receiving in the
Soviet Union, to the Daily Worker.
    Mr. Bryan. I would have no idea, and this is the first time
I have heard of this.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you like to see it?
    Mr. Bryan. I would.
    Senator Potter. When did you visit the Soviet Union, that
that had reference to?
    Mr. Bryan. I think it is very important to have why I was
there.
    Senator Potter. When were you there?
    Mr. Bryan. I was there in December '46 through part of
February of '47. Three months I was there, under the auspices
of officials of UNRRA and working closely with the officials of
our State Department here. I mean, my trip was not mysterious.
They knew I was going, and they held me up as I applied for my
visa. I was turned down abruptly early in 1946, and it was only
some months later, through the auspices of UNRRA, that I was
able, as a reporter of motion pictures----
    Senator Potter. You were turned down abruptly by whom?
    Mr. Bryan. By the Soviet embassy in Washington.
    The Chairman. When was this?
    Mr. Bryan. This was in the summer of 1946, in May, June,
July--in that period.
    Senator Potter. Then you went over later as a
representative of UNRRA?
    Mr. Bryan. I went over later, first into Italy, with our
foundation crew. We made some films there. Then into
Czechoslovakia, which at that time was a free country and was
not under the Communist auspices. Finally, I went in December,
around the first of December 1946, to Poland. And this was in
the period immediately following the war.
    The Chairman. May I ask if this is a correct statement, in
the Daily Worker: ``He,'' referring to you says ``that he had
no trouble penetrating the Iron Curtain. The Soviet authorities
gave him permission to shoot wherever and whatever he
pleased.''
    Did they let you take pictures?
    Mr. Bryan. No, that is not true. May I take one minute, Mr.
Chairman? Because this is crucial, I think.
    Mr. Cohn. You say that is not an accurate quote from the
cable? You see, they put this in quotations.
    Mr. Bryan. I do not know about the cable. I mean, I don't
recall word for word from the cable.
    Senator Potter. You recall sending a cable, do you? You
recall sending a cable back?
    Mr. Bryan. I recall sending a cable to my office, possibly
to Mr. Watts, or at least to my office, saying things were
going very well and we were getting good pictures.
    Mr. Cohn. You do not know who gave that to the Daily
Worker?
    Mr. Bryan. I have no idea, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you allowed by the Soviet authorities to
shoot wherever and whatever you pleased?
    Mr. Bryan. We were not.
    The Chairman. If this was a correct quotation from the
film, using your voice, this indicates that you said you were
in the film. Now, do you have a copy of that film yet.
    Mr. Bryan. I haven't a copy. I am sure we could get it.
    The Pathe film, you mean?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Bryan. No, I have no copy with me.
    The Chairman. If you follow me, Mr. Bryan, if you come back
in 1947, and they are showing a film of this authority, who is
over in Russia, and he says: ``I was able to travel freely
throughout Russia, and I could take pictures of whatever I
wanted to take,'' if that was not true, it would be rather
improper to circulate that film.
    Now, this voice of the priest that was dubbed in. You did
not see that priest, and you did not take that picture?
    Mr. Bryan. No.
    The Chairman. So you do not know whether that was a phony,
or true?
    Mr. Bryan. I was assured by the people at Pathe, who had
this material, that it was true, and he was an actual Roman
Catholic priest who was stationed there.
    The Chairman. Do you have any way of knowing, except that
someone told you it was true?
    Mr. Bryan. No, I have no way.
    The Chairman. In other words, you were in Russia. You took
the pictures.
    Mr. Bryan. I did not take these pictures they are talking
about, of the priest.
    The Chairman. I am talking about the rest of the film. You
were in Russia, and you took a picture of Russian churches.
    Mr. Bryan. That is right.
    The Chairman. Your voice was used in the sound track.
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    The Chairman. When it was finally shown, it contained the
voice of some alleged Catholic priest whom you had never seen,
whom you had not photographed, but they told you somebody else
took the picture of him. Is that right?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    The Chairman. Did they tell you who took the picture?
    Mr. Bryan. I presume they did, sir. I think they said it
was a Paramount photographer.
    The Chairman. You are quoted here as saying there are eight
thousand churches open in Russia. Did you know that to be a
fact? Or is this an incorrect quotation of what you said on the
sound track?
    Mr. Bryan. As far as what is on the sound track, I think we
ought to get it on the record. I do not know today the exact
words.
    The Chairman. Do you know there were eight thousand
churches open in 1947?
    Mr. Bryan. No, but I would think that would be fairly near
correct.
    The Chairman. Well, you are quoted as saying it. Where
would you get your information?
    Mr. Bryan. It would simply be an estimate, a very crude
estimate.
    The Chairman. You see, the reason I question you on this:
In 1947, that is what the Communists were trying to tell us,
that there were complete religious freedom in Russia, that
there was no racial discrimination.
    Mr. Bryan. Yes.
    The Chairman. And it is rather unusual to find a man over
in Russia at that particular time, when most Americans were
excluded, saying he could freely take pictures. It is rather
unusual when you take these pictures of churches, to find that
someone dubs in the voice of some alleged priest saying, ``We
have complete religious freedom.'' The normal person would say,
``Here is some excellent Communist propaganda.'' Is that not
correct? I am not accusing you of trying to propagandize, but
taking that whole product approved by the Daily Worker, it
would certainly look like good Communist propaganda, would it
not?
    Mr. Bryan. I would think it would.
    The Chairman. Can you get us that film?
    Mr. Bryan. I can get the film.
    The Chairman. Good. I think that should be done.
    Pardon me, Mr. Counsel. Go ahead.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Bryan, you have told us here this morning
that the only time you lectured----
    The Chairman. May I interrupt? I think Senator Potter and
Senator McClellan and the other senators may want to see the
film that was banned by the schools.
    Mr. Bryan. We have the film here.
    Senator McClellan. May I ask a question? This particular
film we have been talking about, as I understand it, is
actually in two parts, although it is probably shown in one
film.
    Part of it you took, without knowing that Pathe would be
interested in at all, as I understand.
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Senator McClellan. It was taken by you in the course of
your own private operations?
    Mr. Bryan. That is right.
    Senator McClellan. Later, Pathe wanted to use that film
that you had taken. They made some arrangements with you, I
guess, to get the film?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Senator McClellan. Then they had you supply your voice, and
make a talking film out of it?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Senator McClellan. Then they added to that another film
that they had acquired from another source with regard to the
Catholic priest and what he said?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct,
    Senator McClellan. So you had nothing to do whatsoever with
that, that part as to the Catholic priest?
    Mr. Bryan. That is right.
    Senator McClellan. They purchased from you or secured from
you that film that you had taken for your own private use, and
then added this other to it?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Senator McClellan. And you are not responsible for whatever
they added to it or what use they may have made of it?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    May I modify that, sir?
    If I had had great doubt when I saw this, that this was a
forgery or a phony, I would have told the Pathe people. But I
had no such doubt. They told me that this was taken by
reputable people, and there seemed to be no doubt that this was
an authentic priest.
    Senator McClellan. Then you did see the rest of the film?
    Mr. Bryan. I saw it.
    Senator McClellan. As made up completely for use?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Senator McClellan. And heard the voice of the priest?
    Mr. Bryan. I obviously had no final control over Pathe
News, but I didn't object to it. It seemed reasonable to me at
the time.
    Senator Potter. Do I understand that you took these
pictures and prepared an oration during the fall of 1946 and
early 1947?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Senator Potter. That was when the Soviet Union was still
our ally. Is that true, or not?
    Mr. Bryan. Well, to my knowledge, yes. I don't think we
would have been permitted in unless this was in the so called
friendly period. It may have been in the beginning. They were
preparing some bitter criticism.
    Senator Potter. But in other words, you were not
endeavoring in your film or in your narration to be critical of
the Soviet Union. Is that true?
    Mr. Bryan. Not one way or the other. I wanted to give a
factual statement of the thing. But we were in no mood at that
time--we were still being allies and more or less friendly, and
there was no mood of, let's say, violent denunciation, either
in me or in the country.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Bryan, you told us here this morning
that you only lectured once under the auspices of the New
Masses, and they didn't hire you again, and that that lecture
took place at a public high school, the Washington Irving high
school. I want to suggest to you that that testimony was not
accurate. I want to ask you whether or not you want to
reconsider it.
    Mr. Bryan. Mr. Counsel, that is all I recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Is it not a fact that you delivered a lecture
under the auspices of the New Masses, reported in the Daily
Worker of May 6, 1937 and that this lecture took place at the
New School for Social Research on Sunday night, May 9th?
    Julien Bryan in person presents ``Russia Reborn,'' 10,000
feet of new motion pictures of the Soviet Union as it is now.
Last public appearance in New York this season. Auspices: New
Masses. Seats on sale at New Masses, Chelsea Book Shop, and
Workers Book Shop.
    Of course, the Chelsea Book Shop and the Workers Book Shop
were the two official book shops of the Communist party of the
United States.
    I would like to show you this and see whether or not that
refreshes your recollection.
    Mr. Bryan. My recollection is that during this whole period
of, say, '33 to '37, there was one lecture for the New Masses,
and that there was another under the auspices of the Friends of
the Soviet Union.
    My guess would be conceivably that in a five-year period
there might have been three such bookings by leftist groups
like New Masses or the Friends of Soviet Russia Today.
    Mr. Cohn. Can you conceive of the New Masses booking you a
lecture and selling tickets at the official book shops of the
Communist party, if they had any doubts about your attitude
toward the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Bryan. I never went into that particularly, any more
than I questioned the Catholic seminaries. I spoke before a
wide variety of groups at that time.
    Mr. Cohn. I think we got the point. Now, Mr. Bryan, did you
conduct guided tours to the Soviet Union in behalf of an
organization called Open Road, which has been listed as a
Communist front?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You know that has been listed as a Communist
front?
    Mr. Bryan. No, I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. This is the first you hear of that?
    Mr. Bryan. It is the first I have heard of Open Road at
all--
    Mr. Cohn. Well, don't say it is the first time you have
heard of it. You conducted guided tours under their auspices
didn't you?
    Mr. Bryan. We are confusing the question. The first I heard
of them being a Communist front? Was that your question?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Bryan. I conducted tours for the Open Road.
    Mr. Cohn. And you say this is the first time it has been
suggested to you that the Open Road is officially listed as a
Communist front?
    Mr. Bryan. Well, I assume, being as they actually were
conducting tours to the Soviet Union, that they would be, but I
have never seen it.
    Mr. Cohn. I am reading again from the Daily Worker, of May
1, 1937. Your name is there, together with the names of Anna
Louise Strong, Joseph Lash, Julia Dorn, John Kingsbury, Dr.
Joshua Kunitz, and Robert Magidoff.
    Can you suggest one person there with the exception of
yourself who was not a well-known member of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Bryan. Mr. Counsel, I would not know.
    Mr. Cohn. Maybe the witness would care to examine this.
    Mr. Bryan. I know the names of most of those people. But
for me to say that they are well-known members of the Communist
party--I have no such evidence.
    The Chairman. Will you look at the list now and tell us
whether you knew then that any of those people were well-known
Communists; whether you know now?
    Mr. Bryan. I have known of these people, certainly, but I
have no direct evidence.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know any of these people personally?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Who do you know?
    Mr. Bryan. I have known--I haven't seen for many years Anna
Louise Strong. But when I was on this Open Road tour----
    The Chairman. Will you try and answer the question?
    Counsel asked you who, of this group, you know.
    Mr. Bryan. Anna Louise Strong; Kunitz I had met, but I
wouldn't say I knew him.
    Mr. Cohn. Under what circumstances did you meet Kunitz?
    Mr. Bryan. I think I met him on one of the tours seventeen
years ago in Moscow.
    Mr. Cohn. All right. Who else?
    Mr. Bryan. Kingsbury I knew in the same way. Lash I never
recall meeting. Julia Dorn I remember vaguely.
    Mr. Cohn. Is it your testimony that you had no idea that
Kunitz and Anna Louise Strong were Communists, to take two of
them?
    Mr. Bryan. No. I would say as far as Anna Louise Strong was
concerned, I had certainly seen her name for many years in the
press, and I had read her books.
    The Chairman. Mr. Bryan, at the time you were associated
with her, sponsoring these tours, did you then think she was a
Communist, or not?
    [Mr. Bryan confers with Mr. Watts.]
    Mr. Bryan. I was not associated with her, Mr. Chairman.
    I had my own group. I took these people. And I may have, as
I said, met her and other leaders like this at times in Moscow.
As to whether she was a party member, I did not know.
    The Chairman. We did not ask you whether she was a party
member. Did you think she was a member of the party at that
time?
    Mr. Bryan. I did not think so at that time.
    The Chairman. For your information, every one of those
persons listed with you as sponsoring those tours has been
identified, most of them a number of times, as Communists, and
some of them as espionage agents.
    Mr. Bryan. Yes?
    The Chairman. You say you had no reason to believe at that
time that any of them were Communists?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes. That is what I said.
    The Chairman. Did you know Magidoff?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes, I knew Magidoff.
    The Chairman. We just asked you to read from the list and
tell us those you knew. You did not mention Magidoff.
    Mr. Bryan. I am sorry. Magidoff was the first one. I think
that completes it.
    The Chairman. How well did you know Magidoff?
    Mr. Bryan. I saw him a number of times in this country, I
think back as early as '35, or something like that. Then I
didn't see him for many years. Then in '47, he was one of our
correspondents there.
    The Chairman. Have you ever attended a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Bryan. I have never attended a Communist meeting to my
knowledge in this country. I have attended, obviously, in the
Soviet Union, if I attended any meeting, I suppose, but in this
country I have not, to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, we have this fact, Mr. Bryan. Of course,
this Open Road has been officially listed as a Communist front
organization, and you were one of the few people who were
conducting tours to the Soviet Union for this Communist front
organization, and everyone of those people conducting those
tours whose names were read have been identified either as
Communists or espionage agents.
    My next question is: Did you ever have any connection with
an organization known as Intourist?
    Mr. Bryan. I had the connection with Intourist in the terms
that I led a group for Open Road. Open Road was an American
travel bureau.
    Mr. Cohn. The question was: Did you ever have any
connection with Intourist?
    Mr. Bryan. My connection was through Open Road.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know at the time you were connected with
Intourist that that was a 100 percent Communist front
organization, controlled by the Communist party?
    Mr. Bryan. I did not know it or think of it at that time.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Bryan, did you, during the Hitler-Stalin
pact, intercede in behalf of Hans Eisler, and protest the fact
that he was not given a visa to enter the United States?
    Mr. Bryan. The answer is ``yes,'' I did.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you first meet Hans Eisler?
    Mr. Bryan. I never met him.
    Mr. Cohn. How did you happen to intercede in his behalf?
    Mr. Bryan. I was asked to by friends.
    Mr. Cohn. Which friends?
    Mr. Bryan. Can we come back to this a minute? I know the
chap's name very well, and I am not holding back on it.
    Mr. Cohn. Surely. You mean you just can't recall it?
    Mr. Bryan. Just for a second. But I mean, I am not----
    Mr. Cohn. I understand that, surely.
    Now, I don't quite understand. Here is this man, Hans
Eisler, and I think his record is very well known by this time.
    Mr. Bryan. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And you were one of two people who interceded
with the American ambassador in Mexico and protested the fact
that he had not been granted a visa to enter the United States.
You now tell us you did not even know him. What explanation can
you give us for that?
    Mr. Bryan. The explanation is that I was called up or
written to, called up I think, by this friend. I was told that
this was a remarkable foreign--either German or Austrian,
whatever his nationality is--musician or composer, and that he
was being done a great injustice by not being admitted. I
confess to being naive about the thing. I trusted this friend.
I assumed that this was an honorable case of a person desiring
legitimately admission to this country.
    Senator Potter. Was your friend a member of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Bryan. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Could you recall his name now?
    Mr. Bryan. Would you give me just a second? This doesn't
happen to me very much. I will give this to you in a second.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you want me to keep on asking you questions?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes. And it will occur to me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever taken any photographs for a
publication known as Soviet Russia Today? You told us you
subscribed to it.
    Mr. Bryan. No, I have never taken any photographs for them.
When I came back from one of these trips, I sold some
photographs to them, as I did to the New York Times and other
American magazines.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you sold them some photographs. Did you
ever sell any photographs to the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Bryan. Not to my knowledge. I am absolutely sure I
never did.
    The Chairman. Did you ever give them any free?
    Mr. Bryan. No, sir. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. Will you examine this? Mr. Bryan, do you know
Clarence Hathaway, one of the top leaders of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Bryan. I may have met Hathaway once, some twenty years
ago. I, to my recollection, have never seen him since.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever spoken on the same platform with
Clarence Hathaway?
    Mr. Bryan. I did once, in 1933, to my recollection.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that at a meeting entitled, ``A Call to
Action''?
    Mr. Bryan. I don't recall the title. It was a group of
farmers, forty or fifty different farm groups, coming from all
over America.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know that Clarence Hathaway was head of
the New York bureau of the Communist party at that time? Was he
not publicly introduced as such?
    Mr. Bryan. I don't recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Would that have made an impression on you?
    Mr. Bryan. I think it would, if I had know that, yes.
    Mr Cohn. But you say you don't recall that.
    Mr. Bryan. I don't recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you familiar with the testimony of Walter S.
Steele concerning you before the House Committee on Un-American
Activities?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes, I am familiar with it.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you read that testimony?
    Mr. Bryan. I have read the testimony.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Steele said, in essence, that your
organization has rendered great service to the Communist
propaganda in this movement; that it has made a number of pro-
Soviet films which have been shown, as we have seen here, under
the auspices of the New Masses and Soviet Russia Today, and
various other arms of the Communist party. What comment do you
have to make on Mr. Steele's testimony?
    Mr. Bryan. I think Mr. Steele, testifying as to the meeting
of the farmers, of, actually, 1933, twenty years ago, is not
too accurate. I showed my films there of the Russian farmers,
as I have already described to the committee and I believe I
showed them honestly and fairly, showing that there were
Russian farmers, and some of them were Russian-Americans from
Pennsylvania who had gone back, and who were struggling on a
collective farm. I showed the mud, the difficulty of the work,
and I also showed the hard work which they were doing. This was
twenty years ago.
    Mr. Cohn. By the way, of course, The American Legion has
protested against this film, Peoples of the Soviet Union, has
it not?
    Mr. Bryan. Where was the protest?
    Mr. Cohn. I am asking you whether or not it has.
    Mr. Bryan. Yes. I am a member of the Legion. It has
protested to my knowledge in Peoria.
    Mr. Cohn. That is one place. What happened after its
protest?
    Mr. Bryan. I think the thing, as far as I know, from the
librarian there--I volunteered. I went back several times to
Peoria to meet with the members of the Legion and the
librarian. My most recent advice is that this new edition of
the film is now back on the shelves of the library and being
used.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, you brought the new edition here. Is that
right?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. As you told us, you remade the film in recent
months?
    Mr. Bryan. We have not changed one single picture.
    Mr. Cohn. You remade the sound track?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you responsible for the original sound
track?
    Mr. Bryan. I was; which was made in 1945, in the period
just after the war.
    The Chairman. I think, Mr. Counsel, that if we are going to
see the film, we should see the original film.
    Mr. Cohn. There is no doubt about it. We are not interested
in what they have done since.
    The Chairman. We will ask you to produce the original film
here, not the remade one.
    Mr. Cohn. And I think we would also be interested in this
film Boundary Lines, if you would bring that.
    Mr. Bryan. I would be very glad to do that.
    The Chairman. Have either of these films been distributed
under the sponsorship of the information program?
    Mr. Cohn. Boundary Lines, I am sure has been used by the
government.
    Do you know about that?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes. The government, Mr. Chairman, did not have
this film made. We made it. Then several copies of this film
were purchased, to my knowledge, by the information program,
and were used abroad.
    The Chairman. How soon can we get a copy of that? Do you
have a copy of it?
    Mr. Bryan. My office is in New York.
    The Chairman. Do you have copies in New York?
    Mr. Bryan. Oh, certainly. We have copies here of this new
version, if you wish to see it.
    The Chairman. I am surprised you did not bring along both
versions. Why waste time and money to bring a man with the
corrected version here?
    Mr. Bryan. I am sorry if I did wrong. The one which is now
circulating in schools and colleges, which the army is using,
is the new version.
    The Chairman. The army is using this one now?
    Mr. Bryan. The army is using this.
    Senator Potter. I think we ought to see both.
    Mr. Cohn. I have read a text of the sound track of the
first one.
    Mr. Bryan. We have the film here.
    Senator Potter. We could see one and read the script of the
other.
    The Chairman. Did the army buy the old one?
    Mr. Bryan. The army purchased, as far as I know, the old
one.
    The Chairman. So they used the old one and the new one?
    Mr. Bryan. As far as I know, they have used both, sir, yes.
    The Chairman. We will ask that you produce the old one
also. I think we should see both the old and the new. How long
does this film take?
    Mr. Bryan. The film is thirty-three minutes.
    Mr. Cohn. Have any of your films been used by the Institute
of Pacific Relations?
    Mr. Bryan. None of my films have been used by them, to my
knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Is it not a fact that you have loaned your films
to them for use in their activities?
    Mr. Bryan. I have no knowledge of it. I do not mean they
never could have, but I have had no close contact with them.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Marguerite N. Stewart, Mrs. Maxwell
S. Stewart?
    Mr. Bryan. Yes, I know Mrs. Stewart.
    Mr. Cohn. You know her rather well, do you not?
    Mr. Bryan. I wouldn't say very well, but I have seen her
here and there over twenty years.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether or not she is a Communist?
    Mr. Bryan. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether Mr. Stewart is a Communist?
    Mr. Bryan. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Mr. Stewart?
    Mr. Bryan. I know Mr. Stewart.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether Mr. Stewart invoked the Fifth
Amendment privilege when called before the McCarran committee?
    Mr. Bryan. I have not heard that said.
    Mr. Cohn. Is it not a fact that in 1946 you loaned film for
the use of the Institute of Pacific Relations and that you gave
the films to them without charge?
    Mr. Bryan. To the Institute of Pacific Relations?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Bryan. I have no recollection.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, I have copies here of an exchange
of letters between Miss Rene Gutman of the America Council of
the Institute of Pacific Relations and Marguerite N. Stewart,
secretary of the American Council of the Institute of Pacific
Relations. Miss Gutman writes--I will ask that they both be
received--to Mrs. Stewart and says that the Institute of
Pacific Relations is desirous of obtaining the film Peoples of
the Soviet Union.
    A reply was received from Mrs. Stewart, which begins as
follows:
Dear Rene:
    I have already arranged for the loan of the film without
charge by Julien Bryan . . .''
and so on and so forth. Does that refresh your recollection?
    Mr. Bryan. No, it doesn't. I have no recollection of the
IPR at all. It is quite possible that Mrs. Stewart telephoned
at that time and wanted the loan, but it made no impression.
    Mr. Cohn. Right. In other words, you might not have known
for what purpose she wanted it?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. And you tell us you did not know that she was a
member of the Communist party at that time?
    Mr. Bryan. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. You did re-do this film, Peoples of the Soviet
Union. Do you agree that the original sound track certainly
conveyed the impression of being pro-Russian propaganda?
    Mr. Bryan. I would say definitely this, sir, that the
original version today, in 1953, would paint too rosy a
picture. I believe that when we did it in '45, and at the
period at the very end of the war, when Russia was our ally, I
felt that it was all right, and we consulted with many
educators and people at that time.
    A year ago, when I talked to our publishers and
distributors, McGraw-Hill, and they were taking over all of our
films on many countries--we were not limited just to Russia,
but Japan and South America and China and Italy and so on--they
did not feel it was necessary to make a new version of the
sound track. They were satisfied, and so were many of our
customers. I myself felt--At my own expense of around $3100, I
remade this track. I am very glad we did. I think it is a more
accurate film today, eight years later, since we did this
revision.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Owen Lattimore?
    Mr. Bryan. I have met Owen Lattimore two or three times in
my life.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever discussed any of your films on
China with him?
    Mr. Bryan. I think not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever discussed any of your films with
Mr. Lattimore?
    Mr. Bryan. Not really. I had one discussion with him, when
I invited him, some eight years ago, to our advisory council.
    Mr. Cohn. Who recommended him to you?
    Mr. Bryan. I don't recall, actually, at this time. I talked
to people in New York. We wanted someone on it who was one of
the best experts on the Far East.
    The Chairman. May I ask: Up until what time has the armed
services been using the old version of the film?
    Mr. Cohn. I don't know, Mr. Chairman. Maybe Mr. Bryan can
tell us.
    Mr. Bryan. To be completely frank, we would have to do a
check on that. I wouldn't know how many copies they had of the
old version.
    Mr. Cohn. When is the last you heard?
    Mr. Bryan. I got a letter, from the Denver office around
January 1st, and they were requesting still photographs and
other materials. And I have not only given them, Mr. Chairman,
copies of Peoples of the Soviet Union. May I say I have made
repeated trips to CIA here in the last eight years at my own
expense.
    The Chairman. You are getting away from the question. The
question is: Do you know how recently the army has used this
old version of the film?
    Mr. Bryan. I do not know. All I know is that they have both
versions.
    The Chairman. They have used them up through January of
this year. You know that.
    Mr. Bryan. That is right.
    The Chairman. And that is the old version?
    Mr. Bryan. That is right.
    The Chairman. But you do not know how many posts they have
been showing this film at?
    Mr. Bryan. I would think a limited number. I don't know how
much.
    The Chairman. What other films of yours have they shown?
What other films of yours has the army been using?
    Mr. Bryan. I know of no other films at the moment. I know
that they have invited me, sir----
    The Chairman. How about the one on China?
    Mr. Bryan. The films on China--there are three or four of
them.
    The Chairman. Has the army been using them?
    Mr. Bryan. I do not know.
    Mr. Cohn. Has any government agency been using them?
    Mr. Bryan. I don't think so.
    The Chairman. I do not think we should put you to the
expense of bringing a man down with a projector to show those
films. The State Department will provide a projector, will they
not?
    Mr. Cohn. They will be glad to, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. So as to cut down the expense to you. I do
not want to bring you down here again with a lawyer. I know
that costs money. If you would prefer, you can just send the
films down.
    Mr. Bryan. I would rather not. I am an author. These are my
things. I would rather have you question me and do anything you
like about them.
    The Chairman. In other words, you would rather bring them
yourself?
    Mr. Bryan. I would rather do as we are doing today, if that
is satisfactory to you.
    The Chairman. You understand, we cannot stand the expense
of having your man with the projector. If you want to do that
yourself, you may. Otherwise you can merely bring the film, and
we can produce the projector.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have that Eisler name for us?
    Mr. Bryan. Let me describe him and tell you where he lives.
He lives outside of Wilmington today, I think in Arden.
    Mr. Cohn. Scott Nearing?
    Mr. Bryan. No. Some of you will know, certainly. His first
name is Don. Does that help?
    Mr. Cohn. Is he a business man?
    Mr. Bryan. He was originally for many years a teacher. He
taught in some school outside of Boston.
    The Chairman. How well did you know him?
    Mr. Bryan. I haven't seen him much in the last fifteen
years. I met him once, in 1930, Mr. Chairman, on a boat, on one
of these tours going into Finland and Sweden. We had this
conducted tour type of thing.
    The Chairman. Anything further, Mr. Counsel?
    Mr. Cohn. I don't think so, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, a question?
    The Chairman. Yes?
    Mr. Bryan. I have here two things. One is the film, which I
would like to show, if we have time, the new edition. The other
is that I have recently been in Turkey, and there is a picture,
of only ten minutes, of some of the work-of-art films being
shown, some of the films I have made on American democracy,
which are being shown extensively abroad.
    I just ask if there is time to show one of those.
    The Chairman. Would it inconvenience you too much if we
kept you over until this afternoon?
    Mr. Bryan. I would rather do that. We are here, and it is
much better as long as we are here, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Just to obviate the necessity of your running
down here again, could you call anyone in your office?
    They could perhaps ship those films down, put them on air
express.
    Mr. Bryan. May I say this: Everything that I know of should
be in the congressional library. Now, if our relations are good
with the library, can we immediately ask for those?
    Mr. Cohn. You might contact Mr. Grenoble at the State
Department. You know him, do you not?
    Mr. Bryan. I know Grenoble. Sure.
    Mr. Cohn. He could probably give us Boundary Lines.
    How long a film is Boundary Lines?
    Mr. Bryan. Ten minutes.
    Senator Potter. There will be a lot of voting on the floor
this afternoon. Would there be any reason why we could not show
this in the Old Supreme Court room over there?
    The Chairman. Perhaps so. We have direct current here.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Having been wired for electricity in the 1890s, the U.S.
Capitol Building continued to operate on direct rather than alternating
current until 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Bryan. Apparently our operator is pretty able, and he
is all fixed for that. Would you like it over at the Supreme
Court?
    Senator Potter. It would be a lot handier for us.
    The Chairman. Could you arrange for the old Supreme Court
chambers?
    Mr. Bryan. Can it be completely dark?
    The Chairman. Yes. There are no windows.
    I would like to see the old version, the new version, the
film Boundary Lines, and, if you can get it, the Pathe one.
    Mr. Bryan. That is the one that is tough. Who shall we ask
for help on this? Grenoble?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes, Grenoble would be the one.
    The Chairman. I am principally interested in the old and
the new version of this film.
    All right. That will be at three o'clock.
    [Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to
reconvene at 3:00 p.m., in the old Supreme Court room, the
Capitol.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--Senator McCarthy opened the public hearing
on July 1, 1953, by explaining that it was calling more authors
whose works had been used in the U.S. information libraries to
``perhaps clarify some of the confusion in regard to what the
objectives of the information program are, and also to give the
American people a better picture of the type of authors whose
works were being used to fight communism allegedly.'' That
morning, the subcommittee had heard testimony from five authors
in executive session. It excused Joseph Freeman and George
Seldes from public testimony. Richard Boyer, Edwin Burgum, and
Rockwell Kent testified at the public hearing that immediately
followed the executive session; while Doxey Wilkerson testified
in public the following day and again on September 8, 1953.
    Richard O. Boyer (1903-1973) formerly a newspaper reporter
for the New York Herald Tribune and foreign correspondent for
the New York tabloid PM, had published twenty-four biographical
profiles in the New Yorker magazine between 1931 and 1950. One
of these profiles of National Maritime Union leader James
Curran he expanded into a book, The Dark Ship. Before various
congressional committees, Boyer persistently invoked the Fifth
Amendment. In his obituary, the New York Times noted that he
had privately admitted to membership in the Communist party
from the 1930s until 1956.
    Rockwell Kent (1882-1971), the landscape painter, wood
engraver and lithographer, was also a writer, lecturer, and
political activist. In 1948 he ran unsuccessfully for Congress
on the American Labor party ticket. As a result of the
publicity from his televised appearance before the
subcommittee, the trustees of a museum in Rockland, Maine, to
which he had planned to donate his unsold paintings and prints,
rejected the collection in August 1953. Having fallen into
disfavor in the United States for both his politics and anti-
modernist artistic style, Kent eventually donated his artwork
to the Soviet Union.
    Edwin B. Burgum (1894-1979), president of the College
Teachers Union from 1936 to 1938, was a literary critic and
associate professor of English at New York University. He was
called to testify before the Senate Internal Security
Subcommittee on October 13, 1952, and invoked the Fifth
Amendment when questioned about Communist affiliation.
Suspended immediately from NYU, he was removed from the faculty
in March 1953.
    Joseph Freeman (1897-1965) a muckraking journalist turned
literary critic, poet and novelist, had served as European
correspondent for the Chicago Tribune, publicity director for
the American Civil Liberties Union, and New York correspondent
for the Soviet news service TASS, during the 1920s. He became
an editor of two radical magazines, The Liberator and The New
Masses, experiences which he described in an autobiography, An
American Testament; A Narrative of Rebels and Romantics (New
York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1936). Communist critics denounced
that book as ``romantic'' and branded Freeman ``an enemy of the
people.'' Freeman further distanced himself from the Communist
party at the time of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, and later
described himself to the House Un-American Activities Committee
as a ``man out of politics.''
    George Seldes (1890-1995), as a foreign correspondent for
the Chicago Tribune during the 1920s, had been expelled from
both the Soviet Union and Italy for writings critical of the
Communist and Fascist regimes. He also covered the Spanish
Civil War for the New York Post, and published a newsletter, In
Fact. One of his many books was Witch Hunt: The Technique and
Profits of Redbaiting (New York: Modern Age Books, 1940).
    Doxey Wilkerson (1905-1993) an African American with a
doctorate from New York University, had taught at Virginia
State College, Howard University and Bishop College and was
faculty and curriculum director for the Jefferson School of
Social Science. He served for a dozen years on the national
committee of the U.S. Communist party, edited the People's
Voice in Harlem and wrote a column for the Daily Worker, before
resigning from the party in 1957. From 1963 to 1973 he chaired
the Education Department of Curriculum and Instruction at
Yeshiva University.]
                              ----------
                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 9:30 a.m. in room 357, Senate
Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator Henry
M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington; Senator Stuart Symington,
Democrat, Missouri.
    Present also: Dr. J. B. Matthews, executive director; Roy
M. Cohn, chief counsel; G. David Schine, chief consultant; Karl
Barslag, research director; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
                 TESTIMONY OF RICHARD O. BOYER
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn,
please?
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
give in the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Boyer. I do.
    The Chairman. Let me ask the counsel--you know the rights
counsel has. Your client can consult with you anytime he cares
to, and you can advise him as freely as you care to. We have a
rule that counsel cannot take part in the proceedings itself.
    Mr. Cohn. Your full name is Richard O. Boyer?
    Mr. Boyer. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What publications do you write for?
    Mr. Boyer. Well, I just write----
    Mr. Cohn. What publications have published your articles in
the last two or three years?
    Mr. Boyer. The New Yorker published my articles.
    Mr. Cohn. When did one of your articles last appear in
that?
    Mr. Boyer. I would say about 1950.
    Mr. Cohn. What else?
    Mr. Boyer. Masses and Mainstream and the Daily Worker. That
is about it.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you the author of a book called The Dark
Ship? \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Richard O. Boyer, The Dark Ship (Boston: Little, Brown, 1947).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Boyer. I am.
    Mr. Cohn. What year was that published?
    Mr. Boyer. I think it was published in 1947.
    Mr. Cohn. At the time this book was published were you a
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Boyer. I will assert my privilege under the Fifth
Amendment on that.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party today?
    Mr. Boyer. I will repeat that.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Boyer. Of course not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in sabotage?
    Mr. Boyer. Of course not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever consulted with Communist leaders
concerning your writings?
    Mr. Boyer. No, absolutely not. I don't consult with anybody
except myself.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever shown any of your writings, before
they were published, to Communists?
    Mr. Boyer. Not that I remember.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you show parts of your book The Dark Ship to
Communists?
    Mr. Boyer. Of course not. It appeared in the New Yorker in
the first place. I have never shown any of my writings.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether or not members of the
Communist party are bound by their membership to attempt to put
forth the Communist party line?
    Mr. Boyer. I'd like to consult with my attorney.
    The Chairman. You can refuse to answer that if you care to.
    Mr. Boyer. Well, I have tried to indicate in my previous
answers to questions that have been asked me about my writings
that I have always written according to my own deepest
convictions and always intend to, and I don't know if that is
responsive to your question or not.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Boyer, do you know Josh Lawrence?
    Mr. Boyer. I think I will assert my privilege under the
Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know where Mr. Lawrence is today?
    Mr. Boyer. I don't.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Blackie Meyers?
    Mr. Boyer. I will assert my privilege under the Fifth
Amendment on all questions of identity.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether or not Blackie Meyers and/or
Josh Lawrence ever engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Boyer. Well, the only thing I could say to that would
be my profound conviction they never did. I have no personal
knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Was Blackie Meyers a member of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Boyer. I, on such a question, will assert my privilege
under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. In this book, The Dark Ship, didn't you give very
high praise to Joseph Curran, president of the National
Maritime Union?
    Mr. Boyer. I think the book is the best evidence on that
and I am not trying to fence with you on this, but the
appraisal of Curran is quite a mixed thing. There is praise and
criticism in there.
    Mr. Cohn. Is your opinion of Mr. Curran today the same as
it was when you wrote the articles?
    Mr. Boyer. Again I would have to have the book and the
quotations to make an accurate appraisal because the estimation
is quite a mixment.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever worked for the United States
government in any way?
    Mr. Boyer. I was in the Merchant Marines briefly during the
war.
    Mr. Cohn. Other than that?
    Mr. Boyer. No.
    The Chairman. Will you report over to room 318 at 10:20.
That gives you half an hour.
                   TESTIMONY OF ROCKWELL KENT
    The Chairman. Mr. Kent, will you raise your right hand and
be sworn, please?
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
give in the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Kent. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Your full name is Rockwell Kent?
    Mr. Kent. It is.
    Mr. Cohn. You are the artist?
    Mr. Kent. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Kent, are you a member of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Kent. I am going to avail myself of the privilege of
the Fifth Amendment and, if you please, not answer that
question.
    The Chairman. You can assert your privilege under the Fifth
Amendment.
    Mr. Kent. I take it as my right.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Kent, the State Department information
program is using in libraries overseas a great many of your
works and publications. I want to ask you a few questions about
them.
    Do you receive any remuneration or compensation for that?
    Mr. Kent. It is different for different books. If you will
name the books I will tell you.
    Mr. Cohn. Oh, the American Artists Group, Rockwellkentiana,
Wilderness, World Famous Paintings, etc.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Rockwell Kent, Rockwellkentiana: Few Words and Many Pictures
(New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1933); World Famous Paintings (New York:
Wise & Company, 1939).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Kent. They are all out of print.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, when they were active?
    Mr. Kent. Oh, yes. I received the author's royalties.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you contribute any of those royalties to the
Communist party at any time?
    You can confer with counsel.
    The Chairman. Counsel, before the witness answers, I wish
you would explain to him that he can only refuse to answer if
he honestly feels an honest answer might tend to incriminate
him.
    Mr. Kent. I will answer that question, ``No.''
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever given any money to the Communist
party?
    Mr. Kent. That is a very interesting question and I want to
answer it. The answer will be at some length. It could be
``yes'' or ``no.''
    Mr. Cohn. We don't have too much time so could you give it
as brief as possible.
    Mr. Kent. I gave it as a matter of being so damned mad at
something that happened that I thought, ``Where can I give that
money that the people the money came from hated most?'' I
looked it up in the New York telephone directory and gave it to
the Communist party. I took a check for $800.00, which was the
full rent on my house in the country and endorsed it and sent
it to the Communist party. That is all I ever contributed.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever contributed money to any
organization listed by the attorney general as subversive, such
as the IWO, etc.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ International Workers Order, Incorporated, which New York
State dissolved in 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Kent. I have.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you contributed any monies received from
your works as royalties or anything like that?
    Mr. Kent. That is a difficult question. I earn my living at
different things.
    Mr. Cohn. Would this be a fair statement? The money you
earned from royalties and other things you didn't keep
separate, but out of the general fund you did make some
contributions to some organizations listed by the attorney
general.
    Mr. Kent. I had rather have you put it to ``causes.''
    The Chairman. I am curious about this other answer you
started to give. You said you were so damned mad. I am curious
to know what you were mad about.
    Mr. Kent. I think you will like it. I love my home and I
have never in my life rented a home with my things in it. I
would not rent the place I love to anyone. I was in Greenland.
I was there for a year and a half, and through a
misunderstanding my wife--not my present wife--rented the
house. I didn't know about it until I was on my way back from
Greenland. I came back too soon. She was in Arizona. She had
rented the house to Martha Blaine, who used to be a Washington
columnist and a friend of Arthur Krock. I wrote her a polite
letter and told her about the renting and stated, ``I beg you
to be my guest for the summer. I cannot accept money for my
home.'' She wrote me the most insulting letter I have ever
gotten in my life. I took the two checks that were still left
and sent those to the Communist party. They were $200.00
apiece. I made out my own check for the other two months and
sent that to the Communist party.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party in 1933?
    The Chairman. Before your client answers may I suggest that
you instruct your client he can only refuse to answer if he
feels and honestly feels, that a truthful answer might tend to
incriminate him.
    Mr. Ryan. I have discussed that with him.
    Mr. Kent. Or might lead to a chain of questioning that
would tend to be incriminating. It might be a link.
    The Chairman. If you think it could in any way tend to
incriminate you, you are entitled to refuse to answer. If you
think the following answer might tend to incriminate you.
    Mr. Kent. Senator, if I might say this, I think I know the
origin of this provision under the Fifth Amendment, and I think
it is applied for protection of the innocent as well as a
shield for the guilty. I do in this case invoke that privilege.
    The Chairman. You may invoke it, but we interpret the right
if you feel a truthful answer would tend to incriminate you----
    Mr. Kent. If the committee would choose to interpret it
that way----
    The Chairman. Mr. Kent, would you report at 10:20 at room
318.
                  TESTIMONY OF EDWIN B. BURGUM
    The Chairman. Mr. Burgum, will you raise your right hand
and be sworn, please?
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
give in the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Burgum. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. May we have your full name?
    Mr. Burgum. Edwin Berry Burgum.
    Mr. Cohn. B-u-r-g-u-m?
    Mr. Burgum. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation?
    Mr. Burgum. I am a literary critic.
    Mr. Cohn. For what publisher?
    Mr. Burgum. Freelance.
    Mr. Cohn. What publications publish your articles?
    Mr. Burgum. Well, in the past there have been a great many.
    Mr. Cohn. Could you name some of them?
    Mr. Burgum. The Virginia Quarterly Review; the Antioch
Review; the Kenyon Review; Rocky Mountain Review; the Suwannee
Review; Science and Society. Those are the chief ones.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever do any work on a newspaper reviewing
books?
    Mr. Burgum. Yes, I reviewed about a year for the New York
Times.
    Mr. Cohn. What year was that?
    Mr. Burgum. I don't recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party at the
time you were reviewing books for the New York Times?
    Mr. Burgum. I would like to invoke the First Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. You mean the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Burgum. Personally, I would like to invoke the First,
but I know your committee doesn't recognize that, so I will
also invoke the Fifth on the ground that I don't wish to be a
witness against myself.
    The Chairman. On the ground you feel a truthful answer
might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Burgum. No, as I follow the interpretation of the Fifth
Amendment, in my understanding, established by the decision of
the Supreme Court and by tradition and reaffirmed by
authorities on constitutional law such as Osman Franco, and
that is that the use of the Fifth Amendment applies to the
innocent and the guilty alike and that there is no assumption
of either when a person invokes the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. May I say that unless you feel a truthful
answer would tend to incriminate you, you are ordered to answer
the question.
    Mr. Burgum. I think in these times any answer, and I would
certainly make a truthful answer, would tend to incriminate me.
The word ``incriminate'' has been defined by the courts, that
is to say broadly, and not in its proper definition and
implication of guilt.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Burgum, have you done any teaching?
    Mr. Burgum. Oh, yes. I have been a teacher most of my life.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time did you teach at
New York University?
    Mr. Burgum. Twenty-eight years.
    Mr. Cohn. When were your teaching activities there
terminated?
    Mr. Burgum. I think the accurate date is 30th of March of
this year.
    Mr. Cohn. Until March of this year?
    Mr. Burgum. I think it is the 30th of March.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party today?
    Mr. Burgum. I have already invoked the Fifth Amendment on
that question as well as the First.
    Mr. Cohn. While teaching at New York University did you
attend any Communist meetings with other members of the
faculty?
    Mr. Burgum. I invoke the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. While teaching there did you attempt to
indoctrinate students into the Communist party?
    Mr. Burgum. I can assure you my relations with my students
were always correct. In fact, I leaned over backwards. I
neither recruited them into the Communist party or any other
organization.
    The Chairman. The question was, I think, did you ever
attempt to get them to join the Communist party?
    Mr. Burgum. I did not attempt to get them to join the
Communist party or any other organization.
    The Chairman. Did you teach them what you considered the
Communist philosophy?
    Mr. Burgum. Certainly not. My field was in fiction and
aesthetics and I followed in all my teachings very rigid
principles that nothing should enter the course that was not
stated in the announcement of the course in the catalog and
that was not germane to the contents of the course.
    The Chairman. It has been testified by a former member of
the Communist party, a teacher, that a member of the party is
under Communist discipline and has the instructions and has the
duty to attempt to indoctrinate his students with the Communist
philosophy at all times. Would you agree with that or disagree
with that?
    Mr. Burgum. I am not in a position to pass upon the truth
of that statement at all. I think it is a very common opinion.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss with members of the
Communist party the question of whether or not teachers had a
duty to teach the Communist, if you call it philosophy, to
their students?
    Mr. Burgum. No, I have never discussed it with any member
of the Communist party.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist meetings?
    Mr. Burgum. I will invoke the Fifth Amendment, if you
please.
    The Chairman. Was that question ever discussed at any
Communist meetings to your knowledge. I am not asking you to
admit anything, but to your knowledge, at any Communist
meetings was that discussed?
    Mr. Burgum. Well, I, of course, heard of the Rapp-Coudert
committee many years ago and am aware of the statement to this
effect made in the course of that report.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this. Did you ever hear that
discussed in any Communist party meetings?
    Mr. Burgum. I invoke the Fifth Amendment for that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you the author of The Novel and the World's
Dilemma?\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Edwin Berry Burgum, The Novel and the World's Dilemma (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1947).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Burgum. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Does this book follow the Communist line in any
respect?
    Mr. Burgum. I would say, in my opinion, the question is not
germane. In writing the book I followed principles of literary
criticism.
    Mr. Cohn. Does the book follow the Communist line?
    Mr. Burgum. Well, my own principles of literary criticism
are such that it is inconceivable that anything well-written
could be said to follow the Communist line.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, you devote a great majority of space to
authors that are Communists?
    Mr. Burgum. I don't think so.
    Mr. Cohn. Let's take Richard Wright. You devote more
space----
    Mr. Burgum. I beg to differ. There is one article of length
on Richard Wright's Native Son. There is a somewhat shorter
article on some of his short stories.
    Mr. Cohn. How many other authors out of the nineteen have
more than one?
    Mr. Burgum. Proust, I have two. On Wolfe, I have two. They
are certainly not Communists.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Wright was a Communist?
    Mr. Burgum. At the time I wrote the articles I knew only
what any well-informed citizen knows, that he had the
reputation of being a Communist.
    The Chairman. You mean you did not get any information
through Communist channels--you didn't hear about it at a
Communist meeting?
    Mr. Burgum. I have never met Richard Wright and the answer
that I gave is based entirely upon my own observation.
    The Chairman. I would like to have you answer the question.
You did not hear that he was a Communist from any other
Communists. You did not get any information to that effect at
any Communist meetings. Is that correct?
    Mr. Burgum. Well, it is correct that I didn't. I would
like, however, to make my answer a part of the whole attitude
that I had in literary criticism and that is that the one
discussed, the author, was on the basis of what he has written.
It is true that an author's political opinions sometimes have
certain effects on what he has written and a critic may feel
that that effect in some cases is a significant one with the
quality of literature and in other cases it may be of no
particular significance at all.
    The Chairman. Did you ever belong to an organization which
advocated the overthrow of the government of the United States
by force and violence.
    Mr. Burgum. I never belonged to any organization which, to
my knowledge, advocated the overthrow of the government of the
United States by force and violence.
    The Chairman. Do you know the Communist party advocates its
overthrow?
    Mr. Burgum. I would like to invoke the Fifth Amendment on
that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever contributed any money to the
Communist party?
    Mr. Burgum. I would like to invoke the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever contributed any royalties you
received from your writings to the Communist party?
    Mr. Burgum. I would like to invoke the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you receive royalties from the sale of this
book?
    Mr. Burgum. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you contribute any of them to the Communist
party?
    Mr. Burgum. I will invoke the Fifth Amendment on that
question.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you agree that you have praise for Hegelian
and Marxist dialectics and condemnation for everything else
along those lines?
    Mr. Burgum. No, I wouldn't. I doubt if you will find
Hegel's name in the index, and as I remember when I made up the
index myself the word Marx occurs in the text only once.
    Mr. Cohn. You are quite wrong about Hegel. I read the book
myself last night and I found a number of references to Hegel.
    Mr. Burgum. Hegel is in the index.
    The Chairman. Do you know Owen Lattimore?
    Mr. Burgum. No.
    The Chairman. Reed Harris?
    Mr. Burgum. No.
    The Chairman. Richard Wright?
    Mr. Burgum. No.
    The Chairman. You have never met him?
    Mr. Burgum. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever consult with any Communists in
connection with any of your writings?
    Mr. Burgum. I have never consulted with any Communists in
connection with my writings.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever shown your manuscripts to any
Communists?
    Mr. Burgum. I have never shown my manuscripts to any
Communists.
    Mr. Cohn. On page 67 of the book you are talking about
Thomas Mann and I quote: ``Such a philosophy is dialectic, to
be sure, but it is not the dynamic progressive dialectic of
either Marx or Hegel.'' Wouldn't you say that is support of the
question I asked you above?
    Mr. Burgum. It is a question of definition. I don't recall
the context of the answer but it is a question of definition,
and it is true that there are two forms of dialectics in the
history of philosophy. One is the dialectic that goes back to
Socrates and Plato and the other dialectic of Hegel and Marx.
Hegel and Marx share this dialectical conception that the
movement of history is a progressive one, whereas the dialectic
of Plato and Socrates was associated with a statistical
conception of the universe and, therefore, was couched in the
terms, what we now call Aristotelian logic.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you consider Marxism forward and progressive?
    Mr. Burgum. I didn't make any statement to that effect. I
simply said----
    Mr. Cohn. Do you or do you not?
    Mr. Burgum. I would claim the Fifth Amendment on that
question.
    The Chairman. In other words, you think it might
incriminate you to answer that?
    Mr. Burgum. Well, in the present association, certainly,
where these things can scarcely be discussed with philosophical
calm.
    The Chairman. Under our present criminal laws?
    Mr. Burgum. I am not in a position to act as the authority
on our present criminal laws and I would like, therefore, to
invoke the Fifth Amendment on that question.
    The Chairman. You are entitled to.
    Mr. Cohn. This book was published in 1947. Is that right?
    Mr. Burgum. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party at that
time?
    Mr. Burgum. I will invoke the Fifth Amendment again, if you
please.
    Mr. Cohn. How old are you now?
    Mr. Burgum. Fifty-nine. I was born in 1894.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you go to college?
    Mr. Burgum. I got my AB degree at Dartmouth in 1915; I got
my AM in history at Harvard in 1917; and then after teaching
four years at the University of Pittsburgh, I got a Ph.D. four
years later at the University of Illinois.
    Mr. Cohn. When you entered Dartmouth as a freshman, were
you a Communist?
    Mr. Burgum. I should like to invoke the Fifth Amendment
about that question, if you please.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know William Remington?
    Mr. Burgum. No.
    Mr. Cohn. During the time you attended Harvard, were you a
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Burgum. I should like to invoke the Fifth Amendment on
that.
    The Chairman. Did you pay dues to the Communist party while
you were at Harvard?
    Mr. Burgum. Fifth Amendment, if you please.
    The Chairman. Do you know any professors at Dartmouth who
were Communists?
    Mr. Burgum. I will invoke the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. How about Harvard?
    Mr. Burgum. The same, if you please.
    The Chairman. It is now 10:20. I wonder if we could ask you
gentlemen to be over in room 318 at 10:25.
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH FREEMAN (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, JOSEPH
                           SHARFSIN)
    [Senator Karl E. Mundt, Acting Chairman]
    Senator Mundt. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn,
please?
    Mr. Freeman. Yes.
    Senator Mundt. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you
are about to give in the matter now in hearing shall be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
    Mr. Freeman. I do.
    Senator Mundt. Will the counsel give his name, please?
    Mr. Sharfsin. Joseph Sharfsin, 1342 Lincoln Liberty
Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Freeman, you are Joseph Freeman, the author.
Is that right?
    Mr. Freeman. That, is right.
    Mr. Cohn. And you wrote a book around 1936, did you not?
    Mr. Freeman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What was that called?
    Mr. Freeman. An American Testament.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Joseph Freeman, An American Testament; A Narrative of Rebels
and Romantics (New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1936).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. And did you write a book in 1943, Never Call
Retreat? \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Joseph Freeman, Never Call Retreat (New York: Farrar &
Rinehart, 1943).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Freeman. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. In 1936 when you wrote An American Testament,
were you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Freeman. I was not a card-carrying member of the
Communist party but I called myself a Communist in that I was
editor of the New Masses. I want to answer this question as
fully as I can. You see I came into the Communist movement the
literary way, therefore, my relation with the party was a
peculiar relationship.
    Can I amplify this? It may save you many questions.
    While I was still at college and had no political
activities up to that point--I had made one political speech,
campaigned for Woodrow Wilson, but the Liberator, the new name
for the magazine called----
    Senator Symington. What university did you attend?
    Mr. Freeman. Columbia University.
    The point is that I used to read this magazine and they
were sympathetic to the Russian Revolution, although not
Communistic in that sense, but primarily a literary magazine.
They published my poetry and they invited me to join the
magazine. I joined the magazine as editor and about six months
later it was taken over by the Communist party. I remained
editor and they said they would like me to join the party.
    Senator Jackson. The Communists took over the Liberator?
    Mr. Freeman. Yes. About 1922, at the time of Lincoln's
death.
    I said, ``Yes.'' I took out a card but I never attended a
unit meeting, never paid dues and my membership lapsed in 1922.
    Senator Jackson. When did it lapse?
    Mr. Freeman. I suppose in 1922. I just never showed up to
party meetings although I still wrote for the magazine. The
magazine was later taken to Chicago where Earl Browder became
editor. In 1926 we started--the writers and artists--the New
Masses and I went back as one of the editors. I called myself a
Communist. I stopped being a Communist in 1939. I wrote
Communist articles and made speeches.
    Mr. Cohn. This book you wrote in 1936, do you agree that it
reflects the Communist line?
    Mr. Freeman. I thought it did, but the Communists did not.
This book was attacked by the Communists. They objected to the
whole thing.
    Senator Jackson. They considered you a deviationist?
    Mr. Freeman. They said it was anti-working class, a fraud,
no-good. They announced in print that I had not been a party
member for many years.
    Mr. Cohn. In spite of that fact you remained a Communist
until 1939?
    Mr. Freeman. No, the attack came in 1939. The book appeared
in 1936 and it was accepted. It was praised by the dailies--the
New York Times, Herald Tribune. By dailies I mean this book got
generally good reviews. It was accepted more as a social and
literary history of the United States. In 1939 there was an
English edition gotten out. In 1939 the Communists attacked the
London Daily Worker for having praised the book in 1936. This
is very complicated.
    Senator Symington. Are you a Communist now?
    Mr. Freeman. No, sir.
    Senator Symington. When did you get out of the party?
    Mr. Freeman. Out of the party as a party member in 1925 or
1926.
    Senator Symington. When did you renounce all interest in
communism?
    Mr. Freeman. 1939. In the fall of 1939.
    Senator Symington. You have had no interest in Communist
relations, Communist party or communism since 1939?
    Mr. Freeman. None whatsoever. I may talk to some. I don't
know.
    Senator Jackson. Let me ask you this. I haven't read your
book. What has happened is that the party line changed in 1939
and your book probably related to the anti-Fascist approach of
1936 and then when the Russian-Nazi Pact came along it made
your book, as a Communist book, look a little ridiculous in
light of the party line in 1939?
    Mr. Freeman. That is one fact.
    Dr. Matthews. You wrote Soviet Worker? That appeared in
1932? \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ Joseph Freeman, The Soviet Worker; An Account of the Economic,
Social and Cultural Status of Labor in the U.S.S.R. (New York:
Liveright, 1932).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Freeman. I wrote that.
    Dr. Matthews. What was the book about? The 1936 book, An
American Testament?
    Mr. Freeman. It was an attempt to tell in autobiographical
form the literary and social history of the United States with
the impact of Europe and events like war, why so many
intellectuals became Communists.
    Dr. Matthews. Was Soviet Worker pro-Communist or anti-
Communist?
    Mr. Freeman. I wrote it feeling pro-Communist. I wrote it
as an objective economic study and it was accepted by economic
magazines. I was a Communist when I wrote it. I called myself a
Communist, believed in it.
    Senator Jackson. Were you under party discipline? If you
wrote something and they said, ``It doesn't conform to the
party line,'' then would you change your manuscript?
    Mr. Freeman. I have had occasion where I have written
things against the party line and told so. I just said I was
going to do nothing about it.
    Dr. Matthews. Did you submit your manuscripts to the
Politburo?
    Mr. Freeman. I submitted them to a friend in the Communist
party, like the late Robert Minor whom I had known since I came
on. Some of them didn't like it for one reason or another but
it didn't prevent me from publishing it. I didn't change it.
    I would like to say another thing as to how it was written.
I had an offer to write this book. I was called in by two
publishers, Stanley Rinehart and John Farrar, Republicans. They
said, ``We would like you to write an autobiography.'' I said,
``I am pretty young. What do you want me to write about?'' You
must remember the early 1930's brought many writers and artists
to the left, and also in 1933 Hitler's rise in Germany did
influence many people here, and they said, ``We would like you
to write an autobiography along the lines of Walter Durant's
book explaining why so many intellectuals have gone left.'' The
idea was to do a short story. I started to write this book at
their invitation. They gave me a contract. I went to the
country, wrote the book for them, and it was published in 1936.
    Mr. Cohn. This book, An American Testament, would you use
that book in this program of the State Department to expose
communism and present a true picture of the American-way-of-
life?
    Mr. Freeman. Well, Mr. Cohn, that is a matter of opinion. I
can only say two things. I could have called the book anything.
I called it An American Testament. The reason when I went left
I entered a literary movement, I did it neither for or against
the United States. Proletarian literature was not invented by
the Russians. Proletarian literature and this phase was
invented in 1921 in the United States by a group of writers,
including Upton Sinclair, Edward Markham, the man who wrote
``Man With a Hoe.'' In fact, we looked down on Russians. We
felt we in the United States had really done it.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Freeman, you never answered my question. Do
you think An American Testament should be used by the State
Department to give a true picture of the American-way-of-life?
    Mr. Freeman. I can answer the question in this way, if you
will let me. When the book was published, outside of the
Communist attack, all other papers accepted it.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think today, in 1953, that book should be
used as part of a program to expose communism and give a true
picture of the American-way-of-life?
    Mr. Freeman. It would not hurt my feelings if you took it
out. If you would give me a copy, I would appreciate it. I have
no copies of the book.
    Senator Jackson. Is this book in the library?
    Mr. Cohn. We haven't definite word. The one written in 1943
definitely is.
    Senator Jackson. Do you have some comments on the book, An
American Testament, by critics?
    Mr. Freeman. For instance, the New York Times said: ``Mr.
Freeman has put together an important narrative. . . . It is
indeed an American testament.''
    Mr. Cohn. Who wrote these reviews?
    Mr. Freeman. Ruth Thompson, the late Carl Van Doren----
    Mr. Cohn. What did Carl Van Doren say?
    Mr. Freeman. ``It is difficult to imagine a serious reader
who, whatever special preoccupations, would not find this book
absorbing as the record of a life-story, the chronicle of a
generation. It is itself part of the times, and to that extent
it is itself history.''
    Dr. Matthews. Do you know Carl Van Doren?
    Mr. Freeman. He was my teacher at Columbia University.
Frankly, I didn't see very much of him after I got out of
school.
    Senator Jackson. What else do you have?
    Mr. Freeman. The Irish Times said--Maybe they are a
Communist paper. I just got the clipping.
    Senator Jackson. From Dublin?
    Mr. Freeman. Yes. This is an English edition. ``A brilliant
autobiography. This is a book which no serious student of
contemporary affairs should fail to read.''
    Senator Jackson. The thing I don't understand about the
book, was it an ideological treatise or was it simply a book
trying to give the reason why so many intellectuals went into
Communist and extreme left movements?
    Mr. Freeman. It was chiefly a story of personal events,
such as I was born here; my grandparents were, etc.
    Senator Jackson. What happened to you?
    Mr. Freeman. It is a story showing how I became a
Communist. To my surprise, the Communists turned around and
said, ``You are not a Communist.''
    Mr. Cohn. I think we can excuse the witness, if it is
agreeable with you?
    Senator Mundt. The witness is excused.
                   TESTIMONY OF GEORGE SELDES
    [Senator Stuart Symington, Acting Chairman]
    Senator Symington. Will you raise your right hand, please?
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give shall
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
    Mr. Seldes. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Give us your full name?
    Mr. Seldes. George H. Seldes. S-e-l-d-e-s.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Seldes, are you the author of various books?
Fourteen or fifteen. Let me read you the names of some of them
that the State Department is using in Overseas Information
Centers. Facts and Fascism, Freedom of the Press, Lords of the
Press, People Don't Know.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ George Seldes, Facts and Fascism (New York: In Fact, Inc.,
1943); Freedom of the Press (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1935); Lords
of the Press (New York: J. Messner, 1938); People Don't Know (New York:
Gaer Associates, 1949).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Seldes. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Seldes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a member of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Seldes. No.
    Mr. Cohn. That is very interesting.
    Mr. Seldes. Who said I was?
    Mr. Cohn. Who said you were? Has it ever been brought to
your attention that anybody said you were?
    Mr. Seldes. Yes, [space blank] wrote a piece saying I was a
``Stalinite'' and smearing me in other ways. I got very angry
and went to a lawyer. He said it would cost me $5,000 to clear
this up, so I didn't do anything about it.
    Mr. Cohn. Has Professor Budenz ever said anything about it?
    Mr. Seldes. I don't know anything about him except an
article written in some magazine, probably by Wechsler or
Eugene Lyons, either Plain Talk or American Mercury magazine.
My files are locked up. He is quoted in one of these articles
against me.
    Mr. Cohn. What did he say?
    Mr. Seldes. I can only trust my memory. I think he said
once at a meeting of some Communists at their headquarters they
said they would like to have me editor of the Daily Worker or
some paper--as editor of something.
    Mr. Cohn. Professor Budenz said you were under Communist
discipline, did he not?
    Mr. Seldes. I never read that line, and I deny it.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any Communist party members?
    Mr. Seldes. Well, look, do I know them or--Well, look for
instance--I want to tell you this frankly.
    Senator Symington. When you talk, talk a little slower and
remember it is being taken down and she will have to read it.
    Mr. Seldes. I have ulcers and am sort of the nervous type.
    I started a weekly newsletter with another man. His name on
the letterhead was Bruce Minton. I swear I had no idea he was a
Communist. He was expelled from the Communist party, I think,
1945. Before that I want to say, after I started this
newsletter, I said, ``We will run news in this which is not in
the newspapers.'' That was my only purpose in running it.
    I forgot--if I know any Communists? I know Bruce Minton.
    Mr. Cohn. One you can name is Bruce Minton?
    Mr. Seldes. Yes, I want to say how I happened to know that.
I didn't know it until he had left my publication and was
thrown out of the party.
    Mr. Cohn. Your answer is that you know now that Bruce
Minton was a Communist, but you didn't know it at the time he
worked for your publication?
    Mr. Seldes. No, I didn't know it.
    Dr. Matthews. He was your associate editor, was he not?
    Mr. Seldes. I think he was listed as associate. We were
actually partners.
    Dr. Matthews. What is his real name?
    Mr. Seldes. Richard Bransten.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert in the
record from the report of the House Committee on Un-American
Activities, 78th Congress, 2nd Session, the following quoted
finding of the committee:
    George Seldes has a record of subservience to the Communist
party, which is unsurpassed by any other subversive agent in
this Country.
    Is that the first you have heard of that?
    Mr. Seldes. I got the Congressional Record. Senator Murray
sent it to me for ten years.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Seldes, I think we will get along better if
you answer the questions. We are not interested in whether you
got the Congressional Record.
    Mr. Seldes. I don't want to be antagonistic, but I have to
defend myself.
    Mr. Cohn. I want to know whether this quotation was ever
brought to your attention or was my reading it the first you
ever knew about it? It is the finding of the House Un-American
Activities Committee, published in the Congressional Record and
elsewhere.
    Mr. Seldes. I can't say positively because there was a
congressman who made a statement which I did read in the
Congressional Record. That I have seen. Congressman Hoffman. It
is either this or a similar statement.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you agree with that statement?
    Mr. Seldes. It is not true.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever belong to the Communist cell in
Connecticut?
    Mr. Seldes. Positively not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended Communist meetings in
Connecticut?
    Mr. Seldes. No, sir. I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. If someone said you were there, that person is
lying?
    Mr. Seldes. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had any connection with the
following organization: American Committee for Democratic and
Intellectual Freedom?
    Mr. Seldes. I don't know the names of them. My name was put
down twenty, thirty, or forty times. Some of them I have had
nothing to do with.
    Senator Symington. Did you know you were a member of this
committee?
    Mr. Seldes. Once in a while I would get a letterhead with
my name on something. Sometimes I would see a list. I never
gave them permission to use my name. I found that my name was
used by different committees.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you editor of In Fact?
    Mr. Seldes. I was.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know that was found to be a Communist
publication?
    Mr. Seldes. Not according to my statement from the
Department of Justice.
    [The witness handed Mr. Cohn a letter.]
    Mr. Cohn. This is the Department of Justice's statement. It
was found by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. I
am asking you, Mr. Seldes, whether or not the House Committee
made an official finding that In Fact was a Communist
publication?
    Mr. Seldes. That I am not aware of.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Seldes, I want to go to some of your
writings. Did you write this? I quote. This is from People
Don't Know, published in 1949, New York.
    The entire world has moved to the Left-part Socialist, part
Communist, part just Left. The Right, all the way from
conservative to fascist, has been defeated almost everywhere.
The status quo and reactionary countries, such as Italy and
France, Portugal and Greece, are merely held to the Right by
American money and pressure, will go Leftward when these forces
diminish or cease.
    Mr. Seldes. I wrote that probably. I don't have the book
before me.
    Senator Symington. You felt that way?
    Mr. Seldes. I felt that way after my trip to Europe in
1948.
    Senator Symington. You felt if we didn't continue supplying
money, they would continue to go farther to the left?
    Mr. Seldes. My feeling was that we should supply them.
    Senator Symington. I think you may be right.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you write in a book entitled Facts and
Fascism:
    There is probably no greater example of mass misguidance in
American history since World War I and the present Global war
than the history of the million men of the American Legion and
its handful of misleaders.
    Mr. Seldes. Yes, I probably wrote that.
    Senator Symington. Why did you say that?
    Mr. Seldes. Because for many years the American Civil
Liberties Union has listed the American Legion as the leading
force against liberalism and civil rights in America.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you expressed any similar views about the
Catholic Church?
    Mr. Seldes. I have never attacked the Catholic Church.
    Mr. Cohn. Who in the Legion were you referring to? Give us
a couple of names?
    Mr. Seldes. I can't remember them. I knew General Smedley
Butler very well. He discovered a group that was going to throw
out President Roosevelt and establish a Fascism dictatorship.
General Butler gave this evidence before a congressional
committee. I forget the name of the committee. There was some
big people from the Legion in this. I have a chapter on this in
one of my books.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you state on Page 12:
    The real Fascists of America are never named in the
commercial press. It will not even hint at the fact that there
are many powerful elements working against a greater democracy,
against an America without discrimination, etc. and many more
millions working for semi-starvation wages while the Du Pont,
Ford, Hearst, Mellon and Rockefeller Empires move into the
billions of dollars. I call all these elements Fascist.
    Mr. Seldes. If it is in that book, I wrote it.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you consider these appropriate works, giving a
true picture of the American-way-of-life fighting communism?
    Mr. Seldes. I will answer that this way. I represented a
certain view of life and think this ought to begin with other
views. I am anti-Communist.
    Senator Symington. When was this particular book written?
    Mr. Seldes. 1943.
    Senator Symington. In 1943 the Soviets were our allies. Do
you feel differently now?
    Mr. Seldes. Positively.
    Senator Symington. Are you writing any more of this kind of
stuff?
    Mr. Seldes. I have written stuff of a completely opposite
nature. May I explain that more fully? May I volunteer some
information?
    Mr. Cohn. Go ahead.
    Mr. Seldes. I was thrown out of Russia in 1923. When I
worked for the Chicago Tribune--I worked for them for ten
years--I accused the Russians of force and violence, of the end
justifies the means, of terrorism, denial of civil liberties,
and I smuggled out some news they didn't like, which was true,
and was thrown out of Russia. I conducted a campaign against
Moscow--against Russia for many years.
    In 1936 I was sent by the New York Post to cover the war in
Spain, and the war in Spain, I found only two countries
helping--the Republic of Mexico and Russia, and because of
that--and I thought the war of Spain was justified, the war
against Mussolini and Hitler. The only troops were Italian and
German. I felt sympathetic in their helping to save the Spanish
Republic, although they didn't succeed in doing it. Well, I was
sympathetic for that reason, although I objected to their
methods, which never changed. Later on we were in the war.
Well, then Russia was our ally. After the war was over I found
that the Moscow methods were even worse than ever before and I
began writing a series of articles against Moscow. The result
was that many of my readers, whom I realize must have been
Communists, canceled subscriptions. My magazine was thrown out
of the Prague bookshops, I suppose you have heard of them, and
actually it was to some part due to this Communist attack on
the publication that we, had to suspend--that we went under.
    Mr. Cohn. We have this 1949 writing of yours which I read
to you before, ``The entire world has moved to the Left-part
Socialist, part Communist, . . .'' Let me go on.
    The status quo and reactionary countries, such as Italy and
France, Portugal and Greece, are merely held to the Right by
American money and pressure, will go Leftward when these forces
diminish or cease. Nothing is more important in history than
this Leftward trend of the world. Etc.
    Right above this you say people in this country don't
understand Russia. It is misrepresented, lots of bad things
said which are inaccurate, and so on.
    Mr. Seldes. I say that about Russia? I'd like to see that.
I was very anti-Russian when I wrote that.
    Mr. Cohn. How about this:
    This volume and this author agree with Dr. George T.
Robinson who said that ``Never did so many know so little about
so much.''
    Then you quote Dr. Robinson in making that remark as
referring to all American's misunderstanding of Russia. You go
on to say:
    Curiously enough, two years later when the ``preventive
war'' crowd was riding high and William Christian (sic) Bullitt
was screaming madly for the use of the atom bomb to destroy
Russian civilians--``atomize the Russians'' was the battlecry--
and the Churchill policy of ``containment'' of ideas (as well
as nations) had become the paramount policy of the Truman
administration, a survey made by Princeton University showed
that 38,000,000 Americans of voting age ``don't know at all
what kind of government Russia has.''
    The Robinson structures can be applied not only to Russia
and the Eastern nations--against which the West, and most
notably the United States has hung not an iron but a newspaper
curtain of suppression and silence--but also to China and all
of Asia; in fact to most of the world.
    Do you think that is anti-Russian?
    Mr. Seldes. Well, in a way, ``yes.''
    Mr. Cohn. I would love to know how.
    Mr. Seldes. I will tell you why. May I explain myself?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Seldes. I think in fighting Russia we have to be very
careful and tell exactly what the situation is there. We must
not make mistakes, say things that aren't true. If they catch a
great writer saying something about Russia which isn't true,
you lose your point.
    Mr. Cohn. How do you feel about the Korean war?
    Mr. Seldes. Now, I wish you could get my copies of In Fact.
    It was the Korean war which was largely responsible for the
Communist sabotaging or destroying my publication. A lot of
people wrote and said, ``How do you feel about the Korean
War?'' I replied that I was running a newspaper--news that
isn't printed elsewhere--the truth. I don't express opinions
except in books. The Korean war is obviously the Communist
attack. The Communists are the aggressors and we are right.
After that I got a lot of cancellations. I was 100 percent for
the Koreans, our side of the Korean War.
    Mr. Cohn. When was the last issue of In Fact published?
    Mr. Seldes. October 1950.
    Dr. Matthews. Have you written or published anti-Catholic
books?
    Mr. Seldes. I have never written what I called anti-
Catholic books. One of my books was the choice of the Catholic
Book of the Month Club. \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ George Seldes, The Vatican: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (New
York: Harper & Brothers, 1934).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Matthews. Was it on the Catholic Church?
    Mr. Seldes. Yes, sir.
   TESTIMONY OF DOXEY WILKERSON (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL,
                         JOSEPH FORER)
    [Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Chairman]
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn,
please?
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
give in the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Can we have your full name?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Doxey Wilkerson. W-i-l-k-e-r-s-o-n.
    Mr. Cohn. And you are accompanied by Mr. Joseph Forer?
    Mr. Wilkerson. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Wilkerson, are you the author of various
books?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. A number of them. Is that correct?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Some, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And we have been advised that some of them are in
use by the State Department information program.
    Have you ever worked in any capacity for the government of
the United States?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. In what capacity?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I was research associate for the president's
Advisory Committee on Education.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that, sir?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Around 1938 or 1939, approximately.
    Mr. Cohn. At the time you held the post on the president's
Advisory Committee on Education, were you a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I refuse to answer that question under the
basis of the Fifth Amendment and my privilege under the Fifth
Amendment.
    The Chairman. Immediately after you left the employ of the
government, did you immediately announce that you were an
organizer of the Communist party?
    Mr. Wilkerson. That question I will refuse to answer.
    Senator Symington. Wasn't it a matter of public knowledge?
Wouldn't it have been in the newspapers?
    Mr. Wilkerson. It may or may not have been.
    Mr. Cohn. What you are being asked is, didn't the
newspapers carry an account to the effect that you had stated
such and such and such?
    Mr. Wilkerson. May I consult with counsel?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Wilkerson. For the reasons previously stated, I refuse
to answer the question.
    Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if that
became a matter of public record, it be put in the record at
this point.
    Mr. Cohn. Professor Wilkerson, will you list the books
written by you as literary works?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I wrote a book entitled Special Problems of
Negro Education. \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Doxey A. Wilkerson, Special Problems of Negro Education,
Prepared for the Advisory Committee on Education (Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1939).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. That was published in 1939?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party at that
time?
    Mr. Wilkerson. That question I refuse to answer for the
same reason.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you discuss the preparation of that
manuscript with any Communists?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you on orders from the Communist party?
    Mr. Wilkerson. That I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a Communist now?
    Mr. Wilkerson. That question I refuse to answer.
    Senator Symington. Do you believe you are a good American?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Of course I do.
    Senator Symington. Where were you born?
    Mr. Wilkerkson. Right outside the city of Excelsior
Springs.
    Senator Symington. You believe you are a good American and
at the same time you still will not say whether or not you are
a Communist?
    Mr. Wilkerson. That is right.
    Senator Symington. How could you be a good American if
today you are a member of an organization which is dedicated to
the overthrow of the United States by force and violence? Do
you think you could be a good American if you were a member of
such an organization? An organization dedicated to the
overthrow of the government by force and violence?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I don't think so.
    Senator Symington. Do you know whether or not the Communist
party is so dedicated?
    Mr. Wilkerson. In my opinion it is not.
    Senator Symington. If you knew it was so dedicated--to the
overthrow of our government, by force end violence--would you
belong?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I would not.
    Senator Symington. Then, if you are a Communist you are
ignorant of that?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I think I should refuse to answer that
question on the grounds stated. Did I understand your
question?----
    Senator Symington. If you are a Communist and that is the
Communist party line, you are ignorant of that fact?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I stated that answer to a previous question
that I would not belong to an organization which advocated the
violent overthrow of our government.
    Senator Symington. If you are a Communist and it can be
shown to you that the Communist party is dedicated to the
overthrow of this country by force and violence, if you were a
Communist, would you resign from the party?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Your question assumes some things.
    Senator Symington. I must say I can understand how a lot of
people could be Communist in the Depression and later we were
fighting as allies, but I don't see how a good American, if he
knew the Communist party line, how anybody could believe they
were good Americans and at the same time take protection of the
Constitution as to membership in the party.
    Mr. Wilkerson. I think I expressed the opinion that the
Communist party does not advocate the overthrow of our
government by force and violence.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever studied communism?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I have read about it.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever taught history?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I have taught some history.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever felt that you were well up
on the Communist party line as a result of your studies?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I am not sure what that means.
    Senator Symington. Have you gotten enough knowledge of
communism to be an authority on whether or not the Communist
party has as one of its ends the overthrow of the American
government by force and violence?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I think I have enough authority to take a
position in that. I have an opinion based on my observation and
studies. My opinion is that the Communist party does not
advocate the overthrow of this government by force and
violence.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever had a card at any time in
your life?
    Mr. Wilkerson. For the reasons previously stated, I refuse
to answer that question.
    Dr. Matthews. Have you ever taught at the Jefferson School
of Social Science?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I refuse to answer that question.
    Dr. Matthews. Do you teach there now?
    Mr. Wilkerson. For the reasons stated, I refuse to answer.
    Dr. Matthews. Do you now or did you ever know Alger Hiss?
    Mr. Wilkerson. For the reason stated, I refuse to answer
that question.
    Senator Symington. Alger Hiss has been known by a lot of
people, some of them high people. Why would you be afraid to
answer that question if you thought you were a good American?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I don't see what that has to do with being a
good American.
    Senator Symington. Why do you refuse to answer the question
whether you knew Alger Hiss?
    Mr. Wilkerson. It seems to me that I am properly invoking
my privilege not to answer that question.
    Dr. Matthews. Did you ever attend a Communist meeting with
Alger Hiss?
    Mr. Wilkerson. For the same reason I refuse to answer the
question.
    Dr. Matthews. Do you know Owen Lattimore?
    Mr. Wilkerson. For the same reason I refuse to answer the
question.
    Dr. Matthews. Did you know that Owen Lattimore was a member
of the Communist party?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I refuse to answer that question for the
same reason.
    The Chairman. Did you ever engage in espionage?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Of course not. I wouldn't.
    The Chairman. Did you ever engage in sabotage?
    Mr. Wilkerson. No.
    The Chairman. Do you know Dean Acheson?
    Mr. Wilkerson. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever meet him?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I don't recall it.
    Senator Symington. Did you ever meet Dwight D. Eisenhower?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I don't think I ever met him.
    Senator Symington. Do you have any information that would
make you feel Dean Acheson was any more a Communist than John
Foster Dulles?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I have no information.
    Senator Symington. No more about Acheson than about Dulles?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I know neither of the gentlemen. All I know
about them is what I read in the newspapers.
    Dr. Matthews. Did you ever teach at Howard University?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Yes.
    Dr. Matthews. When did you leave Howard University?
    Mr. Wilkerson. In the summer of 1943, I think it was.
    Dr. Matthews. Why did you leave?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I resigned.
    Dr. Matthews. You left voluntarily?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I did.
    Dr. Matthews. Were you a member of the Communist party at
the time you were teaching at Howard University?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I refuse to answer that question for the
reason stated.
    Senator Symington. Why do you think, commenting about this
Jefferson School, that is something that you should take
advantage of your rights?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I believe my privilege under the Fifth
Amendment also authorizes my not answering that question.
    Senator Symington. Would you like to comment on what you
know about that school, if anything?
    Mr. Wilkerson. No, I should not.
    Senator Symington. You refuse to answer whether you taught
there. Is that right?
    Mr. Wilkerson. That is right.
    Senator Symington. Or whether you teach there now?
    Mr. Wilkerson. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you do now?
    Mr. Wilkerson. That question I refuse to answer.
    Senator Symington. You mean you won't say anything about
your method of making a livelihood?
    Mr. Cohn. I want to ask you this. Have you ever held any
other position in the government other than that?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I was educational specialist for the Office
of Price Stabilization.
    Senator Symington. I would like to get back to one point.
You say you feel you are a good American; that you wouldn't
belong to an organization that was dedicated to the overthrow
of the American government by force and violence. Then I would
like to ask you this question. Why are you ashamed or afraid to
say something about the Jefferson School or this school we were
talking about? Why have you got fear or embarrassment about
that?
    Mr. Wilkerson. There is no embarrassment. You are asking
the same question you asked before. My privilege also
guarantees me the right not to explain why I invoke that
amendment.
    Dr. Matthews. Who hired you for the Office of Price
Stabilization position?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Whoever is head of the educational division.
I don't remember his name.
    Dr. Matthews. Do you recall who sponsored you for a
position in the OPS?
    Mr. Wilkerson. No.
    The Chairman. I think that is all.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--Allan Chase (1913-1993), had published
three novels before his appearance before the subcommittee. He
devoted his later writing to studies of health and science:
Biological Imperatives: Health, Politics and Human Survival
(1971); Legacy of Malthus: Social Costs of the New Scientific
Racism (1977); Magic Shots: A Human and Scientific Account of
the Long and Continuing Struggle to Eradicate Infectious
Disease by Vaccination (1982); and Truth about STD: The Old
Ones--Herpes and the Other New Ones--the Primary Causes--the
Available Cures (1983). Chase was not called to testify in
public.]
                              ----------
                         THURSDAY, JULY 2, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 10:00 a.m. in room 357, Senate
Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Dr. J. B. Matthews, executive director; Roy
M. Cohn, chief counsel; G. David Schine, chief consultant; Karl
Barslag, research director; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
                    TESTIMONY OF ALLAN CHASE
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand, please? Do
you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give in
this matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Chase. I do.
    Dr. Matthews. Mr. Chase, will you give your full name?
    Mr. Chase. Allan Chase.
    Dr. Matthews. A-l-l-a-n?
    Mr. Chase. Right.
    Dr. Matthews. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Chase. I reside at 725 West End Avenue, New York City.
    Dr. Matthews. Where were you born?
    Mr. Chase. I was born in the City of New York, Borough of
Manhattan.
    Dr. Matthews. What is your present occupation?
    Mr. Chase. Writer.
    Dr. Matthews. Freelance writer?
    Mr. Chase. Freelance writer.
    Dr. Matthews. Have you published any books?
    Mr. Chase. Yes, I have published three books.
    Dr. Matthews. What are the titles?
    Mr. Chase. You have Falange, and The Five Arrows, and the
third book, Shadow of a Hero. \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Allan Chase, Falange: The Axis Secret Army in the Americas
(New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1943); The Five Arrows (New York:
Random House, 1944); Shadow of a Hero (Boston: Little, Brown, 1949).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Matthews. The Five Arrows was published in what year?
    Mr. Chase. I believe The Five Arrows was published in 1945.
    Dr. Matthews. Mr. Chase, do you believe that the FBI fakes
evidence against people?
    Mr. Chase. No, sir.
    Dr. Matthews. You rather indicated that it did, did you
not, in your novel, The Five Arrows?
    Mr. Chase. I am quite certain I did not, sir.
    Dr. Matthews. Let me read what you had to say about the
crime laboratory of the FBI.
    Mr. Chase. Pardon me, sir. Was it the Federal Bureau of the
Republic of Cuba or Federal Bureau of the United States of
America?
    Dr. Matthews. Well, so far as I have been able to read your
meaning, it would refer to the FBI in the United States.
    Mr. Chase. I would doubt that highly because I don't think
I had anything in that book about the FBI.
    Dr. Matthews. You call it the FBI, but if it is your
testimony that it does not refer to the United States.
    Mr. Chase. It is not my testimony. I don't know the passage
you refer to, sir.
    Dr. Matthews. Let's go on to other matters.
    Were you an official of the American Committee for Spanish
Freedom?
    Mr. Chase. Yes, I was.
    Dr. Matthews. In what capacity?
    Mr. Chase. Secretary.
    Dr. Matthews. Executive secretary.
    Mr. Chase. No, as far as I know it was never anything
except secretary.
    Dr. Matthews. Are you aware of the fact that that
organization was cited as a Communist front by the attorney
general?
    Mr. Chase. I am aware of the fact it was cited as a
Communist front subsequent to my leaving it.
    Dr. Matthews. And are you aware of the fact that during the
existence of the committee, I believe, the House Un-American
Activities Committee wrote the committee a letter asking if the
committee was un-American in any way?
    Mr Chase. A number of members of the committee, including
Dr. Norman Vincent Peale and Hartman, Methodist Bishop of
Boston and others, but those two I remember, answered the House
Un-American Activities Committee to their satisfaction because
they never investigated or corresponded further with the
American Committee for Spanish Freedom.
    Dr. Matthews. The House Un-American Activities Committee
has cited the organization as a Communist front organization?
    Mr. Chase. I have no knowledge, but if it did, it was
subsequent to my leaving it.
    Dr. Matthews. When were you the secretary of the
organization?
    Mr. Chase. I believe, now don't hold me to this, but I
believe it was sometime in 1945.
    Dr. Matthews. And also 1946, were you not?
    Mr. Chase. I would doubt that very much because of one
specific date I remember--12 September 1945--when my daughter
was born and from there on in I have been pretty much out of
everything.
    Dr. Matthews. Were you a member of the Communist party at
that time?
    Mr. Chase. Not at that time.
    Dr. Matthews. Are you now?
    Mr. Chase. No.
    Dr. Matthews. Were you ever?
    Mr. Chase. Yes, I was.
    Dr. Matthews. When did you join?
    Mr. Chase. Well, I have been trying since Mr. Cohn spoke to
me on the phone to pin down the exact date. I believe it was
sometime in the vicinity of 1934.
    Dr. Matthews. How long did you remain a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Chase. I don't think it was more than two weeks if it
was that long.
    Dr. Matthews. Why did you quit, or were you expelled?
    Mr. Chase. I wasn't expelled. I looked and saw and said to
myself, ``Not me.'' I felt like the Rabbi who wandered into a
house of burlesque in Boston without knowing what he had
wandered into. I saw and heard and by the time I realized what
I had gotten into, I picked up my hat and feet and ran.
    Dr. Matthews. Who invited you?
    Mr. Chase. I am afraid the fool who did that was a fool
named Allan Chase. At the time I was twenty or twenty-one and I
thought I knew all there was to know, all the answers, and no
one had to tell me.
    Mr. Cohn. How did you go about joining? You must have known
someone in the party.
    Mr. Chase. Well, frankly, the headquarters were fairly open
and I walked into the headquarters in my neighborhood.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever talked with the FBI?
    Mr. Chase. About what, sir?
    Mr. Cohn. Your activities in the Communist movement?
    Mr. Chase. No, sir, I haven't, but I did talk to the FBI
about other peoples' activities.
    Mr. Cohn. Did it ever occur to you that you could have
information which would be valuable to them concerning the
Communist movement?
    Mr. Chase. No, sir. It never did.
    Mr. Cohn. If you had anything of value, would you be
willing to give them a full account?
    Mr. Chase. If I had anything of value to our government, I
would be willing to testify.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you break with the Communist movement?
It seems long after you left the party you were still active in
a number of front organizations? Tell us with complete
frankness.
    Mr. Chase. Well, we are now talking about the period close
to twenty years ago when we had 20 million unemployed and a
great deal of unrest. I was vitally concerned with one major
issue of our times--that was the Spanish War.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you say sometime after the Spanish War you
completely broke with the Communist movement?
    Mr. Chase. Well, I completely broke with the Communist
movement when I walked out of the Communist movement.
    Mr. Cohn. You completely broke as far as being a member,
but the record shows that long after you were active in various
front organizations.
    Mr. Chase. The record shows organizations interested in
Spain.
    Dr. Matthews. Let me ask you if you were not a sponsor of
the Scientific and Cultural Conference for World Peace in March
1949?
    Mr. Chase. I don't know. I have been trying to find out
about that myself. I know my name appeared on the letterhead. I
don't remember how it got there. I think I was asked to sign it
by--I think I was asked to join by Dr. Dahlberg who was then or
subsequently president of the American Baptist Convention.
    Dr. Matthews. Did you repudiate your name on the list of
sponsors for the Scientific and Cultural Conference for World
Peace?
    Mr. Chase. It didn't last long enough.
    Dr. Matthews. When did it come to your attention that it
was there?
    Mr. Chase. Frankly, it came to my attention in 1952.
    Mr. Cohn. You knew you signed up for that?
    Mr. Chase. I presume I gave permission.
    Mr. Cohn. You have some recollection of that?
    Mr. Chase. Yes, I do.
    Dr. Matthews. You knew at the time the conference was held
that it was widely publicized as an instrument of the Soviet
propaganda movement, did you not?
    Mr. Chase. Yes.
    Dr. Matthews. And you knew the publicity was very
widespread.
    Mr. Chase. Yes, sir.
    Dr. Matthews. And you did nothing to repudiate that
publicity?
    Mr. Chase. Frankly, there was no publicity about me. I am
not that important that I issue press statements.
    Dr. Matthews. Was that Edward T. Dahlberg who enlisted you
for that conference?
    Mr. Chase. No, sir. If it was for that, I know I signed
something for Dr. Dahlberg on some such appeal for a peace
group. The man you are referring to is the author. The man I am
referring to was a Baptist minister who, as I said earlier, was
either then or subsequently president of the American Baptist
Convention.
    Mr. Cohn. When were your two books published?
    Mr. Chase. Falange was published in 1943 and The Five
Arrows was published in 1944. There was a book club edition in
1945.
    Mr. Cohn. Do they represent your present thinking?
    Mr. Chase. I can't answer that because I haven't read those
books for years.
    Mr. Cohn. To the best of your recollection?
    Mr. Chase. I still can't answer. I don't know every word in
those books. I would have to read them before I could answer.
    Dr. Matthews. Are you anti-Communist at the present time?
    Mr. Chase. At the present time I am writing an anti-
Communist novel.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Chase you have represented the committee
in coming down here. At the present time you are completing a
strongly anti-Communist book.
    Mr. Chase. That is true.
    Mr. Cohn. And you feel if you were called in public session
it would ruin the book?
    Mr. Chase. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. You say that will be an anti-Communist book?
    Mr. Chase. Yes. You can have a copy.
    The Chairman. I think under the circumstances we should not
call this gentleman in public session. I may say that there
will be no mention of the fact that you were called in
executive session unless you discuss it. The testimony here
will not be made public. There will be no announcement here.
You are free if you care to discuss it yourself but the
committee will not.
    Mr. Chase. Thank you very much, sir.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--Eslanda Goode Robeson (1896-1965) married
Paul Robeson in 1921, while both were students at Columbia
University. She persuaded him to take a role in a Harlem YMCA
production, a performance that launched his career as a stage
and film actor and concert singer. She occasionally acted with
him and was his business manager. She later earned a Ph.D. in
anthropology and published several books. In 1946, after Paul
Robeson testified before the House Un-American Activities
Committee, he was blacklisted and boycotted as a performer in
the United States. The Robesons then spent most of their time
abroad, while he performed in Europe and the Soviet Union.
Eslanda Robeson testified in public session later that morning.
    Arnaud d'Usseau (1916-1990) also testified in public that
morning. A Hollywood scriptwriter since the 1930s, he had
collaborated with James Gow on a series of plays, Tomorrow the
World (1943), Deep Are the Roots (1945) and The Legend of Sarah
(1950). After d'Usseau took the Fifth Amendment in his
testimony before the subcommittee, he was blacklisted in
Hollywood and moved to Europe, where he continued to write
screenplays under psudonyms. He later returned to New York to
teach writing at New York University and at the School of
Visual Arts.
    Leo Huberman (1903-1968) began his career as a school
teacher, and in 1932 published a popular children's history
textbook, We the People. He later studied at the London School
of Economics and became labor editor for the New York tabloid
PM. Together with Paul Sweezy, he founded the Socialist
magazine Monthly Review in 1949, and the Monthly Review Press
in 1952. Huberman testified at a public hearing on July 14,
1953.]
                              ----------
                         TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 10:00 a.m. in room 357, Senate
Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri.
    Present also: J. B. Matthews, executive director; Roy M.
Cohn, chief counsel; G. David Schine, chief consultant; Karl
Barslag, research director; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
TESTIMONY OF ESLANDA GOODE ROBESON (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL,
                      MILTON H. FRIEDMAN)
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand, please?
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
give in the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mrs. Robeson. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Give us your full name.
    Mrs. Robeson. Eslanda Cardozo Goode Robeson.
    Mr. Cohn. You are the wife of Paul Robeson. Is that
correct?
    Mrs. Robeson. I am.
    Mr. Cohn. Mrs. Robeson, are you the author of a book
entitled African Journey? \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Eslanda Goode Robeson, African Journey (New York: John Day,
1945).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mrs. Robeson. I am.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you also the author of a book which is a
biography of your husband?
    Mrs. Robeson. Yes, Paul Robeson, Negro.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Eslanda Goode Robeson, Paul Robeson, Negro (New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1930).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mrs. Robeson, are you a member of the
Communist party?
    Mrs. Robeson. Under the protection afforded me by the Fifth
and Fifteenth Amendments, I decline to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. The Fifteenth?
    Mrs. Robeson. Yes, the Fifteenth. I am Negro you know. I
have been brought up to seek protection under the Fifteenth
Amendment as a Negro.
    The Chairman. You have a right to refuse to answer if you
think a truthful answer will tend to incriminate you. That is
the only right under which you can refuse to answer. If you
feel a truthful answer will tend to incriminate you, you may
refuse to answer.
    Do you feel the answer will tend to incriminate you?
    Mrs. Robeson. May I consult counsel?
    The Chairman. At any time you care to.
    Do you want to answer that Mrs. Robeson?
    Mrs. Robeson. Would you say the question again, please?
    The Chairman. You, I believe, made the statement that you
are refusing to answer under the Fifth and the Fifteenth
Amendments. The Fifteenth Amendment has nothing to do with it.
That provides the right to vote.
    Mrs. Robeson. I understand it has something to do with my
being a Negro and I have always sought protection under it.
    The Chairman. Negro or white, Protestant or Jews, we are
all American citizens here and you will answer the question as
such.
    The question is: Are you a Communist today? If you feel the
answer will tend to incriminate you, you can refuse to answer.
    That is the only ground under which you can refuse to
answer.
    Mrs. Robeson. What confuses me a little about what you
said--you see I am a second-class citizen in this country and,
therefore, feel the need of the Fifteenth. That is the reason I
use it. I am not quite equal to the rest of the white people.
    The Chairman. Do you feel if you tell us the truth, a
truthful answer would tend to incriminate you?
    Mrs. Robeson. Under the protection of the Fifth and
Fifteenth Amendment, if I can use it, I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. The question is: Do you feel a truthful
answer would tend to incriminate you?
    Mrs. Robeson. I thought I had already.
    The Chairman. You are being ordered to answer whether you
feel a truthful answer will tend to incriminate you.
    Mrs. Robeson. Under the Fifth and the Fifteenth Amendments,
I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer.
    Mrs. Robeson. I will have to consult my lawyer. I don't
understand this.
    Now, once more, may I have the question?
    The Chairman. The question is: Do you feel that your
answer, if your answer is a truthful answer, that might tend to
incriminate you?
    Mrs. Robeson. I would not consider any other answer except
the truth. I would certainly not be bothered with any
untruthful answer.
    The Chairman. I am going to make you answer that. We ask
certain questions and if you feel the answer might tend to
incriminate you, you are allowed to refuse to answer. Before
granting you that privilege or right of refusing to answer, we
must know from you very simply whether you feel a truthful
answer might tend to incriminate you.
    Mrs. Robeson. I do not understand the truthful part.
Certainly the answer would be truthful. Under any circumstances
whatsoever it would be truthful. That is the reason you are
confusing me.
    The Chairman. The question is: Do you feel a truthful
answer to the question of whether or not you are a Communist
today would tend to incriminate you? You are ordered to answer
that question.
    Mrs. Robeson. Under the protection of the Fifth and
Fifteenth Amendments, I refuse to answer this.
    The Chairman. The counsel is informed I am asking the full
committee to cite the witness for contempt. She has refused to
give us information and taken refuge under the Fifteenth
Amendment----
    Mr. Friedman. The witness wants to answer the question. She
thought she had answered it.
    Mrs. Robeson. Would you just tell me now what the question
is? You see the truthful part confused me. I am under oath.
    The Chairman. Just for your benefit you are not entitled to
refuse to answer if perjury might incriminate you. That is why
you are asked the question whether or not you feel a truthful
answer might tend to incriminate you.
    Mrs. Robeson. Well, my answer is ``yes.''
    [At this point, Senator Symington took over as acting
chairman.]
    Mr. Cohn. Mrs. Robeson, have you ever contributed royalties
received from your writings to the Communist party?
    Mrs. Robeson. May I consult counsel?
    Mr. Schine. Mrs. Robeson, did you write this book all by
yourself?
    Mrs. Robeson. All by myself.
    Mr. Schine. This African Journey?
    Mrs. Robeson. Well, I don't quite understand that question.
    Mr. Schine. Did you receive help on this book?
    Mrs. Robeson. Well, I really think that is a very insulting
question. I am quite capable of writing a book. I did write
this book all by myself.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you refuse to answer that question concerning
money to the Communist party from royalties?
    Mrs. Robeson. I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in sabotage or espionage,
Mrs. Robeson?
    Mrs. Robeson. I don't know what sabotage and espionage are.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever engaged in any illegal acts against
the United States?
    Mrs. Robeson. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever taught or advocated the Communist
party?
    Mrs. Robeson. I have never taught anywhere at any time.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you believe in the overthrow of the government
of the United States by force and violence under any
circumstances?
    Mrs. Robeson. Under no circumstances whatsoever.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever heard that the overthrow of this
government of the United States was taught or advocated at any
Communist party meeting?
    Mrs. Robeson. Well. I have never heard it advocated at all
anywhere and I don't believe it.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever been a member of the
Communist party?
    Mrs. Robeson. Under the protection of the Fifth and
Fifteenth Amendments, I refuse to answer.
    Senator Symington. Are you a member now of the Communist
party?
    Mrs. Robeson. Under protection of the Fifth and Fifteenth
Amendment, I refuse to answer.
    Senator Symington. Do you think you are a good American?
    Mrs. Robeson. I know I am.
    Senator Symington. You couldn't be a good American and at
the same time dedicated to the overthrow of the government by
force and violence?
    In other words, you say you are a good American. You
couldn't be a good American and still belong to an organization
dedicated to the overthrow of our government by force and
violence.
    Mrs. Robeson. I know I am a good American.
    Senator Symington. Do you know the Communist party is
dedicated to the overthrow of the government of the United
States by force and violence?
    Mrs. Robeson. I don't know anything at all about the
Communist party except what I read in the papers or hearsay and
I would not dream of making a statement here from what I read
in books.
    Senator Symington. You don't know anything about the
Communist party and yet you refuse to answer whether or not you
are a member of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Robeson. You mean I could perhaps in a faint or
something or when I was unconscious----
    Senator Symington. I am asking you.
    Mrs. Robeson. I only know what I hear, what I read, etc.
    Senator Symington. You only know what you hear and read and
you refuse to answer whether or not you are a member of the
Communist party--whether you ever have been or whether you are
a member now.
    Mrs. Robeson. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Counsel, will you have the witness in room
318 at 10:30 sharp.
    Mr. Friedman. Yes.
TESTIMONY OF ARNAUD d'USSEAU (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, ROYAL
                           W. FRANCE)
    Senator Symington. Will you raise your right hand, please?
    Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. d'Usseau. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Give us your full name, please?
    Mr. d'Usseau. Arnaud d'Usseau.
    Mr. Cohn. Spell that, please?
    Mr. d'Usseau. d-'-U-s-s-e-a-u
    Mr. Cohn. You are the author of certain books. Is that
right?
    Mr. d'Usseau. No, that is not right.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you the author of plays printed in book form?
    Mr. d'Usseau. I am.
    May I ask why I have been called down here? \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ Arnold d'Usseau had originally been subpoenaed to appear at
the Federal Building in Foley Square, but when he and his attorney
arrived there on July 3, they were informed that the hearings had been
postponed and relocated to Washington. Royal W. France to Roy Cohn,
July 4, 1953, Records of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,
RG 46, National Archives and Records Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. Sure.
    Mr. d'Usseau. Why?
    Mr. Cohn. You have been called down here because some of
your works were purchased with the taxpayers' money and used
overseas by the State Department.
    Mr. d'Usseau. Why do you make a separation for me? I am a
taxpayer too. I have been paying taxes a long time.
    Mr. Cohn. I will try to make a point now.
    Mr. d'Usseau. I see you people make a separation.
    Mr. Cohn. Identify your counsel.
    Mr. France. R. W. France of New York City.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you the author of Deep Roots? \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ Arnaud d'Usseau and James Gow, Deep Are the Roots (New York:
Scribner's, 1946)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. d'Usseau. I am co-author.
    Mr. Cohn. Who is the other co-author?
    Mr. d'Usseau. James Gow.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. d'Usseau. You know I am going to take the Fifth
Amendment on that.
    Mr. Cohn. On what grounds do you refuse to answer?
    Mr. d'Usseau. On the grounds given me by the Constitution.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you refuse to answer on the grounds that a
truthful answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. d'Usseau. If you want to put it that way you can.
    Mr. Cohn. I am not putting it. That is the one ground on
which you can refuse to answer--properly use the Fifth
Amendment.
    Were you a member of the Communist party at the time you
wrote Deep Are the Roots?
    Mr. d'Usseau. My answer is the same.
    Mr. Cohn. How about James Gow, the co-author, was he a
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. d'Usseau. He is dead.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. d'Usseau. Fifth Amendment. Do you want me to dig him up
and ask him?
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Witness, please answer the questions.
    Did you contribute any money at any time to the Communist
party?
    Mr. d'Usseau. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Were any royalties received from the sale of your
plays in any form contributed to the Communist party?
    Mr. d'Usseau. Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you submit your manuscripts to anybody in the
Communist party?
    Mr. d'Usseau. You know I am down here voluntarily.
    Senator Symington. You mean that you wouldn't be down here
if you didn't want to come down here?
    Mr. d'Usseau. You served me with a subpoena, yes, but it
was very irregularly served. It was served to me Wednesday. I
went to Foley Square Wednesday.
    Senator Symington. But you are here?
    Mr. d'Usseau. Voluntarily.
    Senator Symington. And you came down here willing to answer
questions?
    Mr. d'Usseau. Questions that I choose to answer.
    Senator Symington. And questions you don't want to answer
you will take the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Counsel, the chairman directs that the
witness be in room 318 at 10:30 a.m.
   TESTIMONY OF LEO HUBERMAN (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, R.
                        LAWRENCE SIEGEL)
    Senator Symington. Will you raise your right hand, please?
    Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Huberman. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a member of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Huberman. I have never been a member of the Communist
party.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Huberman. What does that mean?
    Mr. Cohn. What does it mean to you, sir?
    Mr. Huberman. Well, if you mean by a Communist one who
believes in socialism, I do believe in socialism.
    Mr. Cohn. You believe in socialism?
    Mr. Huberman. I do, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think works written by you should be used,
purchased with the taxpayers' money and used in overseas
information centers, the purpose of which is to give a true
picture of our form of government to the people in Europe.
    Mr. Huberman. I say frankly, ``yes.'' I think that my
responsibility as an author means that before I submit the
final draft of a manuscript to a publisher, I must be content
that it is true; that it is accurate; that it is sound
scholarship and still is right. Once I have done that I stand
behind the book, and at the risk of being immodest, if I can
say that about a book, it is a good book.
    Mr. Cohn. I am not questioning that for one moment. This
isn't a library. This is a specialized program to show our way
of life to people overseas. You have told us frankly that you
believe in a different form of government. I am asking you
about this particular program.
    Senator Symington. You say you are a Socialist?
    Mr. Huberman. That is right,
    Senator Symington. What is that?
    Mr. Huberman. Socialism is common ownership of means of
production and planned economy.
    Senator Symington. And elimination of all private property?
    Mr. Huberman. Not all private property but in means of
production.
    Senator Symington. What do you think of the Korean War? Do
you think it is our fault or the fault of the Communists? Who
do you think is the aggressor?
    Mr. Huberman. I think, sir, that my feeling on that--We
have written of that frequently in our magazine.
    Senator Symington. I haven't read what you wrote. I am
asking you now what you think.
    Mr. Huberman. May I consult counsel?
    Senator Symington. Pardon me. What is your name?
    Mr. Siegal. My name is R. Lawrence Siegal.
    Senator Symington. You are the lawyer for this gentleman?
    Mr. Siegal. Yes. May I ask a question, Senator? May I
consult with the witness?
    Senator Symington. Only at his request.
    What is the answer?
    Mr. Huberman. I was going to say that as I understand it,
this hearing has to do with----
    Senator Symington. I asked a question and I would like to
get an answer. Who do you think was the aggressor in Korea? I
am trying to find out what he means by ``Socialist''--whether
he is really a Communist or a Socialist.
    Mr. Huberman. I have answered the question of whether or
not I am a Communist.
    Senator Symington. Who is the aggressor in Korea?
    Mr. Huberman. I say it is not a simple question to answer.
    Senator Symington. All right, we will take that as an
answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Under what circumstances did you leave the
National Maritime Union?
    Mr. Huberman. I resigned in 1945 or 1946.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you resign voluntarily or was your
resignation requested?
    Mr. Huberman. Voluntarily.
    Mr. Cohn. Was there any discussion as to whether or not you
were a Communist?
    Mr. Huberman. I don't remember any, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Joseph Curran?
    Mr. Huberman. Very well.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you not have any such discussions with him?
    Mr. Huberman. I don't remember any, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't remember any discussions with Mr.
Curran prior to your resignation?
    Mr. Huberman. We had many.
    Mr. Cohn. Did they center around allegations that you were
a Communist?
    Mr. Huberman. Absolutely not, to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he ever indicate that the views to which you
adhered were harmful to the policy of the union?
    Mr. Huberman. We had a disagreement about the education
program among other things.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he accuse you of trying to inject socialism
and communism in the education program?
    Mr. Huberman. Frankly, I don't recall any of that.
    Mr. Cohn. Wouldn't you recall that?
    Mr. Huberman. That was a long time ago.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you report to room 318, please, right away.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned.]
       STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE--INFORMATION CENTERS
    [Editor's note.--Harvey O'Connor (1897-1987) worked in the
logging camps of the Northwest and in 1918 became editor of the
Seattle Daily Call, a Socialist newspaper. During Seattle's
general strike in 1919, he was arrested for ``publishing matter
tending to incite a breach of the peace,'' although the charges
were later dropped. He then reported for the Federation Press,
a labor news service, edited the Locomotive Engineers Journal,
and published several muckraking exposes. From 1945 to 1948 he
was publicity director for the Oil Workers International Union.
    O'Connor testified in public session later on July 14. Away
from the subcommittee he denied having been a Communist, but he
refused to answer any questions, citing his rights under the
First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech and of the
press, rather than the Fifth Amendment. O'Connor described
himself as ``an innocent bystander caught in a brawl'' between
Senator McCarthy and the State Department.
    In October 1953, a federal grand jury in Washington
indicted him for contempt of Congress, and on November 18,
1953, he was convicted, fined $500, and given a one-year
suspended sentence. The Appellate Court later reversed the
sentence.]
                              ----------
                         TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 10:00 a.m., in room 357 of the
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, chairman,
presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator
Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; G. David Schine,
chief consultant; Karl Barslag, research director; Daniel G.
Buckley, assistant counsel; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
   TESTIMONY OF HARVEY O'CONNOR (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL,
                       LEONARD B. BOUDIN)
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand?
    Mr. O'Connor. Mr. Chairman, before taking the oath under
protest, may I state my objection to the committee's
jurisdiction?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. O'Connor. I would like to state my objection, first,
under the First Amendment to the Constitution. The committee
has no authority to look into my books or political beliefs,
and if my writings have violated any laws, that is the proper
subject for the law enforcement agencies and this committee is
not a law enforcement agency.
    My second objection is under the constitutional limitations
and under the powers of Congress and the committee--my books
and writings and political views are of no legitimate concern
to the committee.
    My third point, under statutes creating the committee, my
writings and political views are of no legitimate concern to
the committee.
    The Chairman. Then will you stand and take the oath?
    Mr. O'Connor. Under protest.
    The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you
are about to give in the matter now in hearing shall be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
    Mr. O'Connor. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Will counsel identify himself?
    Mr. O'Connor. Leonard B. Boudin.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. O'Connor, you have written certain books. Is
that correct?
    Mr. O'Connor. That is correct but I object to the question
on the grounds I mentioned.
    Mr. Cohn. Pardon me?
    Mr. O'Connor. I object to the question on the grounds
mentioned.
    The Chairman. Has it been established that Mr. O'Connor's
books are being used in the information centers?
    Mr. Schine. Yes, it has.
    Mr. Cohn. Which books?
    Mr. Schine. We have a few here. The Astors, The
Guggenheims, and The History of the Oil Workers.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ Harvey O'Connor, The Astors (A.A. Knopf, 1941); The
Guggenheims: The Making of an American Dynasty (New York: Covici
Friede, 1937); History of the Oil Workers International Union, CIO
(Denver: Oil Workers International Union, 1950).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. Are you the author of these three books?
    Mr. O'Connor. I am the author but I object to the question
on the ground I have already stated. It is not the proper
concern of this committee.
    Mr. Cohn. At the time you wrote these books were you a
member of the Communist party?
    The Chairman. You will be entitled to refuse to answer the
question only if you feel a truthful answer might tend to
incriminate you. That is the only ground under which you can
refuse to answer the question.
    Mr. O'Connor. I feel that a truthful answer will not
incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Then you will answer the question.
    Mr. O'Connor. I have answered the question.
    Mr. Cohn. When you wrote these books, were you a member of
the Communist party?
    Mr. O'Connor. I object to the question on the three grounds
already stated.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. O'Connor. I decline. How many ways do I have to phrase
the damn thing?
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. O'Connor. I decline to answer.
    The Chairman. You may step down. You will stay under
subpoena and remain here. Not only that, I will ask the
committee to cite your client for contempt.
    Mr. Boudin. You understand that his answer was not based on
self-incrimination. It was based on the grounds he stated.
    The Chairman. I just wanted to make sure you understood the
grounds.
    Mr. Boudin. It may be the witness wants to add one more
statement.
    The Chairman. You may step down.
    Mr. Boudin. I thought the witness might want to make a
statement to you in further explanation of his privilege.
    The Chairman. We will hear no statement from him.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned.]
           STATE DEPARTMENT TEACHER-STUDENT EXCHANGE PROGRAM
    [Editor's note.--Naphtali Lewis was a professor of
classical studies at the City University of New York, teaching
also at Columbia, Yale, and Boston universities. He specialized
in deciphering and interpreting the oldest Greek manuscripts,
called papyri, and was president of the International
Association of Papyrologists. In April 1953, Lewis received a
U.S. Educational Exchange Award, or Fulbright scholarship, to
study ancient manuscripts in Florence. He testified in public
session on June 10, and again with his wife, Helen Lewis, on
June 19, 1953.
    During their public testimony, Helen Lewis invoked the
Fifth Amendment, after which Senator McCarthy announced: ``Dr.
Lewis, we have just been notified by the State Department that
your job in Italy has been canceled; that you are not being
sent there. I think that is an excellent idea.'' In a written
statement that he filed with the committee, Professor Lewis
asserted: ``Senator McCarthy has not inquired concerning my
qualification as a scholar for a scholarly assignment. He
appears to be interested in my Fulbright award only to the
extent of inquiring into my political opinions and, what is
even more astonishing, into my wife's politics, past as well as
present. This inquisition, if it has its way, establishes a
novel and singularly un-American principle; namely, that before
a man is permitted to pursue a career of research--even in
ancient manuscripts--he must have the stamp of approval of a
congressional subcommittee on himself and his family.'']
                              ----------
                         WEDNESDAY MAY 20, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 3:00 p.m. in the Office of the
Secretary of the Senate, Senator Henry M. Jackson presiding.
    Present: Senator Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan;
Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Ruth Young Watt,
chief clerk; Mason Drury, Senate liaison officer, State
Department.
                  TESTIMONY OF NAPHTALI LEWIS
    Senator Jackson. Will you rise and be sworn, please?
    Raise your right hand.
    Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
so help you God?
    Mr. Lewis. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you give us your full name?
    Mr. Lewis. My full name is Naphtali Lewis.
    Mr. Cohn. How do you spell that first name?
    Mr. Lewis. N-a-p-h-t-a-l-i.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Lewis, have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, you are barking up the wrong tree, mister.
The answer is ``no.''
    Senator Jackson. Before we proceed any further, you
understand you have a right to counsel if you so desire.
    Mr. Lewis. Mr. Cohn explained that to me.
    Senator Jackson. I just wanted to make the record clear.
    Mr. Lewis. But since no one indicated, in summoning me
here, that I was to be accused of anything, it never occurred
to me.
    Senator Jackson. Do you desire to have counsel?
    Mr. Lewis. I don't think I need one, no, sir. I have
nothing but simple answers to simple questions, if that is all
that is involved. Now, I am not a lawyer, and if we get into
legalities----
    Senator Jackson. You may want to reserve the right?
    Mr. Lewis. I hope you will inform me of what my rights are,
and so on.
    Senator Jackson. You understand that you have the right to
refuse to answer any question if, in answering that question it
may tend to incriminate you. That means that it may cause you
to be a witness against yourself. Even though that tendency is
slight, you have the right under the Fifth Amendment to refuse
to answer if you conscientiously believe, if you believe in
conscience, that to answer the question would tend to
incriminate you, not in itself incriminate you, but tend to
incriminate you. In that case, you have the right to refuse to
answer.
    Mr. Lewis. I understand.
    Mr. Cohn. Your testimony is that you have never been a
Communist?
    Mr. Lewis. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Lewis. Certainly not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you at Brooklyn College?
    Mr. Lewis. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know someone named David McKelvy White?
    Mr. Lewis. No, sir, I do not.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Alex Novikov?
    Mr. Lewis. Now, that is a name that I do know. Alex Novikov
was at Brooklyn College in the biology department. I knew him
slightly, but he has for a long time now not been in New York.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended a meeting with him?
    Mr. Lewis. A meeting?
    Mr. Corn. Yes, any kind of a meeting other than one
connected with your official activities at Brooklyn College.
    Mr. Lewis. My best recollection is ``no.'' I mean it would
surprise me if I had. I just don't recall.
    Senator Jackson. You do not have any recollection as of
now?
    Mr. Lewis. I don't have any recollection of having attended
a meeting.
    Senator Jackson. Where he was present?
    Mr. Lewis. Where he was present. Well, now, wait a moment.
If you mean where he was present in a large gathering of five
hundred people or so, I can't answer for that.
    You mean where he was present to my knowledge?
    Senator Jackson. Yes.
    Mr. Lewis. Where he was present to my knowledge. Unless it
was some kind of social meeting, the answer is ``no.''
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know anyone named Albaum?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, he is a member of the biology department
now.
    Mr. Cohn. How well do you know him?
    Mr. Lewis. I know him as a colleague.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended any meeting with him?
    Mr. Lewis. Not that I can recall, no.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether or not he is a Communist?
    Mr. Lewis. No, I would not know.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know of any Communists at Brooklyn
College?
    Mr. Lewis. By the way, I could amend my answer on Albaum to
say I have read in the paper about his testimony.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you read concerning his testimony?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, he testified some months ago that he had
been a Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. That was the first you knew of it?
    Mr. Lewis. This was all I know about Mr. Albaum's communism
or anybody's. I have no direct knowledge of Communist activity
or membership, since I have not been one myself and have not
associated with such people, to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Irving Goldman?
    Mr. Lewis. Who?
    Mr. Cohn. Irving Goldman.
    Mr. Lewis. I don't know him, though I know who he is.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Charlotte Robinson?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes. Her name is now Charlotte Jenkins.
    Mr. Cohn. That is right.
    Mr. Lewis. She works in the registrar's office.
    Mr. Cohn. How well do you know her?
    Mr. Lewis. Again, only as a person who works for the
college.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend any meeting with her?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, again, I don't know what you mean by
``meeting.'' If you mean a Communist meeting, the answer is
``no.'' I have never been to a Communist meeting, to my
knowledge.
    But if you mean could she have been present at a faculty
meeting where I was, the answer is that she could have been.
    Mr. Cohn. As I first told you, we were excluding meetings
held in the course of official business.
    Mr. Lewis. Yes. I had forgotten.
    Mr. Cohn. So that is out.
    Now, outside of that, did you ever attend any meeting with
Charlotte Robinson?
    Mr. Lewis. To the best of my recollection, no.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know anyone named Pomerance, P-o-m-e-r-a-
n-c-e?
    Mr. Lewis. I know him slightly. He is in the philosophy
department.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend any meeting with him?
    Mr. Lewis. Again, to the best of my recollection, no.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Mrs. Pomerance?
    Mr. Lewis. I don't believe so.
    Mr. Cohn. You are married, Mr. Lewis?
    Mr. Lewis. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. And what is your wife's first name?
    Mr. Lewis. Helen.
    Mr. Cohn. Has she ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, again, if you knew my wife, it is really--
My wife is a wife and a mother, and she certainly is no
Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. No, my question was: Has she ever been a
Communist?
    Mr. Lewis. Has she ever been a Communist? Well, let me give
you a very precise answer. Eleven years ago, when our first
child was born, my wife ceased being a teacher, and since then
she has devoted herself and concentrated on bringing up the
family. She has been, since we have had a family, I would say,
all that any man could want in a devoted wife and a devoted
mother of his children.
    Now, before we began our family, my wife was a teacher.
    Mr. Cohn. You do have my question in mind?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, I am answering it in the fullest way I
know.
    And in those years of her teaching activity, she was very
active in teachers' organizations, teachers committees, and so
on.
    Now, at that time, unlike the present, where we are a very
quiet family and have no outside activities, she had many
outside activities in which I did not share. Many times she
would go off to meetings, and I would go to the library to
work.
    Now, I am well aware of the fact that in those days, many
teachers' activities were participated in by Communists and
non-Communists alike, but I would want it demonstrated
certainly to me that my wife was engaged in any Communist
activity. Now, naturally, I don't know all of what she was
engaged in those days, and frankly, I much less cared. That is
the best answer I can give you.
    Senator Jackson. To your knowledge, is she or has she ever
been a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Lewis. To my knowledge, sir, the answer is ``no'' and
the reason I say ``to my knowledge'' is that knowing that she
was associated with all of these teachers outfits, and so on, I
certainly urged her never to join up, and I have no reason to
believe she disregarded my advice.
    Mr. Cohn. Your sworn testimony is that to your knowledge
your wife was never a Communist?
    Mr. Lewis. I have no reason to believe that she was, yes,
sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether she attended Communist
meetings?
    Mr. Lewis. I cannot tell you, because----
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever discussed that with her?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, I remember that back in those days when
she was a teacher, she discussed sometimes the meetings she
attended, and I am fully aware of the fact that there must have
been Communists at them.
    Senator Jackson. What meeting? Let us pinpoint this a
moment. Let me first of all ask you when you were married. I am
not asking this question to get into your personal affairs.
    Mr. Lewis. 1936.
    Senator Jackson. Now, the meetings you are talking about
were subsequent to your marriage?
    Mr. Lewis. That is right. They would be from about '37 or
'39 to the time when my wife quit all that, when her first
child was born, beginning in '42.
    Senator Jackson. Now, between '36 and '42, you say your
wife attended meetings?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes. They were teachers union meetings.
    Senator Jackson. Was that the Teachers' Union?
    Mr. Lewis. That is the Teachers' Union of New York.
    Senator Jackson. And did the Communists dominate those
locals, or the local she belonged to?
    Mr. Lewis. As you know, that has frequently been charged
and possibly sustained. But in those days, if you recall, there
was a kind of united front, and in those days the Teachers'
Union, that is, in the late thirties, was a very large and
respected organization, to which many of the teachers of New
York City belonged, including for a time myself.
    Senator Jackson. Did you attend the meetings with her?
    Mr. Lewis. Teachers Union meetings, yes, but not these
committee meetings and all these other things.
    Senator Jackson. What do you mean by ``committee
meetings''?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, she was on committees of the union. She
was editor of their newspaper for a time, and so on.
    Senator Jackson. Those were committee meetings set up by
the union?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. It did not go beyond that?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, not to my knowledge, no; and I say, there
are lots she went to that I never talked with her about.
    Senator Jackson. Did she ever talk to you about meetings
being controlled by the commies, or anything like that?
    Mr. Lewis. I don't think so. I remember that after a while,
toward the forties, communism began to become an issue.
    Senator Jackson. An issue where?
    Mr. Lewis. In the Teachers Union. And then, of course as
you undoubtedly know, the Teachers Union split up. It
splintered into pieces. And that is when she dropped out and I
dropped out, and so on.
    Senator Jackson. If she were a member of the Communist
party and you were her husband, you certainly should know about
it, should you not?
    Mr. Lewis. I certainly should, unless she chose to keep it
secret from me.
    Senator Jackson. But she never discussed any membership?
    Mr. Lewis. Oh, yes. She discussed it. She discussed it in
the sense that inevitably we had to, when communism became an
issue. And I constantly warned her to keep clear of that.
    Senator Jackson. Now, explain that. You said you discussed
the membership. You mean they asked her to join?
    Mr. Lewis. I shouldn't be surprised. Not to my
recollection, did I ever ask her that confidence. I don't think
I ever did.
    Senator Jackson. Are you sure?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, I am just trying to recollect. You know
this is fifteen years ago. That is my best recollection, sir.
    Senator Jackson. That they never asked her to join?
    Mr. Lewis. No, my best recollection is that we did not
discuss that.
    Senator Jackson. You did not discuss that.
    Mr. Lewis. That is, in those specific terms. What I tried
to convey before is that when the Teachers Union began to be
attacked because of its Communist membership and alleged
Communist domination, at that point I strongly advised her not
to get involved in any of this.
    Senator Jackson. What was your position and the position of
your wife on the Soviet-Nazi Pact in '39?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, I really can only speak for my position I
suppose, sir. I certainly regarded that as a disillusionment.
    Senator Jackson. At that time?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, and I still do.
    Senator Jackson. You opposed it?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, I frankly neither opposed nor approved. I
have no real major concern with these things.
    Senator Jackson. What was your wife's position on the
subject?
    Mr. Lewis. I think it was mostly like mine. But, again, you
see, we have not been a particularly political family, and we
had no really profound or great political discussions. Her
position used to be at any rate, in those days, slightly left
of mine, and perhaps she had fewer reservations.
    Mr. Cohn. Where was she teaching then?
    Mr. Lewis. She was teaching at Brooklyn College.
    Mr. Cohn. What was she teaching?
    Mr. Lewis. Psychology.
    Mr. Cohn. She was teaching psychology at Brooklyn College.
And you taught philosophy?
    Mr. Lewis. No, I taught classical languages.
    Senator Jackson. Have you published any books?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, in the last years I have published three
books, twenty articles in learned journals, over thirty book
reviews.
    Mr. Cohn. For what have you written book reviews?
    Mr. Lewis. The Classical Weekly, Classical Journal,
American Journal of Philology, American Historical Review,
Classical Philology.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you had any connection with the exchange
program of the State Department?
    Mr. Lewis. If you mean connection with anything in the
State Department, no. But I have applied.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you applied?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, I have applied for an exchange fellowship.
    Mr. Cohn. Has there been any action on your application?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Was it accepted, or rejected?
    Mr. Lewis. It was accepted.
    Mr. Cohn. And when was that?
    Mr. Lewis. I believe the letter informing me of acceptance
was dated April 30th last.
    Mr. Cohn. Just this past April 30th?
    Mr. Lewis. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Where were you supposed to go?
    Mr. Lewis. Italy.
    Mr. Cohn. And when?
    Mr. Lewis. The next academic year.
    Mr. Cohn. What were you supposed to? Teach over there?
    Mr. Lewis. No, I was supposed to do research in the
library.
    Mr. Cohn. In what city?
    Mr. Lewis. Florence.
    Mr. Cohn. On classical subjects?
    Mr. Lewis. That is right, and decipherment of the oldest
Greek manuscripts known, which is my specialty.
    Mr. Cohn. Was your wife going to accompany you over there?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest this. There are
some other witnesses we want to hear on the subject of Mr.
Lewis, and we were anxious to talk with Mrs. Lewis. I was going
to suggest that we adjourn for the afternoon, and maybe Mr.
Lewis would want to consult counsel. I would feel better about
it if he did. And we would like Mr. and Mrs. Lewis to be down
on Monday afternoon, if that is agreeable, at 2:30.
    What room would that be, Ruth?
    Mrs. Watt. If the Senate is in session, we could come over
here. But we could get room 101.
    Mr. Cohn. Let us make it room 101.
    Mr. Lewis. Room 101 where?
    Senator Jackson. Senate Office Building.
    Mr. Lewis. At 2:30 p.m., next Monday.
    Senator Jackson. On Monday the 25th, this coming Monday.
Just one last question. Do you have any recollection of
belonging to any organization cited by the attorney general as
subversive?
    Mr. Lewis. No, I don't. As I said, I am not an organization
man, myself.
    Senator Jackson. You are not a joiner?
    Mr. Lewis. I am not a joiner. I belong to only two or three
professional associations, like the American Philological
Association, Phi Beta Kappa, and the International Association
of Papyrologists, which is my specialty, and I believe that is
all.
    Mr. Cohn. What was your wife's maiden name?
    Mr. Lewis. Helen Block, B-l-o-c-k.
    Mr. Cohn. Was she teaching under her married or maiden
name?
    Mr. Lewis. Both, I think. I think after she was married she
used her married name.
    Mr. Cohn. Could I get your street address?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes. 245 West 101st Street.
    Mr. Cohn. And your phone is Academy----
    Mr. Lewis. 2-4424.
    Senator Jackson. Do you know what organizations your wife
might have belonged to?
    Mr. Lewis. I certainly----
    Senator Jackson. If you do not know, do not say so.
    Mr. Lewis. No, I would have no way of knowing, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Lewis, would you produce that April 30th
letter when you come down on Monday?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And any other correspondence you had. I assume
you had to make some kind of application.
    Mr. Lewis. I can't produce the application, because they
have it.
    Mr. Cohn. You didn't retain a copy of it?
    Mr. Lewis. No.
    Mr. Cohn. I see. We can get that from them. And who did you
give as references on that application?
    Mr. Lewis. The dean of Brooklyn College.
    Mr. Cohn. What is his name?
    Mr. Lewis. His name is William Gaede, G-a-e-d-e, Professor
C. Bradford Welles, W-e-l-l-e-s, of Yale, and Professor James
H. Oliver, of Johns Hopkins.
    Mr. Cohn. All right, sir. And anything else, any
correspondence you have had with them of which you have copies,
in other words, your file. That was James C. Oliver?
    Mr. Lewis. James H. Oliver.
    Mr. Cohn. Johns Hopkins?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes. Oh, yes. There were four. And Professor
Meyer Reinhold, M-e-y-e-r of my own department. They asked for
one reference from my own department.
    Mr. Cohn. And then your whole file on that. And, as I say,
and as Senator Jackson explained, you have a right to consult
with counsel. He will not be allowed to participate in the
proceedings, but may accompany you, and if at any time you or
your wife desires to confer with him in privacy, you have that
right, and I would suggest that you procure counsel.
    Mr. Lewis. All right. You make it sound very serious.
    Mr. Cohn. If it weren't serious, we wouldn't trouble you to
come down here.
    Mr. Lewis. Well, my record is an open book. There is
nothing in it I am ashamed of or that any American would not be
proud of.
    Senator Jackson. Do you have anything you would like to
say? You understand, the question was asked: if you are or ever
have been a member of the Communist party. And you have been
very frank about it. You say you have never belonged.
    And obviously, the committee would like to ask the same
question of your wife when she comes.
    Mr. Lewis. Naturally.
    Mr. Cohn. So you have an idea about what the questions will
be about. I am not saying that it is limited to that, on
Monday, but I am sure you understand that some question has
been raised about whether your wife was a member of the
Communist party or is now.
    Mr. Lewis. I gather that, and I think I have answered that
to the best of my ability. I understood also from Mr. Cohn that
there was an accusation made that I was a Communist. I believe
you said that.
    Mr. Cohn. No, I didn't say that. But I say you have a right
to assume it is a very serious matter, and if we weren't acting
on the basis of other testimony, we wouldn't trouble you to
come down here.
    Mr. Lewis. Didn't you say before that there were witnesses
before me?
    Mr. Cohn. Well, I said we were going to talk to other
witnesses, that we had heard witnesses and we would be talking
to some other witnesses. There is no doubt about that.
    Mr. Lewis. All right.
    In matters of this kind, do you assign or recommend
counsel, or is that something I do on my own?
    Senator Jackson. I would suggest, as a lawyer myself, that
I would get competent counsel, to make sure that you are
advised of all your rights. The committee does not recommend
any particular counsel, but I think that from your own
standpoint it is wise to have counsel. The fact that you have
counsel does not create any inference that your case is any
more serious than anybody else's, nor does it create any
inference of guilt of anything. That is your American right,
and the decision as to whether you obtain counsel is entirely
up to you. But I would volunteer the statement that it is
usually a pretty wise thing to do.
    Mr. Lewis. Bring counsel with me to the next hearing?
    Senator Jackson. Yes. But you understand, the committee is
not requesting you to bring counsel.
    Mr. Lewis. I understand. It is a recommendation, shall we
say.
    Mr. Cohn. It is just a step for your protection.
    Senator Jackson. I am merely trying to be fair to you in
saying that for your own protection it might be a wise thing.
You will be released, then, from the subpoena until Monday.
    Mr. Lewis. Well, I haven't received any subpoena.
    Mr. Cohn. You were asked to come down. That is the same
thing under the Senate rules.
    Mr. Lewis. The girl who phoned me said very specifically I
was not being subpoenaed.
    Mr. Cohn. As long as you receive some formal notification,
that is the equivalent of a subpoena.
    Senator Jackson. You will be under subpoena until released
by the committee, and the committee will then notify you. This
constitutes a subpoena under the rules.
    Mr. Lewis. Well, I am not interested so much in the legal
technicalities. I understand you want me and my wife here on
Monday afternoon.
    Mr. Cohn. At 2:30.
    Senator Jackson. Monday, the 25th of May.
    Mr. Lewis. At the room that I jotted down.
    Senator Jackson. Yes.
    [Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the hearing was recessed until
2:30 p.m., Monday, May 25, 1953.]
           STATE DEPARTMENT TEACHER-STUDENT EXCHANGE PROGRAM
    [Editor's note.--The actress, director and producer
Margaret Webster (1905-1972) was born in New York City while
her British father, actor Ben Webster was performing on
Broadway (her mother was the actress Dame May Whitty), and as a
result held dual British and American citizenship. Moving back
to New York from London in 1937, Webster was elected to the
board of the Actors' Equity Association in 1941. With Eva Le
Gallienne she founded the American Repertory Theatre in 1945,
and from 1948 to 1951 she directed the Margaret Webster
Shakespeare Company. In 1950, her name appeared in Red
Channels, a private listing of radio, television and stage
actors, writers, announcers and directors alleged to have
belonged to left-wing organizations. She was blacklisted in
radio and television, although she remained active on stage.
    In her memoir, Don't Put Your Daughter on the Stage (New
York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1972), Webster described being
subpoenaed to testify before the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations. She felt no need to invoke the Fifth Amendment,
she wrote, since she had ``nothing to tell or refuse to tell.''
But her attorney repeatedly impressed on her the importance of
never saying ``no'' when asked if she had attended a meeting or
subscribed to a cause. She was instructed to answer ``I cannot
remember doing so,'' ``not so far as I can recall,'' and ``to
the best of my recollection, no.'' This, her attorney advised,
was because ``Two witnesses could easily be produced to say
yes, you did or yes, you had and a suit for perjury was in
order.'' Margaret Webster was not called back to a public
hearing.
    Helen B. Lewis testified publicly on June 19, and Naphtali
Lewis on June 10 and 19, 1953.]
                              ----------
                          MONDAY, MAY 25, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 2:30 p.m. in the Office of the
Secretary of the Senate, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator
Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator John L.
McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Henry M. Jackson,
Democrat, Washington; Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat,
Missouri.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Donald A. Surine,
assistant counsel; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk; Mason Drury,
Senate liaison officer, State Department.
TESTIMONY OF HELEN B. LEWIS (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL, MURRAY
                           WEINSTEIN)
    The Chairman. Will you rise and be sworn, please? Raise
your right hand.
    Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
    Mrs. Lewis. I do.
    The Chairman. Who is your counsel?
    Mr. Weinstein. Murray Weinstein, 37 Wall Street, New York
City.
    The Chairman. You can confer with your lawyer at any time
you care to at any time during the testimony. Under the rules
of the committee, counsel is not allowed to take a part in the
proceedings except to freely advise his client whenever he
cares to.
    Mr. Cohn. Mrs. Lewis, you are the wife of Naphtali Lewis,
is that right?
    Mrs. Lewis. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. And Mr. Lewis is a professor at Brooklyn College?
    Mrs. Lewis. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. And he has been elected under the State
Department Exchange Program to go abroad?
    Mrs. Lewis. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you planning to accompany him?
    Mrs. Lewis. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been a teacher in the school system at
New York?
    Mrs. Lewis. I taught at Brooklyn College.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer that question under
the privileges afforded me by the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party while
teaching at Brooklyn college?
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer that question under
the privileges afforded me by the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Jackson. Are you now a member of the Communist
party?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party last
year?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    Mr. Cohn. What date will you assert a privilege under the
Fifth Amendment and what date will you deny membership?
    Mrs. Lewis. Well, I must decline to answer that question.
    The Chairman. Two years ago were you a member of the
Communist party?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. Three years ago were you a member?
    Mrs. Lewis. I was not a member of the Communist party two
years ago. Three years ago I was not a member of the Communist
party.
    The Chairman. Were you a Communist three years ago?
    Mrs. Lewis. Well, Senator, the use of the word Communist is
very loose.
    The Chairman. You seem to distinguish between membership
and being a Communist.
    Mrs. Lewis. Very frequently the word Communist is used as
quoting anybody you disagree with.
    Senator Jackson. Using the definition following Communist
programs and policies, then would you answer the question?
    Mrs. Lewis. I am not a member of the Communist party.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever been a member of the
Communist party?
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer that question.
    Senator Jackson. The chairman asked you if you were a
Communist three years ago, and I defined a Communist as
following the program and policies of the Communist party. Were
you following the policies adhering to the party line of the
Communist party?
    Mrs. Lewis. Well, there might be some things such as
housing or----
    The Chairman. May I ask the witness a question? Will you
define what in your mind is Communist?
    Mrs. Lewis. In my mind a Communist is an enrolled member of
the Communist party.
    Senator Jackson. How about one who follows the program in
every respect but doesn't pay the dues?
    Mrs. Lewis. I think when you get into the question of
definition of people's beliefs, opinions and sympathies, you
get into questions which simply cannot be answered.
    Senator Jackson. If you walk like a duck, sit like a duck,
quack like a duck, must you not be a duck?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    Senator Symington. Wouldn't it save the committee's time
and save your being in open session by answering the question.
I can see this has distressed you a little bit, but wouldn't it
save the Committee's time and your time to give us the year you
left the Communist party?
    Senator Jackson. Let me rephrase the question. Would you
give us a year when you would be willing to say you were not a
member of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer that question. If you
had asked me about a specific year.
    Senator Symington. I suggest you ask her as she says, Mr.
Chairman.
    The Chairman. In 1950 were you a member of the Communist
party?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. In 1949 were you a member of the Communist
party?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. 1948?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. In 1947?
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer that question.
    The Chairman. 1940?
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer that question.
    The Chairman. In 1935?
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer.
    The Chairman. 1930?
    Mrs. Lewis. In 1930, sir, I was roughly seventeen years
old.
    The Chairman. The Young Communist League?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. 1931?
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer.
    The Chairman. You decline to answer on the ground that if
you give a truthful answer, the answer might tend to
incriminate you?
    Mrs. Lewis. No, sir. As I understand it no such inference
can be drawn.
    The Chairman. Then you are ordered to answer.
    Mrs Lewis. I must decline to answer.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer or I shall ask that
you be held in contempt.
    Senator McClellan. Maybe we are moving too rapidly. I
suggest that you ask the question again.
    The Chairman. The question is: in 1931 were you a member of
the Communist party?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. 1932?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. 1933?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. 1934?
    Mrs. Lewis. Well, I must decline to answer that question.
    The Chairman. Are you declining on the ground that if you
told the truth, gave a truthful answer that answer might tend
to incriminate you?
    Mrs. Lewis. I am declining under the protection of the
Fifth Amendment which says that I may not be a witness against
myself.
    The Chairman. You are entitled to refuse to answer the
question only if you feel a truthful answer might tend to
incriminate you. I am asking you if that is the reason you
decline to answer the question.
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer your question.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question. Just
so you understand, we must determine whether you are entitled
to refuse to answer the question under the Fifth Amendment. You
are only entitled to refuse to answer my question if you feel
an honest answer might tend to incriminate you. If you refuse
to answer that, I am not going to threaten you, but for your
own information, if you do not I will ask the committee to cite
you for contempt. You may consult with counsel?
    Mrs. Lewis. Well, then, I will answer your question that if
I answer the question it might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. And you feel if you gave a truthful answer it
might tend to incriminate?
    Mrs. Lewis. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Today would you say that you feel sympathetic
towards the Communist philosophy?
    Mrs. Lewis. Senator, that is a question now that is asking
about my opinions and beliefs, is that right?
    The Chairman. I think you understood the question. The
question is: Are you now sympathetic to Communist philosophy?
    Mrs. Lewis. There are some things in the Communist
philosophy that I am not particularly sympathetic with.
    The Chairman. Can you tell us those things in the Communist
philosophy you are not sympathetic with?
    Mrs. Lewis. Well, there have been certain world events
which certainly make it appear as if there is a possibility of
conflict between the United States, for instance, and the
Soviet Union. I am a loyal and patriotic American.
    The Chairman. I wonder if you will get back to the
question. What part of the Communist philosophy are you not in
sympathy with. You are entitled to refuse to answer.
    Mrs. Lewis. I don't see what particularly--what might be
incriminating in my beliefs.
    The Chairman. May I say, just for your information, if you
were really an American citizen, we would not be concerned with
your beliefs. You could believe anything. However, in view of
the fact that there has been testimony concerning you and your
husband before another committee--your husband has been
selected at considerable expense to the taxpayers to a rather
important position. For that reason we are curious to know
whether you are still a believer in communism or not. You are
going on this trip, you see. Otherwise we are not checking
whether you believe in the Communist cause. I ask you again--
what part of the Communist philosophy do you disagree with?
    Mrs. Lewis. If I follow your reasoning, it stems from my
husband's selection for the student exchange. I fail to see
where my beliefs are relevant to his selection.
    The Chairman. I order you to answer the question unless you
refuse to answer it on the grounds that your answer might tend
to incriminate you. Will you answer that question, Mrs. Lewis?
    Mrs. Lewis. Well, as I have already begun to indicate--
although let me say, as I said before, that I think my beliefs
are entirely irrelevant to my husband's selection for the
Student Exchange Program.
    The Chairman. Have you gotten a passport yet?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. You haven't gotten your passport yet?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. What part of the Communist philosophy do you
disagree with?
    Mrs. Lewis. Let me begin with the beginning of my answer
for the record. I wish the record to indicate that my beliefs--
that questions of my opinions are irrelevant to my husband's
Fulbright scholarship. If you want to know about my opinions
and direct me to answer you as to what part of the Communist--
what was it again?
    The Chairman. You said you disagree with some part of the
Communist philosophy.
    Mrs. Lewis. I do not believe in philosophy that allows
aggressive action against other states, for instance.
    Senator Symington. What was that?
    Mrs. Lewis. I do not believe in aggressive action. I
believe that is wrong.
    Senator Jackson. You believe aggressive action is wrong?
    Mrs. Lewis. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. In other words, you believe that
Communists are wrong now in taking aggressive action against
other states. You believe the Communists are wrong in Korea?
    Mrs. Lewis. Yes, sir. I think it has been demonstrated that
the first moves were made by the North Koreans, and in the
light of that, I am opposed to aggressive action as a solution
to international problems.
    Senator Potter. Do you oppose the persecution of the Jewish
people in the Soviet Union?
    Mrs. Lewis. I certainly do. I have been against
discrimination all my life.
    The Chairman. Would you favor a Communistic form of
government in the United States?
    Mrs. Lewis. I am inalterably in favor of our democracy.
    The Chairman. I will ask you again. Would you be opposed to
a Communist form of government in the United States?
    Mrs. Lewis. Yes, I would.
    The Chairman. In 1947 were you opposed to a Communist form
of government in the United States?
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer your question.
    The Chairman. Has your husband ever been a member of the
Communist party?
    Mrs. Lewis. Now, Senator McCarthy, on advice of counsel, I
am not going to answer any questions about my husband as I
believe such questions would be an invasion of the sanctity and
privacy of our marriage.
    Mr. Cohn. Sir, I believe that only includes confidential
communications. In other words, confidential communications to
her which were given in the capacity as his wife. There is no
such thing as an absolute privilege between husband and wife.
It only applies to confidential communications. She cannot
assert a general statement that she is not going to answer any
questions about her husband.
    The Chairman. I think you are right, Mr. Cohn----
    Senator McClellan. I am inclined to think it would be
rather difficult to separate confidential communications from
others.
    Senator Symington. I agree with that.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, suppose they attended meetings.
    The Chairman. I think you are strictly right on the rule,
Roy, but I am inclined to agree with Senator McClellan that you
can't tell whether they are confidential communications or not.
    Did you attend Communist meetings in 1948?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. 1947?
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer your question.
    Senator McClellan. I will ask you if you attended Communist
meetings in 1946 or 1947 with your husband?
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer that.
    The Chairman. On the ground of self-incrimination?
    Senator McClellan. I would like to ask a question of the
committee here. I am a little bit lacking in background on this
thing. Has her husband been questioned by this committee or any
other committee?
    The Chairman. Yes, he was questioned by Senator Jackson.
Before further questioning he decided he wanted counsel.
    Senator Jackson. Mr. Cohn and myself strongly advised him
that he should consult counsel.
    Senator McClellan. I feel this way about it. The husband is
available and he is seeking benefit of this government and I
think we should ask him questions directly.
    The Chairman. As far as I am concerned, we have finished
with you, Mrs. Lewis. May I say, you are asking for a passport
to go overseas. We have many fine people who have been in the
Communist party who have decided communism was evil and they
have dropped out of that party and are very fond of America
now. If you have been a member of the party and, if you think
that was wrong--if you dropped out of the party and you would
care to tell us about that and tell us why, I assume that is
something that the State Department would be interested in
before granting a passport. I doubt very much that a passport
will be granted to someone, to go overseas and represent us as
your husband will be teaching in the exchange program. I doubt
very much if they will give you a passport unless you come in
and tell us about your activity in the party--if and when and
why you left the party.
    Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, you have asked the
question that I was going to talk about. The chairman has
proved his belief in that position by having an ex-Communist on
the staff of this committee. I am only telling you what is now
a matter of record. It seems if you say you are a good
American, and in effect have admitted you were a member of the
Communist party, it would be far better for you if you said you
had been a member and felt it was wrong based on subsequent
thinking, and inasmuch as you feel you are a good American--
looking at you and listening to you and certainly you are out
of it now--if I had anything to do with giving you a passport,
I would be glad to see you get one. On the other hand, if you
come up here and say that you are a good American and take
refuge through a lot of legal ``claptrap'' behind the Fifth
Amendment, do you think the people of this committee will
approve of your getting a passport to go out of the United
States while you might have reason for not admitting anything
about it. I think you are making a mistake. I think you are
doing yourself an injustice from listening to you.
    Mrs. Lewis. I thank you for your interest in my welfare,
but I, myself, do not agree with all the interpretations that
you put on my testimony and my exercise of the Fifth Amendment,
as this is something that I have thought about and do intend to
do.
    Senator Symington. One more point. In regard to not
answering questions concerning your husband, you might be
interested to know that in my opinion you have already
testified while I have been here at length against your
husband--if you are interested in his future.
    Senator Jackson. I would like to supplement Senator
Symington's statement. The general tenor of the questions will
come up in connection with your passport and would have come
up, and I think that it is a matter that you ought to give
fuller consideration to. Maybe you will want to come back and
discuss it with the committee.
    The Chairman. Have you ever engaged in espionage?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. Sabotage?
    Mrs. Lewis. No.
    Senator Jackson. You don't believe or advocate the
overthrow of this government by force and violence?
    Mrs. Lewis. I certainly do not. Never have. I certainly do
not believe in force and violence. I believe in the democratic
solution.
    Senator Jackson. Have you ever believed in it--the
utilization of force to change our government here in the
United States?
    Mrs. Lewis. I am a peaceful person, sir.
    Senator Jackson. Then, if you have never believed in such
force and violence to achieve that end, you can answer the
question. It might be well to keep the record straight,
    Mrs. Lewis. I must decline to answer on the grounds of the
Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Symington. You realize you will have to take a
position in a public hearing----
    Mrs. Lewis. I am going to if I have to.
    The Chairman. Mrs. Lewis, you may be excused now. You are
still under subpoena and you will be notified when you are to
appear.
                  TESTIMONY OF NAPHTALI LEWIS
    The Chairman. Professor Lewis, you have previously been
sworn by the acting chairman of the committee, Senator Jackson?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. You are reminded that you are still under
oath.
    Mr. Lewis. Yes.
    The Chairman. You understand that you can freely discuss
any matter with your counsel at any time you care to?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. I understand that the hearing adjourned the
other day so that you could obtain counsel. Mr. Cohn, will you
proceed.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Lewis, you were in here Friday and you have
counsel now.
    Mr. Lewis. Wednesday.
    Mr. Cohn. You have obtained counsel and had a chance to
confer with counsel, is that right?
    Mr. Lewis. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Lewis. I have never been a member of the Communist
party.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist? I am not
referring to party membership.
    Mr. Lewis. The word Communist is bandied about today so
much----
    Senator Jackson. Let's let the witness define it. How would
you define a Communist?
    Mr. Lewis. Sir, I hardly know how. Perhaps you would be
interested in something that happened in my presence in the
last half year. I was riding on a bus and two men got into an
argument as to whom pushed whom. One party got off the bus and
the parting shot of the other one was--yelled, ``Oh, you
Communist.'' These days the word Communist is used to describe
anybody they disagree with.
    The Chairman. We are not interested in the different
definitions of the users--not interested in something you heard
on the bus.
    Mr. Lewis. My definition of a Communist is a person who is
a member of the Communist party.
    Senator Jackson. How about a person who is not a formal
member but believes in each and every principle of the
Communist party, but does not hold a formal party membership.
Is he a Communist?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, I don't know if there are such people.
    Senator Jackson. I am asking you the question assuming
there are such people.
    Mr. Lewis. Is that a hypothetical question?
    Senator Jackson. If a person believes in all the principles
of the Communist party that apply to formal membership, is he a
Communist under your definition?
    The question I put, Mr. Chairman, assuming that an
individual believes in the principal objectives and aims of the
Communist party but is not a formal member of the party, is he
a Communist under your definition?
    Mr. Lewis. Under my definition? You mean of a moment ago?
My definition was a member of the Communist party. You have
given me a hypothetical question. You wish me to respond not in
terms of my definition but as I interpret your question--Well,
I suppose such a person could be called a Communist with a
small ``c.''
    The Chairman. Would you answer that question?
    Senator Jackson. Have you ever been one who has believed in
accordance with my hypothetical question?
    Mr. Lewis. No, I have not.
    Senator Jackson. Have you ever attended Communist meetings,
Professor?
    Mr. Lewis. Not to my knowledge.
    Senator Jackson. Have you ever believed in or espoused the
Communist cause--Communist philosophy?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, again perhaps if you specify what you mean
by Communist philosophy.
    Senator Jackson. Use your definition?
    Mr. Lewis. No, sir, I have not.
    Senator Jackson. What is your definition of the Communist
philosophy?
    Mr. Lewis. My definition of the Communist philosophy.
Senator, I am no expert on the philosophy of the Communist
party. I suppose----
    Senator Jackson. You say you never believed in or espoused
the philosophy of the Communist party?
    Mr. Lewis. Certainly not. There might have been certain
doctrines held by the Communists that I approve of.
    The Chairman. Was your wife a member of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Lewis. Senator, I am advised by counsel that for
questions to be put to me concerning my wife is an invasion of
the sanctity and privacy of our marriage and I must refuse to
answer questions concerning my wife.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend a Communist party meeting
with your wife?
    Mr. Lewis. You have asked a question concerning my wife. I
must refuse on advice of counsel to answer that question.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer that question.
You are entitled to refuse to answer any questions concerning
any private communications between yourself and your wife. That
is interpreted very broadly. However, when asked whether or not
you attended a Communist meeting with your wife--that is not a
confidential communication. Have you ever attended Communist
meetings with your wife at which people other than you and your
wife were present?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, may I consult with counsel, please?
    Senator, I will state here and now, I have never knowingly
attended any Communist party meeting whatever.
    Senator Jackson. With or without your wife?
    Mr. Lewis. I have not knowingly attended any Communist
party meeting.
    Senator Mundt. May I inquire why you inject knowingly?
    Mr. Lewis. Had I known it was a meeting of the Communist
party----
    Senator Mundt. Have you attended meetings where when you
left the meeting you had knowledge that it was a meeting of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Lewis. No. I have not attended a meeting that I knew
was a meeting of the Communist party after I left.
    The Chairman. Have you ever attended a meeting which you
subsequently had reason to believe was a meeting of Communist
party members or a meeting for the purpose of recruiting
members of the party?
    Mr. Lewis. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Then your testimony is at this time that you
are of the opinion that you have never attended a meeting
called by the Communist party?
    Mr. Lewis. That is correct.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been asked to join the
Communist party?
    Mr. Lewis. To the best of my recollection, ``no.''
    The Chairman. To the best of your recollection ``no.''
    Mr. Lewis. That is correct.
    The Chairman. How long have you been married Mr. Lewis?
    Mr. Lewis. Counsel informs me that he thinks the question
is covered by the marital privilege.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to tell when you were
married. It is not a confidential communication.
    Senator McClellan. That is a matter of public record.
    Mr. Lewis. I was married in 1946.
    The Chairman. To your present wife?
    Mr. Lewis. That is correct.
    Senator Jackson. And you have been married all that time--
ever since--to her?
    Mr. Lewis. That is right.
    The Chairman. Roy, have you any further questions?
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Lewis, you deny that you ever believed in
communism for the United States?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, of course, you have not defined what you
mean by communism. I have been given a hypothetical question. I
certainly do not hold the view that there is any better form of
government for the United States than the liberal American
democracy.
    Mr. Cohn. And you never held an opinion contrary to that?
Have you ever thought communism would be better? Have you ever
advocated communism? Have you ever belonged to the Young
Communist League?
    Mr. Lewis. Certainly not.
    Senator Jackson. I think I asked you previously at the last
meeting of the committee whether you have ever belonged to any
organization listed by the attorney general to be subversive?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir. I believe I told you at that time I
had not. As far as I know, I believe that is a correct answer.
I have not examined the attorney general's list, but the reason
I would think my answer is correct is that I have never
belonged to other than professional organizations.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that a person can be a Communist
and at the same time a good American?
    Mr. Lewis. There again it depends on what you mean by a
Communist.
    The Chairman. A member of the Communist party.
    Mr. Lewis. Well, you are way out of my line. I am a
professor of Greek and Latin. I really don't know that I have
any concrete opinion on that.
    The Chairman. You don't have any opinion as to whether a
member of the Communist party could also be a good American?
    Mr. Lewis. It would seem to me that the American tradition
of liberalism would permit a man to hold opinions ranging from
the extreme right to the extreme left.
    Senator Symington. Do you know that the Communist party
advocates the overthrow of the United States by force and
violence.
    Mr. Lewis. I don't know it. If it is so dedicated, I would
be, with my entire being, opposed to it.
    Senator Symington. Would you like to correct your testimony
then that if it is true that the Communist party is dedicated
to the overthrow of the American system of government by force
and violence you do not think a good American could be a member
of the Communist party?
    Mr. Lewis. Again, I don't see that the second follows
entirely from the first.
    The Chairman. Let me rephrase the question. If you don't
know it, we can inform you that the Communist party is
dedicated to the overthrow by force and violence----
    Mr. Lewis. I am certainly opposed to that.
    The Chairman. If that is true, any member of that
organization cannot be a good American?
    Mr. Lewis. That I don't know.
    Senator Symington. If membership in the Communist party
involves being a member of an organization that is dedicated to
the overthrow of the American form of government by force and
violence, can you have membership in the Communist party and be
a good American?
    Mr. Lewis. If membership means dedicated to the overthrow
of our government----
    Senator Symington. Not dedicated--being a member of the
Communist party which advocates the overthrow of our government
by force and violence.
    Mr. Lewis. Well, you see, Senator----
    Senator Symington. It is beginning to look as if your
reason for evading the question is that somebody close to you
might be a member of the Communist party. As to whether it is
you or not, I don't know.
    Mr. Lewis. I resent the implication.
    Senator Symington. Well, I resent your attitude too. I am
getting a little tired of your ducking and dodging. We are
trying to make the questions very straight and simple. The
chairman asked you if you felt a member of the Communist party
could be a loyal American. That is what I remember, and you
felt it was all right for anybody to hold any political views.
After that I asked you if you knew that the Communist party
advocates the overthrow of the American system of government by
force and violence and you get into a lot of languages instead
of saying ``yes'' or ``no.''
    Mr. Lewis. I cannot answer that question.
    Senator Jackson. Mr. Lewis, you are an intelligent man and
certainly, I assume you read the newspapers even though you are
engaged in teaching classical studies at Brooklyn College.
    Mr. Lewis. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. Aren't you aware of the fact by now that a
person who is a member of the Communist party not only believes
in the advocacy of force and violence to achieve that end in
the United States, but above that owes loyalty to the Soviet
Union?
    Mr. Lewis. You asked me if I was aware of it. I am
certainly aware of what has appeared in newspapers and aware
that this is the prevalent view.
    Senator Jackson. Now, you are aware of the events that have
taken place since the end of World War II, namely the first
move of the Soviet Union into Greece, threatening violence in
Turkey, and I assume you are also aware of Czechoslovakia and
what happened to Communists in that country. Can there be any
doubt that a member of the Communist party in this country is
in the international conspiracy and is strongly disloyal to
this country?
    Mr. Lewis. I am certainly opposed to every one of the acts
of aggression.
    Senator Jackson. Just answer the question.
    Mr. Lewis. The reason I cannot answer your question--at the
end you seem to me to presuppose that I know what a member of
the Communist party in this country is supposed to do?
    Senator Jackson. Aren't you pretty much convinced what they
are supposed to do?
    Mr. Lewis. I know nothing of Communist affairs. If you ask
me about events of the day, I will be perfectly willing and
happy to do that, but if you ask me to make a judgment that is
based on knowledge which I do not have, I don't see how I can
do that.
    Senator Jackson. Listen, Mr. Lewis, you have been selected
to go abroad and while you are, undoubtedly well-informed in
the classics and very able to teach, responsibility of the
Student Exchange Program entails broad responsibilities of
citizenship above and beyond books.
    What about American Communists? Are they loyal?
    Mr. Lewis. I don't know. I haven't made a personal
examination of American Communists, so, therefore, I can't say.
    Senator Jackson. They may be all right?
    Mr. Lewis. I don't think I said that.
    Senator Jackson. That is the effect of your testimony.
Isn't that the effect of your testimony? You are saying because
you don't have personal knowledge of the Communist movement in
the United States, you can't answer the question. As an
intelligent citizen you know, or should know, if you don't,
that there is a Communist conspiracy in the world. Three-
fourths of your tax dollar is paying for defense. I don't see
how you can qualify for a scholarship and go overseas to Italy,
as you have been selected to go, without knowing something more
than the classics.
    The Chairman. I don't think we should refer to the exchange
program as the Fulbright Scholarship. The people will connect
it with Senator Fulbright. I think we should refer to it
whenever it appears in the record as the Student Exchange
Program.
    Senator Mundt. Do you think a man who holds Communist
beliefs is a suitable man to work for the federal government?
    Mr. Lewis. Under present conditions of world affairs I
don't think so.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think, Professor, that a man who holds
Communist beliefs is a suitable man to teach on a college or
university faculty publicly supported?
    Mr. Lewis. There, sir, you have touched on one of the moot
questions of the day. There is much argument about the
question.
    Senator Jackson. You don't mean it is ``moot.''
    Mr. Lewis. I don't know that I know what the word means?
    Senator Jackson. Legally it means a judicial issue that
doesn't exist--a hypothetical question.
    Mr. Lewis. I think the word ``moot'' has a non-legal sense,
which I was applying to it, Senator, that this is an issue
which is very much discussed these days.
    The Chairman. Counsel asked you a very simple question. He
asked you whether Communists should be allowed to teach in
colleges.
    Mr. Lewis. I have not made up my mind. Senator Taft says
they should, and the Board of American Universities and
Colleges say they should.
    The Chairman. The American Association of Universities has
taken the position on one side and the American Association of
University Professors has taken a position on the other side.
    Mr. Lewis. I am quoting the American Association of
University Professors.
    The Chairman. Do you think a man who holds Communist
beliefs should be granted an American passport to travel
abroad?
    Mr. Lewis. What do you mean Communist beliefs?
    The Chairman. Communist sympathies?
    Mr. Lewis. If his purpose is innocent, a man who is an
American citizen and has broken no laws is entitled to
protection of an American passport----
    The Chairman. Your answer to the question would be ``yes.''
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, provided conditions are met--he hasn't
broken any laws.
    Senator Potter. A man can be a member of the Communist
party and not break any laws at present. He can be an active
member of the Communist party and not break any laws. Is that
your opinion regarding a passport whether he abided by the laws
of our country?
    Mr. Lewis. I may be wrong, but my understanding of a
passport is that it provides protection to American citizens
who travel abroad.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you two or three questions. If a
person came before a committee and he refused to tell whether
she was a member of the Communist party, whether she had broken
with the party, refused to tell whether she believed in our
form of government or it should be destroyed by force and
violence, on the ground that if she answered the question, such
answer might tend to incriminate her, refused to give names of
fellow members-Let's say that person was the wife of a
professor to go overseas and teach in the Student Exchange
Program, would you say that person should be given a passport
to go overseas and hold that position of a professor
representing the United States.
    Mr. Lewis. Senator, if your question refers to my wife in
any respect----
    The Chairman. Just answer the question. It you don't
understand I will have it re-read to you.
    Mr. Lewis. Is it a hypothetical question or a real
question?
    The Chairman. It is exactly as I asked it.
    Mr. Lewis. I will ask to consult with counsel.
    As I analyze your question, it does not seem to me that you
have given any indication of breaking any of our laws and as
long as people do not break our laws, I do not see why they are
not entitled to an American passport.
    The Chairman. In other words, you say a person that refused
to tell whether they were a member of the Communist party,
refused to identify fellow members, refused to tell whether
they advocated the overthrow of the government by force or
violence--you think such a person should be given a passport?
    Mr. Lewis. Well, such a person invokes a privilege from
which, as I understand it, no inferences are permissible.
    The Chairman. Have you gotten your passport yet?
    Mr. Lewis. No.
    The Chairman. You are under subpoena and will be told when
to return.
    Mr. Lewis, would you turn over the correspondence we asked
you to produce concerning your selection as an exchange
student?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes. Will this be returned?
    The Chairman. You have handed counsel letter dated April
20, 1953; carbon copy of letter dated April 27, 1953; original
letter dated April 24, 1953; April 22, 1953; another memorandum
dated February 26, 1953; letter dated February 17, 1953; one
dated May 2, 1952; and one dated 28 April 1952. Is it your
testimony that this is the only correspondence you have had
with anyone regarding your selection in this exchange program?
    Mr. Lewis. That is correct.
    The Chairman. We have nothing further. We will notify your
counsel when you are to return.
  TESTIMONY OF MARGARET WEBSTER (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL,
                         SIDNEY DAVIS)
    The Chairman. The witness will be sworn.
    Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
    Miss Webster. I do.
    The Chairman. And you have counsel?
    Miss Webster. Yes, Mr. Sidney Davis.
    The Chairman. Miss Webster, one of the rules of the
committee is that you are allowed to discuss with your counsel
any matter you care to during the hearing, and get advice when
you care to. If at any time you want to have a private
conference we will give you a private room.
    Mr. Cohn. Miss Webster, do you have any connection with the
exchange program of the State Department?
    Miss Webster. Through the Fulbright Scholarship Division,
International Institute of Education, I have done adjudication.
    Mr. Cohn. Just how does that work?
    Miss Webster. It is worked slightly differently in the four
or five years in which I have been connected with them. I
wouldn't absolutely swear whether it was four or five. I think
when their representatives first came to me--I say I think four
years--they were only beginning to develop their program of
drama students, their program of interchanging so far as
concerned theatre drama students. They came to me--David
Warlinger, who seemed to be the head of that division--asking
my opinion and advice as to selection of an already selected
number of students who had made application to go overseas in
the drama field. I think only the acting field. He gave me a
folder and information on a number of candidates. I don't
remember the number, it may have been ten or twenty. None of
them were actually already there in New York at that time.
There happened to be one who I had adjudicated in a different
connection and had recommendations about and I recommended her.
I don't remember whether I recommended any others. The
following two years thought--it could conceivably have been
three--I only entered into the proceedings at the last stage as
far as adjudication is concerned. I had nothing to do with the
selection process of candidates. I was present when they
selected candidates, a dozen or so--acting only, not designers
or any others--when they appeared personally to audition for
the judges. I was one of approximately four judges. This past
season, around December, I sat in with a jury of four people,
including myself, to go through and rate the various selected
material on the students which was presented by the institute
people.
    I also attended the acting auditions. This year I attended
both those selection sessions and also the acting auditions.
The final selection, as I understand it, was made by--I don't
know--the central committee over all actors, whatever it is.
    All that we have ever been asked to do is rate the
candidates according to our view of their ability and turn this
material and our recommendations back to the institute. In
fact, as I remember, I have not been officially informed of
what their final decisions were. I have in instances grown to
know that. I don't think officially information has been
returned to the jurors.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you currently connected with the program?
    Miss Webster. No, because there is nothing to do right now.
The selection of candidates was done in December and January.
What they asked me to do was done during those months.
    Mr. Cohn. And it won't arise again until next year?
    Miss Webster. Next December or January. Whether or not they
will ask me----
    Mr. Cohn. Were you denied a passport for security reasons?
    Miss Webster. No, sir. It was questioned. I went to the
passport office and answered all the questions they cared to
ask me and I have a passport.
    Mr. Cohn. When was it issued?
    Miss Webster. May 12th, or some approximate date of that
sort.
    Senator Symington. Are you a naturalized American citizen?
    Miss Webster. I was born in New York City.
    Mr. Cohn. Miss Webster, have you belonged to a considerable
number of Communist-front organizations?
    Miss Webster. I have never belonged to any organization
which I knew to be influenced or dominated by Communists. I
would be very glad to answer any questions.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a sponsor of the Committee for the Re-
election of Benjamin J. Davis, candidate for the Communist
party in New York?
    Miss Webster. I have no recollection of it.
    Senator Mundt. Mr. Cohn, do you have a date?
    Mr. Cohn. December 25, 1945, it was reported in the Daily
Worker that Margaret Webster was a sponsor for the reelection
of Benjamin J. Davis.
    Miss Webster. To the best of my recollection on that, sir,
at that time Mr. Davis was already a member of the city
council, as far as my recollection goes, and he came forward
with some scheme connected with the----
    Mr. Cohn. What we want to ascertain is whether or not you
were of sponsor of this committee?
    Miss Webster. May I finish, sir? My recollection is that
Mr. Davis came out for municipal support for a theatre in New
York and that scheme was endorsed by a number of people in the
theatre field, including myself. I have no further recollection
than that.
    Mr. Cohn. You have no recollection that it went beyond
that? You are not telling us you didn't sign it? Was he running
on the Communist party ticket?
    Miss Webster. Of that, sir, I have no recollection
whatsoever.
    Had I known that, I would not have endorsed such a
certificate.
    Senator Jackson. He has subsequently been convicted of
teaching and advocating the overthrow of the government of the
United States. Was he running on the Communist party ticket?
    Mr. Cohn. He was running on the Communist party ticket and
the Communist party ticket alone.
    Mr. Davis. I am not sure that Mr. Davis, who is no relative
of mine by the way, was on the city council prior to that and
had been elected on some other ticket.
    Mr. Cohn. I will say this, Mr. Davis, he was the Communist
party candidate, period, at the time it was reported by the
Daily Worker that Miss Webster was a sponsor for his
reelection.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Miss Webster. No, sir, at no time nor am I now.
    Mr. Cohn. Miss Webster, it is our information that you
contributed financially to Peoples Radio Foundation, which is
officially cited as a subversive organization by the attorney
general.
    Miss Webster. I will tell you that to the best of my
recollection on that. The year, again, I would take to be the
end of 1944 or the beginning of 1945. I received a
communication from the--was it the ``Peoples Radio
Foundation''--which described objectives of establishing a
radio station for public service program outlets for trade
unions, radio, etc., which would not be carried by big
networks. They solicited support and foolishly very soon
afterwards I agreed to take a share of stock. They then asked
me if I would belong to the committee or board of directors,
which I refused to do. I had no further connection with them
whatsoever. I don't think I ever received the share of stock.
Very soon after that it became clear to me that it was in the
nature of a gyp.
    Mr. Cohn. The records show that you endorsed and were a
stockholder of this foundation.
    Miss Webster. That is the extent of my recollection. My
recollection is very clear that they asked me to join the board
of directors and I categorically refused to do so. I think I
have had no further communications about it.
    Mr. Cohn. The certificate indicates that you were a
stockholder.
    Miss Webster. That I have told you about, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the American Committee for
the Protection of the Foreign Born?
    Miss Webster. I was never a member of that committee, sir.
No.
    Mr. Cohn. Has it ever been called to your attention that
the Daily Worker published on February 10, 1944, a greeting to
the women of the Soviet Union, which was signed by you and
sponsored by the American Council of American-Soviet
Friendship?
    Miss Webster. No, sir, I remember nothing like that.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever a member of the Joint Anti-Fascist
Refugee Committee?
    Miss Webster. I was never a member. I did make several
fund-raising appeals for them for objectives which were
entirely humanitarian and charitable. I was never a member of
the board or committee or any such thing.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever connected with the Spanish Refugee
Relief Committee? Specifically, we have a letter on which you
are listed as a national sponsor, which was February 26, 1946.
That is the date which the letter containing your name appears.
    Miss Webster. If it was part of the Joint Anti-Fascist
Refugee Committee. I have no recollection of that event or
date. It is not inconceivable. What was I supposed to have
done?
    Mr. Cohn. National sponsor.
    Miss Webster. It is conceivable that I was solicited. I
know that appreciably later--I wouldn't be certain of the
year--two or three years later--I received a letter from the
Spanish Refugee Appeal on which I saw that my name was then
listed as a sponsor, the contents of which letter appeared to
be political in character, something pertaining to Franco. I
wrote to them at that time and stated that I had not given them
permission to use my name and I had no sympathy, no political
objective of that nature and would appreciate their withdrawing
my name.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you connected with the American Committee to
Save Refugees?
    Miss Webster. The American Committee to Save Refugees? I
don't recognize that title at all.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a sponsor of the National Conference of
Civil Rights held in Chicago November 21 to November 23, 1947,
as reported in the Daily Peoples World on November 28th?
    Miss Webster. I have no recollection of that. If you want
me to amplify any connections I may have had I think one time I
made a donation to it, possibly more, for specific cases for
which it didn't appear to me to have any connections with
communism, nor did I know that it was Communist infiltrated or
influenced. The answer that I made to that appeal were for
specific cases, which appeared to me to be laudable and in no
way blameworthy.
    I think that I must also say that I was insufficiently
familiar with the workings of the organization and for a long
time I confused it completely with the American Civil Liberties
Union.
    Sometime in the beginning of 1948 they wrote to me and
asked me to become a member of their board of directors, which
I refused to do. At that time I think the Communistic
tendencies were becoming apparent.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did you have any participation in an article
concerning you, which was a biography published in the Daily
Worker on March 26, 1944, magazine section?
    Miss Webster. None whatsoever. I don't think I ever had a
copy in my hand over once in my life. I never read it.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Margaret Markham?
    Miss Webster. Not that I remember.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that the first you have heard concerning that
article?
    Miss Webster. Yes, sir. If I may add to that, there was one
time a supposed article published under my name in the New
Masses, which was brought to my attention and which I bitterly
protested. It was solely about the theatre.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you extend greetings to actors of Moscow, a
telegram, November 1, 1948, as listed in the Daily Worker?
    Miss Webster. I should think it extremely doubtful because
at the time I had connection with the Theatre Committee of the
National Council of American-Soviet Friendship was during the
years 1945 and the beginning of 1946, from which I resigned in
the middle of 1946. I would think it very, very doubtful that
as late as the end of 1948 I would have signed such a telegram.
    Mr. Cohn. You see the difficulty is that we have all these
things listed here and you answer that you might have or it is
doubtful----
    Miss Webster. I don't think that it is quite so. I have
given you a number of things to the best of my recollection and
specific details in a number of instances.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, let's get back to the sponsorship of the
Communist party candidate in 1945.
    Miss Webster. I think I never could have given that
sponsorship in that form. I have told you that Mr. Davis was
sponsoring a theatre scheme for New York City. I think all of
this passed through the Independent Citizens Committee. I
cannot believe I ever endorsed his candidacy as the authorized
Communist party candidate running on the Communist party ticket
alone, which you tell me took place.
    Mr. Cohn. There is no doubt about it.
    Now, were you a sponsor of a dinner for the American
Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born on April 17,
1943, held in New York, at which the chairman or sponsor was
Donald Ogden Stuart?
    Miss Webster. I must answer you under oath, and I have no
recollection of that.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Donald Ogden Stuart?
    Miss Webster. I don't.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether or not he is a Communist?
    Miss Webster. I don't know whether or not he is a
Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever a member of the National Council of
American-Soviet Friendship?
    Miss Webster. That is the council to which I referred. I
have never been a member of the board. I was chairman of the
Theatre Committee at the time when Dr. Serge Koussevitsky was
chairman of its Music Committee.
    Mr. Cohn. The Daily Worker of March 23, 1942, reported a
speech by you before the American Committee to Save Refugees.
Do you recall that?
    Miss Webster. You asked that before. That is about a
specific speech. I have no recollection of that organization,
sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you speak at the United American Spanish Aid
Committee at any time?
    Miss Webster. Unless it was in some way part of the Joint
Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, for which I did make an appeal
for funds, humanitarian actions.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know the organization was Communist
dominated at that time?
    Miss Webster. No, I would like to say that in connection
with all these organizations which you have asked me about, the
only two with which I had any connection to signify in any way
was the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, which I
said I was chairman of the Theatre Committee, and the Joint
Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, for which I made appeals for
funds for charitable purposes on several occasions--I would say
during, 1943 to 1947. I am very willing to elaborate the
reasons why I did that.
    I would like to state now that I, myself, did none of those
things through any influence on me of Communists or communism
and that to my knowledge, and as far as I was aware, those
organizations were not at that time dominated or used for
Communist purposes and the reasons for which I was connected
with them was not for Communistic purposes.
    Senator McClellan. As I gathered from your testimony, it is
not a part of your regular duties to pass on and approve
applicants for this Exchange Student Service for the Fulbright
Scholarship?
    Miss Webster. No, sir. My understanding is that the
relevant committee--the International Institute of Education--
invites experts in the different fields to pass on the
qualifications of applicants in the different fields. I could
give you some of the names of the people who have been
associated with me.
    Senator McClellan. Primarily, you were only called in in
the theatre field, is that right?
    Miss Webster. That is correct.
    Senator McClellan. You have not had responsibility for or
an assignment to pass upon student applicants other than in
that area?
    Miss Webster. No, sir.
    Senator McClellan. You would not be asked to pass on
teachers?
    Miss Webster. No, sir.
    Senator McClellan. As I understand it, the judges or the
jurors, as you called them, hear an audition from the
applicant, then you report with your recommendations as to what
the jury or the judges conclude with respect to their talent
and possible suitability, etc.
    Miss Webster. Yes, sir.
    Senator McClellan. What number would you say Miss Webster,
you have----
    Miss Webster. As I told you, Senator, this past year,
December 1952 and January 1953, the pattern was a little
different because we sent through the, I think, already sifted
applications, but I would say there may have been--we met for
three sessions of approximately two to three hours each. I
suppose at each session we went over the applications of about
twenty to twenty-five candidates. Maybe that is putting it a
little high. I would say not over twenty. Other years I have
been only present at the acting auditions, which was only a
further process of sifting and there were only perhaps a dozen.
    Senator McClellan. Then in your position you haven't had
the final decision to make as to whether applicants are
accepted or rejected?
    Miss Webster. No, sir.
    Senator McClellan. That has not been your responsibility at
any time--only to act in an observing capacity and submit
recommendations?
    Miss Webster. Yes, sir.
    Senator Jackson. Did you ever join any of these groups
knowing at the time that they were Communist fronts or
dominated by the Communist party?
    Miss Webster. At no time, sir.
    Senator Jackson. Have you ever expressed at any time
Communist sympathy or sympathy with the Communist movement?
    Miss Webster. I have always been opposed to the Communist
philosophy, its practices. It is a horror to me. In such a
society I wouldn't last a week.
    Senator Jackson. And you feel that you are loyal to this
country in every respect?
    Miss Webster. I must affirm again my complete American
loyalty and I have done nothing I can look back upon with
shame. I have done many things, as I started to tell Mr. Cohn,
such as work for the Red Cross and Treasury Bond Drives, from
which I hold awards. I have helped organizations and
committees, the Iron Curtain Refugee thing.
    Senator Jackson. What is that?
    Miss Webster. That is the society to take care of the
people who get out from behind the Iron Curtain. I have had no
connection with the workings but I have made contributions. The
American Veterans and Gold Star Wives.
    Senator Jackson. Do you feel from the reading of the record
that you might have been taken in by some of that group?
    Miss Webster. I couldn't deny that possibility.
    I think that everybody who has ever known me and worked
with me, my theatre record and my record in public life, would
know that I would be the last person in the world to
countenance communism. No person has ever admitted to me that
they were a Communist. I think if they were Communists at the
time I was working for them, such Communistic tendencies were
carefully and deliberately concealed.
    Senator Jackson. And you have never knowingly associated
with anyone you know to be a Communist?
    Miss Webster. I never have, no, sir.
    The Chairman. Mr. Cohn----
    Senator McClellan. While I have been here the witness has
been very frank with no reservations that I could see.
    Senator Jackson. I sort of have the feeling you may have
been taken in by some of the groups. I want to say with Senator
McClellan that I think you have been very forthright and very
fair in trying to answer the questions.
    Miss Webster. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did I ask you about the Civil Rights Congress?
    Miss Webster. I refused to join the board. I did make one
or two contributions. When they asked me to join them, I
refused to.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you sign a letter prepared by the Civil
Rights Congress attacking the Subversive Control Act of 1948,
which letter was published with your signature in the Daily
Worker?
    Miss Webster. I would think that extremely doubtful.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you object to the Subversive Control Act?
    Miss Webster. Which was the Subversive Control Act? There
were so many of them.
    Mr. Cohn. That is all, Miss Webster.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned.]
           STATE DEPARTMENT TEACHER-STUDENT EXCHANGE PROGRAM
    [Editor's note.--The composer Aaron Copland (1900-1990),
whose works included Billy the Kid, Lincoln Portrait, Rodeo,
and Appalachian Spring, won a Pulitzer Prize in 1944 and an
Academy Award in 1950. Because he had gone to Italy on a
Fulbright scholarship in 1951, the subcommittee questioned him
about his past political associations. His oral history,
published as Aaron Copland and Vivian Perlis, Copland, 1900
through 1942 (New York: St. Martin's, 1984), and Copland Since
1943 (New York: St. Martin's, 1989) acknowledged that he had
been a ``fellow traveler'' in the 1930s because ``it seemed the
thing to do at the time,'' but stated that he had never joined
a political party.
    Following the closed hearing, Copland issued a public
statement: ``On late Friday afternoon, I received a telegram
from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to
appear as a witness. I did. I answered to the best of my
ability all of the questions which were asked me. I testified
under oath that I have never supported, and am now opposed to,
the limitations put on freedom by the Soviet Union. . . . My
relationships with the United States Government were originally
with the Music Advisory Committee to the Coordinator of Inter
American Affairs and later as a lecturer in music in South
America and as a Fulbright Professor. In these capacities my
work was limited to the technical aspects of music.'' The
subcommittee never called him to testify in public. Aaron
Copland received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1964 and
a Congressional Gold Medal in 1986.]
                              ----------
                         TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 2:30 p.m. in the Office of the
District Committee, the Capitol, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy
presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator John
L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Donald A. Surine,
assistant counsel; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk; Mason Drury,
Senate liaison officer, State Department.
TESTIMONY OF AARON COPLAND (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, CHARLES
                            GLOVER)
    The Chairman. Will you stand and raise your right hand.
    Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
    Mr. Copland. I do.
    The Chairman. And your counsel's name?
    Mr. Copland. Charles Glover. G-l-o-v-e-r.
    The Chairman. Mr. Glover, I think this is the first time
you have appeared as counsel before this committee, so I will
tell you the rules of the committee. You can advise as freely
as you care to with your client. You can discuss any matter he
cares to during the testimony. If at any time you feel you want
a private conference, we will arrange a room. Counsel is not
allowed to take any part in the proceedings other than to
consult with his client.
    Mr. Copland, you are residing at----
    Mr. Copland. Shady Lane Farm, Ossining, New York.
    The Chairman. And you are a musician, composer and
lecturer?
    Mr. Copland. Yes.
    The Chairman. Have you ever had any connection with the
exchange program?
    Mr. Copland. Yes, I have.
    The Chairman. Would you tell us what that connection has
been?
    Mr. Copland. I was connected with the program on three
different occasions, I believe. The first occasion I was a
member of the Music Advisory Board of the State Department, and
on the second occasion I was sent by Grant-in-Aid to Latin
America to give lectures and concerts about American music, and
on the third occasion I was a Fulbright professor in Italy for
the same purpose.
    The Chairman. When were you a lecturer in Italy?
    Mr. Copland. 1951.
    The Chairman. Now, Mr. Copland, have you ever been a
Communist?
    Mr. Copland. No, I have not been a Communist in the past
and I am not now a Communist.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been a Communist sympathizer?
    Mr. Copland. I am not sure that I would be able to say what
you mean by the word ``sympathizer.'' From my impression of it
I have never thought of myself as a Communist sympathizer.
    The Chairman. You did not.
    Mr. Copland. I did not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist meetings?
    Mr. Copland. I never attended any specific Communist party
function of any kind.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Copland. I am afraid I don't know how you define a
Communist meeting.
    The Chairman. A meeting you knew then or now had been
called by the Communist party and sponsored by the Communist
party.
    Mr. Copland. Not that I would know of. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend a meeting of which a
major or sizable number of those in attendance were Communists?
    Mr. Copland. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Were you ever solicited to join the Communist
party?
    Mr. Copland. No.
    The Chairman. Did anyone ever discuss with you the
possibility of your joining the Communist party?
    Mr. Copland. Not that I recall.
    The Chairman. I know that every man has a different type of
memory, so we can't ask you to evaluate your memory. Would it
seem logical that were you asked to join the Communist party,
you would remember?
    Mr. Copland. If I had been asked to? Not unless it had some
significance in my mind.
    The Chairman. So your answer at this time is that you can't
say definitely whether you have been asked to join the
Communist party or not?
    Mr. Copland. No.
    The Chairman. Are any of your close friends Communists?
    Mr. Copland. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Do you know any members of the Communist
party who are Communists?
    Mr. Copland. I don't know any member of the Communist
party, as far as I know.
    The Chairman. I may say one of the reasons you are here
today is because of the part you played in the exchange program
lecturing, etc., and you have a public record of association
with organizations officially listed by the attorney general.
As the Communist party record is extremely long, I think
counsel will want to ask you some questions on that.
    May I give you some advice. You have a lawyer here. There
are witnesses who come before this committee and often indulge
in the assumption that they can avoid giving us the facts.
Those who underestimate the work the staff has done in the past
end up occasionally before a grand jury for perjury, so I
suggest when counsel questions you about these matters that you
tell the truth or take advantage of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Copland. Senator McCarthy, I would like to say now, I
received a telegram to be here Friday. The telegram gave me no
hint as to why I was coming. If I am to be questioned on
affiliations over a period of many years it is practically
impossible without some kind of preparation to be able to
answer definitely one way or another when I was and what I was
connected with. This comes as a complete surprise.
    The Chairman. May I say that during the hearing if you feel
you need more time for preparation, we will adjourn and give
you that time. We have no desire whatsoever to have the witness
commit perjury because of lack of preparation. If you feel you
can't answer these questions concerning your Communist
affiliations, Communist connections, if you need more time, we
will give you more time.
    Mr. Copland. May I say one more word. I came here with the
intention of answering honestly all the questions put to me. If
I am unable to do that, it is the fact that memory slips in
different ways over a long period of time.
    Mr. Cohn. The record states that you signed a letter to the
president urging the United States declare war on Finland. This
statement was sponsored by the Council of American-Soviet
Relations.
    Mr. Copland. Is that a fact. Do you know when that was?
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know if you signed such a statement?
    Mr. Copland. I have no memory of that. I can't say
positively.
    Mr. Cohn. This was during the trouble between the Soviet
Union and Finland. That would be in the late thirties.
    Mr. Copland. I am sorry but I couldn't say positively. It
seems highly unlikely.
    Mr. Cohn. What was your view on the trouble between the
Soviet Union and Finland?
    The Chairman. May I rephrase that, Roy. Did you feel at
that time we should declare war on Finland?
    Mr. Copland. Senator McCarthy, I am in no position--I spend
my days writing symphonies, concertos, ballads, and I am not a
political thinker. My relation has been extremely tangent.
    The Chairman. We want to know whether you signed this
letter to the president urging that we declare war on Finland--
whether you are a musician or not. We now find that you are
lecturing with the stamp of approval of the United States
government and we would like to check on these things. This is
one small item. There is a long record of apparent Communist
activities. Now you say you don't remember signing the letter.
    Just to refresh your memory, may I ask, did you feel at the
time the letter was signed by you that we should declare war on
Finland?
    Mr. Copland. I would say the thought would be extremely
uncharacteristic of me. I have never thought that the
declaration of war would solve, in my opinion, serious
problems. I would say I was a man of hope for a peaceful
solution.
    The Chairman. Do you think someone forged your name?
    Mr. Copland. I wouldn't know.
    The Chairman. Have you heard before that you signed such a
letter?
    Mr. Copland. No.
    The Chairman. This is the first time it has been brought to
your attention?
    Mr. Copland. As far as I know.
    The Chairman. You have no recollection of such a letter to
the president?
    Mr. Copland. I have no recollection of it.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any meetings at which
this matter was the subject of conversation?
    Mr. Copland. Not that I remember,
    Mr. Cohn. What was your view of the Hitler-Stalin Pact--
1939 to 1941?
    Mr. Copland. I don't remember any specific view of it.
    Mr. Cohn. You are listed as a sponsor of the Schappes
Defense Committee. Morris Schappes, as you might recall, is a
teacher at City College, New York, and has been a witness
before this committee in the last couple of months. He denied
Communist party membership, was convicted of perjury and
sentenced to jail. The Schappes committee was organized to
secure his release from jail. You are listed as a sponsor of
that committee. Do you recall that?
    Mr. Copland. No, I do not recall that. I know they use the
names of well-known men to support their cause without
authorization.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you recall the Schappes case?
    Mr. Copland. Vaguely.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever met Professor Schappes?
    Mr. Copland. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think they used your name without your
authorization?
    Mr. Copland. I think it very possible.
    The Chairman. Did you authorize the use of your name by any
organization that has been listed by the attorney general or
the House Un-American Activities Committee?
    Mr. Copland. As far as I know, I lent my name to
organizations which were subsequently listed. I don't know now
that I lent it in any cases after it was listed.
    Mr. Cohn. Of course, a listing of the date does not signify
the date it became subversive. A listing is made on the basis
of past activities of the organization. If the attorney general
lists an organization in September 1948, it doesn't mean that
was when it was found subversive. It means that on that date a
review of the activities of the organization was completed and
found to be subversive.
    Mr. Copland. I didn't necessarily know about that.
    Mr. Cohn. What organization did you sponsor, allow to use
your name, contribute to or help in any way who were then or
were subsequently listed by the attorney general as Communist
fronts?
    Mr. Copland. I would have to refer to my papers. May I say
that I have never been shown by any official committee of any
sort or questioned about this list. I heard about it through an
inadvertent source. I haven't had the time or possibility of
knowing whether it is complete. I did it rather hastily since
Friday. I can't say positively.
    The Chairman. Give us what you have and you can complete it
later on.
    I may say that I can understand a man who has got to depend
upon the government for part of his income to have accepted a
job with the government, perhaps knowing he had joined these
front organizations, but it seems you have none of these
qualifications and have been rather active in a number of these
fronts.
    Do you care to give us the list?
    Mr. Copland. I think, Senator McCarthy, in fairness to me
and my activity in relation to the Department of State, it was
not primarily a financial relationship. I think that I was
chosen because I had a unique position in American symphonic
and serious music and I had a reputation as a lecturer on that
subject. I, at any rate, was under the impression that I was
chosen for that purpose. The payment was not the primary
consideration. I was trying to help spread in other countries
what we American composers were doing.
    Senator McClellan. Were you employed by the federal
government--by the State Department?
    Mr. Copland. I believe it was in the program of interchange
of persons. I don't know if that is an employee----
    Senator McClellan. Were you paid by the government?
    Mr. Copland. I was paid by the Department of State
interchange of persons.
    Senator McClellan. Over what period of time?
    Mr. Copland. Are you referring now to the non-paid advisory
capacity?
    Senator McClellan. Give us both. I want to get both in the
record.
    Mr. Copland. I was a member of the Advisory Committee on
Music, Department of State between July 1, 1950 and June 30,
1951.
    Senator McClellan. Did you receive any pay for that?
    Mr. Copland. No. Except the per diem expenses.
    Senator McClellan. How much was the per diem?
    Mr. Copland. My memory may not be right. I think it was
about $10.00 a day.
    I was also a member of the same advisory committee from
September 8, 1941 to June 30, 1942. I was also a music advisor
to Nelson Rockefeller's committee when he was coordinator of
Inter-American Affairs and that music advisory post was renewed
to June 1943. As far as I know, that was the end of the music
advisory capacity.
    Senator McClellan. Did you receive a salary?
    Mr. Copland. No. That was not a government job.
    I was appointed visiting lecturer on music in Brazil,
Argentina, etc., by the Grant-In-Aid at a salary of $500.00 a
month over a period of three months around August or September
of 1947.
    Senator McClellan. Was that plus expenses?
    Mr. Copland. I can't quite remember. It may have been per
diem expenses when traveling.
    Senator Mundt. You did secure traveling expenses for that?
    Mr. Copland. Yes, sir.
    Senator Mundt. And per diem also?
    Mr. Copland. Yes.
    Senator Mundt. What was the per diem?
    Mr. Copland. It may have been eight or ten dollars a day.
My compensation was $500.00 a month.
    I was given a Fulbright professorship for six months to
Italy from January to June of 1951 at a salary of $3,000 for
six months, plus transportation to and from.
    Senator Mundt. Did you get $3,000 from the State Department
or the difference between what the Italian University paid you
and what you received over here.
    Mr. Copland. I was paid by the embassy in Rome. I wasn't
attached to the university. I was attached to the American
Academy in Rome and they housed me, but I was paid at the
embassy itself.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you have a security clearance before you
undertook this?
    Mr. Copland. One that I knew about, no.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you have to fill out a form prior to
receiving this appointment?
    Mr. Copland. No.
    Mr. Cohn. None at all.
    Mr. Copland. I am not sure there were none at all.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you go under Public Law 402, the Smith-Mundt
Bill?
    Mr. Copland. No. I knew of the bill, of course.
    The Chairman. Could I ask you now about some of your
activities. As I said, according to the records, you have what
appears to be one of the longest Communist-front records of any
one we have had here.
    Is it correct that you signed some statement to President
Roosevelt defending the Communist party?
    Mr. Copland. I have no memory of that but I may have.
    The Chairman. Was that your feeling at that time? Did you
feel the Communist party should be defended?
    Mr. Copland. Well, it would certainly depend on what basis.
For example, if someone wanted to have them outlawed to go
underground, I might have. I don't think they should be
outlawed to go underground, but left above board.
    The Chairman. This is not outlawing the Communist party.
This is a statement defending the Communist party.
    Mr. Copland. I would certainly have to have further time to
study the letter, the nature of the letter and what I remember
about it.
    May I say the list I got from the Congressional Record,
almost all of these affiliations have to do with sponsoring of
something, the signing of protests, or the signing of a
statement in favor or against something, and that in this
connection, if I had them or didn't have them, I say in my mind
they are very superficial things. They consisted of my
receiving in the mail in the morning a request of some kind or
a list of names, which I judged solely on its merits quite
aside from my being able to judge whether that was a Communist
front. I must say that when I first saw this list I was amazed
that I was connected with this many things. I consider this
list gives a false idea of my activities as a musician. It was
a very small part of my existence. It consisted of my signing
my name to a protest or statement, which I thought I had a
right to do as an American citizen.
    The Chairman. You have a right to defend communism or the
Communist party--Hanns Eisler or anything else. You have a
perfect right to do it, but the question is why were you
selected as a lecturer when you exercised that right so often.
    Let me ask you this question. Before you were hired as a
lecturer to tour South America, did anyone ask you to explain
your membership in or sponsorship of these various Communist
front movements?
    Mr. Copland. No, and I think the reason was that they were
too superficial. No one took them seriously, and I think they
were justified in not taking them seriously. In view of my
position in the musical world and a teacher in the musical
world, most people would think they would know whether or not I
was a Communist. The question never came up.
    The Chairman. Would you give us that list?
    Mr. Copland. May I first, Senator, amend a prior answer I
gave in regard to a petition to declare war on Finland. It
occurred to me that I did have knowledge of that. I read it in
the Congressional Record. It had no date as to when it was
signed or any particular information as to what went into the
petition, therefore, I am afraid I just ignored that I had seen
it.
    The Chairman. Now, give us that list.
    Mr. Copland. In order to help matters, could I have the
list read from there so I could give you my list.
    The Chairman. You give us your list first.
    Mr. Copland. This is only a summary.
    The Chairman. You won't be cut off. You can take all the
time you want.
    Mr. Copland. I can only definitely say that I was a member
of the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship during
the years that the Soviet Union was an ally in the war and for
some years thereafter, I don't have the precise date. I joined
the Music Committee of that Council of American-Soviet
Friendship in order to help an understanding between the two
countries through musical interchange. It was in no way, as far
as I was concerned, a political move. At that time I had no
knowledge that the National Council of American Soviet
Friendship was a Communist front. I do know that subsequently
it was solicited by the attorney general, and on the basis of
that I formally resigned.
    The Chairman. How did you resign?
    Mr. Copland. By letter.
    The Chairman. Do you have a copy?
    Mr. Copland. I may have.
    The Chairman. You don't have a copy with you?
    Mr. Copland. No.
    Senator Mundt. What date was that?
    Mr. Copland. That was, I believe, June 1950.
    The Chairman. It was cited long before that.
    Mr. Copland. Was it? I don't know.
    The Chairman. Do you know when it was cited? I gather you
resigned because you found it was cited. Is that correct?
    Mr. Copland. That is my recollection of events, yes.
    The Chairman. Did you resign as soon as you heard it was
cited?
    Mr. Copland. Well, there was some question in my mind as to
whether or not I was still a member because the Music Committee
resigned as a body--at any rate they left and set up their own
organization--the American-Soviet Music Society.
    The Chairman. When was this set up?
    Mr. Copland. The exact date escapes me. It was probably
1945 or 1946.
    The Chairman. Can you give us the next front?
    Mr. Copland. May I emphasize again----
    The Chairman. Will you read them and then you can explain
your participation in each one, the source also and the date.
Give us the names of the organizations and then you can give us
any explanations you care to. If you care to have me read them,
I will. Hand me the list of fronts. [reading:]
    1. The American League of War and Fascism
    2. Advisory Board of Frontier Films
    3. Entertainer at the American Music Alliance of Friends of
the Abraham Lincoln Brigade
    4. Entertainer of New Masses Benefit
    5. Sponsor New York Committee for Protection of the Foreign
Born
    6. Signer, Petition American Committee for Democracy and
Intellectual Freedom
    7. Signed Statement to FDR Defending the Communist party
    8. Signer of appeal for Sam Darcy, National Federation for
Constitutional Liberties
    9. Sponsor, Citizens Committee for Harry Bridges
    10. Sponsor, Artists Front to Win the War
    11. Sponsor, letter for Harry Bridges by the National
Federation of Constitutional Liberties
    12. Dinner Sponsor of the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee
Committee
    13. Sponsor, Called Conference of American-Soviet
Friendship, National Council American Soviet Friendship
    14. Signer, Reichstag Fire Trial Anniversary Committee
    15. Signed petition for Hanns Eisler
    16. Eisler Concert sponsor
    17. Member, National Committee, National Defense of
Political Prisoners
    18. Member, Committee of Professional Group for Browder
Fund
    19. Member, National Committee of People's Rights
    20. Vice-Chairman and Member of the Music Committee,
Council of American-Soviet Friendship
    21. Peoples Songs
    22. Independent Citizens Committee of the Arts, Sciences,
Professions
    23. Win the Peace Conference
    24. American-Soviet Music Society
    25. New Masses contributor
    26. National Council of the Arts, Sciences and Professions
    27. Supporter, Communist Bookstore
    Senator Mundt. Was that list prepared by you?
    Mr. Copland. No, I did not prepare that list. I copied that
list from Red Channels and the Congressional Record in an
attempt to have some kind of preparation in coming to this
committee so as to know what possible organizations my name had
been connected with.
    Senator Mundt. It is not your testimony that this list is
your list of fronts which you belonged to----
    Mr. Copland. Definitely not.
    The Chairman. It is not?
    Mr. Copland. No. Any secretary could have done it for me.
    Mr. Cohn. I would like to state, Mr. Copland, we have
checked the guide for subversive organizations and found that
the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship was cited as
subversive December 4, 1947.
    Mr. Copland. May I say, December 4, 1947, to the best of my
knowledge I was in Latin America on a lecture tour. It would be
very unlikely that I would know.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you return?
    Mr. Copland. I returned in December 1947.
    Mr. Cohn. You say it took you these three years to
discover----
    Mr. Copland. Well, Mr. Cohn, I don't keep track of all
political points like that.
    Mr. Cohn. If I label your testimony correctly, you were
trying to give the committee the impression that when you found
this was cited as a subversive organization you resigned.
    Mr. Copland. No. I was about to explain that the American
Music Society was an off-shoot, so to speak, of the National
Council of American-Soviet Friendship, and I was not sure
whether I was still a member.
    The Chairman. Will you go through this list now and tell us
which Communist front organizations you were a member of or in
whose activities you took any part?
    Mr. Copland. Senator McCarthy, to my knowledge I have never
knowingly sponsored any Communist front organization.
    The Chairman. You have a list before you, which list you
say was copied from other sources. Will you go down that list
and first give us the name of the organizations to which you
had some affiliation and then you can come back and make any
explanations you care to to your own knowledge.
    Mr. Copland. To my own knowledge the only organization to
which I, as a member, belonged was the National Council of
American-Soviet Friendship and the American-Soviet Music
Society.
    The Chairman. You used the word ``belonged.''
    Mr. Copland. As far as I know at this time, taking the
briefness of time--I may have to amend that later.
    The Chairman. You say organizations to which you belonged.
Let's broaden that a bit and say organizations in which you
were in any way affiliated, either a sponsor of their
activities or in any other fashion.
    Mr. Copland. There is a great distinction in my mind in
being a member and signing a paper.
    The Chairman. There might be a distinction. I want you to
answer the question. I have asked you to list the
organizations--those named as Communist fronts--with which you
were in any way affiliated. Then you can explain your
affiliations as much as you want to.
    I just want to know the names now.
    Mr. Copland. I could not under oath with any certainty say
that I was a member.
    The Chairman. That is not what I asked you.
    Mr. Copland. Then I haven't understood the question.
    The Chairman. I think it is very simple. I said any
organizations in which you were in any way affiliated.
    Mr. Copland. As far as I can remember, without further
study, I am not prepared to say that I was affiliated with any
but the ones mentioned.
    The Chairman. You said with certainty. Do you have any
reason to believe that you were affiliated with any of the
others?
    Mr. Copland. I have reason to believe that I was a sponsor
of a concert devoted to Hanns Eisler's music in 1948.
    The Chairman. In 1948.
    Mr. Copland. 1948.
    The Chairman. Anything else?
    Mr. Copland. Nothing else that I with certainty can----
    The Chairman. Not certainty now--that you have any reason
to believe you were affiliated with any of these other
organizations?
    Mr. Copland. No. In view of the shortness of time and the
seriousness of this question I am afraid I would have to ask
for further time to study and investigate and refresh my mind.
    The Chairman. Then at this time you have no recollection of
any affiliation with any of the other organizations listed upon
the two sheets which I just read into the record.
    Mr. Copland. No recollection other than the fact that some
of these organizations are names that I have seen on occasion.
    The Chairman. Did you sign a petition to the attorney
general in behalf of Hanns Eisler?
    Mr. Copland. I may have.
    The Chairman. Do you recall whether you did or not?
    Mr. Copland. Not positively, no.
    The Chairman. Did you know Hanns Eisler had been named as a
Communist agent at that time?
    Mr. Copland. No, I didn't.
    The Chairman. When did you first learn that Hanns Eisler
had been named as a Communist agent?
    Mr. Copland. I never heard that he had been named as a
Communist agent. I never heard that he had been named. I knew
that he had a reputation in Germany in the twenties of having
been a Communist, but I understood that was in the past and
since his arrival in America and the Rockefeller grant of
$20,000, it was my impression that the Communist element in him
was in the past.
    The Chairman. Did you feel that you knew enough about the
Hanns Eisler case to petition the attorney general in his
behalf?
    Mr. Copland. I would have to study what the petition was
and think about the problem.
    The Chairman. Were you well-acquainted with Hanns Eisler?
    Mr. Copland. No.
    The Chairman. Who asked you to sign the petition?
    Mr. Copland. I have no memory if I did sign it.
    The Chairman. This was not too long ago. It was reported in
the Daily Worker, December 17, 1947. You say you can't remember
whether you signed it or not or who asked you to sign it in
1947?
    Mr. Copland. Well, that was six years ago. I might have
been asked to sign it. I can't be certain.
    The Chairman. In any event, your testimony is that you did
not know enough about the case to advise the attorney general
as to what he should do?
    Mr. Copland. That is my impression at this time.
    The Chairman. So that if you signed it you were either
signing it out of sympathy for Eisler, the Communist, or you
were duped into doing it?
    Mr. Copland. I don't think that is a fair summary of my
feeling. I have never sympathized with Communists as such. My
interest in Eisler was purely as a musician. I think he is, in
spite of his political ideas, a great musician and my signing
of the concert sponsorship was in relation to that feeling.
    The Chairman. Concert sponsorship? It is the petition I am
talking about. Do you use the same term so many witnesses use?
Do you refer to political beliefs--do you consider the
Communist party as a political party in the American sense?
    Mr. Copland. In the American sense? Not since the
designation of the Supreme Court.
    The Chairman. Was this a benefit for Eisler at which you
appeared on February 28th, 1948?
    Mr. Copland. I don't remember.
    Pardon me. Will you repeat the question?
    The Chairman. Did you appear at an Eisler program at Town
Hall, New York, on February 28, 1948?
    Mr. Copland. No, I did not. That was purely sponsorship.
    The Chairman. Did you sponsor that?
    Mr. Copland. I was one of the sponsors.
    The Chairman. Did you know at that time he was in
difficulty with the law enforcement agencies of this country
for underground or espionage activities?
    Mr. Copland. I may have known that, but my sponsorship was
in terms of music only and him as a musician.
    The Chairman. Would you feel today if you knew an
outstanding musician who was also a member of the Communist
espionage ring would you sponsor a benefit for him?
    Mr. Copland. Certainly not.
    The Chairman. Then do you think it was improper to do it in
1948?
    Mr. Copland. 1948? I had no such knowledge in 1948.
    The Chairman. Well, if you signed a petition to the
attorney general in 1947----
    Mr. Copland. Senator McCarthy, I didn't say I signed it.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think your signature was forged on all
these things?
    Mr. Copland. I don't know.
    The Chairman. Do you feel a man using common sense, Mr.
Copland, apparently signing the petition to the attorney
general advising him what he should do in the Eisler case--who
was accused of espionage then--do you think the following
February--this was in December that the petition was signed and
this was about two months later that you sponsored a benefit
for this man--you certainly knew of his alleged espionage
activities.
    Mr. Copland. The concert was not a benefit as far as I
know, and I took no part in the concert other than just sponsor
it. I didn't deny or affirm signing the petition. I said that
in relation to all these organizations I must have more time to
give consideration to them. I have had three days since
receiving the telegram and finding myself here. I am trying to
do my best to remember things. I am under oath and want to be
cautious.
    The Chairman. We will give you a chance to refresh your
recollection.
    Do you know whether you were affiliated with the American
Committee for Democracy and Intellectual Freedom?
    Mr. Copland. No, I don't.
    The Chairman. Did you ever take part in any organization
activities concerning the defense of Communist teachers?
    Mr. Copland. Not that I remember.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you in sympathy with Communist teachers?
    Mr. Copland. No, I was never in sympathy with Communist
teachers.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you feel Communists should be allowed to teach
in our schools?
    Mr. Copland. I haven't given the matter such thought as to
come up with an answer.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, as of today you don't have any
firm thought?
    Mr. Copland. I would be inclined to allow the faculty of
the university to decide that.
    The Chairman. Let's say you are on the faculty and are
making a designation, would you feel Communists should be
allowed to teach?
    Mr. Copland. I couldn't give you a blanket decision on that
without knowing the case.
    The Chairman. Let's say the teacher is a Communist, period.
Would you feel that is sufficient to bar that teacher from a
job as a teacher?
    Mr. Copland. I certainly think it would be sufficient if he
were using his Communist membership to angle his teaching to
further the purposes of the Communist party.
    The Chairman. You have been a lecturer representing the
United States in other nations. One of the reasons why we
appropriate the money to pay lecturers is to enlighten people
as to the American way of life and do something towards
combating communism. Is it your testimony that you know nothing
about the Communist movement or are you fairly well acquainted
with the Communist movement?
    Mr. Copland. It was my understanding that my lectureship
was purely a musical assignment.
    The Chairman. Answer my question. Do you know anything
about the Communist movement?
    Mr. Copland. I know what I read in the newspapers.
    The Chairman. Are you a sponsor of the National Conference
of the American Committee for the Protection of the Foreign
Born?
    Mr. Copland. Not that I know of.
    The Chairman. Did you have any connection with the Fifth
National Conference of the American Committee for Protection of
the Foreign Born, held in Atlantic City, New Jersey, in March
1941?
    Mr. Copland. Not at this time, I don't recall that.
    The Chairman. Do you recall any connection with that
conference?
    Mr. Copland. Not at this time I don't.
    The Chairman. As far as you know you had no connection with
it at all?
    Mr. Copland. No.
    The Chairman. Just for your information, the record shows
that as far back as 1941 the program of the Fifth National
Conference of the American Committee for Protection of Foreign
Born named you as a sponsor. Later, a letterhead of the New
York Committee for Protection of the Foreign Born on January 2,
1941 showed you as a sponsor, and later in 1943 you were again
listed as a sponsor.
    I might say that this organization has been cited by the
Attorney General and by the House Un-American Activities
Committee as one of the oldest auxiliaries of the Communist
party in the United States. Does that refresh your
recollection?
    Mr. Copland. May I point out that there is a notation here
that it was cited in 1948, which is, I believe, seven years
after the dates you just quoted.
    The Chairman. Mr. Copland, the date of citation is not
important. It is no more important than the date a man was
convicted of robbing a bank. The question that is important is
whether or not you participated in robbing the bank, not
whether another man participated in robbing the bank and was
convicted. Any man with normal intelligence knows it is wrong
to rob a bank. Even before the citations it is sometimes known
that the organization is a Communist front--a front for the
Communist party.
    Mr. Copland. As far as I know----
    The Chairman. I am not criticizing you for joining these
organizations. You may have been so naive that you didn't know
they were Communist controlled or you may have done it
purposely, but I can't believe that this very long list used
your name time after time as a sponsor of all these outstanding
fronts. I can't believe that they forged your name to these
petitions, borrowed your name unlawfully time after time.
However, I am only interested in knowing why they selected you
as a lecturer when we have many other people available as
lecturers.
    May I say to you there is nothing illegal, as far as I
know, about belonging to Communist fronts and there is nothing
illegal about accepting employment no matter how sympathetic
you were--I am not saying you were--There is nothing illegal
about accepting employment in the information program, but we
must find out why a man of this tremendous activity in
Communist fronts would be selected.
    Mr. Copland. May I reply on two points? I think I was
selected because of the fact that my employment as a lecturer
had nothing to do with anything but music.
    The Chairman. If you were a member of the Communist party,
let's assume you were, and you were selected to lecture you
would be bound to try wherever you could to sell the Communist
idea, wouldn't you?
    Mr. Copland. No doubt.
    Mr. Chairman. So that, I believe you and I would agree that
in selecting a lecturer, even though they are an outstanding
musician, before we put our stamp of approval on them we should
find out whether they are a Communist or sympathetic to the
Communist cause. Is that right?
    Mr. Copland. Well, I would certainly hesitate to send
abroad a man who is a Communist sympathizer or a Communist in
order to lecture. My impression was that my political opinions,
no matter how vague they may have been, were not in question as
far as the Department of State was concerned. I assume if they
had been in question I would have had some kind of going over.
The reason I am so vague about these various organizations is
because my relationship, if any, was so vague. It was not a
question of my going to meetings or being active in any way. I
am active in many ways--music organizations. They are things
which my whole life has been devoted to and these
organizations, such as they are, when I see the word sponsor,
entertainer, supporter or protestor, to me that means that I
got a penny postcard and sent it in, and that is why my memory
of it is so vague. That is why I think this list, even if I
were what this list said I was connected with as a sponsor, it
would give a false impression of the situation--of myself as a
man and as a citizen, and that is why I think the State
Department wasn't worried.
    The Chairman. You were never asked about any of these
Communist-front activities?
    Mr. Copland. Not to my memory.
    The Chairman. I may say, for your information, you did get
security clearance.
    Mr. Copland. Did I really? How does one get security
clearance?
    The Chairman. You knew the New Masses was a Communist
paper, I suppose.
    Mr. Copland. I knew Communists wrote for it.
    The Chairman. And Communist controlled?
    Mr. Copland. I didn't know it was Communist controlled.
    The Chairman. Did you know there were a lot of Communists
in it?
    Mr. Copland. I knew there was a considerable number.
    The Chairman. Do you know now that it is Communist
controlled?
    Mr. Copland. I would suspect it.
    The Chairman. Did you judge contests for the New Masses?
    Mr. Copland. Well, I don't know.
    The Chairman. Do you recall judging any contest for the New
Masses?
    Mr. Copland. I may have.
    The Chairman. You don't remember?
    Mr. Copland. Not precisely. I have a vague recollection. I
see here the date is 1937. That is sixteen years ago.
    The Chairman. Did you ever belong to the American League
for Peace and Democracy?
    Mr. Copland. Not to my memory.
    The Chairman. Were you a committee member or sponsor of the
Citizens Committee for Harry Bridges?
    Mr. Copland. I may have been.
    The Chairman. Do you recall whether you were or not?
    Mr. Copland. No.
    The Chairman. You have no recollection whatsoever of such a
committee?
    Mr. Copland. I may have seen the name before, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you may have been. What do you base that
on? You must have some recollection.
    Were you on that committee? Do you know?
    Mr. Copland. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you recall the Bridges case?
    Mr. Copland. Yes, I recall it.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you in sympathy with Bridges at the time?
    Mr. Copland. I may have thought he was being pushed around.
I would have to do some heavy thinking to go back to 1941 and
remember what I think about Harry Bridges. He played no more
part in my life than over the breakfast table----
    The Chairman. Did you belong to a committee for Browder and
Ford?
    Mr. Copland. It is possible.
    The Chairman. If you were a member of such a committee,
you, of course, knew at the time that Browder was one of the
leading Communists?
    Mr. Copland. Yes, I knew that.
    The Chairman. Did you say it was possible that you belonged
to that committee?
    Mr. Copland. I would say it is in the realm of possibility
since it was 1936. I can't recall what the committee was
about--what it was for--or what connection it had with Browder.
    The Chairman. Did you have anything to do with the
Coordinating Committee to Lift the Embargo in Spain?
    Mr. Copland. Not that I remember.
    The Chairman. You don't recall that?
    Mr. Copland. No.
    The Chairman. Did you take any part in any activities
having to do with the Spanish Civil War?
    Mr. Copland. Not that I recall now.
    The Chairman. Do you belong to the American Music Alliance
of the Friends of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade?
    Mr. Copland. The fact that it is a musical committee puts
it into the realm of possibility, but I have no definite memory
of it.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether you entertained the
American Music Alliance of the Friends of the Abraham Lincoln
Brigade?
    Mr. Copland. In what capacity?
    The Chairman. You will have to tell me that.
    Mr. Copland. I don't know exactly how I could entertain
them, but I have no memory of entertaining them.
    The Chairman. Were you a member of the advisory board of
Frontier Films?
    Mr. Copland. I can't remember it.
    The Chairman. Do you recall any connection with Frontier
Films?
    Mr. Copland. I believe it is the organization that produced
documentaries. What date was that?
    The Chairman. You will have to tell me. I don't know.
    Mr. Copland. I don't know either--unless it is in the
Congressional Record.
    The Chairman. If you were on the advisory board of a film
company, wouldn't you remember it unless you read it in the
Congressional Record?
    Mr. Copland. I am on the advisory committee of many
organizations where my name is simply listed and no use made of
advice. As far as I know I never met with Frontier Films in
order to advise them about anything.
    The Chairman. It might be of some benefit if you supply us
the anti-Communist organizations that you were affiliated with.
    Mr. Copland. I can't off-hand give you the name of such
things without further study, but I can tell you that since the
National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, I have not been
associated with any organization which has been cited in any
way. I have deliberately taken the stand that in the present
situation I do not wish to be associated in any way with an
organization that would leave people to think that I had
Communist sympathies, which I do not have.
    The Chairman. Do you know Edward K. Barsky?
    Mr. Copland. No, I did not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. You never met him?
    Mr. Copland. Not that I remember.
    The Chairman. I think you testified that you have never
been a member of the Communist party.
    Mr. Copland. That is right.
    The Chairman. And you testified that you have never engaged
in espionage or sabotage--let me ask you. Have you ever engaged
in espionage?
    Mr. Copland. No.
    The Chairman. Sabotage?
    Mr. Copland. No.
    The Chairman. Were you a member of the National Committee
for People's Rights?
    Mr. Copland. I couldn't say. I have no recollection of
that. May I say again, in relation to specific questions, I
must have more time. It is extremely short time.
    The Chairman. Unless I ask the questions you won't know
what to think about. You will have an opportunity to go over
the record and supply memory gaps if you find any.
    Were you a member or sponsor of the National Committee for
the Defense of Political Prisoners?
    Mr. Copland. I have no memory of that.
    The Chairman. You don't remember that at all?
    Mr. Copland. No. May I say also in fairness to myself, my
interest in connection with any organizations was in no way my
interest in their political slant, except that I never
knowingly signed my name to anything which I thought was
controlled by Communists. I had no fear of sitting down at a
table with a known Communist because I was so sure of my
position as a loyal American.
    The Chairman. With what known Communists have you sat down
at a table?
    Mr. Copland. That question is absolutely impossible to
answer because as far as I know no one has told me that they
are a Communist. I may have suspected it.
    The Chairman. In other words, you don't recall sitting down
at a table with any known Communists?
    Mr. Copland. Yes, aside from Russian Communists. I assume
they are Communists.
    The Chairman. Have you ever sat down at a table with Earl
Browder?
    Mr. Copland. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Did you sign an open letter to the mayor of
Stalingrad?
    Mr. Copland. I can't remember that.
    The Chairman. Did you sign a statement in support of Henry
Wallace, which statement was issued by the National Council of
Arts, Sciences and Professions?
    Mr. Copland. What would be the date?
    The Chairman. 1948.
    Mr. Copland. It is possible I did.
    The Chairman. Were you active in the Progressive movement?
    Mr. Copland. No.
    The Chairman. Are you connected with the National Council
of the Arts, Sciences and Professions?
    Mr. Copland. I may have been on their music committee.
    The Chairman. Do you have any recollection?
    Mr. Copland. No precise recollection.
    The Chairman. Does it mean anything to you? You say you may
have been.
    Mr. Copland. Well, I know that I probably received some of
their literature and was aware of some of their musical
activities.
    The Chairman. Were you a sponsor and speaker at the
Cultural and Scientific Conference for World Peace?
    Mr. Copland. Yes, I was.
    The Chairman. That was held at the Waldorf-Astoria?
    Mr. Copland. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Counsel should not coach the witness unless
he asks for coaching.
    What year was this?
    Mr. Copland. March 1949.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Copland, that conference was widely
publicized in advance as a completely Communist dominated
thing, but nevertheless you sponsored and attended it.
    Mr. Copland. I sponsored it and attended it because I was
very anxious to give the impression that by sitting down with
Russian composers one could encourage the thought that since
cultural relations were possible that perhaps diplomatic
relations were possible. I did not go there to advance the
Communist line or in any way encourage their operations. I went
there in order to take part in a cultural panel, which
included----
    The Chairman. You knew that it had been widely labeled as a
completely Communist movement, didn't you?
    Mr. Copland. No, I didn't know it was a complete Communist
movement at that time. I became convinced of it subsequently. I
am very glad I went to that conference because it gave me
first-hand knowledge in what ways the Communists were able to
use such movements for their own ends. After that I refused to
sign the sponsorship of any further peace conference.
    The Chairman. Did you meet any Communists at that meeting
other than Russian Communists?
    Mr. Copland. Not that I know of.
    The Chairman. Has the FBI or any other government
intelligence agency ever interviewed you as to who you met at
that conference?
    Mr. Copland. No.
    The Chairman. Will you prepare a list of the people who
attended the conference for us?
    Mr. Copland. You mean present on the panel?
    The Chairman. Those who you recognized. I am not speaking
of the Russians. I am speaking of Americans.
    Will you prepare a list of those Americans who were present
at that conference?
    Mr. Copland. That I remember having personally seen there?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Copland. As far as I can, I will, sir.
    The Chairman. We will appreciate that. It may not be of any
benefit to the committee but I assume it might be of interest
to the FBI.
    Mr. Cohn. And you still did not resign from the Council of
American-Soviet Friendship?
    Mr. Copland. No, I didn't.
    Mr. Cohn. In spite of the listing two years prior to that?
    Mr. Copland. I am not certain I knew about the listing.
    Mr. Cohn. You said after this conference in 1949 you signed
no more petitions--had nothing to do with any Communist fronts
after that?
    Mr. Copland. To the best of my memory.
    The Chairman. To refresh your recollection, in December of
1949 did you not sign a petition or an appeal sponsored by the
National Federation for Constitutional Liberties, which appeal
asked for the immediate dismissal of charges against Sam Adams
Darcy, well-known Communist leader?
    Mr. Copland. I have no memory of that at all.
    The Chairman. If your name is on the petition, would you
say it was forged?
    Mr. Copland. You mean a hand-written signature on the
petition?
    The Chairman. Well, you couldn't sign it except by hand.
    Mr. Copland. I would have to see it. I would certainly
suspect it was forged.
    The Chairman. You tell the committee today that you have no
knowledge of signing a petition having to do with Sam Adams
Darcy?
    Mr. Copland. As far as I know.
    The Chairman. You knew nothing about Sam Darcy?
    Mr. Copland. Nothing that I know of now.
    The Chairman. And you had no reason to sign a petition for
Sam Darcy?
    Mr. Copland. Not that I know of.
    The Chairman. You don't remember anyone discussing the
Darcy case with you?
    Mr. Copland. Not that I know of.
    The Chairman. I think I questioned you about this.
    Did you sponsor an open letter to the president of the
United States asking him to reconsider the order for the
deportation of Harry Bridges?
    Mr. Copland. When was that?
    The Chairman. At any time.
    Mr. Copland. I have no memory of it.
    The Chairman. Were you interested in the Bridges case?
    Mr. Copland. In the way that one is interested in any case
he reads about in the papers.
    The Chairman. Did you sign a letter to the president in
which it stated: ``it is equally essential that the attorney
general's ill-advised, arbitrary, and unwarranted findings
relative to the Communist party be rescinded.''
    Mr. Copland. I have no memory of such.
    Mr. Cohn. I wonder if we could ask Mr. Copland to sign his
name for comparative reasons as all these signatures look the
same.
    The Chairman. Mr. Copland, you referred to signing penny
postcards. You don't think that all of these alleged Communist
connections or use of your name, forged or otherwise signed by
you on petitions, was the result of signing penny postcards, do
you?
    Mr. Copland. It is my impression that that was the
principal way in which sponsorship and such signing of
petitions was furthered, and since I did not attend meetings of
these organizations, it is my impression that this is the only
way I might have sponsored them--through signature of some
petition they sent me through the mail, either on a penny
postcard saying, ``Will you sign this petition'' or a letter
itself.
    The Chairman. You don't recall having signed any of these
petitions?
    Mr. Copland. I wouldn't say that. I would say this at this
time having been given three days notice, I would ask for an
adjournment to refresh my memory.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever given money to any of these
organizations we have been talking about?
    Mr. Copland. Certainly no money of any substantial amount.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever given any?
    Mr. Copland. I couldn't say.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever give any money to the Communist
party?
    Mr. Copland. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. That is an unusual answer. I imagine if you gave
money to the Communist party you would know it.
    Mr. Copland. I am trying to be extra careful, so to speak.
    That is why I am making it so tentatively.
    The Chairman. I recognize that and we don't blame you for
being careful.
    Mr. Copland. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Were you an entertainer at a New Masses
benefit?
    Mr. Copland. I seem to have some memory of that. What date
was that?
    The Chairman. February 1, 1936 or 1939. I don't know which.
    Mr. Copland. That, I believe, was an anti-Fascist drive of
some sort. I may be wrong about that.
    The Chairman. Do you know that Vito Marcantonio was a
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Copland. No, I don't.
    The Chairman. Did you belong to a committee supporting
Marcantonio?
    Mr. Copland. I have no memory of belonging to it.
    The Chairman. Were you active in supporting Marcantonio?
    Mr. Copland. No, I certainly wasn't.
    The Chairman. Do you know him?
    Mr. Copland. No, I don't.
    The Chairman. You stated, I believe, that you don't recall
having signed a letter in defense of Harry Bridges.
    Mr. Copland. At this time I don't recall it.
    The Chairman. Did you know Georgi Dimitrov?
    Mr. Copland. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever hear about the Reichstag Fire
Trial Anniversary Committee?
    Mr. Copland. I can't at this time remember whether I have
or not.
    The Chairman. You don't recall?
    Mr. Copland. No.
    The Chairman. You don't recall ever having been affiliated
with it?
    Mr. Copeland. No, not at this time I don't.
    The Chairman. Were you a sponsor of the Schappes Defense
Committee?
    Mr. Copland. As far as I know I was not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever hear of Schappes?
    Mr. Copland. I may have vaguely heard of him.
    Mr. Cohn. You said before you had?
    Mr. Copland. You see, I am uncertain whether I do or
vaguely do. Without further opportunity to refresh my memory--
--
    The Chairman. May I interrupt. I may say, going through all
of these and where you feel that your memory is not
sufficiently sharp so you can adequately answer, you will have
opportunity to go over the record and supply the material which
you were able to supply after your memory is refreshed.
    Mr. Copland. Could I ask you to tell me again what you said
about my having been connected with Sam Adams Darcy after the
peace conference?
    The Chairman. What date was that?
    Mr. Copland. I believe the peace conference was March 1949
and you quoted the Darcy connection, if there was one, at a
later date. I gather that your thought is that the Darcy
petition may have been signed before that.
    The Chairman. Here we are. We have it here. It appears from
the report we have that you were a sponsor and speaker at the
Cultural and Scientific Conference for World Peace which was
held March 25-27, 1945 inclusive.
    Mr. Copland. The other matter was considerably before that,
the petition.
    The Chairman. I beg your pardon.
    May I amplify the record. I had previously indicated in the
questioning that the Sam Darcy petition had been signed after
the New York conference. I misread it. I thought it was
December 1949. Actually it was December 1940. You are correct.
    Mr. Copland. I was going to explain why I didn't resign
until 1950. The music committee was organized to further
relations on a musical plane with the Soviet Union. It was an
off-shoot of a committee, I believe, that had to do with the
State Department. At any rate, that committee itself left the
National Council and set itself up as the National Soviet Music
Society and since I went with the music committee, I was under
the impression that I was no longer a member of the National
Council. In order to be sure I had severed connections I wrote
a letter in 1950.
    Mr. Cohn. By the way, Mr. Copland, you are awfully well
prepared. I am just wondering. Let me ask you this: Prior to
the phone call Friday, you had never known of any reference to
you in the Congressional Record concerning your Communist
fronts?
    Mr. Copland. That is not my testimony.
    Mr. Cohn. Then, Mr. Copland, you stated this had not just
come to your attention on Friday?
    Mr. Copland. May I say that I heard through a letter that
there had been a printing in the Congressional Record of
remarks of the Honorable Fred E. Busby concerning myself.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Copland. When was the Congressional Record of Busby's
statement? It is in here for Friday, January 16, 1953, and my
memory of that is that happened sometime in March or April.
Subsequently a friend supplied me with a copy.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Copland. I would say sometime in April.
    I will also add that I was absolutely amazed at the number
of entries in connection with my name.
    Mr. Cohn. So were we.
    The Chairman. Do you feel now that your name was misused by
various organizations or do you want further time to check into
it?
    Mr. Copland. I would like further time to check into it.
    It is also well known that if they got your name in
connection with one thing, they didn't hesitate to use it in
connection with another. I would also like to say that my
connection, insofar as it would show, was the direct outcome of
the feelings of a musician. I was not moved by the Communist
element, whatever it may have been. I was moved by specific
causes to which I lent my name.
    Musicians make music out of feelings aroused out of public
events.
    Senator Mundt. I can't follow this line of argument. I
don't see how that line of reasoning makes sense with a hatchet
man like Bridges.
    Mr. Copland. A musician, when he writes his notes he makes
his music out of emotions and you can't make your music unless
you are moved by events. If I sponsored a committee in relation
to Bridges, I may have been misled, not through Communist
leanings. If I had them, there was something about his
situation that moved me.
    Senator Mundt. That would be true of anybody--any human
beings, I think, not only musicians. Emotions are part of
everyone's personality. That certainly stretches a point. We
are all governed by the same rules of caution. When you get to
Browder and Bridges, I think musicians have to go by the same
code as governs other citizens.
    Mr. Copland. We are assuming--I would like to see what it
was I was supposed to have signed. I would have to know the
circumstances to make any kind of sensible case.
    The Chairman. Do you say now that your activities as a
musician had to do with your connection with Bridges and
Browder?
    Mr. Copland. I would say that anything I signed was because
of the human cause behind it that interested me----
    The Chairman. Were you a good friend of Hanns Eisler?
    Mr. Copland. No, I knew him slightly. I was not a good
friend of his.
    The Chairman. Did you meet him socially?
    Mr. Copland. Yes.
    The Chairman. Roughly, how many times?
    Mr. Copland. Roughly, this is a guess, two or three times.
    The Chairman. When did you last see him?
    Mr. Copland. My impression is I last saw him in California.
    The Chairman. Did you agree with the statement by Eisler
that ``Revolutionary music is now more powerful than ever. Its
political and artistic importance is growing daily.''
    Mr. Copland. That is a vague statement. I don't know what
he means by ``revolutionary music.''
    The Chairman. Do you agree with him that there is a
political importance in music?
    Mr. Copland. I certainly would not. What the Soviet
government has been trying to do in forcing their composers to
write along lines favorable to themselves is absolutely wrong.
It is one of the basic reasons why I could have no sympathy
with such an attitude.
    The Chairman. Would you say a good musician who is a
Communist could be important in influencing people in favor of
the Communist cause?
    Mr. Copland. Perhaps in some indirect way.
    The Chairman. One final question.
    Quoting Hanns Eisler, is this a correct description of you
by Eisler:
    I am extremely pleased to report a considerable shift to
the left among the American artistic intelligentsia. I don't
think it would be an exaggeration to state that the best people
in the musical world of America (with very few exceptions)
share at present extremely progressive ideas.
    Their names? They are Aaron Copland.
    Would you say that is a correct description of you?
    Mr. Copland. No, I would not. I would say he is using
knowledge of my liberal feelings in the arts and in general to
typify me as a help to his own cause.
    The Chairman. Just for the record, this quotation from
Eisler appears in the House Un-American Activities Committee
Hearing, September 24, 25, 26, 1947, pages 36, 38, 39.
    I have no further questions. How about you Mr. Cohn?
    Mr. Cohn. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Senator Mundt?
    Senator Mundt. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You are reminded that you are still under
subpoena and will be called again within the next week, I would
assume.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned.]
           STATE DEPARTMENT TEACHER-STUDENT EXCHANGE PROGRAM
    [Editor's note.--Teacher, lecturer, author, and social
activist Rachel Davis DuBois (1892-1993) held a doctorate in
educational sociology from New York University. In 1934 she
founded the Service Bureau for Education in Human Relations,
later known as the Service Bureau for Intercultural Education.
In 1941 she founded the Intercultural Education Workshop,
incorporated in 1946 as the Workshop for Cultural Democracy,
which operated until 1958. In 1952 the State Department sent
her to West Germany to work with Germans who had been expelled
from other nations and were trying to integrate into German
society. After that experience, DuBois refocused her workshop
to train ``leaders of leaders,'' and later she headed a program
for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to reduce
racial tensions in the South. New York Post editor James
Wechsler arranged for his attorney, Joseph Rauh, to accompany
her to the executive session, and Rauh advised her: ``Don't get
defensive, and always make a virtue of your action.'' DuBois
was not called back to testify in public.
    Dorothy Boulding Ferebee (1897-1980), a graduate of Tufts
Medical School, medical director at Howard University and
president of the National Council of Negro Women, had also
visited Germany at the behest of the State Department. Ferebee
similarly did not testify in public.]
                              ----------
                          MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 2:30 p.m. in the Office of the
Secretary of the Senate, the Capitol, Senator Joseph R.
McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Herbert Hawkins,
investigator; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk; Mason Drury, Senate
liaison officer, State Department.
 TESTIMONY OF RACHEL DAVIS DuBOIS (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL,
                          JOSEPH RAUH)
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn,
please?
    Miss DuBois. I am a Quaker and I affirm.
    The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that in the matter now
in hearing you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Miss DuBois. I do. That is my first occasion to swear.
    Mr. Cohn. For the record, you are Mr. Joseph Rauh?
    Mr. Rauh. That is right.
    Senator Symington. Mr. Rauh has been a friend of mine for
many years.
    Miss DuBois. I assume that I can have a copy of the
transcript?
    The Chairman. Well, it is executive session. You will be
able to see a copy by coming down to room 101, or if you want
an extra copy for you to have for your files, it will be
necessary for you to purchase a copy.
    Mr. Cohn. Miss DuBois, you have had some connection with
the Educational Exchange Program in the State Department?
    Miss DuBois. Yes.
    The Chairman. Would you identify the witness?
    Mr. Cohn. The name is Rachel DuBois.
    Miss DuBois. Rachel Davis DuBois.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you reside in Washington?
    Miss DuBois. No, sir, New York City.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation now?
    Miss DuBois. I am director, Workshop for Cultural
Democracy.
    Mr. Cohn. What is that?
    Miss DuBois. It is an organization which works with groups
of people in order to overcome the tensions in our country
between peoples of different nationalities, religions,
backgrounds, etc.
    Mr. Cohn. How long has that organization been in existence?
    Miss DuBois. I have been working in this field for twenty
years.
    Mr. Cohn. I am wondering about this organization.
    Miss DuBois. This organization was developed first in 1934.
Now, we call it the Workshop for Cultural Democracy.
    Senator Symington. What did you call it before?
    Miss DuBois. Service Bureau for Education and Human
Relations, and that seemed to be too big a term as we worked on
it----
    Mr. Cohn. Are you the top executive in this organization?
    Miss DuBois. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. You are?
    Miss DuBois. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. How are your funds for this organization raised?
    Miss DuBois. We don't have much money but what we have
comes from a few individuals who give a little bit, plus fees
that we get as we are asked to do work in churches and
community groups.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, you have told us you have had a connection
with the exchange program of the State Department. Would you
tell us what that connection was?
    Miss DuBois. I was sent to Germany by the State Department
in 1951. I didn't ask to go, but my book, Neighbors in
Action,\46\ which was sent to the American houses in Germany
without my knowing about it, evidently was read by German
people and in January 1951 I received two letters from two
different German teachers asking if I could find a way to come
to Germany because they felt they had the same problem of
cultural diversity which we had in the United States and could
I come over and train them to use the same methods we were
using here. Finally I presented it to the State Department and
they sent me over.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ Rachel Davis DuBois, Neighbors in Action, A Manual for Local
Leaders in Intergroup Relations (New York: Harper, 1950).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Miss DuBois. I went over in August 1951 and came back the
last of January 1952.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you receive any compensation from the State
Department?
    Miss DuBois. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. How much?
    Miss DuBois. Well, I guess approximately $200 a month.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that in addition to expenses?
    Miss DuBois. There were some expenses I had to take care of
myself and some expenses that the government must have taken up
because I know when I lived in a hotel while on duty I didn't
have to pay for it.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, when did your assignment for the State
Department conclude?
    Miss DuBois. When I got back in late January 1952.
    Mr. Cohn. Late January 1952?
    Miss DuBois. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. I see. Have you ever been a member of the
Communist party?
    Miss DuBois. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Miss DuBois. No. No good Quaker could become a member of
the Communist party or any party which uses force and violence.
    Senator Symington. How long have you been a Quaker?
    Miss DuBois. I was born a Quaker.
    Senator Symington. Where abouts?
    Miss DuBois. In Woodstown, New Jersey, on a farm.
    Senator Symington. Your general life has been in an effort
to help other people?
    Miss DuBois. All my life I have been trying to overcome
tensions, hatred, suspicions between people because I feel that
helps our country as well as people trying to follow out other
goals on earth.
    Senator Jackson. Did you work for the American Friends
Service Committee?
    Miss DuBois. Back in 1922 and 1923 I was in Germany looking
at the German feeding of the American Friends Service
Committee.
    Senator Jackson. After World War I?
    Miss DuBois. Yes. I did a little publicity for the American
Friends Service Committee. I am not now a member of the
American Friends Service Committee.
    Senator Jackson. Are you affiliated with Quaker social
organizations or welfare groups?
    Miss DuBois. I am a member of the New York yearly meeting
and as a member, I function on the committee.
    Senator Jackson. Do they deal with social and economic
problems?
    Miss DuBois. One committee deals with race relations and
another committee other social problems.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever belonged to any organization listed
by the attorney general as a subversive organization?
    Miss DuBois. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had any connection with any
organization so listed?
    Miss DuBois. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. Specifically, have you had any connection with
the American Committee for Protection of the Foreign Born?
    Miss DuBois. The name sounds familiar, but I don't remember
being a member of it.
    Mr. Cohn. You were not a sponsor of any project of the
American Committee for Protection of the Foreign Born in 1941.
One of them was the ``Americans All Week,'' which was sponsored
by the American Committee for Protection of the Foreign Born?
    Miss DuBois. No. That ``Americans All Week'' rings a bell
in my mind, but it may be a mistake to identify it because of
the name. I did research for a national radio program which
went over the airs CBS called ``Americans All--Immigrants
All.''
    Mr. Cohn. This citation comes from the letterhead, which
indicates that Rachel Davis DuBois of the Inter-Cultural
Education Workshop--Would that be you?
    Miss DuBois. Well, it might be. I would have to know more
about it.
    Mr. Cohn. You are Rachel Davis DuBois?
    Miss DuBois. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. This letterhead shows that you were a sponsor for
a project of the American Committee for Protection of the
Foreign Born.
    Miss DuBois. I wonder if you could tell me--I don't know
what did they do?
    Mr. Cohn. It has been listed by the attorney general as a
subversive organization--a Communist front organization.
    Miss DuBois. I certainly don't remember functioning in it.
    Mr. Cohn. Does the name ``American Committee for Protection
of the Foreign Born'' ring a bell?
    Miss DuBois. Well, it is the kind of name you would
remember hearing about or reading about, but I certainly don't
remember functioning in a committee of that name.
    Mr. Cohn. How about the National Federation for
Constitutional Liberties?
    Miss DuBois. That doesn't ring a bell as if I ever heard of
it.
    Mr. Cohn. The Daily Worker, July 19, 1942, contains an open
letter listing you as a signer, sponsored by the National
Federation for Constitutional Liberties, denouncing the charges
against Harry Bridges and the Communist party in connection
with the Bridges case.
    Miss DuBois. That rings no bell.
    Mr. Cohn. You are listed under the name of Rachel Davis
DuBois.
    Miss DuBois. They must have used peoples names and put them
on there. I have no memory whatsoever of that.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you manifest any memory of the Bridges case?
    Miss DuBois. I don't remember manifesting any memory of it.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't recall the National Federation for
Constitutional Liberties at all?
    Miss DuBois. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you pretty sure that would have been without
your authority?
    By the way, under the rules of the committee, you can
confer with your counsel at any time you care to.
    Miss DuBois. May I then?
    The Chairman. Miss DuBois, you can consult with your
counsel at any time you care to, as freely as you care to.
    Mr. Cohn. Could we get an answer?
    Miss DuBois. As far as I remember, and I am sincere in
saying this, I don't remember any connection with the Bridges
case. I remember the headlines in the paper, but I have been so
tied up in the work I am doing in the field of overcoming
tension that I haven't joined anything for twenty years outside
of Quaker organizations.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you connected with the Inter-Cultural
Education Workshop?
    Miss DuBois. Well, we called ourselves the Inter-Cultural
Education Workshop for a little while because we were trying to
find out what was a good name.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that in 1941 or 1942?
    Miss DuBois. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. They list you as Rachel Davis DuBois, Inter-
Cultural Education Workshop. Do you think that could be someone
else?
    Miss DuBois. I don't think that could be any other person.
    Mr. Cohn. Having agreed on that, could you help us in any
way as to how they used your name or your name listed as a
sponsor by this organization listed as subversive and the
letter in the Daily Worker sponsoring this other organization?
    Miss DuBois. I have no answer to that.
    Senator Jackson. Can I get one part straight? Is she listed
as a member of the American Committee for Protection of the
Foreign Born?
    Mr. Cohn. Sponsor.
    Senator Jackson. She is not listed as a member?
    Mr. Cohn. No, as a sponsor.
    Senator Jackson. In other words, the American Committee for
Protection of the Foreign Born sounds like a good cause--to
provide fair protection for foreign born people. But you don't
recall ever attending any meetings or participating in any way
in such organization?
    Miss DuBois. No, I certainly don't recall it.
    What was their program?
    Senator Jackson. Well, I don't know. I think this is one of
the front groups set up in 1940 or 1941.
    Mr. Cohn. I think it was set up a little before that.
    Senator Symington. Do you have any relatives who are
members of the Communist party?
    Miss DuBois. No.
    Senator Symington. Do you have any close friends who are
members of the Communist party?
    Miss DuBois. I can think of one friend, who dates way back
in the early twenties.
    Senator Symington. Is that friend still a member of the
party?
    Miss DuBois. I don't know.
    Senator Symington. As late as 1945 we were friendly with
the Soviets.
    Miss DuBois. I was friendly?
    Senator Symington. We were as a country.
    Mr. Cohn. I have nothing more.
    Senator Jackson. I take it there is nothing in the record
here that she is a member of any group; the problem is
sponsoring.
    Mr. Cohn. In one case sponsoring and the other case signer
of a letter.
    Senator Jackson. In either case there is no membership
involved?
    Mr. Cohn. No. One is sponsoring and the other is signer of
a letter. The summary of the letter is denouncing the attorney
general's charges against Harry Bridges, dated July 19, 1942.
    Senator Jackson. What were you doing at that time? Where
were you in 1942? Do you recall? I mean, were you engaged in
social work for the Friends? Were you in New York?
    Miss DuBois. Yes, we were then beginning to experiment with
this method of group conversation and I was using it in
different community organizations such as churches and parent-
teachers associations and any kind of summer institutes.
    The Chairman. I may say for the benefit of the witness, the
fact that you were called down here doesn't mean that the
committee has any pre-conceived ideas to any of your
activities. However, when we find someone in the information
program who has been listed as a sponsor of a Communist front
organization, the staff, of necessity, wants to check and see
what the explanation is. I hope you understand that the mere
fact that you were called here doesn't mean we have decided
ahead anything about you. In fact, I knew nothing about you
except what has been developed in the testimony.
    Miss DuBois. May I just make a statement?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Miss DuBois. From those two organizations it would be very
clear that I couldn't possibly have had any kind of connection
with the Bridges case. Where that protection of the foreign
born came into it, I have always been interested in things like
that, but I can't see how I was a part of that group.
    The Chairman. In other words, I gather--see if I understand
you--you are interested in protection of the foreign born and
if there were an organization carrying that name, you might
possibly have signed one of their pledges or something? Some
letter or some dinner or what have you?
    Miss DuBois. I know I never belonged to it.
    Senator Jackson. In other words, you wouldn't sign any
statement if you knew that it was Communist dedicated to
achieve some objective?
    Miss DuBois. No, because I thoroughly feel the methods of
communism are contrary to all I stand for because I understand
to them the end justifies the means. They use force and
violence and I couldn't belong to any organization or any
movement which uses force and violence for any reason.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this. I understand your
testimony to be that you never knowingly joined any
organization which was promoting the Communist cause?
    Miss DuBois. Certainly.
    The Chairman. And you never had any affiliation with my
such organizations?
    Miss DuBois. Yes.
    The Chairman. Am I correct in this--that you do not believe
in communism?
    Miss DuBois. You are correct.
    The Chairman. And you never joined the Communist party?
    Miss DuBois. No.
    The Chairman. And you never knowingly worked for any
Communist causes? Is that right?
    Miss DuBois. I never did.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been solicited to join the
Communist party?
    Miss DuBois. This friend of mine said one time, ``Why don't
you join?'' and I told her why I would not. It was just the two
of us.
    Mr. Cohn. Could we have her name--this friend of yours who
was a member of the Communist party?
    Miss DuBois. Well, I don't like to give names of anyone,
but if you insist.
    The Chairman. I think it is a proper question. You see
communism is dedicated to the destruction of our form of
government and any member of that organization, I believe,
their name should be given, especially in view of the fact that
this is executive session.
    Miss DuBois. Her name, when I knew her, was Elizabeth
Potamki.
    Senator Jackson. When was this? How long ago?
    Miss DuBois. 1935.
    Senator Jackson. Did she reside in New York?
    Miss DuBois. I think at that time it was in New York.
    Senator Jackson. What was her occupation?
    Miss DuBois. She was an office worker--an expert in the use
of machines.
    Senator Jackson. As far as you know she has done no
teaching or anything like that?
    Miss DuBois. No.
    Senator Jackson. Did you ever attend any Communist meetings
with her?
    Miss DuBois. No.
    Senator Jackson. When did you last see her?
    Miss DuBois. It was six or seven years ago.
    Senator Jackson. What was she doing then?
    Miss DuBois. Trying to sell books from door to door. I
don't think she was ever any person high up, as far as I know.
We never talked after that time when I said clearly that I
couldn't belong to anything of that sort. What few times we saw
each other our talk was of olden days. You see I knew her when
she first got out of high school.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this. If you could accomplish
the objectives of the Communist party without using force and
violence, would you have any serious objection to it?
    Miss DuBois. I don't know that I am sure of the objectives
of the Communist party.
    The Chairman. Aside from their use of force and violence,
do you have any objection to the objectives which you are
acquainted with?
    Miss DuBois. I didn't understand your question.
    The Chairman. Aside from advocating use of force and
violence, do you have any serious objection to any of the
objectives of the Communist party?
    Miss Dubois. Well, I am against the use of force and
violence for any goals.
    The Chairman. Forgetting about that for the time being--
that is their means of attaining the end. My question is: Are
there any objectives of the Communist party to which you
object----
    Senator Jackson. Do you believe in totalitarianism?
    Miss DuBois. Of course not.
    Senator Symington. Do you believe in people being married
and living in a home or do you believe in community interests
by ladies and gentlemen? Do you believe in private interests?
    Miss DuBois. Of course.
    Senator Jackson. Supposing that the Communist party should
decide that without force and violence, but by peaceful means,
that they want to bring out their system of totalitarianism.
    Miss DuBois. No.
    Senator Jackson. Would you believe in the destruction of
the right of free speech and freedom of religion through non-
violent means?
    Miss DuBois. Heavens, no. I am for all freedom in this
country, basic American freedoms.
    The Chairman. You were sent over as a specialist in this
exchange program. I forget how long you said you were over in
Europe. I assume therefore, that you know something about
communism. In your work you must come in contact with the
threat of communism. My question now is: What part of the
Communist philosophy or teachings do you object to, forgetting
about the use of force and violence for the time being? What
about communism do you dislike? I am trying to let you make a
record.
    Miss DuBois. I would say I am against the whole movement of
communism because it is in line with the most negative forces
in the world today and I would certainly be against the whole
movement of communism.
    The Chairman. Then you and I would agree that Stalin was a
rather bloody dictator?
    Miss DuBois. Yes. As far as I know, I mean.
    Mr. Cohn. As far as you know. What do you mean?
    Miss DuBois. Well, what I read in the papers
    Senator Symington. Your reason for saying that is what you
have read in the papers. Based on reading the papers, I am
inclined to agree with you.
    The Chairman. I think that is all. Thank you very much.
                TESTIMONY OF DR. DOROTHY FEREBEE
    The Chairman. Will you stand and raise your right hand,
please?
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
give in the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Dr. Ferebee. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. This is Dr. Ferebee.
    Dr. Ferebee. Dorothy Ferebee.
    Mr. Cohn. F-e-r-e-b-e-e?
    Dr. Ferebee. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you reside in Washington?
    Dr. Ferebee. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation?
    Dr. Ferebee. Physician.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had any connection with the
exchange program at the State Department?
    Dr. Ferebee. Yes, I have.
    Mr. Cohn. What has that connection been?
    Dr. Ferebee. In 1951 I was part of a group that went to
Europe, not as an exchangee, but as an aegis of the State
Department. We were not exchanges, in the sense that the State
Department paid our way.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you went as an aegis of the State
Department. Could you expand on that?
    Dr. Ferebee. Yes. I mean on that the invitation came to
twelve different women's organizations from the International
Division of the Women's Bureau inviting the leaders of that
organization to go to Europe.
    Mr. Cohn. That was under the Exchange program?
    Dr. Ferebee. I would not be able to say whether it was
really a part of it, but I think it would be considered so.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you make that trip to Europe?
    Dr. Ferebee. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you return?
    Dr. Ferebee. I returned on June 1st. I went over in April.
    Mr. Cohn. How long were you abroad?
    Dr. Ferebee. I was there for six weeks with the department,
but I was there much longer.
    Mr. Cohn. Your mission was six weeks and you remained after
that?
    Dr. Ferebee. I went earlier than I commenced my assignment
for the department.
    Mr. Cohn. What was the nature of your duties for the
department?
    Dr. Ferebee. Really, the invitation as originally worded
from the International Division of the Women's Bureau, Labor
Department, was that women's organization leaders were asked to
go to Germany to interpret the role of women's organizations in
a democracy. That was the original limitation.
    The Chairman. In other words, to lecture----
    Dr. Ferebee. To meet with women's groups and lecture, talk
with their townspeople in and around Germany.
    Senator Jackson. Do you know who selected you for that job?
    Dr. Ferebee. Well, I imagine someone in the International
Division. The invitation came to my organization and as
national president I was designated to go. I am national
president of the National Council of Negro Women.
    Senator Jackson. Are you teaching here?
    Dr. Ferebee. I am medical director at Howard University.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you belong to any physicians' organizations?
    Dr. Ferebee. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you belong to the Physicians Forum?
    Dr. Ferebee. No, I didn't.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you belonged to any organization listed by
the attorney general as subversive?
    Dr. Ferebee. No, I haven't.
    Mr. Cohn. You were listed as late as 1946 as a member of
the executive board of the Southern Conference for Human
Welfare. Were you a member of that?
    Dr. Ferebee. No, I wasn't. I was asked to become a member.
    Senator Symington. Why didn't you? Did you know something
about it?
    Dr. Ferebee. No, I was really so very busy I never had a
chance to go to any of the meetings. I never participated in a
single meeting.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever do any work for them?
    Dr. Ferebee. No, I never did any work for them.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever consult with anyone?
    Dr. Ferebee. No, I didn't.
    Mr. Cohn. And your only connection was that they approached
you to be on the board?
    Dr. Ferebee. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. And you say you were too busy?
    Dr. Ferebee. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. You never attended any meeting or participated in
any session?
    Dr. Ferebee. No.
    The Chairman. I still don't quite understand the nature of
your trip to Germany. Were your expenses paid by the State
Department?
    Dr. Ferebee. No, my organization paid my trans-Atlantic
flight. The State Department paid for my keep only while I was
in Germany.
    Senator Jackson. Per diem?
    Dr. Ferebee. That is right.
    Senator Jackson. What did they do--give you the usual $9.00
a day per diem?
    Dr. Ferebee. I think it was $10.00 a day.
    Senator Jackson. Only in Germany?
    Dr. Ferebee. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. And that was the only money you collected
from the State Department?
    Dr. Ferebee. That is right.
    Senator Jackson. How many women were there?
    Dr. Ferebee. There were ten others. Eleven all told.
    Mr. Cohn. Who invited you to become a member of the
executive board of the Southern Conference for Human Welfare?
    Dr. Ferebee. I don't know. Some of the officers. I remember
I was asked to be a member of it. I don't remember the name of
the person offering the invitation.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know it was a Communist organization at
that time?
    Dr. Ferebee. No. I have discovered that since--not that it
actually was----
    Senator Symington. When did you discover that? What year?
    Dr. Ferebee. The year after. Looking back on it, I feel
lucky I didn't.
    Senator Jackson. At the time you were approached, you
didn't know it was a Communist front?
    Dr. Ferebee. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had any connection with the
Washington Committee for Democratic Action?
    Dr. Ferebee. Is that the ADA?
    Mr. Cohn. No. The Washington Committee for Democratic
Action.
    Dr. Ferebee. If that is not the ADA, no. The ADA, I have
been to some of their meetings.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me be more specific. There was a call to
conference on civil rights by the Washington Committee for
Democratic Action in 1940. You were listed as a sponsor.
    Senator Symington. What year was that listed as a
subversive organization?
    Mr. Cohn. It was listed by the House Committee on Un-
American Activities in 1942, June 25th. Again on March 29, 1944
by the Attorney General.
    Senator Symington. The first listing was in 1942?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. When was she a sponsor?
    Mr. Cohn. 1940.
    Dr. Ferebee. Quite frankly, I don't remember whether I was
a sponsor or not, but if it was connected with the ADA, I have
been to many of their meetings.
    Senator Jackson. These questions have nothing to do with
the ADA. That is a committee in Washington on civil rights. It
is a well-known Communist front. The Washington Committee for
Democratic Action.
    Dr. Ferebee. If it were Communist, I did not know it and if
I participated, I do not know it.
    Senator Jackson. You are interested in all matters on civil
rights?
    Dr. Ferebee. Yes, of course, my organization is----
    Mr. Cohn. Do you, know of the publication Social Work
Today?
    Dr. Ferebee. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had any connection with that?
    Dr. Ferebee. Wasn't that a magazine?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Dr. Ferebee. Yes, I have seen it. I believe I subscribed to
it. I wouldn't want to say I didn't.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever written for it?
    Dr. Ferebee. I don't think so.
    Mr. Cohn. Your recollection is that you subscribed to it?
    Dr. Ferebee. I think so. I am not sure I did.
    Mr. Cohn. And you had no other connection?
    Dr. Ferebee. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you aware of the fact when you subscribed to
it that it was a Communist magazine?
    Dr. Ferebee. No, I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever discovered it since then?
    Dr. Ferebee. Really, some of the organizations have been
turned up since then. My affiliation, if I did subscribe, and I
believe I did, I did not know it was so listed.
    Senator Jackson. What was the date on the Social Work
Today?
    Mr. Cohn. 1941 and 1942. The witness is mentioned, Senator,
in the January 1941 issue and in the February 1942 issue as one
of those who ``made it possible for Social Work Today to
strengthen and prepare itself for the supreme task of today.''
What would that mean?
    Dr. Ferebee. I was going to ask you.
    Mr. Cohn. It might mean you contributed to it.
    Dr. Ferebee. I want it distinctly understood that when I
subscribed to it, I did not know it.
    Mr. Cohn. Then, if you contributed to it, your answer would
be the same?
    Dr. Ferebee. Exactly.
    Senator Jackson. In other words, you haven't knowingly
joined any group knowing that it was a Communist organization?
    Dr. Ferebee. I most definitely have not.
    Senator Symington. You have never been a member of the
Communist party?
    Dr. Ferebee. No, I have not.
    Senator Symington. And you have never had any Communist
leanings?
    Dr. Ferebee. No, I have not.
    Senator Symington. Do you have any relatives who are
Communists?
    Dr. Ferebee. No, I have not.
    Senator Symington. Do you have any friends who are
Communists?
    Dr. Ferebee. No, none that I know of.
    Senator Symington. Do you think you are a good American?
    Dr. Ferebee. I certainly hope I am. I rather think when we
went to Europe I was given a rather thorough going over and if
there had been anything, they would have found it.
    Senator Jackson. Were you given an FBI field check or a
full-field investigation, or what did they do?
    Dr. Ferebee. I don't know. I do know that my ticket could
not be purchased until I was cleared.
    Senator Symington. Do you know Dr. Thomas Williston?
    Dr. Ferebee. Yes, I do.
    Senator Symington. Do you know that he is a Communist party
member?
    Dr. Ferebee. No.
    Senator Symington. Do you know any Communist party members
in the faculty at Howard University?
    Dr. Ferebee. No, I don't. I don't know of any personally.
    The Chairman. Do you think that Communists should be
allowed to teach in a university?
    Dr. Ferebee. Well, I think that any professor who teaches
at a university ought to declare himself before he teaches,
because very naturally his influence will be a part of what he
teaches.
    The Chairman. How about if a professor refuses to say
whether he is a Communist or not. Do you think he should be
allowed to teach?
    Dr. Ferebee. I think that should be up to the university.
    The Chairman. The only reason we are asking you these
questions is that you are representing the United States
overseas. I think this is the kind of questions we would like
to ask you. I think I missed your answer.
    Dr. Ferebee. Ask the question again.
    The Chairman. Do you think a man who refuses to state
whether he is a Communist or not, should be allowed to teach?
    Dr. Ferebee. I think any true professor will want to
declare himself as to what he is, if he is honest in his
convictions.
    Senator Symington. May I ask you a question. Do you think a
person who is a Communist should be allowed to teach American
youth?
    Dr. Ferebee. I would say ``no'' for the reason it is very
difficult for a man to separate what he believes from what he
is teaching.
    Senator Jackson. He is not free to be intellectually
honest?
    Dr. Ferebee. That is it.
    Senator Jackson. In other words, if he belonged to the
Communist party he couldn't be a good scientist because the
Russian Communists have tried to put their rules in genetics
and he couldn't pursue the truth.
    Dr. Ferebee. I think it would be difficult.
    Senator Symington. If, as Senator Dirksen said, if they had
respect for their teachers they might also have respect for his
ideologies.
    Dr. Ferebee. If they knew about it, yes.
    The Chairman. So the record will be complete, you never
attended any Communist meetings yourself?
    Dr. Ferebee. No, I haven't.
    The Chairman. And you have never knowingly promoted the
Communist cause?
    Dr. Ferebee. No, I haven't,
    The Chairman. You don't know anyone in the university who
to your knowledge is a member of the Communist party?
    Dr. Ferebee. No. I don't.
    The Chairman. That is all. You have been very cooperative.
    Senator Jackson. You made a very fine witness. You seemed
to be very sincere and honest.
    Senator Symington. I think so, too.
    The Chairman. Let me impress upon you the fact that you
were called here doesn't indicate that the staff or the
committee has any pre-conceived ideas about you.
    Dr. Ferebee. I think if there has been an error in the
past, it has been an error.
    The Chairman. The staff goes over the list of those used by
the State Department for the information program and when they
find Communist front connections, they call you in and ask you
about them.
    I may say that you have explained yourself, to my way of
thinking, very well. There will be no publicity given this at
all unless you want to give it yourself.
    [Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned.]
           STATE DEPARTMENT TEACHER-STUDENT EXCHANGE PROGRAM
    [Editor's note.--Clarence Hiskey (1912-1998), born Clarence
Szczechowski, was a professor of chemistry at the University of
Tennessee, Columbia University and Brooklyn Polytechnic
Institute. He also worked for the Tennessee Valley Authority
and participated in the Manhattan Project. In 1944, American
counterintelligence agents observed Hiskey meeting with a
Soviet agent. The government then removed him from the
Manhattan Project by drafting him into the army and stationing
him in Alaska. In 1948, the House Un-American Activities
Committee heard testimony that Hiskey had been an active member
of the Communist party and had tried to recruit other
scientists to pass atomic data to the Soviets. Testifying
before the House Un-American Activities Committee and Senate
Internal Security Subcommittee, Hiskey repeatedly refused to
answer questions about his Communist connections, and in 1950
the House cited him for contempt of Congress. He resigned from
the faculty of Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute and joined the
International Biotechnical Corporation, later becoming director
of analytical research for Endo Laboratories. The subcommittee
did not call Hiskey to testify in public.]
                              ----------
                         FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                      New York, NY.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 11:30 a.m. in room 905, Federal
Court Building, Foley Square, New York, Senator Joseph R.
McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; David Schine,
committee investigator.
    The Chairman. Doctor, will you raise your right hand. In
the matter now in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Hiskey. I do.
    The Chairman. Will you identify counsel.
    Mr. Colloms. Albert L. Colloms, 342 Madison Avenue.
    The Chairman. Give your full name.
   TESTIMONY OF CLARENCE FRANCIS HISKEY (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS
                  COUNSEL, ALBERT L. COLLOMS)
    Mr. Hiskey. Clarence Francis Hiskey.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you do right now?
    Mr. Hiskey. I am a chemist.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you employed?
    Mr. Hiskey. I am employed with a small company, the
International Biochemical Corporation.
    Mr. Cohn. And what type of work do you do?
    Mr. Hiskey. I am working on the isolation of a potent
principal in a pregnant mammalian liver extract which relieves
the clinical symptoms of diabetic neuropthis and osteo-
arthritis.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever worked on the atom bomb in any way,
directly or indirectly, or have anything to do with it?
    [Witness consulted counsel.]
    Mr. Hiskey. I must refuse to answer that on the grounds of
the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Mr. Harold C. Urey?
    Mr. Hiskey. Yes, everybody does.
    The Chairman. Did you ever work for the Atomic Energy
Commission?
    Mr. Hiskey. When was the Atomic Energy Commission
established?
    The Chairman. Do you know that you ever worked for it or
not?
    Mr. Hiskey. I never worked for them.
    The Chairman. Did you work for any government agency?
    Mr. Hiskey. Yes, I worked for the TVA.
    The Chairman. And any other government agency?
    [Witness consulted counsel.]
    Mr. Hiskey. I was an officer in the U.S. Army.
    The Chairman. Anything else?
    [Witness consulted counsel.]
    Mr. Hiskey. I worked for Columbia University and they might
have had a contract.
    The Chairman. Any other work for any other agency?
    Mr. Hiskey. Not that I recall.
    The Chairman. What kind of work did you do at Columbia?
    Mr. Hiskey. I was a teacher there of chemistry.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you working under Dr. Harold Urey at
Columbia?
    Mr. Hiskey. Yes, he was head of the department.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he employ you?
    Mr. Hiskey. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. At the time he employed you, were you a member of
the Communist party?
    Mr. Hiskey. I refuse to answer under the privilege of the
Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. At the time he employed you, were you engaged in
espionage in the United States?
    Mr. Hiskey. I refuse to answer that question on the same
grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Did Dr. Urey ever discuss with you the question
of whether you were a Communist?
    Mr. Hiskey. I refuse to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Was Dr. Urey to your knowledge a Communist?
    Mr. Hiskey. I refuse to answer that question.
    The Chairman. You refuse to answer that question?
    Mr. Hiskey. To my knowledge, no. That I don't refuse. To my
knowledge I don't know anything about his political views.
    The Chairman. Just a minute. I am not asking about his
political views. Is it your testimony that you never knew that
Urey was a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Hiskey. I have never known that he was a member of the
Communist party.
    The Chairman. Did he ever discuss with you the question of
whether or not he was a member?
    Mr. Hiskey. No, I don't think so.
    The Chairman. Did he ever attend any Communist meetings
with you?
    Mr. Hiskey. No, no, I refuse to answer that question.
    The Chairman. You refuse to answer. I may say, Doctor, that
you should weigh these answers carefully because you may be
doing an injustice to a friend of yours. You are entitled to
refuse to answer only if the answer would incriminate you.
    Mr. Hiskey. You gave me a question----
    The Chairman. The question is did Urey ever attend a
Communist meeting with you.
    Mr. Hiskey. I refuse to answer that question because you
are asking if I attended a Communist meeting.
    The Chairman. You refuse to answer that question?
    Mr. Hiskey. Yes, I do.
    The Chairman. You understand that if Urey did not attend a
Communist meeting with you, you could simply say no, and that
would not incriminate you. You understand that.
    Mr. Hiskey. I don't quite get it. If you ask me if I
attended a Communist meeting with Urey or if he attended a
Communist meeting with me, you are asking me if I have attended
a Communist meeting.
    The Chairman. No. I am asking you if Urey ever attended one
with you.
    Mr. Hiskey. Why don't you ask the question this way: Do I
know whether Urey ever attended a Communist meeting? That would
give you the answer that you want.
    The Chairman. Do you refuse to answer whether or not he
ever went to a meeting with you?
    Mr. Hiskey. Because you are asking whether I went to a
meeting.
    The Chairman. I will take your suggestion.
    [Witness consulted his counsel.]
    The Chairman. You are entitled to refuse to answer.
    Mr. Colloms. Mr. Senator, may I suggest when he says he
refuses to answer it is always on the ground of the Fifth
Amendment?
    The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, we have the rule of the
committee that you can freely advise with your client and
discuss any matter with him. We do not, however, take
statements from counsel.
    Mr. Colloms. I am not making a statement. I am merely
asking that we take this line of answers as being the same all
the way through.
    The Chairman. You heard what I said. You will talk to the
client. If you want to advise him, all right.
    [Witness consulted his counsel.]
    Mr. Hiskey. Let it be shown in the record that when I
refuse to answer, I am invoking the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. There is no general invocation of the Fifth
Amendment. Each time you want to invoke it, you will have to
state so on the record.
    Mr. Hiskey. Then let us go back and ask all those questions
over, and I will invoke it each time. Do you want me to do
that?
    The Chairman. Let me ask you the questions. What type of
work were you doing at Columbia?
    Mr. Hiskey. I was a teacher.
    The Chairman. Did you work for any government agency other
than those you have named?
    Mr. Hiskey. I worked for Columbia University when I was at
Columbia.
    The Chairman. Other than Columbia, TVA, and army, you did
not work for the government?
    Mr. Hiskey. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever work in the atomic energy plant?
    Mr. Hiskey. Well, that is a question that I refuse to
answer on the ground that it might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Did you ever work in an atomic energy plant
while you were on the payroll of the government working for the
government?
    Mr. Hiskey. I refuse to answer that question.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer that question.
    Mr. Hiskey. Did I what?
    The Chairman. Read the question.
    [Question read by the reporter.]
    Mr. Hiskey. You mean when I was working for the army or the
TVA?
    The Chairman. I think the question is clear.
    Mr. Hiskey. When I was working for the TVA there was no
atomic energy program, so that would take care of that. When I
was in the army, I was stationed at places that had no relation
to the atomic energy program.
    Mr. Cohn. How about when you were at Columbia?
    Mr. Hiskey. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds
that it may tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. You were asked the simple question whether
you ever worked for the atomic energy program. We will exclude
any work that you were doing as an espionage agent. You are
entitled to refuse to answer if you were working in atomic
energy for some foreign government, you understand.
    [Witness consults his counsel.]
    Mr. Hiskey. I am not quite sure what is involved here so I
am going to hold up my answer until I understand. I want you to
withdraw the inference that I was engaged in atomic espionage
or any kind of espionage.
    The Chairman. Were you engaged in atomic energy espionage?
    Mr. Hiskey. I refuse to answer that question.
    The Chairman. You refuse to answer?
    Mr. Hiskey. You can't run it in and make the assumption I
was, because the Fifth Amendment----
    The Chairman. You do not interrupt me when I am talking. Do
you understand that?
    Mr. Hiskey. I was talking, Senator, and you interrupted me.
    The Chairman. I am asking you a question. The first
question is, were you engaged in atomic energy espionage, and
your answer is that you refuse to answer on the ground that it
might incriminate you.
    Mr. Hiskey. And I went on to explain.
    The Chairman. We will take the explanation later. You tell
me how that you feel a truthful answer to that question might
tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Hiskey. Yes.
    The Chairman. That is about as definite proof as we can get
here that you were an espionage agent, because if you were not,
you would simply say no. That would not incriminate you. The
only time it would incriminate you would be if you were an
espionage agent. So when you refuse to answer on the ground it
would incriminate you, that is telling us you were an agent.
    Mr. Hiskey. I don't think you understand the whole purpose
of the Fifth Amendment, Senator. That amendment was put into
the Constitution to protect the innocent man from just this
kind of star chamber proceeding you are carrying on.
    The Chairman. You object to being asked these questions?
    Mr. Hiskey. Yes, I do.
    The Chairman. For your information, the provision of the
Fifth Amendment came down from the old English law.
    The purpose of that is to avoid making a man convict
himself of a crime, the theory being that no man should convict
himself. That is the purpose of the provision of the Fifth
Amendment.
    Mr. Hiskey. Yes.
    The Chairman. Just a minute. When you say, ``If I told the
truth it would incriminate me,'' that means that you know that
a truthful answer would incriminate you.
    Now, the next question is, are you a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Hiskey. May I make a comment on that?
    The Chairman. No, I do not want any comment on the Fifth
Amendment. We do not need any instructions from you on the
Fifth Amendment. The question is, are you a member of the
Communist party today?
    Mr. Hiskey. I refuse to answer that question on the ground
it may tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Are you engaged in espionage work today?
    Mr. Hiskey. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds
it may tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Does the company for which you work have any
classified material?
    Mr. Hiskey. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Does it do any government work?
    Mr. Hiskey. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. None of any kind?
    Mr. Hiskey. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Has it ever?
    Mr. Hiskey. No, sir.
    The Chairman. I have not gotten an answer to my other
question yet. Did you ever do any work for this government or
for any agency that was working for the government on the
atomic energy program?
    [Witness consulted his counsel.]
    Mr. Hiskey. I worked for the Manhattan Project, if that is
what you want me to say. That was the project in which I worked
for Columbia University, and they had contracts with the U.S.
government.
    Mr. Cohn. The Manhattan Project was the atomic energy
project for the atom bomb.
    Mr. Hiskey. At the time I worked on it, it was more of a
collection of professors who went to the government with an
idea, and asked to get some money to finance the experiment.
    The Chairman. What years did you work on the Manhattan
Project?
    [Witness consulted his counsel.]
    Mr. Hiskey. Let me see. I came to Columbia in the fall of
1941. That is right. My work with the atomic energy work there
began, I guess, about December or January of that academic
year. That would be December of 1941 or January of 1942. But I
still taught in the school while working and just helping out.
Then later I worked full time until 1944 when I was inducted
into the army, or not inducted, or when I was ordered up.
    The Chairman. Was that the last work you did on atomic
energy?
    Mr. Hiskey. Yes.
    The Chairman. 1944?
    Mr. Hiskey. Until April 1944.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you working under Dr. Harold Urey during any
of that time?
    Mr. Hiskey. Part time.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you in direct contact with Dr. Urey?
    Mr. Hiskey. Yes.
    The Chairman. Did Dr. Urey ever discuss with you any
espionage work?
    Mr. Hiskey. I refuse to answer that question on the ground
that it may tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. You are instructed that you are under
subpoena, subject to the call of the committee. We will contact
your counsel if we need you, and tell you where and when.
    Mr. Cohn. There is one other question. Can you tell us any
names of any Communists working on the Manhattan project?
    Mr. Hiskey. I refuse to answer that question.
    The Chairman. On the grounds of self-incrimination.
    Mr. Hiskey. On the grounds it may tend to incriminate me.
    [Thereupon at 11:53 a.m., the subcommittee proceeded to
consideration of other business.]
           STATE DEPARTMENT TEACHER-STUDENT EXCHANGE PROGRAM
    [Editor's note.--Harold C. Urey (1893-1981), a professor of
chemistry at Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University, the
University of Chicago, and the University of California, won
the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1934. From 1940 to 1945 he
directed war research for the atomic bomb project at Columbia
University. He argued against using atomic weapons against
Japan and proposed an international ban on the further
production of nuclear weapons. Later, he worked with NASA to
plan the first lunar landing and in 1964 received the National
Medal of Science. Urey was not called to testify in public
session.]
                              ----------
                         FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                      New York, NY.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 11:55 a.m. in room 905, Federal
Court Building, Foley Square, New York, Senator Joseph R.
McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; David Schine,
committee investigator.
    The Chairman. Dr. Urey, would you raise your right hand. In
this matter now in hearing, do you solemnly swear that the
testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Urey. I do.
                TESTIMONY OF HAROLD CLAYTON UREY
    Mr. Cohn. Could we have your full name for the record?
    Mr. Urey. Harold Clayton Urey.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you employed now?
    Mr. Urey. University of Chicago.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your position now?
    Mr. Urey. Ryerson Distinguished Service Professor of
Chemistry.
    Mr. Cohn. How long a period of time have you been with the
University of Chicago.
    Mr. Urey. Since 1945.
    Mr. Cohn. Dr. Urey, were you one of those persons selected
as an American specialist under the exchange program of the
State Department to go abroad?
    Mr. Urey. Selected? I don't know. I was invited. Would you
like to have me tell about it?
    Mr. Cohn. Just briefly. We know what the facts are. It is a
matter of record.
    Mr. Urey. I was invited by the Heifetz Institute of
Technology to come to Israel for a visit. They agreed to pay me
$2,000 for my expenses, and while I was going to Israel I knew
of the public law in regard to this.
    Mr. Cohn. You mean the law which establishes the
information program?
    Mr. Urey. That is right. So I applied for extra funds which
would enable me to make a side trip to Egypt and some other
places.
    Mr. Cohn. From the State Department?
    Mr. Urey. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. And your application was accepted?
    Mr. Urey. The application was accepted.
    Mr. Cohn. And you made the trip for the State Department?
    Mr. Urey. I made the trip.
    Mr. Cohn. You were what is known as an American specialist
under the exchange program?
    Mr. Urey. I wouldn't know. Maybe.
    Mr. Cohn. You do not know the exact terminology?
    Mr. Urey. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You know you did apply and the application was
accepted, and they gave you the funds and you made the trip?
    Mr. Urey. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Can you tell us approximately how much money was
paid to you?
    Mr. Urey. $1,050. I could not remember whether it was
exactly that amount or not, but it was right close to that. I
have no record of the same.
    Mr. Cohn. Dr. Urey, what did you do when you visited those
countries? Did you deliver any lectures?
    Mr. Urey. Yes. I gave lectures in Italy, in Egypt, in
Greece, and then quite a number of lectures in connection with
the Israel invitation.
    Mr. Cohn. This was in 1951?
    Mr. Urey. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Dr. Urey, I want to read you a list of
organizations, and ask you whether or not you have been a
member of them, or connected with them in any way.
    The Chairman. Let me first ask, what did you lecture on,
Doctor?
    Mr. Urey. Most of my lectures were on the origin of the
earth, which I have been studying since the war, and
temperatures that existed in the ancient seas. This is true of
all the lectures in Egypt, Italy and Greece. In Israel I gave
similar lectures but I also gave popular lectures on the
control of atomic energy, international control of atomic
energy.
    The Chairman. Did you talk on any of the general political
situation?
    Mr. Urey. No, you mean the United States?
    The Chairman. No, when you were in Israel and Europe
lecturing, did you discuss the world political situation?
    Mr. Urey. Yes. That is, you can't talk about the control of
atomic energy without considering the difficulty that we have
apropos of it----
    The Chairman. Did you collaborate in the so-called Acheson
Report on the control of atomic energy?
    Mr. Urey. I did not, no.
    The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Counsel.
    Mr. Cohn. I want to read you this list of organizations and
ask you whether or not you have ever been connected with any of
them.
    The American Committee for Democracy and Intellectual
Freedom.
    Mr. Urey. You know, my memory in regard to these things is
awfully bad, and I can't answer that question with certainty.
But in connection with the Broyles investigation \47\ some
years ago, they dug up quite a number of organizations which
they said I was a member of, and some of them I could remember
and some I could not. What was that one?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ In 1949, Illinois state senator Paul Broyles introduced
legislation prohibiting anyone ``directly or indirectly'' associated
with a Communist organization of Communist fronts from holding
government employment in the state. When students from the University
of Chicago protested at the state capital, Senator Broyles launched an
investigation of the university faculty to determine whether they had
indoctrinated students with Communist ideology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Cohn. American Committee for Democracy--do it this way.
Suppose you list for us the organizations which have been named
as Communist fronts which you recall you were a member of.
    Mr. Urey. I cannot do that, Mr. Counsel. Last summer I had
to apply for my Q clearance with the Atomic Energy Commission
again, and I went over the complete list on that blank. I think
it was the 1950 blank, and I could not remember that I had been
a member of a single one of them. During the period before the
war, I thought that the loyalists in Spain were not as bad as
Franco, and I worked with and connected with a number of people
that had similar ideas. But I would not remember those
organizations, and I have had no contact with them since that
time.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man named Clarence Hiskey?
    Mr. Urey. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have anything to do with his
employment at Columbia University and his work on atomic
energy?
    Mr. Urey. I was responsible for the employment of Hiskey. I
employed him on the basis of his technical competence, and I
think no one has questioned that.
    Mr. Cohn. His technical competence. Has anyone questioned
the fact whether or not he was a Soviet espionage agent when he
was working for you?
    Mr. Urey. I have seen in magazines and the papers
indications in regard to this accusation, but I have no direct
knowledge of my own that he was anything of the sort. Matters
in regard to security were handled by the military in charge of
this, and they did not take me into their confidence in regard
to Mr. Hiskey.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Hiskey these
charges?
    Mr. Urey. These occurred during his stay at Chicago after
he had left Columbia where I was stationed during the war. I
have seen Hiskey once or twice, and there has been nothing in
the way of discussion of these, except a polite reference to
them.
    Mr. Cohn. What was the substance of that polite reference?
    Mr. Urey. Well, ``I see, Clarence, that you have been
accused.'' But he volunteered no information and of course I
had none.
    Mr. Cohn. Weren't you interested in pursuing the thing?
This was a man you employed who was working on the atomic bomb,
and people come along and say he was an espionage agent giving
information to the Soviet Union. Was it not of sufficient
interest to you to ask whether or not it was true?
    Mr. Urey. I never asked him whether it was true or not.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you interested?
    Mr. Urey. I have been very much interested as to whether it
was true, but I have no way of investigating the man.
    Mr. Cohn. You could ask him.
    Mr. Urey. I suppose I could, but I didn't see there was any
useful purpose to be served.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever discuss this with the FBI?
    Mr. Urey. No, I don't think I ever did.
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't you think this was a matter of
considerable concern to you?
    Mr. Urey. I have no information of my own relative to his
loyalty, none at all.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you have any discussion with him about
communism at any time?
    Mr. Urey. So far as I can recall, never.
    Mr. Cohn. What was your attitude on having Communists work
on the Manhattan Project?
    Mr. Urey. It was one thing that I believed would be
completely wrong, and I definitely tried to avoid having such
people on the project.
    Mr. Cohn. But nevertheless, it develops that a man you did
hire and who was working on it was charged with being an
espionage agent, giving information to the Soviet Union, and
when you met him on subsequent occasions, you never asked him
if that is so?
    Mr. Urey. What you state I think is a fact. I don't think I
ever asked him point blank. If you ask me why, I would say
because I felt terribly embarrassed, and wished to stay away
from the question entirely.
    Mr. Cohn. You felt it would be embarrassing?
    Mr. Urey. Yes. He was no longer my employee any more.
    Mr. Cohn. Is it your testimony that as far as you are
concerned you do not recall any connection with any
organization that has been listed as a Communist front
organization?
    Mr. Urey. So far as I know, that is the case. We drew up
for the Broyles committee an affidavit which stated what I know
about the matter--I have forgotten the page of this--which I
should like to state is correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
    Mr. Cohn. You are going to give us a copy of that
affidavit, is that right?
    Mr. Urey. I should be very glad to.
    Mr. Cohn. While you are looking for that, Dr. Urey, I was
going to ask you this. You say that the loyalty of people that
worked for you was a matter for the security people. We have
information and on record certain statements you made critical
of the fact that there were security measures being taken.
    Mr. Urey. What were they?
    Mr. Cohn. Pardon me?
    Mr. Urey. What were they?
    Mr. Cohn. I am going to ask you. Did you ever criticize the
fact that there were security safeguards in connection with the
Manhattan Project in so far as communism is concerned?
    Mr. Urey. If I criticized such things, it was a matter of
detail, but never a matter of the principle of the thing,
because I never questioned it for a moment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever say that you would fire every
security officer in the project?
    Mr. Urey. Yes. This is since the war.
    Mr. Cohn. Since the war?
    Mr. Urey. Yes. This is very recently since the war that I
said that I thought that they could fire all their security
guards. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Why did you think that?
    Mr. Urey. I think that there is an elaborate structure of
security guards that does not accomplish much, but at the same
time I never for a moment proposed that access to the security
should be granted without control of the essential kind. It
would take a long time to explain what the difficulties are
there.
    Mr. Cohn. You have been active in the last months, have you
not, in behalf of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the convicted
atom spies?
    Mr. Urey. I have been active in a way, yes.
    The Chairman. In what way? What were your activities in
their behalf?
    Mr. Urey. I wrote a letter to Judge Kaufman and to the
president in December. The letter to Judge Kaufman was
reproduced in the Daily Worker, curiously enough, both with the
letterhead and my signature.
    Mr. Cohn. How did the Daily Worker get that, do you know?
    Mr. Urey. Not through me.
    Mr. Cohn. I know it was not through Judge Kaufman.
    Mr. Urey. It was not through me.
    Mr. Cohn. How many copies of the letter did you make?
    Mr. Urey. A copy for my files, a carbon copy which I sent
to Emanuel Bloch.
    Mr. Cohn. You sent a carbon copy to Emanuel Bloch?
    Mr. Urey. A carbon copy without letterhead and signature.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether Emanuel Bloch is a member of
the Communist party?
    Mr. Urey. I don't know.
    The Chairman. Do you have any reason to believe he is?
    Mr. Urey. I have no reason to believe one thing or another.
I know Mr. Bloch very, very slightly.
    The Chairman. What other action did you take in behalf of
the Rosenbergs?
    Mr. Urey. After this there was a transcript recording taken
which was placed in Los Angeles immediately after the president
had denied their first request for clemency. This was done over
my protest, for having heard of this, I requested that it
should not be played.
    Mr. Cohn. You made the transcription?
    Mr. Urey. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And it was played at a Communist party meeting?
    Mr. Urey. I don't know that it was a Communist party
meeting. That I do not know.
    The Chairman. The purpose of making the transcription was
to have it replayed, was it?
    Mr. Urey. That is right.
    The Chairman. Then I do not follow your objection. If you
made a transcription for the purpose of having it replayed, why
would you object to it being used? Did you change your mind?
    Mr. Urey. When the president denied clemency, then I
preferred not to appear the next day at this meeting.
    Mr. Cohn. The president denied clemency. Isn't it a fact
that since his denial of clemency, you have continued your
activities on behalf of the Rosenbergs?
    Mr. Urey. That is right. I was told by Mr. Cohn that you
wanted to talk about the Israeli trip, the trip abroad. Is
there something else that is involved here besides this?
    The Chairman. Yes. May I explain what it is? We have been
calling, Doctor, a sizeable number of people who have been part
of the information program, selected either as teachers or
students or to represent us as ambassadors of good will. The
mere fact that you or anyone else is called does not mean that
the committee has any preconceived ideas as to your activities.
We are making a thorough examination of the information
program. One of the things we are very much interested in is to
find out how many people who were either Communists or
sympathetic to the Communist cause of fellow travelers have
been sent abroad to represent us. For that reason the
questioning is not all restricted solely to what you did while
you were a representative of us. Counsel is within his rights
of going into your activities on behalf of the Rosenbergs,
which were found to be atomic spies and sentenced to die. I
think it is a perfectly legitimate inquiry.
    Mr. Urey. My anti-Communist record is very well known by
people, Senator. I have no use for the regime whatsoever. I
have been a member of organizations that fought them. I have
never been a member of the Communist party. I in no way
subscribe to their point of view, and I believe that my
position on that is very clear, indeed.
    The Chairman. Just for the sake of the record--I imagine
you want to clear it up yourself now that we started
questioning you about the Rosenberg case--just what interest
did you have in the case?
    Mr. Urey. Just a belief, as I expressed to Judge Kaufman
and the president, that the evidence against the Rosenbergs was
to my mind doubtful because it depended upon the testimony of
self-confessed criminals--Greenglasses and Max Elicher. My
interest in the case is entirely one of integrity of American
justice and nothing else.
    The Chairman. Have you read the entire record?
    Mr. Urey. I have read the record, yes.
    The Chairman. Do you have a copy of the record?
    Mr. Urey. Yes, I have a copy of the record.
    The Chairman. You purchased that, I assume, from the court
reporter?
    Mr. Urey. No, it was given to me by the Rosenberg Committee
to Secure Justice for the Rosenbergs.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever say in connection with the granting
of Atomic Energy Commission scholarships to students that no
student should be questioned about communism or barred from the
scholarship if he is a Communist?
    Mr. Urey. That came up in connection with the Broyles
Commission report again, and what was the man's name?
    Mr. Cohn. I just asked you a question. How about Mr. Hans
Freistad?
    Mr. Urey. I can't remember exactly what I said, but I know
what my attitude was at the time, namely, that Mr. Freistad was
a very poor choice as a scholar on scholarly grounds, and
second that it is very difficult for the committee granting
scholarships to investigate a person with respect to his
political beliefs, because they have no means for this purpose,
and that it is better in the long run to be as careful as
possible, and not worry too much about the matter. I think the
number that you would get would be very small in any case. This
was my point of view, at least.
    Mr. Cohn. It is best to be as careful as possible and not
worry too much about it?
    Mr. Urey. That is right. One should not appoint Communists
if you have any way by which you can find it out. But how does
a committee find out whether a person is a Communist or not?
They have no police power to force a person to answer the
question.
    Mr. Cohn. Weren't you disillusioned on the whole subject by
your experience with Dr. Hiskey?
    Mr. Urey. I beg your pardon. I don't understand the
question.
    Mr. Cohn. I will withdraw the question.
    In addition to Dr. Hiskey, have you ever been instrumental
in the employment of anyone in the Manhattan Project who has
refused to answer whether or not he was a Communist party
member?
    Mr. Urey. Not that I know of.
    The Chairman. Do you know of any Communist or espionage
agents, Doctor, who either now are or have been working on the
atomic bomb or hydrogen bomb projects?
    Mr. Urey. Dr. Fuchs, who visited us at Columbia during the
war, and whom I met, but who I did not remember at all. I know
from the records that he was there.
    The Chairman. Anyone else?
    Mr. Urey. I don't think I ever met Allen Nunn May. He was
at Chicago.
    The Chairman. Anyone else?
    Mr. Urey. I don't think I know.
    Mr. Cohn. How well did you know Dr. Fuchs?
    Mr. Urey. Fuchs was a part of the British team that came to
Columbia during the war, and I met him as the project leader
there, but as I say, I do not remember him personally at all.
He was one person that came through, and I do not remember him.
    The Chairman. Were you ever requested to join the Communist
party?
    Mr. Urey. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist meetings?
    Mr. Urey. No.
    The Chairman. Anything further, Mr. Counsel?
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this specifically. When you
applied for a passport to go abroad, did you in 1952 first
receive a letter from the passport division of the State
Department saying that a passport could not be granted to you?
    Mr. Urey. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. And subsequently that letter was withdrawn?
    Mr. Urey. That was withdrawn and I returned it.
    The Chairman. What action did you take to have it
withdrawn?
    Mr. Urey. I called the scientific attache at the State
Department and told him about it.
    Mr. Cohn. What was his name?
    Mr. Urey. I can't recall his name.
    Mr. Cohn. Is it somebody that you had known?
    Mr. Urey. I had never met him that I knew of.
    Mr. Cohn. Who suggested that you call him, do you recall
that?
    Mr. Urey. One of the law professors at Chicago, I should
judge.
    Mr. Cohn. Can you recall his name for us?
    Mr. Urey. I think it was Dean Levi.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he the dean of the Law School?
    Mr. Urey. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he acquainted with the scientific attache in
the State Department?
    Mr. Urey. I think so.
    Mr. Cohn. He suggested you call him. You called him and
after that the letter was withdrawn?
    Mr. Urey. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, of course we have a list which was
listed in the House committee appendix and various other places
of a couple of dozen Communist front organizations which the
documentation shows Mr. Urey was a member, sponsor, signer of
petitions.
    The Chairman. In view of the time element, and I assume the
doctor would like to get away also, would it not be a good idea
to submit the list to Dr. Urey and have him go through it, and
check the ones that he recalls having been affiliated with, and
the extent of the affiliation and have that considered as
submitted under oath?
    Mr. Cohn. I think so. I think further if Dr. Urey can
supply us with a copy of the affidavit to which he referred, it
might be helpful.
    Mr. Urey. I wish I could find it in here.
    Mr. Cohn. Is this an extra copy of that volume, Dr. Urey?
    Mr. Urey. No, this is not an extra copy. Here is what my
affidavit said.
    The Chairman. Just one or two other quick questions. You
are at the University of Chicago now?
    Mr. Urey. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you know any Communists at the University
of Chicago?
    Mr. Urey. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think Communists should be allowed to
teach?
    Mr. Urey. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You do not?
    Mr. Urey. No.
    The Chairman. I think there are no further questions,
Doctor. Thank you very much. Sorry we had to take up your time.
    [Thereupon at 12:20 p.m., the executive session was ended.]
                    TRADE WITH SOVIET-BLOC COUNTRIES
    [Editor's note.--After World War II, the United States
donated many of its surplus tankers to the government of
Greece, which in turn sold the tankers to private shippers.
These shipping lines transported extensive trade between
Western and Communist-bloc nations. During the Korean War, when
the U.S. urged its allies not to trade with the People's
Republic of China, Greece officially complied. But the British
government encouraged Greek shippers to continue
``nonstrategic'' trade with China.
    With Robert F. Kennedy handling the staff work, the
subcommittee produced evidence that former American ``Liberty''
ships were indeed being used to trade with Communist nations.
Armed with this evidence, Senator McCarthy directly contacted
the leading Greek shipowners, who agreed to stop trading with
the Communists. Such congressional intervention into a matter
of foreign policy alarmed the Eisenhower administration, and at
a televised hearing on March 30, 1953, Mutual Security
Administrator Harold Stassen accused the subcommittee of having
``undermined'' official policies. Secretary of State John
Foster Dulles then met privately with Senator McCarthy and they
issued a joint press release describing foreign relations as
the ``exclusive jurisdiction'' of the executive branch but
granting that the subcommittee's investigation had been ``in
the national interest.''
    The subcommittee continued the investigation and held
additional public hearings on May 4, and again on May 20,
immediately following this executive session. In its final
report on July 1, 1953, the subcommittee accused the Eisenhower
administration of being ``indecisive and ineffective'' in
halting allied trade with Communist nations.]
                              ----------
                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 10:30 a.m. in room 357 of the
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator
John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Stuart
Symington, Democrat, Missouri.
    Present also: Francis D. Flanagan, general counsel; Robert
F. Kennedy, assistant counsel; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
    Present also: Thruston B. Morton, assistant secretary of
state for congressional relations; Col. E. C. Hardin, Office of
Secretary of Defense; John M. Leddy, acting deputy assistant
secretary of state for economic affairs; Kenneth A. Hansen,
acting deputy administrator for DDAC; Louis W. Goodkind, chief,
Economic Defense Staff, State Department; Russell Hale,
assistant to acting deputy administrator for DDAC; Martha
Redfield, Economic Defense Staff, State Department.
    The Chairman. The reason for this executive session before
the open session is that some time ago we discovered that
British-owned ships were transporting Communist troops. We
discovered that one of the companies whose ships was
transporting Communist troops was also getting MSA funds for
hauling MSA cargoes. We contacted the Office of Naval
Intelligence. They originally denied that they had any
information along that line. They were reluctant to give it,
apparently, because it was classified. Just why, I do not know.
If we knew it, the Chinese Communists certainly knew it.
    Mr. Flanagan. Just one correction, there, Senator. We asked
them for the photographs of the vessels, and they denied that
the photographs were in existence.
    The Chairman. May I say that as of today I think I have
unquestioned proof that they do have the photographs, and we
are going to demand that they be produced. If they say they are
classified, I think we should have them produced in executive
session.
    That is no fault of the colonel, here. He has been giving
us all the cooperation he can. He is not responsible for the
classification of this material.
    We did get from Admiral Houser yesterday finally the
information about these British companies that have been
transporting Communist troops. One is Wallen and Company,
Limited. The other is Wheelock and Marden. Now, Wheelock and
Marden is the company that has received MSA funds.
    I think this information is of sufficient importance that
it should be made available to the public. I can see where
Naval Intelligence might not want to give the port from which
the ships came and the port to which they went, for fear they
might divulge some of their sources, but certainly this should
be made available in some fashion. I want to take up with the
colonel this morning the subject of how this can be
declassified without endangering any of their sources of
information or endangering any of their informants; but to keep
this information secret at this time I think is extremely
unwise, that is, to keep the general picture secret.
    I might say if we got this originally from ONI, I would
feel bound by the confidence which they reposed in us when they
gave us the information. We did not get it from them, number
one. Number two, they were extremely reluctant to confirm it,
and it was only after I told Mr. Flanagan to subpoena those in
charge and put them under oath that they gave the colonel this
information. So we are not in any way bound by any confidential
arrangement.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you propose to ventilate some of that
this morning in the open hearing?
    The Chairman. I want to go over the matter with the colonel
as to how he thinks it can be done without violating any
secrecy.
    Colonel, to what extent can we use this, now, without
endangering any of your sources of information?
    Number one, if we do not mention the names of the ships and
the dates, is there any violation of security by letting it be
known that British-owned vessels have been transporting
Communist troops, keeping in mind that we did not get this
information originally from the ONI?
    Col. Hardin. Sir, I think that is the key to it. We got
this request for this specific information day before
yesterday, and ONI desires to cooperate. I think that paper
speaks for their desire to cooperate with you. I realize I
don't need to say that, but I did want to point it out.
    However, in the time that has elapsed, they have not really
had an opportunity to go through all of the possible sources of
this type of material and arrive at whether there is some way
that it could be paraphrased.
    The source in this case is so sensitive, and I am taking
ONI's word for that--and we have to take our intelligence
people's word, if we want to utilize them as intelligence
sources--it is so sensitive, I wouldn't want to tell you they
could work out any such paraphrase. I would like to give them
the opportunity to do that, however.
    I do know if you have the material from another source
prior to ONI, if you can quote that, you can use that material.
If you could possibly quote the source, it would be preferable.
You might have a problem of protecting your own sources.
    The Chairman. I might say I am disappointed in ONI in that
they have refused to give us the pictures up to this date, and
unless I have been grossly misinformed they do have pictures.
They were extremely reluctant to give us this information until
long after they had it. I may say I have reason to believe this
information is not complete. I think maybe you feel the same.
And it may be because they have not had the opportunity to go
through their files completely.
    Senator Symington. What in the name of heaven would be the
reason for trying to classify information like that, justifying
classifying it on the grounds that it might be a security risk?
    Col. Hardin. Senator, we utilize the product of our
intelligence people, and we sometimes get annoyed at them. But
their product is reduced in effectiveness if you question
evidence that they have attempted to cooperate.
    Senator Symington. I am not questioning the fact that they
are attempting to cooperate. There could be one Chinese
Communist deserter who could give all that information to ONI.
It wouldn't have anything to do with channels of information.
    Col. Hardin. I, of course, don't know their source, but the
point I am trying to make is that they have done this in forty-
eight hours for the committee. I would like to say: Let's give
them another few days for them to go through this whole thing.
    Now, in determining whether a paraphrase would compromise
the source, they have got to really go back into their files.
    Senator Symington. But how can you compromise the source if
you say a ship is carrying Communists? There must be thousands
and thousands of people who know that, all the people that were
on the ship, all the people that run the ship, all the people
who watched the ship come into port. I do not see how you would
compromise the source.
    Col. Hardin. Actually, the intelligence people would say
that if you had information that Communist troops had been
carried on non-Communist-flag ships, and you have it from any
source other than ONI, go ahead and use it, but do not say that
the Office of Naval Intelligence has confirmed this.
    Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, did the committee get this
information from sources completely different?
    The Chairman. Completely different.
    Senator McClellan. Now, they do not want to blockade those
ports, it seems. They want to appease. I am against the whole
program. I think it ought to be exposed. But at the same time,
we are working with the Office of Naval Intelligence and
others, the State Department. I disagree with the policy and
the practices. And if we have got the information from other
sources, I am in favor of using it to the hilt. I think the
American people should know it, and I think these countries
that are supposed to be our allies and that are engaging in
those practices should be exposed. That is my position.
    The Chairman. I can tell the committee, but I wanted it in
complete executive session, that you can take my word for it
that it was gotten strictly away from ONI, and the indications
are that ONI, as I understand, somebody in ONI, first denied
it.
    I may say, and pardon me for repeating this, that from the
same source I have information that they do have pictures taken
from the periscopes of submarines, of British ships carrying
Communist troops. They have denied that up to this time. We got
that from a source outside of ONI also, but my thought is that
we should not use that.
    Senator McClellan. Assuming that is true, then, I think
this committee has a perfect right, in executive session, to
inquire into why that thing is being done. If they have that
information, if the State Department has that information, and
ONI has that information, and nothing has been done, no protest
is being made, no effort is being made to get our allies to
take action themselves to prevent it, I think it presents a
shameful spectacle of lack of cooperation and lack of spirit
and will on the part of those we call our allies in this
matter.
    The Chairman. I might say to you, Colonel: I think you
could transmit to the navy the fact that at least I--and I do
not know how the other senators feel--I am very much
disappointed that while they knew we were conducting these
investigations on the trade with Red China, no one came forward
and told Senator McClellan or Senator Dirksen or Senator
Symington or myself or any member of the staff about this
situation. It was kept secret.
    Senator Dirksen. First let me get this clear. This matter
is to be developed in open session? Is that correct? I wanted
to see what the intent was here with respect to this briefing
session.
    The Chairman. My thought was that this morning we are going
into the other matters about the shipping, and I thought we
should ask the colonel whether we should ask the question about
these two British ships in open session.
    My understanding is that where we have this information
from sources other than ONI, they should have no objection to
it.
    Senator Dirksen. Who will testify on this?
    The Chairman. I thought I would question the MSA people
about why they continue paying these companies to carry
cargoes, MSA cargoes, while they know they have been carrying
Chinese Communist troops.
    Senator Dirksen. Well, just proceeding logically, now,
first the allegation has to be made, and then, of course, the
allegation is made from sources that do not have to be
disclosed. Those are sources that have been developed by the
committee. You can refer to them, I think, as committee
sources.
    After the allegation is made, then, of course, we want to
proceed to establish the truth of the allegation. And that will
require testimony.
    Now, I think probably you can very safely say, ``Is this
true? Do you know that it is true? Would you care to testify on
that point? And if so, why does this continue?''
    Mr. Flanagan. On that point I think I could be helpful to
you, Senator, and I just throw this out for information. We
could ask the State Department, Mr. Goodkind and Mr. Leddy:
``Do you know that British-owned companies were moving troops
along the China coast?''
    Senator Symington. May I make a statement at this point,
Mr. Chairman? I agree heartily with what Senator McClellan has
said. We have in the Pentagon Building three intelligence
services. It has been my experience that the best of those
services is the Office of Naval Intelligence, due to their
greater experience and the fact that they have had capable air
attaches all over the world during World War I and II as a
force in being. They, as a group, are advisory to the Central
Intelligence Agency, but they could not report to the Central
Intelligence Agency. They report to the chief of naval
operations, in the case of ONI, who is a very fine officer,
Admiral Fechteler. And he, in the theory of our government,
reports to one of the finest men I have ever known, Secretary
Anderson.
    Now, there could be no reticence on the part of the navy in
wanting to tell the fact that Chinese communism was being
abetted in a war against the United States by the movement of
troops by non-Communist ships, unless they had been advised by
some authority out of the Department of the Navy that they were
not to disclose that information.
    I think this committee should try to find out why it is
that when you get information which, in effect, is just as
damaging to your efforts to win a war in which you are letting
your own youth fight and die--it is just as damaging as if
after you got reports from the air force that guns were at a
certain place, you were instructed not to shoot there. There is
not much difference, in my opinion.
    Why is this information that we might like to know about so
secret that policy people cannot disclose it? This young
colonel comes up here from the air force and says it is because
the ONI does not want it disclosed because of source. That does
not make much of a story to me, based on my knowledge of the
way intelligence works. And I suggest that we find out who in
the Department of Defense has issued instructions that this
information should not be disclosed to the American people.
    Senator McClellan. That goes back, Senator, to what I said
a moment ago, that that has been the policy of this government
in this war from the beginning. I think it is still the policy.
I have not seen any change.
    The Chairman. Let me tell you something for your
information. We asked Naval Intelligence to be here this
morning?
    Mr. Flanagan. We asked Colonel Hardin to have them here,
and they indicated they did not want to testify at any
hearings. And then I said, ``All right. Bring over a
responsible civilian official of the Navy Department, the
assistant secretary in charge of naval intelligence or some
responsible official.''
    He then advised me this morning that they felt they didn't
have time, and they wouldn't come over.
    Senator Symington. What I was going to say, Mr. Chairman,
was that it seemed to be just a further proof of the
presentation made before the Armed Services Committee by
General Van Fleet that perhaps the most important thing in this
war was not the winning.
    The Chairman. Then if we agree, we shall follow the line
that you suggested.
    Senator McClellan. I think we should develop it first for
our information in strictly executive session, then evaluate
it, and then have the committee determine where we shall go
from there, how we shall proceed. That is my thought. Without
any publicity, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. John, we are having a hearing this morning, a
public hearing. We have developed this as far as we can go. For
two weeks we have known it. We have been talking about it. We
have it confirmed. I do not see any reason on earth why the
public should not know about those British ships.
    Senator McClellan. I am not opposing the public knowing,
Mr. Chairman. But here is what I rather insist upon, that we
develop these things first in executive session and know where
we are before we go to talking in public. That is my thought
about it.
    The Chairman. Mr. McClellan, we do know that these two
British companies have been hauling Chinese troops.
    Senator McClellan. I think it ought to be exposed, if a
fact. But I think we ought to get this thing in executive
session and know where we are.
    The Chairman. I would like to have the consent of the
committee to do this: to go as far a Senator Dirksen suggested,
merely asking the State Department whether they knew that these
two British companies were hauling troops.
    Senator Dirksen. And what will their answer be to that
question?
    The Chairman. Their answer will be ``yes.''
    Mr. Flanagan. They will say that they knew that one was but
not that the other was, and that nothing was done about it.
    Senator McClellan. I think that shows the lack of will and
purpose and policy on the part of our own government. They get
the information. They conceal it. And at the same time, they
take no action to correct it. That is what burns me up.
    Senator Dirksen. The second line of interrogation, then,
Mr. Chairman, would be: If the testimony is that they did know
it, then, of course, that needs some amplification. But at that
point, what has been done?
    The Chairman. I would like to have you do this, Colonel. I
would like to have you call someone from the intelligence
department in the Pentagon and tell them we would like to have
them come over and sit with the committee this morning. If they
think we are doing anything that violates security, we will
abide by their wishes. We asked them to be here this morning,
and they say they are too busy. I think it is a bit arrogant
for the department to say they are too busy to come down when
the committee asks them to be here.
    Senator Symington. May I make an observation on that?
    The information you are going to develop this morning is
information that has been developed by the staff of this
committee?
    The Chairman. That is correct.
    Senator Symington. And you are not going to get into any
other information that you did not know, regardless of what ONI
or anyone else thought. Is that correct?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Symington. With that premise, why not go ahead and
develop our own information, if the committee approves of a
hearing on any basis, and then perhaps later on the people in
the Department of Defense will think that it is important for
them to cooperate with the committee.
    The Chairman. That is excellent. Let us do that.
    [Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the hearing was recessed to the
call of the chair.]
                    TRADE WITH SOVIET-BLOC COUNTRIES
                              ----------
                          MONDAY, MAY 25, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 4:00 p.m. in the Office of the
Secretary of the Senate, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator
Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator John L.
McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Henry M. Jackson,
Democrat, Washington; Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat,
Missouri.
    Present also: Francis D. Flanagan, general counsel; Robert
F. Kennedy, assistant counsel; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
    The Chairman. Mr. Flanagan, who do we have here?
    Mr. Flanagan. I think Mr. Thomas, the under secretary of
the navy, will be the first witness, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Who else will testify besides Mr. Thomas?
    Mr. Flanagan. Mr. Hansen and Mr. Goodkind.
    The Chairman. Mr. Thomas, we have been swearing all
witnesses, so will you raise your right hand? Mr. Goodkind,
too. Do you solemnly swear that in this matter now in hearing,
you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Thomas. I do.
    Mr. Goodkind. I do.
    Mr. Morton. Will you swear me also? I may have something to
say.
    The Chairman. We will swear you, too, then.
    May I say, Mr. Thomas, before we start, here. We do not
want to do anything here that will in any way endanger the
sources of information of the Office of Naval Intelligence. We
want to respect everything they send to us that is classified,
and we want to respect the classification they put on it.
However, this committee, I think to a man, every Democrat and
every Republican here, feels rather strongly about this
shipment of Communist troops in ships owned by British firms.
    The veracity of Mr. Kennedy has been questioned by British
politicians and by some ship owners over in Hong Kong. They
have, in effect, called him a liar. Now, he was very careful
the other day in developing the testimony on the shipment of
troops in British bottoms, and I think he made it very clear
that we had that information and that it did not come from the
Office of Naval Intelligence. And I think that Mr. Kennedy was
very careful, and rightly so, in having it to some extent
confirmed by naval intelligence before it was used.
    We would like to go into that with you at this time and
find the extent to which we can develop these facts without in
any way endangering the source of any of your information.
    So if you would care to give us an opinion on that, as to
how it can be done, I would like to get it.
       TESTIMONY OF CHARLES S. THOMAS, UNDER SECRETARY OF
          THE NAVY, LOUIS W. GOODKIND, CHIEF, ECONOMIC
        DEFENSE STAFF, STATE DEPARTMENT, AND THRUSTON B.
            MORTON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
        CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS; ACCOMPANIED BY KENNETH
        R. HANSEN, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DDAC,
         WALTER S. DELANEY, VICE ADMIRAL, RET., ACTING
         DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DDAC (APPOINTEE), AND
                 L. M. DRURY, STATE DEPARTMENT
    Mr. Thomas. Well, Senator McCarthy, the only thing I would
like to say first is that we are very anxious to be cooperative
with your committee. There is no reason why we shouldn't be,
because we are all working for exactly the same objective.
    We do have a problem to this extent, though: that we are
trying very hard to develop a good intelligence service in the
ONI. I think basically we have a good one. I think you can
remember the time when we did not have too good an intelligence
service. We think we have a good one now. We have some very
good sources that they are developing. This particular one is
an exceedingly sensitive source. We are getting other good
information out of it.
    Now, as to naval intelligence, as far as I can see and I am
trying to protect them to the extent that we do not do anything
to dry up their sources or to destroy their sources--their
reason for being is, of course, to get the information and to
pass it on to the right agencies. That is what we have done in
this case. And we have passed it on.
    As to this particular information, if we declassified it,
on these ships, then I don't think you are in a much better
position, because they will come right back and say, ``What is
your source of information?''
    Senator Mundt. What do you mean by ``they''?
    Mr. Thomas. Well, the British.
    Mr. Flanagan. On that point, Mr. Secretary, would it be
possible to give the details of these three ship movements,
these two ships with three different movements, to the
committee in an unclassified way, not attributing it to the
Office of Naval Intelligence or not attributing it to the navy?
    I think that is the big worry. If we could just trace it
back and say it came from a reliable source in the executive
branch, or from the State Department, that would be sufficient.
    Now, the State Department, according to information I have,
has the story on the Pericone, the Panamanian ship, Pericone,
which on two occasions was seen with troops aboard.
    As I recall, I was informed by the navy that the navy also
sent the information on the Miramar, which last June was seen
with troops aboard.
    Senator Jackson. What registry is that?
    Mr. Flanagan. Both Panamanian, owned by the British.
    Senator Jackson. But reporters come to me and ask me ``What
British ship are you talking about?''
    Senator Potter. They are registered under the Panamanian
flag. There are a lot of American-owned ships flying the
Panamanian flag.
    Senator Jackson. But they are not American ships.
    Senator Potter. Yes, they are still American owned.
    Mr. Flanagan. We made no statement that these were British
ships. We said ``British-owned vessels.'' They are owned by
British firms in Hong Kong, both of them flying the Panamanian
flag.
    Mr. Thomas. You see, there is information in here, detailed
information, that would very definitely identify our source.
And I can tell you that we have got a very sensitive source on
this one, it is a good one.
    The Chairman. May I first try to suggest this: I am not
interested about the date, whether the ship left during the
night or the day, or the port of embarkation or debarkation,
and maybe this should not come from you, but I do not think it
is unreasonable to have you transmit for example, this
information which you have, here, to Mr. Morton, Secretary
Morton, who is behind you. You can assure him that it is
completely reliable, that these two ships did transport
Communist troops, and the third ship. And then we can have Mr.
Morton testify that he has checked with the proper government
agencies, and he can give us the information that this is
completely reliable and that the ships of these two British
companies did carry Communist troops. That would in no way
endanger your source.
    Mr. Thomas. Well, of course, in so doing, we would have to
declassify it and have him give it on a declassified basis. We
are really trying to be very helpful on this, as I say, and
there is no reason why we should not be, but this is a very
sensitive situation, and if we give any of the details out it
can be traced back to our source; and, as you know, sources dry
up quickly.
    Senator Jackson. When this happened, Secretary Thomas, did
you take this matter up with the British government?
    Mr. Thomas. We never do that. I mean, the ONI only passes
it on to the agencies.
    Senator Symington. Charlie, here is the problem in this
thing. A good job has been done, as I see it, as the committee
sees it, in ferreting this information out. Now look at the
position that the committee is getting itself in. First they
say, on this strategic material, that they have agreed with our
allies that they will no longer ship strategic material, but
that they will ship non-strategic material. Then they disagree
on what is or is not strategic material. Then they come to us,
the State Department does, and say that they have reached an
agreement with these particular allies that they will classify
what the disagreement is. On that basis, as a business man, you
know that there is no deal. They can ship anything of any kind
that they want. And if there is a disagreement, and that is
classified, then nobody knows what is going on.
    All right. Now, the situation here is this: These fellows
have made a thorough investigation, and they find out about the
fact, thanks to ONI, that these British troops are carrying
Communists, that these British ships are carrying Communist
troops. I do not agree with you about ONI. As far as I am
concerned, it was by all odds the best intelligence service in
the Pentagon when I was there.
    Mr. Thomas. I did not mean to infer it wasn't at that time,
but I mean in the cycle of the history of our time.
    Senator Symington. But when I was secretary of the air
force, I felt it was a great deal better.
    Now we get down to this question of source. What is
happening is that the people are not being given, in my
opinion, information on a great many subjects, where you can
take refuge behind this classification of information, which
has gotten to the point now where I do not think we have what I
would really call a free press.
    I know a little about intelligence. I knew Sid Salz And
Hillenkoeter, and was on the security council for some years,
and the CIA used to report to the security council, and we
certainly used to listen to a lot of it. Then General Smith
came along.
    Now, here is what I do not understand. A member of the
staff of whom we are all fond has his integrity attacked; and
if we simply say the information came from the ONI, knowing
what I do about intelligence, for the life of me I do not see
how that could hurt your source. If we were to just say that,
without getting into any detail, just simply saying that the
information came from the Office of Naval Intelligence, I do
not see how that could hurt. Because that could be a million
people. With thousands of people in the navy and thousands of
ways of finding out, with thousands of people on docks, I do
not see how it would be damaging if the committee simply
defends its assertion. And already there is a story. I do not
say that any administration, any department, has leaked that
story out, but I give you my word that two people Saturday out
at Burning Tree said to me, ``Isn't it a shame that your
committee pushes out a story of this character and then is
proved to be wrong, with respect to Chinese Communists being
carried by British ships?''
    I say that all we have to do to set the people straight--
and they should be set straight on this, if it is true, and
this accusation by the ship owners should be cleared up--is to
say that we got the information from ONI. Or if you wanted to,
we could say that we got it from official intelligence sources
in the Department of Defense, and then have somebody in the
Department of Defense say that is correct. I just do not see
how you can affect your sources. And I have had a little more
to do with intelligence than I have said so far.
    Mr. Thomas. Well, Senator, I would think you would find
this. This is a matter of degree of opinion, but I don't think
we should ever get ONI or any of the intelligence agencies in
the position of confirming or not confirming anything, because
I think when you get ONI into confirming, you then really
destroy your service.
    Senator Symington. There is a point in that. But it did
come from ONI to the committee, did it not?
    Mr. Thomas. Yes, as classified information.
    Senator Symington. Could you take it back and have it come
from the Department of Defense to the committee or from the
Cental Intelligence Agency to the committee? Because now the
committee is on the spot about it. They know they are right.
    Mr. Thomas. Of course, the navy would have to declassify
it, because it was given by them as classified information.
    Senator Symington. If you simply gave us a statement that,
``We know that Chinese Communists have been transported by
British ships.''
    Senator Jackson. Better still, why not have the committee
say it? The record is here. And we do not have to disclose the
source of the information. All we have to say is that the
committee states that such and such vessels transported certain
people. And of course everybody could watch a ship leaving.
    Mr. Thomas. Of course, that is given to you on a classified
basis.
    Senator Symington. But we do not want to follow a lot of
rules unless not doing so would hurt the American government.
If, by not following a lot of theoretical rules, we help the
government, why is that not a good thing to do?
    If we could say it came to us from proper sources in the
government, and say it came from the Department of Defense
Intelligence Service, how could that hurt the government?
    Mr. Thomas. I think to do that we would have to declassify
it. Because I think if you made the statement on that basis,
the agreement with the executive branch is that they will give
classified information to these committees on the basis that it
will be treated----
    The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, let me interrupt. Number one,
there is no question about the fact that this information is
correct, is there?
    Mr. Thomas. As for as I know, there isn't. I know no more
about it than you do, that it has come out of ONI in that form.
    The Chairman. And it is listed as a sensitive source.
    Mr. Thomas. Very sensitive.
    The Chairman. And a reliable source.
    Mr. Thomas. That is right. That has been given to you on a
classified basis.
    The Chairman. Well, I may say this to you, then, Mr.
Secretary. There being no doubt about the accuracy of this, and
the truthfulness of one of our counsel having been brought into
question by people all the way from Hong Kong to London--they
have been calling him a liar over the last three days; not in
so many words, but that has been the import of all the stories.
I have been reading editorials already with the same idea that
some of your friends out on the golf course expressed, ``Isn't
it a shame that the committee would be so irresponsible as to
claim that British ships were transporting Communist
soldiers?'' I can see no reason at this time, why, if it is
your function to transmit this information to the State
Department, it should not be transmitted to them instantly.
Then we could call one of the young men from MSA or State
Department, put him under oath, and ask if they have verified
the accuracy of what Mr. Kennedy said the other day from
official government agencies, and have him answer that, and
then I think that would cover it. I can not conceive that that
will in any way endanger any source of information you have.
    Take for example one of the ships. Lloyd's of London
confirmed the date of sailing, the destination. The only thing
ONI confirmed is the fact we knew previously, and that is that
there were Communist troops aboard.
    Pardon me. I have gotten away from my question. The
question is: Can you see any reason why you should not transmit
this information to MSA or the State Department, why we should
not question them on it, without revealing it was ONI?
    Mr. Thomas. You mean declassifying it, in other words. That
is what it amounts to.
    Senator Symington. Why? Can you not give it to State
classified?
    Mr. Thomas. I don't think they will declassify it without
our authority.
    The Chairman. We can order them to answer the question.
    Senator Symington. I would like to explain his point. You
see, the secretary says that his first thought is that the
source is sensitive and if you give the information you would
perhaps jeopardize the source, which would be bad. All I
respectfully said to him is that I do not see how giving the
information we could jeopardize any source, based on the little
I know about intelligence. There it is. It is just a statement,
and they stand behind it. Where they got it from is still a
mystery to them and everybody else. Now, the question comes up
as to whether there is a question of policy with respect to
sending information to the committee, and classified
information, or not; and then, you might say, whether you will
declassify classified information. In my opinion, the question
at issue, therefore, is whether or not, as long as an attack
has been made on the integrity of a member of the staff, and
therefore a member of the committee itself, the question is:
Should you or should you not declassify this classified
information?
    I would think that again we get back to the original point,
and that is: Does the declassification of this information
jeopardize the source? And I do not think it has anything to do
with the rules of the game with respect to classification. If
it does not jeopardize the source, then I think that the
information should be declassified and released, so that we can
simply say, if they do not want us to use any reference to ONI,
that the proper officials in the Department of Defense, or
wherever they would like it to come from, have given us the
information which confirms the statement by the committee.
    Senator Jackson. May I just supplement that? I concur with
what Senator Symington and the chairman have had to say, Mr.
Thomas. I served on the Atomic Energy Committee for a long
time, and as you know we have access to the most highly
classified information, and I must confess that in this
situation I cannot, for the life of me, see how you are going
to affect the source.
    The statement has been made that the British were involved
in this. If this were a question of a certain piece of
something aboard that vessel, and that information was given
out, then I can see it would narrow down to individuals aboard
the ship. But here is a vessel sailing in front of everybody,
thousands of people. My golly, it is quite obvious that that is
almost a matter of general information. And I do not see how
your intelligence sources can possibly be affected in this
particular situation. And if you want to clear the room and
just tell the committee how, I would like to know, I really
would.
    Senator Symington. A transferred Communist soldier later
taken prisoner could confess it to an American interrogator as
to how he got where he was.
    Senator Potter. The source is no more endangered by
investigating it than it has been endangered by the first
story.
    The Chairman. May I say, Mr. Secretary, just for your
information, and I would like to have the attention of the
committee on this, just to show you how right Mr. Symington is:
As you know, we did not get this information to begin with. I
can tell you where we got it. This is in complete confidence
here. We got this through the Chinese Nationalists. We knew
that you must have the same information. And then, after some
searching, ONI finally found this.
    So when you say confirming this would reveal your sources,
we had all this information before ONI gave it to us.
    We know this, for example. See if I am right or wrong on
it. We know that you have pictures of British-owned ships
carrying Communist troops. That is correct, is it not?
    Mr. Thomas. That is not correct, Senator. We have no
pictures. I can tell you that we do not. And I made a thorough
search for that to find out if we do or if we have had, and we
have no pictures of any ships, and have not had. And that is
the best information I could get with inquiries all through the
Navy Department.
    The Chairman. Well let me ask you this. Have you checked on
whether or not our submarines took pictures through the
periscopes, of some of these ships? You may not have discussed
that.
    Mr. Thomas. Well, I will tell you this. We have a picture
of a ship with huts on the dock. Whether it was taken by a
submarine or not, I do not know. We know that was carrying not
troops but repatriated citizens to Malaya. There were no troops
involved in that at all. That is the only picture we have.
    We do not have any pictures of ships carrying troops.
    The Chairman. That was taken of Chinese Communists en route
to Malaya?
    Mr. Thomas. I don't know whether they were Communists or
not, but they were civilian repatriates, and there were not any
troops.
    Senator Mundt. Mr. Secretary, all this committee is trying
to get from you, as I understand it, is the authority to
release to the press the names of the ships involved.
    Mr. Flanagan. The names and the owners.
    Senator Jackson. And the registry.
    Senator Mundt. We are not asking when they traveled, the
dates, anything that could possibly involve your source of
information.
    The Chairman. I do not think we need even ask for the names
of the ships. Just the two companies involved. Because, you
see, I am sure more than these two are involved. If you release
the name of the ship, then I can see where you would be, in
effect, telling them what information we did not have and what
information we did. But to release the names of the two
companies----
    Senator Jackson. We could say they carried troops since the
start of the Korean War.
    Senator Mundt. The name of one of the companies has already
been in the paper, because they have denied it. I do not see
how that helps you any.
    Mr. Thomas. Let me say this. We are trying very hard to be
cooperative. And there is no reason why we should not be.
    The Chairman. First let me say, Admiral--I mean, ``Mr.
Secretary.''
    Mr. Thomas. I don't know whether that is a promotion or a
demotion.
    The Chairman. I was thinking of the admiral, sitting over
here.
    Let me ask you: Are you familiar with the facts filed by
General Chase in the reports of January '52 and '53, in regard
to the shipments over in that area?
    Mr. Thomas. No, sir, I am not.
    The Chairman. Are you not even aware of the fact that there
is such a report?
    Mr. Thomas. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Admiral, are you aware of that?
    Admiral Delaney. No, sir, I do not know anything about it.
This is the first I have heard of it.
    The Chairman. Mr. Hansen, are you?
    Mr. Hansen. I just heard from Mr. Flanagan, and Mr.
Goodkind gave a brief of a report; none from Mr. Chase that I
have heard.
    The Chairman. And did that concern the movements of British
ships among other things?
    Mr. Hansen. Yes, sir, it involved a seizure of one ship by
the Nationalist Chinese.
    The Chairman. And a ship that was carrying contraband?
    Mr. Hansen. Evidently. It was carrying some diesel oil.
    Senator Mundt. It seems to me as far as I am concerned what
you need as a minimum are the names of these ships. Because we
are placed in this position:
    We are talking about phantom ships. The name of the company
has been in the paper. The company has denied that it has any
such ship, and says, ``Give us the name you haven't got.'' It
does not mean these are the only ships involved, but we have
two very definite ships with names on them, and it cannot
remotely touch your sources of information to authorize the
committee to release the names of those ships. We are not
interested in where you got the information. We are as
interested as you are in keeping the sources concealed. We do
not care how many questions the British ask about, ``Where did
you get the information?'' It is none of their business. But
they have a right to know, on that side of the Atlantic, the
names of these ships. If they say they do not know, the
Communists know the names of these ships. How do we benefit by
concealing that from the free world?
    Mr. Thomas. We have given information, classified
information, to you, which, if we gave out the number of troops
and the like, would jeopardize our source.
    Senator Mundt. We are not interested in that. But the names
of the ships; let us stick to that. How can that jeopardize the
source of information?
    Mr. Thomas. That is the question that is involved, whether
it can or not.
    Senator Mundt. Because, as I understand, the purpose of
this is not to conceal facts from the free people, but to
conceal facts from the enemy.
    Mr. Thomas. You see, the intelligence people are supposed
to create the information and pass it over to the agencies.
From then on, we have to be very careful that our sources are
not disturbed. Because sources are very sensitive in this game,
and they are very important. This source is a particularly
sensitive source. That I can tell you. We are getting other
good information. The facts as to these ships were pretty
secret throughout. They were not open troop movements by any
means.
    Senator Jackson. The only point I would like to make, and
I'm sure everyone on the committee wants to cooperate, is that
I would like for you to explain to me if you can properly how
your source would be affected if you merely gave a statement
for public release, and I mean one that we could use for
release, that British-owned ships, not giving any number,
carried Chinese Communist troops since the Korean War.
    I would just like, in my mind, so that I can understand
this matter, to know how that could possibly affect the source
of your information. You know that it is in public print now,
the allegation made, that British-owned ships carried Chinese
troops. It is out.
    Now, if the committee states that vessel X and vessel Y,
owned by the British-owned company, Brown and Company, carried
Chinese Communist troops since the Korean War--let us not give
the year--how could that affect the source of your information?
    Mr. Thomas. Well, here is the thing that worries us. And I
think you can make a pretty good case for it. I think you are
in an area here now, where you can have two sides to it. But I
think when you do that, then you are put under terrific
pressure that that information is no good unless you answer:
``What is the source of that information? Is it ONI? What is
the source of the information?'' And then, when you get to that
point, you can be in real trouble.
    Senator Jackson. I would not press you so much on this, but
the thing that disturbs me even more is that I understand from
the testimony here that that information has been transmitted
to the State Department but that the State Department has not
taken it up with the British government.
    Is that correct?
    The Chairman. I believe that is the testimony.
    Is that correct, Mr. Hansen?
    Mr. Hansen. Yes, sir, I think State can answer as to that.
    The Chairman. Is that the correct analysis of the facts?
    Mr. Goodkind. Not quite, sir. The information with respect
to the first vessel was transmitted to the department.
    The Chairman. That is the Pericone.
    Senator Jackson. How long ago?
    Mr. Goodkind. In 1951.
    Senator Jackson. 1951. The State Department never,
according to your records, has taken that up with the British
government?
    Mr. Goodkind. That is correct. Mr. Leddy testified that we
started to take it up with the Panamanian government, and that
the navy refused to permit us to transmit the information.
    Senator Jackson. How about the 1952 shipment?
    Mr. Goodkind. In that case, I have not been able to find
any trace of the particular information sought, although we did
know that the Miramar was calling at Chinese ports. And at the
time of this incident, our information is, it had already been
seized by the Chinese Communist government, and the registry
was canceled at about the same time by Panama.
    Senator Jackson. You mean that the movement of the troop
was not by the British company, but by the Red Chinese
Government?
    Mr. Goodkind. That is my understanding.
    Senator Jackson. Did the British company originate or
participate in the initial move freely?
    Mr. Goodkind. My understanding is that prior to the
incident referred to, the troop carrying incident, that ship
had been seized by the Chinese Communist government, and it is
so listed in Lloyd's.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this. Is there any question in
your mind at all but what at least one British company did move
Chinese Communist troops in a ship that had not been seized by
the Chinese Communists?
    Mr. Goodkind. According to this information which we
received, the Pericone moved troops in 1951. Whether a British
company was the owner or agent of the vessel is not clear, the
status of it.
    Senator Jackson. Did not ONI advise the State Department
that it was a British-owned company under the Panamanian flag?
    Mr. Flanagan. Let's get that record straight.
    The Chairman. I do not understand this. Have you not read
this?
    Mr. Goodkind. I haven't seen it, sir.
    The Chairman. Well, read it. Just read it and tell us
whether it is true that Wallem and Company, Limited,
transported Chinese Communist troops in a ship owned by Wallem
and Company, a ship that had not been seized, according to your
records, by the Chinese Communists.
    Mr. Goodkind. This information in this piece of paper
accords with the information which was furnished to the
Department of State in 1951.
    The Chairman. Answer my question.
    Mr. Goodkind. Well, I can't----
    The Chairman. Have you confirmed the fact from what you
consider the proper intelligence sources that Wallem and
Company, in one of their ships, moved Chinese Communist troops?
    Mr. Goodkind. Sir, I cannot testify that Wallem and Company
was the owner of the vessel. It is true that the information
conveyed to the State Department so reported.
    The Chairman. Do you have any reason to doubt that Wallem
and Company owned the vessel?
    Mr. Goodkind. Simply this, that I know the listing in
Lloyd's lists those companies whether they are owners, managing
owners, or agents.
    The Chairman. Do you have any reason to doubt that the
report gotten from the intelligence source which you have in
your hand is correct, that Wallem and Company owned the ship?
    Mr. Goodkind. No, I have no information to the negative.
    The Chairman. So that all the information that the State
Department has on that is that Wallem and Company, a British
firm in Hong Kong, in one of its ships, transported Chinese
Communist troops. You have no reason to doubt that report?
    Mr. Goodkind. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Mr. McClellan, I think this committee has no
course other than to declassify that information, without
indicating it came from ONI. I think we should announce after
the end of this hearing that the State Department has confirmed
that at least one British firm operating out of Hong Kong has
engaged in transporting Communist troops. And I do not think we
should place the responsibility for that upon any of the young
men here.
    Senator Mundt. You probably would have to put it this way,
that the State Department has confirmed that it has received an
official report from the appropriate agency of government to
that effect. Because he has not confirmed it.
    Senator Potter. He has not confirmed the intelligence
report.
    Senator Mundt. The point here is that I do think Secretary
Thomas would be much more cooperative, and his testimony would
be much more appropriate, if he would tell us some tactic that
could be employed, whereby, in any way he wants to treat the
source of the information, he would permit the State Department
or the Department of Defense to do what I think is a perfectly
appropriate thing and release the names of those ships. That
entirely conceals the information, which we want to do, but
does not put either you or the committee in the ridiculous
position of trying to deny the American taxpayers information
that the Communists have. That just is not the function of
security. They have got that. They know it. And we are in a
hell of a position, to be perfectly frank about it, on this
committee, and I think you are, if such an attitude is taken.
    Mr. Thomas. I don't say I could be more cooperative,
because I am trying very hard to be. But I am in a tough spot
here.
    Senator Mundt. I know that.
    Mr. Thomas. And we are trying to protect something we think
is very valuable.
    Senator Mundt. We want you to do that, and we will follow
any suggestion you have.
    Senator Jackson. Let me see if I can get the record
clarified. As I understand from what has transpired in our
meeting here this afternoon, it is undisputed that in 1951 a
British-owned vessel under Panamanian registry transported
Communist troops. I also understand from the testimony here
that in 1952 a British-owned vessel that had been previously
seized by the Red Chinese government transported troops. Am I
correct in my understanding, if anyone can answer that question
for the record?
    The Chairman. You are correct in the first half. In the
second half, about its being seized, the first we heard about
that was when this company over in Hong Kong said it had been
seized.
    Let me ask Mr. Goodkind: Do you have any other information
to the effect that this vessel had been seized by the
Communists?
    Mr. Goodkind. Lloyd's register reports it as having been
seized by the Chinese Communist government, sir.
    The Chairman. Lloyd's did not report it had been seized
prior to the date of this.
    Mr. Goodkind. I don't know the date of seizure, but it is
my understanding that there is a report that it was seized in
'51, or the end of '51.
    Senator Jackson. May I restate my position?
    Senator Mundt. On that particular point, it means
everything, or nothing, all depending on the registry.
    Mr. Goodkind. Yes, sir. My understanding is that there was
information to the effect that this vessel had been put under
the Chinese Communist flag before the summer of 1952, and that
that was one of the grounds on which this department was
endeavoring to have the Panamanian government revoke its
registry. And the Panamanian government did revoke the registry
of this ship at about the same time as this incident was
reported. I think it was in July of '52.
    The Chairman. If you will just allow me, I would like to
get this straightened out. The Office of Naval Intelligence
reports that on 1 June 1952, this vessel was registered under
the ownership of Wheelock and Marden of Hong Kong. That is the
report from the Office of Naval Intelligence. Now, do you have
any report to the contrary, other than what you heard some
place? Do you follow me? Here is what the Office of Naval
Intelligence says. They have said the Panamanian ship, Miramar,
4,764 gross tons, registered under the ownership of Wheelock
and Marden of Hong Kong, was reported, et cetera--and I would
rather not put this in the record--carrying Communist troops.
Now, do you have any reason to believe that this report from
naval intelligence was wrong, that when they say it was
registered under the ownership of Wheelock and Marden, it was
not registered under their ownership?
    Mr. Goodkind. It is my understanding, sir, that the
department has information, which I would have to check, that
prior to that date the vessel had been registered under the
Chinese Communist flag and had been seized.
    The Chairman. When did you first hear that?
    Mr. Goodkind. Well, when we recently checked on the matter.
    The Chairman. Did you get that from any source other than
the newspapers?
    Mr. Goodkind. Oh, yes.
    The Chairman. Who told you?
    Mr. Goodkind. If we had it, it would be based on navy, ONI,
source.
    The Chairman. You said you did not hear that until after we
started to check into it last week?
    Mr. Goodkind. No, recently.
    The Chairman. Who told you about this report?
    Mr. Goodkind. We checked, at the request of Mr. Flanagan, a
number of these Panamanian ships, and we have checked it
through Lloyd's Register, and Lloyd's register contains the
entry showing this ship to have been seized. Lloyd's register
is published only every six months, so that I cannot put my
finger today on the date when this exchange took place.
    The Chairman. What is the date of the report in Lloyd's
register?
    Mr. Goodkind. I don't have that with me, sir.
    The Chairman. You were asked to check this.
    Mr. Goodkind. Well, I think it is in the letter addressed
to the committee on the Panamanian vessels.
    The Chairman. Mr. Morton, do you know anything about that?
    Mr. Morton. No. As to this Miramar matter, I have not been
able to find when ONI informed us of it. I have not been able
to find the record.
    The Chairman. I am talking about the Lloyd's report that
had been seized. Do you know what date they reported it had
been seized?
    Mr. Goodkind. No, but I should think we could get that.
    The Chairman. Can somebody get on the phone and get that,
if you have checked into it? Will you get on the phone here,
Mr. Goodkind, and get that?
    Mr. Goodkind. Yes. So far as Lloyd's register is concerned,
that is in the letter to the committee which I think you have
on the Panamanian vessels.
    Mr. Kennedy. I believe from what I remember that it was
June 1952 that it was referred to as seized, but I am not sure.
    Mr. Goodkind. If you will bear with me a moment, I think we
have the record here.
    The Chairman. The shipment was made on the first of June
1952.
    Mr. Goodkind. The entry of the Lloyd's issue of June 1952
reports the transfer of this vessel to the Trinity Development
Company, which I understand is an agency of the Chinese
Communist government.
    Mr. Flanagan. What address does it give for Trinity
Development? If you look at the ONI report for May 1952, you
will find that Trinity Development Company gives its address as
Hong Kong, which is a British Crown colony. Now, our question
is: How can it be seized by the Communists in the name of the
Trinity Development Company of Hong Kong?
    Mr. Goodkind. Well, let me give you the exact agencies in
Lloyd's register. And I don't know the basis for them.
    The Chairman. I may say, Mr. Goodkind, the thing that
disturbs me is that you or someone read in the newspaper the
defense of Wheelock and Marden----
    Mr. Goodkind. No, sir. We pointed this out to the committee
in the hearing last time. Lloyd's register reported this vessel
as being unknown in registry beginning with the first of June
1951, and the issue of June 1952 reports it as a subject of the
Republic of China. In addition to that, Lloyd's register shows
that from June of 1950, the registered owner was the Far
Eastern and Panama Transport Corporation, down to the issue of
June '52, at which time it reports a transfer to the Trinity
Development Company, and then, in the issue of December 1952,
it reports: ``Seized by Chinese Communists.''
    Mr. Flanagan. That is six months late. December is six
months after the date she was found carrying the troops.
    The Chairman. Is the Trinity Development Company a Hong
Kong firm? Let me get this straight.
    Mr. Goodkind. This entry indicates nothing on that.
    Mr. Flanagan. I have here the information furnished us by
ONI for May 1952, which shows Trinity Development Company of
Hong Kong.
    The Chairman. That would not be a Communist corporation,
then.
    Mr. Flanagan. It might be dominated by Communists, but it
is certainly a British firm in Hong Kong.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether that is a subsidiary of
Wheelock Marden?
    Mr. Goodkind. No, I do not.
    The Chairman. Pardon me for monopolizing the time, here.
    Senator Jackson. May I get the answer to that other
question? You remember I asked it in two parts.
    First of all, all of us are trying to keep the record
straight here, and we do not want anybody to be put in an
inaccurate position. Am I correct in my understanding that in
1951 a British-owned vessel under Panamanian registry carried
Red Chinese troops? Can someone answer that?
    Mr. Hansen. There is a report to that effect by ONI.
    Mr. Thomas. Our source is ONI, which you have right there.
    Senator Potter. Is it a good source?
    Mr. Thomas. I would think so. We think their source is
good.
    Senator Jackson. That is the first question. The second
question: I understand from the testimony here that in 1952 a
British-owned vessel under Panamanian registry has been seized
by the Red Chinese government, and subsequent to such seizure
the vessel carried Red Chinese troops.
    Mr. Thomas. I would have to go by the information.
    The Chairman. May I get the facts on this straight? Is this
correct, that according to Lloyd's of London, at the time the
Miramar carried the Communist troops, it was registered under
the ownership of Trinity Development Company, a Hong Kong firm?
    Senator Jackson. British-owned.
    Senator Potter. Well, we do not know.
    The Chairman. It would be a Hong Kong firm; that
subsequently, in December of '52, it appeared that the Chinese
Communists seized the Miramar? But as far as Lloyd's is
concerned, they show the ship at the time the troops were
transferred as under the Trinity Development Company.
    Mr. Goodkind. That is what Lloyd's shows.
    The Chairman. Let me finish. But according to the report of
Naval intelligence, the ship belonged to Wheelock and Marden at
the time it transported the Communist troops. Is that a correct
analysis of the record we have on this, so far?
    Mr. Morton. There is a difference between a registered
owner and a beneficial owner in Lloyd's. I am not a technician
in this field, but the facts from Lloyd's, as I extract them
here, are these: Beginning with June of 1950, the registered
owner was the Far Eastern and Panama Transport Corporation, 10
East 49th Street, Bella Vista, Panama. That is your
registration. It is listed as the same in each six months, June
and December, until we reach June of 1952. It then becomes
transferred to the Trinity Development Company. And I can not
tell the date of that transfer.
    Now, the beneficial owner is listed as Wheelock Marden and
Company, Limited, in Hong Kong.
    The Chairman. That confirms naval intelligence.
    Mr. Morton. That is in June of 1950, Mr. Chairman. It is
the same in December of 1950. In June of 1951, Lloyd's lists
that as ``unknown.'' On December of 1951, ``Unknown.'' In June
of 1952, ``Unknown.'' In December of 1952, ``Government of the
People's Republic of China.''
    Senator Jackson. When is the allegation made as to carrying
the troops of this vessel you have been discussing, Mr. Morton?
    Mr. Morton. In '52, in June, I believe.
    The Chairman. June 1, 1952.
    Senator Jackson. Can ONI or anyone else testify whether the
vessel was under the control of the Red Chinese government at
the time these troops were alleged to have been transported?
    Senator Potter. Not according to Lloyd's.
    Senator Jackson. It says ``Unknown'' in there, you see.
    Senator Potter. Not at that time.
    Senator Jackson. Yes, that is the record.
    Mr. Morton. Unknown from June 1951 on, until it was
definitely established in December of 1952. By that time,
Lloyd's had apparently definitely established that the
government of the People's Republic of China had it. For
eighteen months it is listed as unknown.
    Senator Mundt. You did not mention Trinity Development
Company.
    Mr. Morton. They come in as not the registered owner, but
the beneficial owner.
    The Chairman. It is there in June of '52, is it not?
    Mr. Morton. Yes, June of '52.
    Senator Mundt. Is that finished in December of '52, or did
they take it out?
    Mr. Morton. It says unknown in December of '52, with the
notation that ``we don't know who the registered owner is.''
    The Chairman. Could I get this straight now? When they
first indicate the Trinity Development Company is the
registered owner of the ship, they show that Wheelock and
Marden was the beneficial owner. Is that right?
    Mr. Morton. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Now will you just go back to 1950?
    Mr. Morton. The Far Eastern and Panama Transport
Corporation was the registered owner when Wheelock Marden was
the beneficial owner.
    The Chairman. When did Trinity Development first appear on
the scene?
    Mr. Morton. They first appeared on the scene in June of
'52, and the last time that Wheelock Marden was mentioned in
connection with this ship in Lloyd's is December of 1950.
    The Chairman. All right. June of '52, Trinity Development.
That is a Hong Kong firm, is it?
    Mr. Morton. I don't know, sir. I know nothing about it.
    Mr. Flanagan. That is a Hong Kong firm, according to ONI.
    Senator McClellan. We should take that up in strictly
executive session, when we decide what to do.
    I would like to ask a question. As I understand this thing,
you have the information that the ONI has the information that
absolutely would confirm whatever statement the member of the
staff here made about it, and which has received publicity,
because it was made in open hearings. As I understand, you can
confirm what he said about it from your files. Now you take the
position that you do not want to confirm it, because to do so
you would have to declassify your files, your information. When
you did that, then you think the British of course would ask,
and probably already have asked, and probably already know of,
the source of your information; and the source of your
information then would become public, and it would destroy
further service or usefulness to you. Is that correct?
    Mr. Thomas. Yes, that is it.
    Senator McClellan. Does that state your position?
    Mr. Thomas. Yes, I think so.
    Senator McClellan. The thing that I do not quite
understand, and I am not too well informed about all this
classification and these sources of information, and so forth,
but what I cannot understand is, if you say that you have the
information, without giving the source, who can compel you, and
why is it ever necessary to give the source? As it has been
suggested here, it might have come from a dozen sources, and
this committee got it from another source, without getting it
from you. Now, I do not want this committee to do something
that absolutely does a disservice, or makes your job far more
difficult. At the same time, I cannot understand why in the
devil the American people cannot have the same information the
Russians already have. That is just what I do not understand,
    Mr. Thomas. Well, of course, what you are dealing with,
when you are dealing with intelligence, is a very sensitive
source, and sources are important, as you know.
    Senator McClellan. If there is anything further, I would
just like to get that.
    Mr. Thomas. Well, when the navy confirms the names of the
ships, and so on, it obviously came from ONI. And they think
that would be very damaging to their sources. That is a matter
of opinion, of course.
    Senator McClellan. I cannot understand how it could be.
    Mr. Thomas. Well, as I say, that is a matter of honest
difference of opinion.
    Senator McClellan. That is what I would like to be assured
of. I do not like, if I may use this expression, and not as an
accusation, to have the agency hiding behind something that
absolutely is not justified.
    Mr. Thomas. Well, there is no reason to hide behind
anything.
    Senator McClellan. I did not mean it as an accusation. I
mean, I want to be satisfied in my own mind, here, that there
is some real justification for this protection in this
classification. We have it out in public.
    Mr. Thomas. Well, I think we are in the area probably of
opinion there. If I can find out exactly what you want, I will
see what we can do to get it for you.
    Senator Mundt. I can tell you, as one member of the
committee. My request is very simple and very easy. I want you
to give us authority to release the names of these ships and
their apparent ownership. I do not care whether you release it
or we release it, or the State Department does. Confuse the
public as much as you want to about the source of information.
But I do not want to be gotten in the position of concealing
that fact. Because nobody can stand up and defend the
concealment of that fact as defense of sources, not when all we
want released is what we have referred to. We do not want to be
put in the position of being accused of trumping up some
phantom ships, which we are not.
    Mr. Thomas. Could I have some time to talk to my people and
talk to Mr. Flanagan?
    Mr. Flanagan. The senators are voting, and it will take ten
or fifteen minutes. Do you think you can do that now?
    Mr. Thomas. It would take a little time. I do not think it
could be done over the telephone.
    [Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., a recess was taken until 4:50
p.m.]
    The Chairman. Here is a suggestion which Mr. Flanagan has
made; that is, that the Navy Department write the State
Department and confirm the fact that a ship owned by Wallem and
Company transported Communist troops in 1951 on two occasions,
and in 1952 a ship registered under the ownership of Wheelock
and Marden transported Communist troops. If you could send it
over, declassify it, the State Department could then produce it
and not give the source of the information but merely say it is
from what they consider reliable intelligence agencies. What do
you think about that?
    Mr. Thomas. Well, may I take that back and talk to my
people? That is what you would like to have?
    The Chairman. I think so.
    What do you think, Senator?
    Senator McClellan. I would like to get any information and
make it public that will not jeopardize the general security,
and so forth, of the ONI. I do not want to weaken their
position or make it more difficult for them to secure
information. To save the life of me, though, I cannot see how
this is going to do it.
    But I would suggest that that would be sufficient for my
purposes if that could be worked out. From my viewpoint, I
cannot see how it would hurt to have the information public. I
am sure Russia knows more about it than we will ever be able to
make public to our people, and I do not see how it can hurt
from that standpoint. But at the same time I want to be most
careful not to do anything that interferes with or hampers or
hurts these agencies that we have to have to do a certain job.
    I do not want to make your work more difficult. With a lack
of knowledge and a lack of experience and a consequent
incapacity to judge wisely, I am just in a quandary. I hope you
can find a way to do it and to make this available.
    Now, I think this: When they deny these things, and we have
from other sources somehow made it public, as I understand it,
then we are in a position here of wanting to back up what we
have done. And for the life of me, I do not see why it is not a
wholesome thing to make these things public, to show the lack
of cooperation, the lack of support, we are getting from our
so-called allies in world conflict. I think we are entitled to
know. I think I am entitled to know it when I vote for
appropriations for foreign spending. I think I am entitled to
know the kind of cooperation I am getting from those countries
to which we vote assistance.
    Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, can I ask a couple of
questions on the record?
    I wonder if the committee could be advised as to whether or
not this British-owned vessel under Panamanian registry in
1952, while carrying troops, was actually under the control of
the Red Chinese government. That element was brought in.
    Mr. Hansen. That is what we are trying to establish on all
of these. If I may point out: We have been greatly concerned
about the question of the beneficial ownership and the
registered ownership. Lloyd's is fairly definitive in that
regard, but even they publish this as a confidential register,
because they do not wish to be held legally liable in respect
to putting forth the wrong information.
    Now, we just have not established in the case of any of
those three vessels, as far as I know, in the executive branch
of the government, that they were knowingly, by British
companies, called upon to do that trade, or allowed to do it,
or what have you. We just do not know for a fact.
    Now, the case as it appears here to terms of registry,
deregistration, seizure, and so forth, presents a situation
which on its face looks like there was some gain by those
British companies in the traffic that was carried on. We just
do not know, and we cannot swear to it.
    Mr. Flanagan. On that point, just how much checking has the
executive branch done? Number one, since this case has come up,
have we asked anyone to go down through these registry lists
and find out if there were any communications from these people
in Hong Kong, or have we asked our consul general in Hong Kong
to go through the available corporate records in Hong Kong on
this matter?
    Mr. Hansen. We haven't done that. I have asked the
Department of Defense to do it, because I am very loath to go
through different channels than where the original report came.
    Mr. Flanagan. Another question. On the question of the
ship, the Pericone, shown here as owned by Wallem and Company--
and there may be some confusion again as to their ownership,
and they speak of seizure of that vessel, but in checking
Lloyd's, and as you know the information is not too complete,
what is in there, particularly on the movement of ships, is
pretty accurate.
    Now, I find that the Pericone transported troops in the
summer of 1951, according to ONI reports. Wallem and Company
may come back and say that ship was seized, and they probably
will. But I also note from Lloyd's of London that she called at
the port of Hong Kong on the second of October 1951.
    Mr. Goodkind. The Pericone was not seized. The Pericone
registration was revoked, and the ship has been scrapped.
    Mr. Flanagan. Yes, but prior to the time she was scrapped,
she called as a Panamanian vessel at the port of Hong Kong, a
British port, and it is inconceivable to me that a Hong Kong
owner, if the ship had been seized by the Communists or there
had been some confusion, would have ever allowed it to come
back into a British port without seizing it back.
    Mr. Goodkind. So far as I know, there in no question of the
Pericone's having been seized. It is the Miramar that was
seized. The Pericone was not seized by the Chinese Communists.
    Senator Jackson. What is the source of the information in
the case of what I am going to refer to as the 1952 vessel that
we rely on, that is evidence that the Red Chinese government
had control of that vessel at the time they were transporting
troops? Is it Lloyd's register, or is it actual intelligence of
what physically occurred? What is it?
    Mr. Goodkind. It is partly Lloyd's register and partly ONI
information.
    The Chairman. You say partly ONI information. The ONI says
it belonged to Wheelock and Marden.
    Mr. Goodkind. I am thinking of another report, sir.
    Senator Jackson. You were reading from 1952 information.
    Mr. Morton. I was reading from Lloyd's register, which
shows ``Unknown.'' It could have been Wheelock Marden.
    Senator Jackson. Was that the Miramar that was transporting
in 1952?
    Mr. Morton. The Miramar. Lloyd's gives the beneficial owner
as unknown during that period. We have no way of evaluating
that.
    Senator Jackson. I think it is very important that we find
out whether it is a fact, if it is possible to find out, that
this vessel was operated by the British company, or whether it
was under the control of the Red Chinese government. I must say
the record here is a little confusing on this Miramar vessel,
and also, in the meantime, before the statement is out, I
wonder if the State Department could advise the committee,
first of all, whether these British companies are British-
owned. What if the British come in and say they are not owned
by British citizens? We have all sorts of things here.
    The next thing I would like to know is whether under
British law they have control over the registry and direction
of a registered Panamanian company vessel. I am anticipating
what they may come back with, so that we will know about it.
    The Chairman. Here is what I suggested to Mr. Thomas, that
the navy write the State Department an unclassified letter
setting forth the fact that a vessel owned by Wallem and
Company, Limited, of Hong Kong, on two different occasions
transported Communist troops in the year 1951; that in the year
1952 a ship registered under the ownership of Wheelock and
Marden transported Communist troops. And then I think we should
ask the State Department to confirm that in writing to us,
without disclosing the fact as to ONI if ONI does not want
their source named.
    Senator Mundt. I do not think that will do any good. I
think you should name the ships, because they will come right
back with the answer they gave last time, ``What ships?''
    The Chairman. I would rather have the name of the ships of
course. I was in intelligence during the last war, and one of
the things you do not want the enemy to know is what you do not
know. If you say that the Pericone made trips carrying
Communist troops, if they know five other ships carried
Communist troops, you have then notified them pretty much what
you do not know. I can see where naming the ship might not be
too good.
    Senator Mundt. The company has been named, though. There is
nothing new. It is in the press. The British Consul says, ``We
cannot discuss this until we know the names of the ships.''
    Senator Jackson. Would there not be another out on this?
Say security is involved and the State Department announced the
matter was being taken up with the British government. There is
a security angle. And let the British government come back with
an answer.
    The Chairman. First, you cannot leave hanging in the air
this charge that we had the counsel of the committee get up and
misinform the committee. That is what they are playing up.
    Senator Jackson. Well, to answer the unknown part, you do
not have to say those were the only vessels. Why not say
``among the vessels involved''?
    The Chairman. Then you are inferring there are more.
    Senator Mundt. I think the main thing is to get the
integrity of the committee and the motive of the committee
clearly before the country, and without naming the ships I
think you put the British in an untenable position. I do not
see how they can answer a foolish charge like that.
    The Chairman. I would like to have the name of the ship.
    Senator Jackson. Let us name that one vessel in '51.
    The Chairman. If you can name the ships, good.
    I think we will excuse you gentlemen. I want to thank you
very much for your time.
    Mr. Thomas. You are very welcome.
    [Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the hearing was recessed to the
call of the chair.]
                           AUSTRIAN INCIDENT
    [Editor's note.--On May 29, 1953, the subcommittee heard
testimony from two former Economic Cooperation officials in
Austria, Clyde King and Gabriel Kerekes, that the high exchange
rate for Austrian currency in 1949 had worked against that
nation's financial stability and in favor of the Russian
occupation forces. Objections to their efforts to devalue the
currency had come from the International Monetary Fund, whose
secretary was V. Frank Coe (1907-1980). In 1948, Elizabeth
Bentley had identified Coe as a member of Nathan Silvermaster's
Communist cell in Washington. Coe, who had previously directed
monetary research at the Department of Treasury, asked to
appear before the House Un-American Activities Committee, where
he denied under oath the allegations made against him.
    In a campaign speech on October 27, 1952, Senator McCarthy
had declared Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson unfit to
serve as president because of his past associations.
Specifically, he charged that Alger Hiss and Frank Coe had
recommended Stevenson as a delegate to an Institute for Pacific
Relations conference ten years earlier. ``Frank Coe was the man
[named] under oath before Congressional committees seven times
as a member of the Communist party. Why, why do Hiss and Coe
find that Adlai Stevenson is the man they want representing
them at this conference? I don't know, perhaps Adlai knows.''
The Democratic National Committee responded by pointing out
that Stevenson had not been a delegate to the conference. That
December, when the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee called
Coe to testify, he refused to answer any questions about
Communist affiliation or espionage. After his testimony, the
IMF requested his resignation.
    Following his executive session testimony before the
subcommittee, Coe testified in public session on June 5 and
June 8, 1953. In a written statement submitted to the
subcommittee he denied having participated ``in any orders or
requests or suggestions which may have been given in November
1949 relating to devaluation of the Austrian currency and the
negotiations connected therewith.'' The later opening of the
KGB archives confirmed that Coe had provided material to Soviet
intelligence agents. In 1958, Coe moved to the People's
Republic of China, where he engaged in translating the writings
of Mao Tse-tung into English.]
                              ----------
                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 10:00 a.m. in room 357 of the
Senate Office Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt, presiding.
    Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota;
Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Donald A. Surine,
assistant counsel; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk; Mason Drury,
Senate liaison officer, State Department.
 TESTIMONY OF V. FRANK COE (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, MILTON
                          H. FRIEDMAN)
    Senator Mundt. Will you stand and be sworn, please?
    Do you solemnly avow the testimony you are about to give in
this hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Coe. I do.
    Senator Mundt. Mr. Friedman, will you identify yourself?
    Mr. Friedman. Milton H. Friedman. 522 Fifth Avenue, New
York.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Coe, are you a member of the Communist party
today?
    Mr. Coe. Mr. Cohn, on advice of counsel and under the
protection afforded me by the Fifth Amendment, I respectfully
decline to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Where have you been during the last two weeks?
    Mr. Coe. I don't mind telling you where I have been the
last two weeks----
    Mr. Cohn. Let me put it this way. Let's go back a little
bit. The last time we saw each other was December 1st when you
testified before the Internal Security Subcommittee of the
Senate. Where have you been since December 1st?
    Mr. Coe. I would say that in general I have been seeking
work since December 1st. As you know, I think it is not unfair
to say that the request of the McCarran committee caused my
practical discharge from employment at that time.
    Mr. Cohn. As secretary of the International Monetary Fund?
    Mr. Coe. Yes. Since that time I have been seeking
employment in various places in the United States most of the
time. I don't mind telling you that I have been out of the
country seeking employment.
    Mr. Cohn. You have been to Canada, have you not?
    Mr. Coe. I have been to Canada, I have been to Mexico. I
have been to Cuba and Nassau.
    I would in advance say that, though I have no hesitation in
telling you, that I would politely request that you not ask
whom I have seen or communicated with in that time of those
people out of the country. They are foreigners and to bring
their name into these proceedings would possibly hurt them. And
I understand the purpose of this inquiry it is in regard to
some manipulation of mine into the Austrian currency system.
They have nothing whatsoever to do with that. Some of them
attempted to help me, at least in the way of advice, on
employment and I hesitate to injure them.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you in contact with any Communists?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under protection afforded
me by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, I respectfully
decline to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. My question is: Were you in contact with any
Communists?
    Maybe we could save a little time. I want to ask you
particularly if you were in contact with any Communists in
Canada, Mexico, Nassau, or Cuba. Would your answer be the same
to each country?
    Mr. Coe. Yes, my answer would be the same.
    Mr. Cohn. Your answer would be the same?
    Mr. Coe. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Will you name for us the people you were in
contact with?
    Mr. Coe. That is precisely the question I asked you not to
ask.
    Mr. Cohn. I appreciate your admonition, but I am asking
you.
    Senator Mundt. May I inquire, Mr. Coe, you have just
recently been to Canada, Mexico, Cuba and Nassau. Is that
right?
    Mr. Coe. Yes, sir.
    Senator Mundt. When was your passport issued?
    Mr. Coe. I went as a tourist. No passport is required.
    Mr. Cohn. You have to pass through the immigration
authorities of those countries, don't you?
    Mr. Coe. Yes. I went as a tourist.
    Mr. Cohn. And they let you through?
    Mr. Coe. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Using your own name?
    Mr. Coe. Virginius Frank Coe.
    Mr. Cohn. You had been denied a passport by the State
Department as far back as 1950----
    Mr. Coe. 1951.
    Senator Mundt. That is the reason I asked you. I had read
your testimony, and it said you were denied a passport.
    Mr. Coe. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't know whether the immigration
authorities placed a stop on you, but you assume not by virtue
of the fact you got out?
    Mr. Coe. By virtue of the fact they were not meticulous in
my behalf or no stop made.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you questioned at all?
    Mr. Coe. I would say the usual things those people do. In
each of the countries the procedure is different.
    Mr. Cohn. You were not stopped and questioned outside of
ordinary questions?
    Mr. Coe. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Of course, according to your own testimony which
you gave in a conference as far back as 1951, the State
Department denied you a passport to leave the country for
security reasons. For that reason you were denied a passport. I
think this is unusual. I would suggest possibly that we could
inquire into immigration and find out whether a stop was
placed.
    Senator Mundt. It seems rather obvious that a stop wasn't
placed.
    May we have for the record what post you left the country
when you went to Canada.
    Mr. Cohn. Maybe we should see why he wasn't stopped.
    Mr. Coe. May I consult counsel?
    Mr. Chairman, if it is not impertinent, and I say it
respectfully, I thought I was being sought in regard to the
Austrian currency inquiry. This is turning more into a detailed
check on my movements as to the recent period. As I said
earlier, I didn't mind saying where I was, but if this is to be
the nature of the inquiry, I think I should assert a privilege.
    Senator Mundt. This is a preliminary inquiry to learn
something about where you have been recently. During the course
of the interrogation we will make clear the purpose of calling
you.
    Actually it is a matter of public record, but we would have
to go into a hullabaloo of investigation as to where you left
the country and where you returned. Since you did it
officially, it seems it would be the most helpful thing, most
logical thing, for you to follow the course of any other
citizen and say where you went across--if it was St. Francis--
of course, if you want to stand on the Fifth Amendment, that is
your privilege.
    Mr. Coe. Well, Senator, I would say I have told you where I
have been. I considered that I was there perfectly legally;
that I went perfectly legally just as any other citizen might.
Mr. Cohn's question suggested that he doubts the legality of
that. There was some implication that the law was broken.
    Senator Mundt. You have to put his question in the proper
framework. You said you did not want to tell whether you talked
to any Communist so you have a right to decline to answer the
question.
    Now, I would like to know whether you went across the
border officially by the immigration sources or you made the
proper contacts?
    Mr. Coe. Well, I will say simply and generally--I think I
am repeating what I said earlier, or I call your attention to
the fact I said earlier that I followed the rules and laws that
I know, but further particulars, in view of the nature of the
questions, I think I will decline to answer.
    Senator Mundt. At what point did you cross the border to go
to Canada? I will ask you specifically.
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under the protection
afforded me by the Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to
answer that question.
    Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, the witness has already
testified he has been in Cuba, Mexico, Canada and Nassau. Now,
I think it is quite clear that it is proper for this committee
to ask the port of entry he went through to reach those
countries, inasmuch as the witness has already admitted he has
been to those countries. There is no basis under which he can
ask for protection under the Fifth Amendment. I think he should
be ordered and directed to answer the question. There is
nothing there to incriminate him.
    Senator Mundt. The only source of incrimination is that he
failed to make the proper contacts as he crossed the border. If
he has done so I think he should answer the question.
    Mr. Coe. I think I was very much legal.
    Mr. Friedman. May I be heard?
    Senator Mundt. You may talk to Mr. Coe.
    Mr. Friedman. I thought I might discuss a point of law.
    Senator Mundt. You may with Mr. Coe.
    Senator Jackson. You have to run the risk of what you
advise him as to whether you are right and we are wrong.
    Mr. Friedman. Senator, as you know, the lawyer never runs
the risk. The client takes the risk.
    Senator Jackson. That should be encouraging to your client.
    The Chairman. Are you ready to respond to Senator Jackson's
question?
    Mr. Coe. I would like to ask first whether you are
specifically directing me to answer that question.
    Senator Mundt. I am directing you to answer that question.
    Mr. Coe. Then, on advice of counsel I say I entered Canada
through the port of Niagra Falls, I believe it is called.
    Senator Mundt. And returned to this country through the
same port?
    Mr. Coe. No, sir. I returned--again may I consult counsel?
    Mr. Chairman, to cut it short, and I am assuming you are
directing the answer to this.
    Senator Mundt. That is right.
    Mr. Coe. From Canada I proceeded to Nassau, from Nassau to
Cuba, from Cuba to Mexico and reentered the United States to
deal with the charges that I read in the newspapers.
    Senator Jackson. Where did you reenter?
    Mr. Coe. Laredo. The main rail route there which is Laredo.
    Senator Jackson. L-a-r-e-d-o?
    Mr. Coe. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. Texas?
    Mr. Coe. That is right.
    Senator Mundt. In other words, this was all part of one
trip?
    Mr. Coe. Yes. For that period I was in the Caribbean.
    Senator Mundt. And you were in Mexico when you read it in
the newspapers and came back?
    Mr. Coe. Correct.
    Mr. Cohn. What day did you return to Washington?
    Mr. Coe. I returned today.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, prior to today, when was the last
time you were in Washington?
    Mr. Coe. About two months ago.
    Mr. Cohn. You have not been in Washington during the last
two months?
    Mr. Coe. That is right.
    Senator Jackson. You have been out of the United States for
two months?
    Mr. Coe. That is right. Approximately two months.
    Mr. Cohn. So you went from Canada to Nassau, from Nassau to
Cuba, and from Cuba to Mexico.
    [At this point, Senator Mundt left the room.]
    Now, let me ask you this, Mr. Coe. On exactly what date
were you discharged by the International Monetary Fund?
    Mr. Coe. I would have to refer----
    Mr. Cohn. About how long after your appearance before the
McCarran committee?
    Mr. Coe. Technically, I resigned from the International
Monetary Fund. I would say it was December 3rd or 4th--
somewhere around that time--within a day or two.
    Mr. Cohn. Your resignation was requested, was it not?
    Mr. Coe. I was given the option of resigning or facing
charges of dismissal.
    Mr. Cohn. By who?
    Mr. Coe. The managing director, Ivar Rooth.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you go with the International Monetary
Fund originally?
    Mr. Coe. In the mid part of 1946.
    Mr. Cohn. And at that time were you a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under the protection of
the Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to answer that
question.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under the protection of
the Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to answer that
question.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Soviet espionage ring
consisting of U.S. government employees at that time?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under the protection of
the Fifth Amendment, I decline to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you with the International Monetary Fund in
1949, specifically November 1949, and at that time were you a
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under the protection of
the Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to answer that
question.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you engaged in espionage at that time?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under the protection
afforded me by the Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to
answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, what position did you hold in the
International Monetary Fund in the fall of 1949?
    Mr. Coe. I was secretary throughout.
    Mr. Cohn. You were secretary of the fund throughout the
period of your employment?
    Mr. Coe. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What was your gross salary?
    Mr. Coe. About $20,000, I believe.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, getting back to the fall of 1949, how many
people worked for you? How many people were in the office?
    Mr. Coe. I couldn't say.
    Mr. Cohn. Give us an approximation?
    Mr. Coe. Well, the number of people varied. I would say at
the time I left the office it was comprised of forty-five to
sixty persons, and whether it was smaller or larger in 1949, I
don't really know.
    [Senator Mundt returned to the room.]
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, since you left the room, Mr. Coe
testified that he was in the International Monetary Fund from
1946 until December of last year when he was given the option
of resigning or facing charges. We got to the period of 1949
and he refused to answer whether he was a member of the
Communist party at that time or engaged in espionage. Then we
got into the question of how many people worked for him as
secretary in his office.
    I want to ask you this and we are still talking about the
period in the fall of 1949.
    Were any of the people working for you Communists?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under protection of the
Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to answer that
question.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Coe, you were out of the country in
1949. Would you tell us----
    Mr. Coe. Would you mind me saying one thing at that point?
I would like to state that, of course, my pursuing that course,
I mean to cast no reflection of any kind on any of those
persons who were employed there.
    Mr. Cohn. Your answer was subjective.
    Senator Mundt. You could protect your associates much
better if you were in a position to say ``no.''
    Senator Jackson. Are you now engaged in espionage and
sabotage against the United States?
    Mr. Coe. No.
    Senator Jackson. You are not now engaged?
    Mr. Coe. That is correct.
    Senator Jackson. How about six months ago?
    Mr. Coe. That would be what date, Senator?
    Senator Jackson. Let's say, were you engaged in sabotage or
espionage against the United States in November 1952?
    Mr. Coe. Mr. Chairman, if I may break the question up,
after consultation with counsel, I would, on the question of
espionage which the senator asked, on advice of counsel and
under the protection of the Fifth Amendment, I respectfully
decline to answer that question. On the question of sabotage,
with little opportunity to reflect as to the meaning of the
term but with knowledge of the ordinary meaning, I would say
that I never engaged in it at any time.
    Senator Jackson. At any time?
    Mr. Coe. At any time.
    Senator Mundt. You are talking about physical sabotage--
destruction.
    Senator Jackson. I want to make it clear when I say
sabotage I mean as defined by federal statutes.
    Mr. Coe. I think I had better consult counsel.
    In view of the ambiguity of the meaning of the term, at
least to me, I will on the advice of counsel and under the
protection of the Fifth Amendment decline to answer that
question.
    Senator Jackson. Have you ever been engaged in physical
sabotage?
    Mr. Coe. No.
    Senator Jackson. Now, you have testified a moment ago that
you are not now engaged in sabotage or espionage against the
United States?
    Mr. Coe. That is correct.
    Senator Jackson. When did you go off the sabotage and
espionage payroll? When did you quit that job?
    Mr. Coe. Senator, I never said that I was on that job.
    Senator Jackson. You have testified that you are not now
engaged in espionage, but you say in November of 1952 you
refused to answer that question on the basis of the Fifth
Amendment. Is that right?
    Mr. Coe. That is approximately correct.
    Senator Jackson. Were you engaged in espionage December 4,
1952?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under protection of the
Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to answer that
question.
    Senator Jackson. December 31, 1952?
    Mr. Coe. I had better consult counsel.
    As to the date you mentioned, I answer categorically
``no.''
    Mr. Cohn. In other words it is quite apparent that you were
engaged in espionage while you were with the United Nations
organization, that is secretary of the International Monetary
Fund, but when you resigned you were no longer in espionage?
    Mr. Coe. I don't think that conclusion can be drawn from my
testimony.
    Mr. Cohn. Let's make the record clear. You left the
International Monetary Fund----
    Mr. Coe. The 3rd, 4th or 5th.
    Mr. Cohn. December 1st, 2nd, were you engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Coe. Mr. Chairman, I think I will consult counsel on
that.
    Mr. Chairman, I have meant to, in these answers, to
indicate that that categorical answer instead of the assertion
of a privilege would date from my previous testimony before the
Senate committee, Subcommittee on Internal Security, and not
from the date of my leaving the fund. In other words, before
that committee, on a date which I believe was early in
December----
    Mr. Cohn. December 1st.
    Mr. Coe. December 1st or 2nd, I asserted the privilege on
questions similar to those you are asking and I am endeavoring
not to change that position.
    Senator Jackson. All right, we will state for the purpose
of questioning at the time you asserted that privilege was
December 1st. Were you engaged in espionage on December 2nd,
which was after you testified, and according to your testimony,
you were still secretary of the International Monetary Fund?
    Mr. Coe. Assuming those dates to have been the obvious ones
we have in mind, I would give a ``no'' answer to that.
    Senator Jackson. At that time you were still secretary of
the International Monetary Fund to the best of your knowledge?
    Mr. Coe. That is right.
    Senator Jackson. Have you been engaged in espionage since
December 2nd? I will ask that rather than going through each
month, day and year since then?
    Mr. Coe. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Getting back to the fall of 1949, you have
declined to answer whether any of the people working for you
were Communists.
    My next question is: Were you out of the country sometime
in the fall of 1949?
    Mr. Coe. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. When?
    Mr. Coe. I haven't had a chance to check the date.
    Mr. Cohn. Give us an approximation?
    Mr. Coe. I was out of the country part of December, I think
part of November and whether I was out in October, I don't
know. I will accept the fund's record on that. I believe I will
have to check with them.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you first hear about the Austrian
currency situation? When was the very first time you heard
anything about it?
    Mr. Coe. What?
    Mr. Cohn. The situation that concerned the devaluation of
the shilling.
    Mr. Coe. Would you mind telling the date?
    Mr. Cohn. Oh, that went over by lateral agreement signed
the middle of December 1949. Negotiations were underway a
number of months prior to that time. The actual devaluation was
the middle of December, but the discussion had been underway
for a number of months prior to that time. I am trying to find
out when the matter came to your attention?
    Mr. Coe. I would like to say two things. The first is that
I don't have any recollection of the matter. The second
pertains to a more general point on this questioning.
    I would very much appreciate between this appearance and
the next appearance being given by the committee a chance to
read the transcript of the evidence which contains the
accusations and statements on this Austrian currency situation.
That may well refresh my memory on some points.
    Senator Mundt. You will be given a chance to see that
record. We will give it to you.
    Mr. Cohn. For purposes of further characterizing here, I
will summarize the situation.
    The only mention of you was the fact that a cable was sent
to Austria from Washington indicating that the Czechoslovakian
delegation to the International Monetary Fund was objecting to
the devaluation of the shilling; that this objection was
transmitted by the Office of the Secretary of the International
Monetary Fund through the State Department to Austria; and I
think the wording of the cable from the secretary of the
Monetary Fund advised the department that the Czechoslovakian
delegation had entered an objection to devaluation and in view
of that, the fund or secretary's office felt that there should
be a suspension of negotiations for further consideration.
Something along those lines.
    Mr. Coe. May I paraphrase. Some date there, presumably the
middle of November----
    Mr. Cohn. Prior to that.
    Mr. Coe. Sometime thereto, the allegation is that the
Office of the Secretary notified the State Department of the
United States government that the Czechoslovakian delegate to
the fund was objecting to some feature of this devaluation and
that that office further said that in view of this objection
the proposed action should be held up.
    Mr. Cohn. I think that is substantially it.
    Senator Mundt. There is some doubt as to whether the
secretary is supposed to have notified the State Department or
some committee which handles the matter.
    Mr. Coe. Was the question on that?
    Mr. Cohn. Whether you have any recollection of the protest
that the Czechoslovakian government made or the action your
office took?
    Mr. Coe. I do not, as of the moment. If I could read more
about it I might recall.
    Senator Jackson. In addition, I think the committee would
like to know who you talked with represented countries,
individuals you were in touch within the State Department in
connection with this adjustment.
    Mr. Coe. At the time, in connection with this matter, I
have to say that as of the moment and since reading the sparse
account of this matter in the newspapers I have no recollection
of it at all.
    Senator Jackson. Who would you normally be in touch with in
the State Department on such matters?
    Mr. Coe. Well, that some way puzzles me too, because
although I may here neglect to think of some method of action
or function, I don't think I would be----
    Senator Jackson. What would be the normal move through
channels in order to get in touch with our people in Austria.
As secretary of the International Monetary Fund, you would not
necessarily send a cable direct to the high commissioner in
Austria, but you would take this matter up through the
Department of State. Is that a fair statement?
    You were secretary to this fund for many years. Let me put
a hypothetical question to you. Suppose a matter came up
relating to the work of the Monetary Fund that involved the
actions of our government, who would you contact?
    Mr. Coe. Senator, the reason I hesitate is that, as I said,
the incident from present knowledge that I have of it is
puzzling to me. The procedure that is suggested there doesn't,
as of now----
    Senator Mundt. What would be the normal procedure?
    Mr. Coe. Well, it would vary with the incident. In matters
such as this I would not normally have contacted the United
States government, except through its executive director or
unless----
    Senator Jackson. Executive director of what?
    Mr. Coe. Of the fund--unless he said so.
    Senator Mundt. Who was that?
    Mr. Coe. He was, I think, Frank Southard. It may have been
Andrew N. Overby.
    Mr. Cohn. It was Mr. Southard.
    Senator Jackson. He was one of the Monetary Fund executive
directors?
    Mr. Coe. That is right. He was the United States--what we
call United States executive director. There were fourteen. He
casts votes of the United States. If one director, for instance
the Czechoslovakian director, sent a note to the secretary of
the fund saying he objected to something he would normally say
what he wished done with that piece of paper and inform the
secretary to inform the other directors so that----
    Senator Jackson. Then the American executive director would
take it up with the State Department?
    Mr. Coe. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. You wouldn't take it up normally?
    Mr. Coe. Not normally. There are certain kinds of business
which I, as secretary, would take up directly with certain
branches of the United States government.
    Senator Jackson. There are other kinds of business that you
would take up at his request?
    Mr. Coe. This kind of business, as I understand, I am not
sure what is being talked about--what kind of objection. From
present knowledge of it I would say somebody else would have
taken it up with the State Department.
    Senator Mundt. When dealing with a monetary situation in
occupied countries, would you take it up with the State
Department or the Department of Defense?
    Mr. Coe. Well, no, it wouldn't. I think no member of the
staff of the fund would normally have taken up a monetary
matter with the Department of Defense unless the United States
executive director has indicated that was appropriate channels.
    Senator Mundt. At that time wasn't there a committee
established in the federal government, someone from the State
Department, Defense and Treasury, that consulted about monetary
conditions in those countries?
    Mr. Coe. Yes, from my understanding of the situation from
the United States government at that time there was a committee
consisting of secretary of treasury, chairman, secretary of
state, head of the Export and Import Bank and various other men
who constituted the National Advisory Council of Monetary
Affairs. A statutory body.
    Senator Mundt. Wouldn't that be the logical group for you
to relay any information? Wouldn't it be brought to that
National Advisory Council?
    Mr. Coe. Yes, but it would not normally have been my duty
on matters of this sort to bring it to their attention. My duty
would be to bring it to the attention of the U.S. executive
director and it would be his option then to do so.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you recall any instances where you might have
brought information directly to the council, rather than to Mr.
Southard?
    Mr. Coe. The only, as a matter of routine, my recollection
is that such occasion occurred very infrequently when I brought
the matter to the attention of the chairman of the council. I
don't know whether I ever addressed a letter to the secretary
of the treasury as chairman of that council. In other words, I
don't know that the secretary of the fund was ever normally in
contact with that council. He was in contact with his executive
directors.
    Senator Mundt. You are sure that as secretary of the fund
you never communicated directly with our representative in a
monetary discussion on foreign capital. You either went to
their National Advisory Council or went through Mr. Southard.
Is that right?
    Mr. Coe. No. That isn't correct because you say monetary
matter. As secretary of the fund it was occasionally my duty,
in fact, often my duty, to report the decision of the fund to
governments.
    Senator Mundt. That wasn't the question. I would presume
there were frequently conferences abroad--monetary problems
such as the Austrian devaluation of the shilling. My question
was: When members of the fund had information to communicate,
approval or disapproval or suggestions, whether you relayed the
communication direct or it went to Mr. Southard or the National
Advisory Council?
    Mr. Coe. Direct to the United States government.
    Senator Mundt. Direct to the people participating in the
monetary discussion taking place?
    Mr. Coe. Well, Senator, it would depend on the people. If
the people were members of our own staff, that is the fund's
staff, who were abroad, it might occasionally have happened
that I transmitted a message from some one group or body inside
the fund. I think, Senator, that it would save a good deal of
time if I read the exact matter. There are many different kinds
of action which could be involved. I could just be helpful in
this respect: it sounds like an unusual procedure and one I
wouldn't have participated in.
    Senator Mundt. We will defer the next appearance until
Friday at 10:30 and you will be supplied with a transcript of
the testimony of Mr. Kerekes and Mr. King.
    Did you know either of these gentlemen?
    Mr. Coe. To the best of my knowledge, I do not.
    Senator Mundt. At this time you have no recollection
whatsoever of this Austrian shilling conference?
    Mr. Coe. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know the Czechoslovakian delegate to the
Monetary Fund, Mr. Coe?
    Mr. Coe. Yes. Assuming that you mean the technical
language--the executive director. He was the Czech National who
was on the board at one period of time when I was secretary of
that board.
    Mr. Cohn. In the fall of 1949 was he a Communist--the Czech
representative or executive director or whatever you want to
call him?
    Mr. Coe. I don't know----
    Mr. Cohn. He represented the Czech government, did he not?
That was after the fall of Czechoslovakia. The fall of
Czechoslovakia was in 1948.
    Mr. Coe. I don't actually--I know that Czechoslovakia, at
that time, was a government in which the Communist party was
predominant.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have any connection, other than that
concerning your official duties, with any Communists connected
with the International Monetary Fund representing a foreign
nation? I am not talking about American Communists.
Representatives of Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Coe. You are asking whether I had any relations other
than official relations. I presume you would mean other than
casual social relations.
    On advice of counsel----
    Senator Mundt. I think you should know that would include
social relations.
    Senator Jackson. Well, more than just casual social
acquaintances.
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under the protection of
the Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to answer that
question.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man named William H. Taylor?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under the protection of
the Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to answer that
question.
    Senator Mundt. Wasn't he your assistant at the Monetary
Fund?
    Mr. Cohn. He was an associate at the fund.
    Mr. Coe. It is a matter of record that Mr. Taylor occupied,
during a number of years, a position in the fund.
    Senator Mundt. Then you knew him, of course. You worked in
the same office, did you not?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under the protection of
the Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to answer the
question.
    Senator Mundt. I am wondering if you understand the
question. I thought we were talking about a man who was an
associate of yours in your office. You said he was.
    Mr. Coe. I am saying I know as a matter of record there was
a William H. Taylor employed in the fund over a period of time
when I was there.
    Senator Mundt. He was still there when you, left?
    Mr. Coe. I am declining to answer the question of whether I
knew or associated with him.
    Mr. Cohn. As a matter of record, what was his position?
    Mr. Coe. I believe his title was assistant director of the
Latin American Department. Some title in one of the
departments--what we would call the Geographic Department of
the International Monetary Fund. That is a matter of record
that he held that position. He may have held other positions.
    Mr. Cohn. As far as you know, is Mr. Taylor still employed
by the fund? Was he there when you left?
    Mr. Coe. I believe, as a matter of record, he was there
when I left. Whether he is there now, I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, was this William H. Taylor in the Communist
spy cell in 1945 and thereafter?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under the protection of
the Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to answer that
question.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you recall that in 1948 you appeared with Miss
Elizabeth Bentley--I will ask you this. Do you know Elizabeth
Bentley?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under the protection of
the Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to answer that
question.
    Mr. Cohn. You recall, as a matter of record, that Elizabeth
Bentley appeared under subpoena before the House Un-American
Activities Committee and there testified that you, William H.
Taylor and others were members of the Communist spy cell? You
know as a matter of record that she so testified?
    Mr. Coe. I know that there is a record of testimony in
which Miss Bentley made that or similar accusations against
myself.
    Mr. Cohn. And following that you appeared before that
committee. Senator Mundt was presiding before that session. He
was Congressman Mundt then.
    Mr. Coe. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you recall you denied having ever been a
member of the Communist party and engaged in espionage against
the United States?
    Mr. Coe. I believe there is a record of that.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you telling the truth when you gave these
answers to Congressman Mundt?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under the protection of
the Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to answer that
question.
    Mr. Cohn. The record shows also you admitted friendship and
association with a number of other people Miss Bentley
identified as spies. Were you telling the truth when you
admitted these associations?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under the protection of
the Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to answer that
question.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you telling the truth when you testified
before the House Committee, at that time--1948--that you had
socialized virtually every week with the people named by Miss
Bentley as members of the Silvermaster spy set-up?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under the protection of
the Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to answer that
question. I would like to answer that you have not given an
accurate summary or report.
    Mr. Cohn. The record will speak for itself.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, do you know Lauchlin Currie?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under the protection of
the Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to answer that
question.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Alger Hiss?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under protection of the
Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to answer that
question.
    Senator Mundt. Mr. Coe, on the trip you just returned from,
did you see Lauchlin Currie?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under protection of the
Fifth Amendments I respectfully decline to answer that
question.
    Senator Mundt. You know that he is in South America?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under protection of the
Fifth Amendments I respectfully decline to answer that
question.
    Mr. Cohn. Is it a fact that the man who sponsored you in
many positions in the United States government was Harry Dexter
White?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under protection of the
Fifth Amendments I respectfully decline to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party spy cell
with Harry Dexter White?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under protection of the
Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Harry Dexter White?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under protection of the
Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. You worked in agency after agency with him, did
you not? As a matter of record now, doesn't the official record
show that you worked in departments or agencies with him?
    Mr. Coe. I believe they do.
    Mr. Cohn. Do they show Harry Dexter White as your superior?
    Mr. Coe. Yes, I believe they do.
    Mr. Cohn. You still refuse to tell us whether you knew this
Harry Dexter White?
    Mr. Coe. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Nathan Gregory Silvermaster?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under the protection of
the Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to answer that
question.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Dr. Philip Jessup?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under protection of the
Fifth Amendments I respectfully decline to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, you say it was approximately 1951 that the
State Department denied a passport to you?
    Mr. Coe. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. The passport had been applied for so you could
take an official trip on behalf of the International Monetary
Fund. Is that correct?
    Mr. Coe. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, as a top official you had to go abroad on
official fund business and you applied for a passport and were
turned down. The next step, you asked the fund for a review. As
an official of the fund you asked for a review. After full
consideration the State Department adhered to their original
position and refused a passport. Is that right?
    Mr. Coe. I think I will limit myself to saying that I
understand that sometime subsequently they still maintained
that position.
    Mr. Cohn. How did they review that? How fully?
    Mr. Coe. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. You were one of the top officials of the fund and
the State Department wouldn't even let you leave the country on
security grounds. How long after that did you continue as
secretary of the International Monetary Fund?
    Mr. Coe. I continued through the date we have mentioned
earlier, which was sometime early in December of this year.
    Mr. Cohn. About one year?
    Mr. Coe. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Was your resignation requested by the fund at any
time during that year?
    Mr. Coe. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did they hold any hearings or do anything to deal
with the situation to your knowledge? One of its top officials
being denied a passport for security reasons.
    Mr. Coe. Yes, they constantly interrogated me, held
hearings, requested information, and I understand that they
were taking other action.
    Senator Jackson. Who held hearings?
    Mr. Coe. The managing director.
    Senator Jackson. Of the fund?
    Mr. Coe. Yes, Ivar Rooth.
    Senator Jackson. When did those hearings commence?
    Mr. Coe. They commenced as soon as he and I learned that
the passport had been denied.
    Senator Jackson. What was the nature of these hearings?
    Mr. Coe. Interrogations about previous allegations which
had been made about me.
    Senator Jackson. The Monetary Fund held the hearings?
    Mr. Coe. That is correct.
    Senator Mundt. Were they formal hearings? Did you testify
under oath or were they just inquiries informally?
    Mr. Coe. They consisted of questioning of me at various
times over this period. I can't be sure, but I don't believe
they were under oath.
    Senator Mundt. I don't believe they had the machinery for
holding hearings and placing a witness under oath.
    Mr. Coe. I was subject to a so-called fund oath. I suppose
in that respect everything was subject to that.
    Senator Mundt. A fund oath you say?
    Mr. Coe. That is the oath of office the fund employees
take.
    Senator Mundt. What does that prescribe?
    Mr. Coe. Well, I am sorry but I can't repeat it.
    Senator Jackson. What is the substance of it? Is it like a
senatorial or congressional oath?
    Mr. Coe. Yes. You take an oath to uphold the principles of
the fund and to act in a certain manner.
    Senator Jackson. It is not a loyalty oath to any particular
country?
    Mr. Coe. No. It is an oath to behave as an international
civil servant. The oath is a printed one in the by-laws. It is
laid down in the by-laws, the rules and regulations of the
fund, and can easily be made available to you through the
United States executive director.
    Senator Mundt. The only point I am trying to bring out is
that in the hearing you had with the fund committee, you
obviously were not testifying under oath as you would testify
before a Senate committee or a grand jury?
    Mr. Coe. None of these hearings had any force of law in the
United States. Just exactly what force they had in the fund, I
think you lawyers would have to say.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Mr. Southard, executive director of
the United States to the fund?
    Mr. Coe. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did Mr. Southard participate in any of these
interrogations of you?
    Mr. Coe. I don't believe that he ever did.
    Mr. Cohn. Was your situation ever discussed with him in
your presence? Do you know if it was ever discussed with him?
    Mr. Coe. I believe that it was, but I couldn't swear
positively.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your knowledge of his participation on
your situation?
    Mr. Coe. It relates to a general belief that such matters
would have been discussed by the managing director with the
executive director of the U.S. I have no specific information,
but I think, I can't swear, I was informed that such
discussions had taken place. I couldn't be certain.
    Mr. Cohn. You and he never had any direct discussion?
    Mr. Coe. Not that I recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you friendly with Mr. Southard? Was there
any unfriendliness between you?
    Mr. Coe. Well, I wouldn't wish to characterize the thing
unless----
    Senator Mundt. There were no prevailing disagreements or
arguments, but a normal relationship in the fund?
    Mr. Coe. We had primarily a business relationship.
    Senator Mundt. Do you know him at all socially?
    Mr. Coe. At various social functions, ``yes.''
    Senator Jackson. Was it a casual social acquaintance or was
it intimate?
    Mr. Coe. Well, I would say that it occurred at functions
where fund people would be present generally and functions
given for fund people.
    Senator Jackson. In connection with normal functions of the
agency?
    Mr. Coe. Yes. They might be and were, of course, social
functions arranged by different people from time to time and he
and I would be present.
    Senator Jackson. Did it go beyond that?
    Mr. Coe. We have known each other in a business way over a
good many years. We have never been intimate socially.
    Senator Jackson. Have you ever had lunch and dinner with
him?
    Mr. Coe. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. Have you ever been to his home?
    Mr. Coe. I don't recall that I have.
    Senator Jackson. Has he ever been to yours?
    Mr. Coe. I don't recall that he has.
    Senator Jackson. You mentioned a business relationship. Was
that outside the government, Mr. Coe?
    Mr. Coe. He was also for a number of years in the
government when I was. In fact, he was in the Treasury
Department.
    Senator Jackson. I thought maybe you meant in private
business.
    Mr. Coe. I think originally he was a professor.
    Senator Jackson. Your business relationship was in the
government?
    Mr. Coe. Yes. I think your questions relate to the fund
relationship. He was a member of the board when I was
secretary.
    Senator Jackson. You did say that over quite a period of
years you knew him in a business relationship?
    Mr. Coe. Six years in the fund and for other periods in the
U.S. government.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Coe, was Mr. Southard friendly with William
H. Taylor?
    Mr. Coe. I can't say that.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Edward Posniak at the U.S. Monetary
Fund?
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under protection of the
Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to answer that
question.
    Mr. Cohn. You know as a matter of official record that Mr.
Posniak worked at the fund, did you not?
    Mr. Coe. I am not sure I know it as a matter of record. I
have seen it stated. I have heard of him at the fund.
    Mr. Cohn. By the way, Mr. Coe, you were named by Senator
McCarthy back in 1950, weren't you, in certain speeches he
made?
    Mr. Coe. I don't recall.
    Mr. Cohn. You testified that trouble concerning you at the
fund started after Senator McCarthy made a speech mentioning
you?
    Mr. Coe. I think I testified that shortly after Senator
McCarthy in 1952, just before the elections, mentioned me in a
speech, and after that [Treasury] Secretary [John] Snyder
demanded, I understand, of the fund that I be dismissed.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you leave the American government? When
did you leave your position with the American government?
    Mr. Coe. About the mid part of 1946.
    Mr. Cohn. What was your employment at that time?
    Mr. Coe. I was director in the American government--
director of the Division of Monetary Research in the Treasury
Department.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you working with Harry Dexter White then?
    Mr. Coe. It is a matter of record that at that time or
somewhere before that time, I think, he was assistant director.
    Senator Jackson. Do you know Lawrence Duggan?
    Mr. Coe. On advise of counsel and under the protection of
the Fifth Amendment. I respectfully decline to answer that
question.
    Senator Mundt. You will be here at 10:30 a.m. Friday.
    Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, the witness understands that
he is to come prepared, among other things, to answer all
questions with relation to the part, if any, he played
regarding the Austrian currency matter in 1949. I take it the
witness will check the records and contact whatever people he
can to refresh his recollection.
    Senator Mundt. I don't know that there are any records
available to him.
    Senator Jackson. I assume he can ask the people at the
Monetary Fund.
    Mr. Cohn. They are not available to him.
    Mr. Coe. I shall certainly try to come prepared. You said
it was public?
    Senator Mundt. I think we will have you come into this room
at ten o'clock and have an executive to determine whether we
will have a public hearing or not. Come here Friday at ten
o'clock.
    Mr. Cohn. Of course, Mr. Coe, the executive session and
testimony given in executive session is completely confidential
on the part of the committee and on the part of witness and his
counsel.
    Mr. Friedman. You don't mean that Mr. Coe is under
restriction to the press if he is questioned. There have been a
lot of things said.
    Mr. Cohn. We don't want to stop Mr. Coe from saying what he
wants to to the press.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned.]
                           AUSTRIAN INCIDENT
                              ----------
                          FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 10:00 a.m. in room 357 of the
Senate Office Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator John
L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Henry M. Jackson,
Democrat, Washington; Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat,
Missouri.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Donald A. Surine,
assistant counsel; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk; Mason Drury,
Senate liaison officer, State Department.
 TESTIMONY OF V. FRANK COE (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, MILTON
                          H. FRIEDMAN)
    Senator Mundt. The committee will come to order.
    The witness has been sworn previously and is reminded that
he in still under oath.
    Mr. Cohn, you may proceed.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Coe, have you had opportunity to refresh your
recollection as to whether you know anything about the
devaluation of the shilling in Austria in 1949?
    Mr. Coe. Yes, I have.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know anything about it?
    Mr. Coe. I have, on refreshing my recollection, I would
say, to put it simply and categorically, I am quite convinced
that I had no participation whatsoever in the events alleged by
the witnesses before this committee or as broadcast to
newspapers.
    Mr. Cohn. I think the question was: Do you know anything
about the devaluation of the shilling in Austria in 1949?
    Mr. Coe. Of course, I have read the transcript and have
talked to one or two people. I am convinced that at that time I
had no participation.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know anything about it at this time? As
far as that time is concerned, that is okay. We know you left
the country in mid-October.
    Mr. Coe. I said I had no participation. Prior to that time
I haven't inquired about my participation, if any.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, that is fine for the time, but we didn't
get a date.
    Mr. Coe. I am convinced as far as the allegations before
this committee, I can say they are untrue.
    Mr. Cohn. I know you might be convinced of that, but these
negotiations began before October----
    Mr. Coe. I had one day to make the investigation. If you
want to ask me specific questions as to whether at any time
prior or since I had anything to do with it, I will try to
refresh my recollection and answer.
    Mr. Cohn. You mean to say you did not refresh your
recollection as to this entire thing? You took a date and
confined it to that?
    Mr. Coe. I personally, at this moment, have no
recollection. Mr. Cohn, as you know, the committee was kind
enough to give me the transcript of the executive session. I
endeavored to focus on everything that went into that executive
session. All the assertions that were made there I am prepared
to deal with one by one or any way the committee wants.
    Senator Mundt. For the record, you were provided with a
transcript of the executive sessions and had opportunity to
read them?
    Mr. Coe. Yes. I meant to say that for the record. That
record itself covers a very broad territory. I have refreshed
my memory and endeavored to go beyond that and make some
inquiries. Now, if there is anything beyond that in the record
that you want to know about my activities--in other words, if
the record is incomplete, and you would care to ask me specific
questions.
    Senator Mundt. Would you care to tell the committee with
whom you have been advising in order to refresh your memory?
    Mr. Coe. Yes, I went to the acting head of the fund.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Cochran?
    Mr. Coe. Mr. Cochran.
    Mr. Cohn. Your testimony is that you only refreshed your
recollection for the period in mid-October prior to your
departure on your trips up until the time of your returns and
you are not prepared to deal with the situation prior to that
time?
    Mr. Coe. No, I wouldn't say that. That is, of course, what
I concentrated on. I said to myself, ``What is in the record?
What inquiries, if any, can I make in this brief time? What
ought I to try to remember carefully?'' I didn't bar myself
from remembering anything pertinent that may have been before.
    Mr. Cohn. Let's talk about the pertinent material before.
What part did you have in the negotiations concerning the
devaluation of the shilling in Austria?
    Do you know anything about it? Did you know negotiations
were under way for the devaluation of the shilling in Austria?
    Mr. Coe. I don't recollect that I did.
    Mr. Cohn. No recollection.
    Mr. Coe. No.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, as far as you are concerned, the
first you ever heard about the thing was when you examined the
transcript and heard about the situation?
    Mr. Coe. That is correct. I should say I read in the record
that there had been a mission from the fund that was out there
sometime earlier and whatnot.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you read that?
    Mr. Coe. Yesterday. And since I was in the fund at that
time, I assume, though I don't recall it, that I knew about it.
    Mr. Cohn. You assume that you knew about it?
    Mr. Coe. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. But you have no recollection of it?
    Mr. Coe. I have no recollection of it. I would say, as you
know, Mr. Cohn, I imagine there were fifty or seventy-five
missions that go out to countries every year and I was there
six or seven years.
    Mr. Cohn. You might have known about it, but you are not in
a position to discuss your part?
    Mr. Coe. I think, Mr. Cohn, that if there were any specific
questions it might refresh my recollection and I would discuss
it with you.
    Mr. Cohn. First question: When were you advised that these
negotiations were to take place? What did you do about that
advice? What part did you take in that situation? What was your
view?
    Mr. Coe. That I don't know. I would say this more
generally: When the fund's mission went out there sometime in
1949 to discuss the situation with the Austrians, the matter
probably did come before our executive board to receive
approval. At that time, if I was in Washington, I must have
known about it, and, therefore, was advised.
    Senator Mundt. As secretary, did you attend meetings of the
executive board of the fund or did anything that came before
them come to you?
    Mr. Coe. As secretary I usually attended the meetings so
that what came before them, except certain sessions held
without any staff whatsoever, I certainly had visual
information.
    Senator Mundt. I presume those executive sessions were not
about the monetary situation but administrative or personnel
problems of the fund. Is that correct?
    Mr. Coe. I think your surmise is quite correct. That is the
way they operate.
    Senator Mundt. In our committee if we have some question
about the staff, salary, etc., we do not invite the staff. All
committees seem to operate the same way.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Coe, do you know Alger Hiss?
    Mr. Coe. May I consult my attorney?
    Mr. Cohn. Sure.
    Mr. Coe. Mr. Chairman, in previous questioning, it was
raised in my mind the question of what I was brought here for.
I read this transcript in order to be able to answer questions
about it. The whole first series of questions aren't about the
transcript at all but anything that my not be in the
transcript. Now the question is, do I know Alger Hiss? Of
course, I know----
    Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, we are not asking the
witness for a speech. I ask the chairman that the witness be
directed to answer the question.
    Senator Mundt. The witness will answer the question,
    Mr. Coe. On advice of counsel and under protection of the
Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to answer the question.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Coe, who obtained your employment with the
International Monetary Fund for you?
    Mr. Coe. I was appointed secretary of the International
Monetary Fund by Mr. Camille Outt. He was manager-director
formerly.
    Mr. Cohn. Who were your references?
    Mr. Coe. I was told by Mr. Camille Outt he acted on the
senior staff position on the recommendation of secretary of
treasury, now Chief Justice, [Fred] Vincent.
    Mr. Cohn. It is your testimony that he is your reference
for that position?
    Mr. Coe. That is what I heard from Mr. Campenhout.
    Senator McCarthy. Did Dean Acheson recommend you?
    Mr. Coe. Not so far as I know. He may have.
    Senator McCarthy. Is that the time Dean Acheson was
undersecretary of treasury?
    Mr. Coe. I don't recall. He was in and out--no, he wasn't.
Will Clayton was undersecretary of treasury.
    Senator McCarthy. Did you consult with Dean Acheson before
you got this job?
    Mr. Coe. So far as I recall, I did not.
    Senator McCarthy. Did you know Dean Acheson?
    Mr. Coe. Yes.
    Senator McCarthy. Socially?
    Mr. Coe. I suppose I met him at a few social affairs. We
were not socially intimate.
    Senator McCarthy. Did you ever go to his home?
    Mr. Coe. I don't recall ever having been to his home or he
to mine.
    Senator McCarthy. You say you don't recall ever having been
to his home?
    Mr. Coe. Yes. I think so. Of course, I have been to
thousands of homes, Senator McCarthy, so I would hate to make a
categorical answer. I might have been to his door delivering a
paper.
    Senator McCarthy. Was Dean Acheson, to your knowledge, a
Communist?
    Mr. Coe. May I consult counsel? I heard----
    Senator Mundt. Mr. Coe, either you know he was or was not.
You don't have to consult with your counsel to get that.
    Mr. Friedman. He is not consulting me as to his answer.
    Mr. Coe. As far as I know, he was not.
    Senator McCarthy. You started to say you heard something.
What did you start to say you heard? He was or he was not?
    Mr. Coe. I started to say that I read, especially in the
record of investigating committees and, I believe, some of your
own statements, Senator McCarthy, a great deal of derogatory
material about Dean Acheson. So far as I know, however, he was
no Communist.
    Senator McCarthy. Do you have my reason to believe that he
was a Communist?
    Mr. Coe. No more so than a lot of people attacking him.
    Senator McCarthy. You never attended Communist meetings
when Dean Acheson was present?
    Mr. Coe. No.
    Senator McCarthy. And you say you do not know that he
recommended you for the job in the UN?
    Mr. Coe. In the International Monetary Fund?
    Mr. Cohn. That is an agency of the UN.
    Mr. Coe. May I say there that, of course, I don't know with
whom the managing director----
    Senator McCarthy. Were you in the State Department at one
time?
    Mr. Coe. No.
    Senator McCarthy. Were you in the Foreign Economic
Administration?
    Mr. Coe. Yes.
    Senator McCarthy. Is that considered part of the State
Department?
    Mr. Coe. No, it wasn't at that time.
    Senator Symington. Mr. Coe, do you know any member of
President Eisenhower's cabinet who is a Communist?
    Mr. Coe. No, and I don't know any member of the preceding
cabinets who was, to my knowledge, a Communist.
    Senator McCarthy. To make it conclusive, ask him ``was.''
    Senator Symington. Do you know any member who is or was a
Communist?
    Mr. Coe. No, and the same reply which I wished to
interpose, if you will allow me, with both preceding cabinets.
    Senator Symington. Have you any more right to say Dean
Acheson was a Communist, than you have to----
    Senator Mundt. I would like to say he did not say Dean
Acheson was a Communist.
    Mr. Coe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Symington. Have you any more right to consider that
Dean Acheson was a Communist than that any member of the
present cabinet is a Communist?
    Mr. Coe. I personally, Senator Symington, think that I have
not, but I cannot help but be aware that there are broadcasts--
charges--about a lot of people which in the minds of other
people create the impression that they are Communists. That
having been done about Dean Acheson, I wanted to be careful in
my reply.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Coe, are you a Communist today?
    Mr. Coe. Mr. Chairman, on advice of counsel and under the
protection of the Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to
answer that question.
    Senator Mundt. Any other questions you might have?
    Mr. Cohn. I just want to ask the witness one thing. You
were in the Treasury Department in 1944 or 1945. When did you
leave the Treasury Department?
    Mr. Coe. I was not in the Treasury Department in 1944.
According to my recollection I was there in 1945.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have any knowledge of the circumstances
under which plates were given to the Soviet Union by the
Treasury Department for the purpose of printing occupation
currency in Germany?
    Mr. Coe. I know that they were. It is impossible for me to
disentangle what I read about that and what I remember. I would
have to know dates, when I was there to be really responsive to
your question, Mr. Cohn.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you have any participation in that?
    Mr. Coe. I may have. I don't recall.
    Mr. Cohn. The fact is you did, isn't it?
    Mr. Coe. Well, if you will show me a record.
    Mr. Cohn. I want you to assert your recollection. We don't
have to show you a record.
    Mr. Coe. I didn't know that question was coming in. I
haven't searched it before. I know from the public press there
has been a good deal of discussion about that.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you present at any discussion about giving
these plates to the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Coe. I really couldn't say. At this time----
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, you need time to refresh your
recollection.
    Mr. Coe. If you have records I would certainly like to see
them, if that is a subject of inquiry.
    Mr. Cohn. Your testimony is that you have no recollection
of being present at the time that the question of giving our
money plates to the Russians was considered?
    Mr. Coe. No recollection whatsoever----
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have any recollection----
    Mr. Coe. If I may finish the answer. What I said, Senator
McCarthy, was that any participation I may have had or any
memory I may have had of that event is intermingled with the
recurrent statements about it in the papers in the last few
years. I know that the events took place. They took place about
the times I assume I was in the Treasury Department. It is a
subject in which people related with me, superiors and
subordinates, would have had to deal and I may well have had to
deal. I don't recall any details.
    Senator McCarthy. Were you a member of the Communist party
at that time?
    Mr. Coe. Mr. Chairman, on advice of counsel and under the
protection of the Fifth Amendment, I respectfully decline to
answer.
    Senator McCarthy. Were you engaged in espionage work at
that time?
    Mr. Coe. Mr. Chairman, on advice of counsel and under
protection of the Fifth Amendments, I respectfully decline to
answer.
    Senator Mundt. We will recess this hearing and you should
be in the Caucus Room at 10:30 where we will reconvene.
    Mr. Cohn. That is 318, Mr. Coe.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned.]
            COMMUNIST PARTY ACTIVITIES, WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
    [Editor's note.--When FBI informant Joseph D. Mazzei (1917-
2000) testified in public session on June 18, 1953, he
identified Louis Bortz as a Communist party functionary who had
been ordered to ``liquidate'' Senator McCarthy. According to
Mazzei, Bortz had conducted clandestine classes in Pittsburgh
to familiarize Communist party members with handling firearms
and making bombs. Bortz, who also testified in public on June
18, declined to respond to these charges on the grounds of
self-incrimination. During the Army-McCarthy hearings, Senator
McCarthy said of Bortz's alleged assassination plans: ``I
frankly wasn't much impressed by him. I think he was just
bragging.'' However, Senator McCarthy grew annoyed by Bortz's
repeated invocation of the Fifth Amendment, and during a
television interview on June 21 he declared that anyone who
refused to tell the subcommittee whether he was a Communist
``obviously is a Communist,'' since the only way a witness
could be incriminated by giving a truthful answer was if he was
indeed a Communist.
    In 1953, Mazzei's testimony helped to convict five
Communist party leaders in Pittsburgh for conspiracy to violate
the Smith Act. But during his testimony in a later case, Mazzei
was revealed to have lied about whether the FBI had arranged
for him to infiltrate the army, how much the bureau had paid
him, and about his previous arrest and conviction. Nor could
his allegations of sabotage and espionage be corroborated. In
1956, the U.S. solicitor general conceded that Mazzei's
``untrue statements might have been caused by a psychiatric
condition.'' The Supreme Court then ordered a new trial for the
Pittsburgh defendants. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice
Earl Warren declared that Mazzei's testimony had been ``wholly
discredited by the disclosures by the Solicitor General.''
    Herbert S. Hawkins served as an investigator for the
subcommittee from February 1, 1953 to November 15, 1954. He did
not testify at the public hearing.]
                              ----------
                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 2:00 p.m. in room 357, Senate
Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Francis D.
Flanagan, general counsel and staff director; Howard Rushmore,
research director; Donald A. Surine, assistant counsel and
investigator; Herbert Hawkins, investigator; Ruth Young Watt,
chief clerk.
                    TESTIMONY OF LOUIS BORTZ
    The Chairman. Will you stand and raise your right hand and
be sworn?
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
give in the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Bortz. I do.
    The Chairman. Will you give us your name?
    Mr. Bortz. Louis Bortz. B-o-r-t-z.
    The Chairman. And your first name?
    Mr. Bortz. Louis. L-o-u-i-s.
    The Chairman. You may step down and wait in the hall. We
want to take some testimony from another witness before we hear
yours.
                TESTIMONY OF HERBERT S. HAWKINS
    The Chairman. Will you first identify yourself?
    Mr. Hawkins. Herbert S. Hawkins, investigator.
    The Chairman. You are one of the investigators of the
subcommittee?
    Mr. Hawkins. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hawkins, before you came to the committee,
were you a special agent for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation?
    Mr. Hawkins. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania during the
last two days?
    Mr. Hawkins. Yes, I was.
    Mr. Cohn. And while you were in Pittsburgh did you talk to
a certain witness who attended a Communist meeting on December
4, 1952?
    Mr. Hawkins. I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Did this witness tell you what had transpired at
this meeting while he was present?
    Mr. Hawkins. Yes, he did.
    Mr. Cohn. Was there any mention of Senator McCarthy at this
meeting?
    Mr. Hawkins. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you tell us first just what that meeting
was? Tell us what this meeting was as the witness related it to
you.
    Mr. Hawkins. It was a meeting of the Communist party
attended by the top leaders of the Communist party in the
Pittsburgh area.
    The Chairman. May I interrupt at this time? Is it correct
that the witness to which you refer has been identified to you
and is known to you as an undercover agent of the FBI?
    Mr. Hawkins. Yes, and he is classified as a highly reliable
source by the FBI.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Hawkins, was it a closed Communist party
meeting attended by the top leaders of the Communist party? Is
that right?
    Mr. Hawkins. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Was there any mention of Senator McCarthy at that
meeting? What did the witness tell you was said about Senator
McCarthy?
    Mr. Hawkins. The witness stated that instructions were
given to those in attendance at that meeting that Senator
McCarthy was among those listed by the party for liquidation or
murder.
    Mr. Cohn. And was this assignment given to any individual?
    Mr. Hawkins. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Was it given to any American agent?
    Mr. Hawkins. Louis Bortz.
    Mr. Cohn. He is an American agent of the Communist party?
    Mr. Hawkins. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that Louis Bortz present at that meeting on
December 4th?
    Mr. Hawkins. Yes, he was.
    The Chairman. Did he accept the assignment?
    Mr. Cohn. Following that meeting did this witness tell you
that there had been further discussion concerning the supposed
liquidation of Senator McCarthy involving Mr. Bortz who had
this assignment?
    Mr. Hawkins. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state for the
record that the name of the witness is known to us. He is under
subpoena now by the United States attorney in Pittsburgh for
the Smith Act trial. At the request of the FBI we are
withholding the actual calling of this witness until he has
completed his testimony at the Smith Act trial, at which time
he will be available to us. It is the express request of the
FBI to protect the identity of the informant.
    The Chairman. Just by way of resume, Mr. Hawkins has been
testifying as to what was told him by an undercover agent of
the FBI. This undercover agent of the FBI is taken out of the
underground by the FBI and will be available to testify on this
court case on trial, and the Justice Department or the FBI has
requested we not call this witness until after he has completed
his testimony in the pending case, and as far as you
understand, he will be available to testify at that time.
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Surine. Mr. Hawkins, did this witness turn over to you
a document concerning that meeting?
    Mr. Hawkins. Yes, he did.
    Mr. Surine. On December 4, 1952?
    Mr. Hawkins. Yes,
    Mr. Surine. I wonder if you could read that into the
record? Describe what the document is?
    Mr. Hawkins. The document lists five points listing the
instructions and information that was given out at this
Communist party meeting on December 4, 1952.
    The Chairman. That will be inserted in the record. We will
withhold any further testimony from Mr. Hawkins.
    Mr. Cohn. Delete the name of the witness from that
statement.
    I. The present ``peace offensive'' is designed to be the
last stage in the program of administering a ``sedative'' to
the American people before the hammer of war falls on
Continental United States. All functionaries have been alerted
to concentrate on this present phase of the ``peace
offensives'' for the purpose of building resistance to war and
clamour for tax reduction so as to effect the defensive power
of the Nation.
    II. In line with the ``peace offensive,'' all trade union
functionaries have been ordered to lay low, to make it appear
that the class struggle has been sidetracked by the present
Russian regime.
    III. Actual ``operation propaganda'' is concentrating upon
school, churches and children with principal reliance on front
agencies, notably Civil Rights Congress.
    IV. Senator McCarthy is among those listed for liquidation
or murder--an American agent assigned to the job (L.B.).
    V. The pending communist cases against known communist
functionaries have been ordered dragged out for the purpose of
diverting the attention of the American people to the `down in
the mouth defendants' to make it appear that the communists
apparatus U.S.A. is bankrupt, defunct and on its way to the
prison, when actually, there has never been more money or more
activity in the communist apparatus in the past eleven years.
                    TESTIMONY OF LOUIS BORTZ
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Bortz, you have been sworn. Is that correct?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Bortz, are you a member of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Bortz. I think that is quite an unfair question without
any legal or any kind of advice and also I think that it would
be self-incriminating.
    Mr. Cohn. You have conferred with counsel----
    Mr. Bortz. Any answer ``yes'' or ``no'' will be self-
incriminating.
    Mr. Cohn. You have conferred with counsel have you not,
since you were told to come down here?
    Mr. Bortz. I didn't have enough time to talk it over with
someone. Someone linked Hymen Schlesinger to me.
    Senator Symington. If you are not a member of the Communist
party and said you were not a member of the Communist party,
why do you think that would incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. I don't know you people. You probably have
something up your sleeve. I have read about Joseph McCarthy.
    Senator Symington. If you had been asked whether you
committed a robbery and you said you hadn't, would that
incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. Well, I can't say. Unless there is some purpose
behind it, I think it is self-incriminating.
    Mr. Cohn. You have talked to Hymen Schlesinger concerning
your appearance here?
    Mr. Bortz. After he approached me.
    Mr. Cohn. He is a member of the bar and you conferred with
him.
    Mr. Bortz. That is right. He approached me, after he was
linked with me. I don't know how this worked.
    Mr. Surine. Mr. Bortz, isn't it true you conferred with Mr.
Schlesinger around 7:00 or 7:30 a.m. yesterday morning after
you were served with a subpoena by this committee?
    Mr. Bortz. I didn't confer on any particular business. I
wasn't hiring him as an attorney.
    Mr. Surine. Did you confer with him?
    Mr. Bortz. I took him to work.
    The Chairman. Do you know what confer means?
    Mr. Bortz. I was going to town to see if I could get an
attorney.
    The Chairman. Do you know what confer means?
    Mr. Bortz. You could explain.
    The Chairman. Did you talk to him?
    Mr. Bortz. I talked to him and told him what had happened.
    The Chairman. You went into this with Schlesinger?
    Mr. Bortz. I had to pick him up. He goes to work in
Pittsburgh.
    The Chairman. You went to Schlesinger----
    Mr. Bortz. I went to see him for bringing him to work. Now,
that makes a difference.
    Senator Symington. Do you take him to work every day?
    Mr. Bortz. Sometimes he takes the bus. It all depends on
the situation--what time he has got to get in, and what time I
have got to get in.
    The Chairman. Is it your position now that you want an
adjournment to hire a lawyer?
    Mr. Bortz. Well, if it is the most practical thing.
    The Chairman. Do you want an adjournment so you can hire a
lawyer?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes, I would.
    The Chairman. How much time will you need?
    Mr. Bortz. Tuesday or Wednesday. Probably next Monday or
so. I believe I can try.
    The Chairman. How many lawyers have you conferred with, in
addition to Mr. Schlesinger?
    Mr. Bortz. None.
    Mr. Surine. Did you see any lawyers in New York?
    Mr. Bortz. No.
    Mr. Surine. Pittsburgh?
    Mr. Bortz. No.
    Mr. Surine. Did you speak to any lawyers over the
telephone?
    Mr. Bortz. I tried to contact one fellow.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever been a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Bortz. That would be self-incriminating.
    Senator Symington. What do you mean?
    Mr. Bortz. If I answer ``yes'' or ``no.'' I don't know you
people.
    Senator Symington. If you say ``no,'' what could we make of
it?
    The Chairman. Just so you will know the people here. I am
the chairman of the investigating committee. My name is
McCarthy. You may be interested in identifying me.
    Mr. Bortz. That is right.
    The Chairman. This is Senator Symington. This is Mr.
Flanagan, chief of the staff. This is Mr. Hawkins, one of our
investigators and counsel; this is Mr. Cohn, chief counsel; Mr.
Don Surine, counsel and investigator; this is the reporter who
is taking down every word you say. Now, you know who we are.
    Mr. Bortz. Okay.
    The Chairman. Now, will you answer Senator Symington's
question?
    Mr. Bortz. Can I make a statement?
    The Chairman. You can make any statement you care to.
    Mr. Bortz. Now, you know the president has said just a few
days back about book burning. I am not passing reflection on
Mr. McCarthy. All I know is what I read. Don't blame me for not
trusting anyone linked up with book burning. That is why I say
self-incriminating. All I want to say is my name and address
and that is all. Maybe we can save the time of the taxpayers.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever been a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Bortz. I would say that would be self-incriminating.
    Senator Symington. Are you a member of the Communist party
now?
    Mr. Bortz. Same answer.
    Senator Symington. Are you an American citizen?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes.
    Senator Symington. Do you think you are a good American?
    Mr. Bortz. I certainly hope so.
    Senator Symington. If you were a good American would you
want to belong to an organization dedicated to the overthrow of
the United States by force and violence?
    Mr. Bortz. Certainly not.
    Senator Symington. Do you believe the Communist party is
dedicated to the overthrow by force and violence of the United
States?
    Mr. Bortz. That is a matter of opinion. Lots of people
think pro and con and I am not ready to give an opinion. I am
not a politician.
    Senator Symington. What you are saying is you could not be
a member of the party and be a good American?
    Mr. Bortz. Don't put words in my mouth. It is self-
incriminating whatever I do say. I have said enough.
    Senator Symington. You don't care to testify before the
committee any further?
    Mr. Bortz. As far as incriminating myself, I cannot. I need
an attorney besides.
    Mr. Surine. Mr. Bortz, isn't it true Mr. Schlesinger gave
you advice in this matter?
    Mr. Bortz. Well, yes.
    Mr. Surine. And isn't it true he advised you to honor this
subpoena?
    Mr. Bortz. That is right. As such as he could under the
circumstances and the time he had.
    The Chairman. Schlesinger advised you to come here?
    Mr. Bortz. I wanted to come myself. He left it up to me. He
says he is not my attorney and he can't advise me further than
what I wanted to do.
    Mr. Cohn. You said you conferred with Mr. Schlesinger about
your appearance here?
    Mr. Bortz. I did after he approached me on it.
    Mr. Cohn. The fact is that you did confer with Mr.
Schlesinger about your appearance here?
    Mr. Bortz. I conferred in the sense that after talking it
over, telling him what happened the night before, and he didn't
give me any instructions or anything. He is not my attorney. In
that sense I mean. I want to be clear on that.
    Mr. Surine. Mr. Schlesinger told me you contacted him and
conferred with him and he advised you to come down here. He
advised me that he was your attorney. Did you confer with him
last night?
    Mr. Bortz. After he called me up and told me he had a
telegram from you.
    Mr. Surine. So at seven o'clock in the morning, Mr.
Schlesinger did not know except from you that you had been
subpoenaed?
    Mr. Bortz. I told him. I did not ask him to be my attorney.
    Mr. Surine. He did not approach you because he didn't know
about it?
    Mr. Bortz. That is right.
    Mr. Surine. You conferred with him last night and what
advice did he give you?
    Mr. Bortz. He told as to go right ahead and do what I
wanted, to get an attorney if I wanted. He left it directly up
to me. He told me definitely he couldn't take it.
    Mr. Surine. Then you called him.
    Mr. Bortz. I don't know.
    Mr. Surine. What conversation did you have with him?
    Mr. Bortz. It was a question of expenses. He didn't seem
very interested in taking it. That is my impression.
    The Chairman. Mr. Surine, you talked to Mr. Schlesinger. Is
that right?
    Mr. Surine. Twice yesterday.
    The Chairman. And did you discuss with him the appearance
of the witness?
    Mr. Surine. Yens and Mr. Schlesinger also discussed with me
whether or not the committee would pay his, Schlesinger's,
expenses as attorney for this witness. That was last night.
    The Chairman. The subpoena, I believe, originally called
for the witness' appearance in New York City. You talked to
Schlesinger and told him to have him appear in Washington?
    Mr. Surine. That is right.
    The Chairman. Did Mr. Schlesinger indicate he was coming
with the witness?
    Mr. Surine. Last night he did.
    The Chairman. And he asked you whether we would pay his way
to Washington?
    Mr. Surine. Yes.
    The Chairman. And he held himself out to you as this man's
attorney and advisor?
    Mr. Surine. Yes.
    The Chairman. How did you first learn about Schlesinger
being this man's attorney?
    Mr. Surine. From a highly reliable source, which has been
mentioned previously in this hearing.
    The Chairman. Mr. Bortz, is Mr. Schlesinger a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Bortz. How would I know? I wouldn't know.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether he is a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Bortz. That would be self-incriminating too.
    The Chairman. Are you refusing to answer on the grounds of
self-incrimination?
    Mr. Bortz. That is right.
    The Chairman. If Mr. Schlesinger were not a member of the
Communist party, it would not incriminate you to say no?
    Mr. Bortz. It would still incriminate me regardless.
    The Chairman. It would incriminate you to say he were not a
member of the Communist party if he were not a member? In what
way would it incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. I don't know what you fellows have behind your
mind. I can't afford to say anything and you make something of
it. I don't know it. I came here with a lack of confidence in
you people--what I read about in the newspapers.
    The Chairman. If you are refusing to answer because of lack
of confidence in the committee, you are ordered to answer
    Mr. Bortz. I don't want to incriminate myself.
    The Chairman. Are you refusing to answer on the ground that
if you told the truth, a truthful answer might incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. Well, that question is incriminating in itself.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer that question.
    Mr. Bortz. I can't answer that question on the basis that
the truth is definitely the truth and there is no way of
getting away from it. What you want to make of that I don't
understand.
    The Chairman. You refused to answer the question as to
whether or not Mr. Schlesinger is known to you as a member of
the Communist party. My question here now is: Are you refusing
because you feel a truthful answer might tend to incriminate
you?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes, sometimes it would.
    The Chairman. Is it your position that if you would tell us
the truth about whether you know that Schlesinger was a
Communist that that truthful answer might tend to incriminate
you?
    Mr. Bortz. If a ``yes'' or ``no'' answer would be the
answer it could be incriminating, yes, without knowing the
whole background and I am not ready to say anything. I don't
want to incriminate myself. I don't have an attorney. I don't
have the means of putting up a legal fight of my own. I am not
an attorney and I don't profess to know such about law. I am an
American citizen.
    The Chairman. Is it your testimony that if you were to tell
us the truth, the truth might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. Generally not. It wouldn't incriminate anyone.
    The Chairman. You will answer the question. The question is
whether you want to tell this committee today that if you were
to tell us the truth in answer to that question about
Schlesinger, that truthful answer would tend to incriminate
you?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes.
    The Chairman. It would tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes.
    Mr. Surine. Mr. Bortz, have you ever used the name of Louis
Boritz?
    Mr. Bortz. [Shakes head negatively.] Unless someone
misspelled my name. I definitely didn't use that name.
    Mr. Surine. You did not use it?
    Mr. Bortz. [Shakes head negatively.]
    Mr. Surine. Have you ever used the name----
    The Chairman. Pardon me. Let's get this complete.
    Have you ever been known by that name?
    Mr. Bortz. No, I am sorry.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been called by that name?
    Mr. Bortz. No, sir.
    The Chairman. The name Louis Borz?
    Mr. Bortz. No.
    The Chairman. Any name like that?
    Mr. Bortz. No. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You have never been known by the name Borz?
B-o-r-z?
    Mr. Bortz. No.
    The Chairman. No mail ever addressed to you under that
name?
    Mr. Bortz. Unless someone made a mistake. I don't recall. I
never gave my name as such.
    The Chairman. Have you ever gone under any name other than
the name of Louis Bortz?
    Mr. Bortz. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Never have?
    Mr. Bortz. No, sir.
    The Chairman. And you have never been known by any other
name?
    Mr. Bortz. No, sir.
    The Chairman. In any organization?
    Mr. Bortz. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever go under the name of Paul
Boizuk?
    Mr. Bortz. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You were baptized Louis Bortz, were you?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. And you used that name ever since?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. You have never been known under any other
name?
    Mr. Bortz. Well, I use to have a middle initial. I dropped
it because I didn't like it. I didn't think it is even in my
birth certificate record. That was Haskell, H-a-s-k-e-l-l, I
think. I never spelled it.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Bortz, were you chairman of the South Side
Club of the Communist party at any time?
    Mr. Bortz. That is a self-incriminating question again.
    The Chairman. Do you refuse to answer on the grounds that
if you gave a truthful answer, such answer might tend to
incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you presently a functionary of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Bortz. That would be the same answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you present at a meeting of the Communist
party on December 4, 1952?
    Mr. Bortz. Same answer, sir. It will have to be the same
answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you present at a meeting of the Communist
party on December 4, 1952 in Pittsburgh, when there was a
discussion about the liquidation of Senator McCarthy?
    Mr. Bortz. On the grounds that it may perhaps be self-
incriminating. I will have to answer the same way.
    Mr. Cohn. What way is that? You refuse to answer?
    Mr. Bortz. I can't answer.
    Mr. Cohn. You refuse to answer?
    Mr. Bortz. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you the one assigned to carry out the
liquidation?
    Mr. Bortz. Same answer.
    Mr. Cohn. You refuse?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes.
    The Chairman. Did I understand you to tell us you refuse to
answer the question of whether or not you were assigned the job
of murdering McCarthy because if you told the truth that answer
might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes, sir. I can't answer that on the basis that
it would be self-incriminating.
    The Chairman. Do I understand your testimony that if you
told us the truth as to whether you were assigned the job of
murdering McCarthy, that answer would tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. It would be self-incriminating to answer that
question.
    The Chairman. You mean that if you told the truth it would
tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. I refuse to answer on the basis that it would be
self-incriminating.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question. You
are not ordered to answer whether or not you were assigned the
job of murdering McCarthy. You are ordered to answer whether
you feel a truthful answer would tend to incriminate you.
    Mr. Bortz. I can't answer on the basis of self-
incriminating.
    The Chairman. You can't answer on the basis of self-
incrimination. You are ordered to answer. If you don't, I will
ask the committee to immediately hold you in contempt.
    Mr. Bortz. I don't get your point.
    The Chairman. You were ordered to answer and if you refuse
to answer, I shall ask the committee to hold you in contempt
immediately.
    Mr. Bortz. Suppose it would be self-incriminating to answer
the question.
    The Chairman. Answer the question.
    Well, let me go over this carefully with you. You are
entitled to refuse to answer any question if you honestly feel
that a truthful answer would tend to incriminate you. Now, you
have been asked whether or not you were assigned the job of
murdering McCarthy. I have now asked you whether or not you
feel that a truthful answer to that question would tend to
incriminate you. You were ordered to answer whether or not you
feel that a truthful answer to that question might tend to
incriminate you. If you feel that a truthful answer to that
question might tend to incriminate you, then you are entitled
to refuse to answer it.
    Mr. Bortz. I can't understand that question.
    The Chairman. I will start all over. Do you think a
truthful answer as to whether or not you were assigned the job
of murdering McCarthy would tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. To be ordered to make the statement. I don't
actually understand your point.
    The Chairman. Will you listen slowly. If you were to tell
us the truth about whether or not you were assigned the job of
murdering McCarthy that that truthful answer would tend to
incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. That is a funny question. I don't get the point.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer it.
    Mr. Bortz. I can't answer it without understanding it
fully. If I had an attorney to advise me on that, it would be
another question.
    The Chairman. You have had a chance to have an attorney
here. You are ordered to answer. If you refuse to answer, we
will ask the committee to hold you in contempt.
    Mr. Bortz. How could you hold me in contempt when I have
the right to base it on the grounds that it is self-
incriminatory--incriminating?
    The Chairman. You have heard the order.
    Mr. Bortz. I don't know whether I should answer or what I
should do. You won't give me a chance.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer.
    Mr. Bortz. You put the question before as just like hitting
me over the head, to be frank and honest about it, gentlemen.
    The Chairman. Take your time and decide whether you are
going to answer or not.
    Mr. Bortz. I don't understand the question. I know one
thing. I didn't kill McCarthy, I didn't advocate it and
probably never will and all that, but that makes no sense. Why
a question like that?
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. Bortz. Will you repeat that again, please?
    The Chairman. Do you feel that if you were to tell us the
truth about whether or not you were assigned the job of
liquidating or murdering McCarthy that that answer might tend
to incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. I can't answer that on the basis that it would
be self-incriminatory--incriminating, or whatever you call it.
    May I ask a question?
    The Chairman. Go ahead.
    Mr. Bortz. What do you mean by contempt? What is meant by
contempt?
    The Chairman. It means you are found legally in contempt of
the committee by which you can be jailed.
    Mr. Bortz. Suppose I can't answer the question until I had
advice from an attorney. Couldn't you give me that chance?
    The Chairman. We heard you.
    Mr. Bortz. I don't know. There is something fishy about
this.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you in Pittsburgh on December 4, 1952?
    Mr. Bortz. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may
incriminate me.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer. It is not
incriminating to be in Pittsburgh.
    Mr. Bortz. You don't give a man a chance.
    The Chairman. I may say, Mr. Bortz, as far as I am
concerned, you can pile up as many contempt charges against
yourself as you care to. Go right ahead. I am going to order
you to answer. When you refuse, I am going to ask the committee
to hold you in contempt on each count.
    Do you refuse to tell the committee whether you were in
Pittsburgh on December 4, 1952?
    Mr. Bortz. I don't even know. It might have been a Sunday
and I might have been out. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. On December 4, 1952, in Pittsburgh, is it not a
fact you attended this Communist party meeting I referred to
held in the Civil Rights Congress Hall in Pittsburgh?
    Mr. Bortz. I won't answer things like that on the ground
that it would be self-incriminatory. I don't know what you guys
have got up your sleeve, but it sounds fishy.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Steve Nelson?
    Mr. Bortz. I refuse to answer that on the grounds that it
would incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he present at that meeting?
    Mr. Bortz. I refuse to answer that on the ground that it
would incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you served as educational director of the
South Side Club of the Communist party?
    Mr. Bortz. I will have to refuse to answer that on the
basis it will be self-incriminatory.
    The Chairman. Did you ever get orders from the Communist
party to beat up Matt Cvetic? \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ Matt Cvetic (1909-1962) had infiltrated the Communist party in
Pittsburgh and provided information to the FBI from 1941 to 1950. He
was the subject of the 1951 motion picture, I Was a Communist for the
FBI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Bortz. I will answer that the same way.
    The Chairman. Refuse to answer?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you feel a truthful answer to that would
incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. I refuse to answer that on the basis it would
incriminate me, sir.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer that.
    Mr. Bortz. I don't know what you mean. It seems to be a
loaded question. I can't answer without an attorney. I can't
answer that.
    The Chairman. Make a note that the witness is again ordered
to answer, and I will ask the committee to cite him for
contempt on this count also.
    Did you and other Communists attempt to beat up Matt
Cvetic?
    Mr. Bortz. I refuse to answer that on the same grounds--
self-incriminating.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that a truthful answer to that
question might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. I can't answer that on the grounds that it would
be self-incriminating.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer.
    Mr. Bortz. I can't answer that on the grounds of self-
incrimination.
    The Chairman. Let the record show the witness was ordered
to answer the question. Again we will ask the Committee to cite
him for contempt on this answer also.
    Did you attend a Communist party meeting at which it was
decided that Matt Cvetic should be beaten up?
    Mr. Bortz. That is the same kind of question. There is no
difference there. I can't answer that on the grounds it is
self-incriminating.
    The Chairman. Do you feel a truthful answer might tend to
incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. I can't see your point.
    The Chairman. I will explain it to you again.
    You cannot refuse to answer on the ground that a lying
answer would tend to incriminate you. You can only refuse to
answer if you feel a truthful answer would tend to incriminate
you. Before I decided whether your are entitled to refuse to
answer, I must know whether you feel a truthful answer might
tend to incriminate you. That is the question I asked you.
    Do you feel a truthful answer might tend to incriminate
you?
    Mr. Bortz. I gave the truthful answer that it would be
self-incriminating. That is the truthful answer. I don't say
the truth would be self-incriminating.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that a truthful answer--In other
words, if you were to tell us the truth, do you think that
might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. Sometimes you have a fact turned around and
twist it in your direction. I don't know.
    The Chairman. I am just giving you a chance to take
advantage of your privilege.
    Mr. Bortz. A truthful answer in the true sense is not self-
incriminating. In other words, if you knew the whole background
and everything----
    The Chairman. You are entitled to tell us the background.
    Mr. Bortz. It would be self-incriminating to give you the
background. I must tell you that.
    The Chairman. Is it your answer that you feel a truthful
answer to this question might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. That question doesn't make any sense to me. I
need an attorney for that. I don't know.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer.
    Mr. Bortz. I don't know.
    The Chairman. Then if you don't feel it would tend to
incriminate you, you are ordered to answer the original
question.
    Mr. Bortz. What is the original question?
    The Chairman. Whether or not you attended a meeting at
which it was decided Matt Cvetic would be beaten up.
    Mr. Bortz. That would be self-incriminating.
    The Chairman. Do you feel a truthful answer would be self-
incriminating?
    Mr. Bortz. Well, without knowing the background, you can
say something and then mean something else. If you give one
fact and then not give other facts, then it is misleading.
    The Chairman. Are you going to answer the question? You
have been ordered to answer.
    Mr. Bortz. I will answer if all the facts are there the
truth would be a ``yes'' answer.
    The Chairman. By a ``yes'' answer, you mean it would tend
to incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. That is right. A complete truthful answer would
not incriminate anyone.
    The Chairman. All right then, you are ordered to answer.
    Mr. Bortz. Well, that would be self-incriminating to answer
it. It might sound funny to you guys.
    Mr. Cohn. Let's see how intelligent you are. Isn't it a
fact you conducted Marxist educational classes in your home?
    Mr. Bortz. I refuse to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Isn't it a fact that you have been a teacher for
the Communist party teaching complicated courses in the Marxist
theory and practice for a period of five years?
    Mr. Bortz. I can't answer that on the basis that it is
self-incriminating.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that a truthful answer would tend
to incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. Pile it on.
    The Chairman. Do you feel a truthful answer would tend to
incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. I can't answer that question. It is self-
incriminating to answer that question.
    The Chairman. The reporter will note that he has refused to
answer and that we will ask the committee to cite him for
contempt for refusal.
    Mr. Bortz. Isn't that something asking for an opinion? I am
not ready to give my opinion.
    The Chairman. Have you been section organizer of district
number five for the Communist party?
    Mr. Bortz. I can't answer that on the grounds that it may
be self-incriminating.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that a truthful answer would
incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. I can't give you my opinion on it. I don't know.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer.
    Mr. Bortz. I don't know.
    The Chairman. Then if you don't know, do you feel that it
might tend to incriminate you--a truthful answer?
    Mr. Bortz. Same question. I don't got the point,
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question.
    Mr. Bortz. I can't give you my opinion. I don't know.
    The Chairman. Then you are ordered to answer the question
asked by counsel.
    Just so the record will be clear so you won't be able to
use this in defense, you are again informed you can refuse to
answer any question if you feel a truthful answer might tend to
incriminate you. You have been refusing to answer certain
questions. I then asked you the simple question: ``Do you feel
a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you?'' You refused
to answer. I have been ordering you to answer that simple
question. We are making note of the times you refused. We will
ask the committee to cite you for contempt.
    Mr. Bortz. There is nothing I can do except say I don't
know. I don't know what you mean by it. I don't understand your
point. I don't know whether it is incriminating as or not.
    The Chairman. Do you know what the truth is?
    Mr. Bortz. I sure do.
    The Chairman. Do you know what incriminating yourself
means?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes, I have some idea. I probably couldn't give
you too technical an explanation.
    The Chairman. Then you are asked whether you think a
truthful answer to the question might tend to incriminate you.
Do you refuse to answer that?
    Mr. Bortz. I don't know whether I should answer a question
like that. If it is self-incriminating I can't answer that.
    The Chairman. We will give you as much time as you want to
decide. Let us know whether or not you decide to answer the
question when you have decided?
    Mr. Bortz. I can't decide. I don't know what the whole
thing is about.
    The Chairman. Are you going to answer?
    Mr. Bortz. I don't know. I would like to answer it.
    The Chairman. I will give you a full minute to answer it.
We are not going to sit here all day. I will give you a full
minute to answer.
    The reporter will let the record show we have waited over a
minute for the witness to answer and he sat mute after he had
been ordered to answer, and again have the record show that we
will ask the full Committee to cite him for contempt.
    Mr. Cohn. In 1941 were you a member of the Communist
party--functionary of the party in Cleveland, Ohio?
    Mr. Bortz. That would be self-incriminating to answer that
question, a question like that.
    Mr. Cohn. From 1945 until the present date, have you been
on the orders of the Communist party, every activity?
    Mr. Bortz. That would be self-incriminating in that same
sense.
    Mr. Surine. Mr. Bortz, in 1948, were you present when you
and others were given Communist party orders to photograph
Pittsburgh?
    Mr. Bortz. What?
    Mr. Surine. In 1948, were you present at any meeting with
other Communists at which time orders were issued to photograph
parts of Pittsburgh?
    Mr. Bortz. That would be self-incriminating. That is the
same type question.
    Mr. Surine. Did you take part in photographing any
facilities in Pittsburgh?
    Mr. Bortz. That would be self-incriminating.
    Mr. Surine. Did you have at that time phony letterheads and
credentials?
    Mr. Bortz. That would be self-incriminating.
    Mr. Surine. In 1948 did you take a trip to Anchorage,
Alaska?
    Mr. Bortz. I can't make answers like that. It would be the
same kind of question and the same kind of answer.
    Mr. Surine. I am asking you, Mr. Bortz, did you take a trip
to Anchorage, Alaska, in 1948?
    Mr. Bortz. I really don't know why you ask me these
questions. Still as long as you keep asking questions like this
and have something behind it----
    Mr. Surine. Do you honestly believe if you told us you took
a trip to Anchorage, Alaska, it might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes, whether I was there or wasn't there.
    Mr. Surine. Do you honestly feel if you told the committee
you took a trip to Anchorage, Alaska, it might tend to
incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. Perhaps.
    Mr. Surine. Did you enlist in the army in 1942?
    Mr. Bortz. That is a matter of record. Volunteered.
    Mr. Surine. And did you so enlist under instructions from
the Communist party?
    Mr. Bortz. I refuse to answer that on the grounds that it
is self-incriminating,
    Mr. Surine. You refuse to answer that question on the
grounds that you honestly feel a truthful answer might tend to
incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. What do you mean by a truthful answer?
    The Chairman. Don't you know what is meant by a truthful
answer?
    Mr. Bortz. Well, you mean to give facts to a thing. It
means telling the truth.
    The Chairman. Do you know what it means to tell the truth?
    Mr. Bortz. I certainly do.
    The Chairman. All right. Answer counsel's question.
    Mr. Surine. Are you going to answer that question?
    The Chairman. He is ordered to answer.
    Mr. Surine. The question is: Do you honestly feel the
answer to my previous question might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes.
    Mr. Surine. In 1937 and 1938, did you travel to Spain?
    Mr. Bortz. That question would be incriminating too.
    Mr. Surine. You refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Will you step out in the hall for just a minute?
    [The witness returned to the room.]
    Mr. Surine. Mr. Bortz, the last question I asked you was
whether or not in 1937 and 1938 you were in Spain. What was
your answer? Will you answer that question?
    Mr. Bortz. I can't answer that on the grounds it is self-
incriminating.
    Mr. Surine. Are you a member of the Cleveland Post of the
Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade?
    Mr. Bortz. I can't answer that on the grounds it is self
incriminating.
    Mr. Surine. On both of those questions do you honestly feel
a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. That is one of those same old questions.
    Mr. Surine. Your answer is ``yes''? That it would be self-
incriminating if you answered the question honestly?
    Mr. Bortz. Well, eventually, if it had to come out--if you
had to tell the truth, it would not be.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer that. You told us
if you told the truth it would not incriminate you. Therefore,
you are ordered to answer.
    Mr. Bortz. Do whatever you want, guys.
    The Chairman. Let the record show the witness sits mute and
refuses to answer after he has been ordered to answer. Will you
note that he is sitting mute and refusing to answer after
having stated that a truthful answer would not tend to
incriminate him, and the committee will be asked to cite him
for contempt.
    Mr. Surine. Do you know Tony Nuss?
    Mr. Bortz. A question like that is still self-incriminating
and I couldn't answer it.
    Mr. Surine. Is she a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Bortz. There is something wrong with you people. I
don't know. Well, it is self-incriminating. I cannot answer.
    The Chairman. Do you feel if you gave a truthful answer to
that question it might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. Perhaps. I don't know. It depends on what you
fellows have rigged up.
    The Chairman. The question is: Do you think a truthful
answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. On the basis of honesty, it would not
incriminate me. Only on the basis of honesty and the right kind
of handling.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer.
    Let the record show that the witness stated that on the
basis of an honest answer, he would not be incriminated in his
opinion. He was, therefore, ordered to answer. He sits mute
after being ordered to answer. Let the record show that he is
in contempt in the opinion of the chair and the committee will
be asked to cite him for contempt.
    Mr. Surine. When did you leave to go to New York City
within the last twenty-four hours?
    Mr. Bortz. Butler or Pittsburgh?
    Mr. Surine. The date and time you left to go to New York
City?
    Mr. Bortz. Well, that would be either from Butler or from
Pittsburgh. I left sometime in the evening. Around eight
o'clock or seven o'clock.
    Mr. Surine. You knew by that time you were not to go to New
York City because you had received the telegram?
    Mr. Bortz. Here I had two contradictory things. A telegram
is not a subpoena.
    Mr. Surine. Your attorney, Mr. Schlesinger, got a telegram
that you were to report directly to Washington. Did he advise
you that he had received that telegram?
    Mr. Bortz. That is right.
    Mr. Surine. Did he tell you also I had advised him orally
by phone of that information?
    Mr. Bortz. That is right.
    Mr. Surine. Then why did you go to New York City after you
knew you were not to report there?
    Mr. Bortz. I thought I would go to the court house and see
if everything was all right. In this case it wasn't a subpoena.
The subpoena read to New York.
    Mr. Surine. Who did you see in New York?
    Mr. Bortz. No one except asking someone around the court
house questions.
    Mr. Surine. Who did you ask around the court house?
    Mr. Bortz. Someone in there.
    Mr. Surine. What did you ask them?
    Mr. Bortz. If Joe McCarthy's committee was there. He said,
``No, I think they are in Washington.''
    Mr. Surine. When was this?
    Mr. Bortz. It must have been around 8:30 in the morning.
No, it was later. About nine o'clock.
    Mr. Surine. Where did you stay last night?
    Mr. Bortz. I have the receipt here. Hotel York. That is on
7th Avenue and 35th Street.
    Mr. Surine. And did you meet any members of the Communist
party while you were in New York last night or this morning?
    Mr. Bortz. Unless this man was a member. I don't know. I
have no way of telling who is a member and who isn't. A
question like that would be someone I don't know.
    Mr. Surine. Did you meet anyone last night or this morning
in New York whom you knew or thought was a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Bortz. No.
    Mr. Surine. Did you contact a lawyer in New York?
    Mr. Bortz. No.
    Mr. Surine. Did you make any long-distance phone calls from
New York?
    Mr. Bortz. No.
    Mr. Surine. Did you phone Mr. Schlesinger?
    Mr. Bortz. No.
    Mr. Surine. Did Mr. Schlesinger advise you not to answer
certain questions when you appeared today?
    Mr. Bortz. He left it up to me. He didn't want to handle
the case.
    Mr. Surine. Did he advise you not to answer questions about
your Communist background?
    Mr. Bortz. He said, ``If you don't want to answer, you
don't have to answer under the Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution.''
    Mr. Surine. He told you if you didn't want to answer you
could refuse under your rights of the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Bortz. That in right,
    The Chairman. Do you think the Communist system is better
than ours?
    Mr. Bortz. You are asking me for an opinion. I can't give
you my opinion. I don't know. There is no way of telling.
Besides that is self-incriminating in itself. I can't answer
it, because so many views of people on what communism is.
Because if I were to say it, you would say either that guy is a
Communist who answers me or I am a Communist who answers him.
It doesn't make any sense.
    The Chairman. Are you refusing to answer?
    Mr. Bortz. I can't answer. I don't know what you mean by
communism.
    The Chairman. Have you ever taught communism?
    Mr. Bortz. No.
    The Chairman. Your answer is ``no?''
    Mr. Bortz. [Shakes head negatively.]
    The Chairman. You have never taught Communist classes?
    Mr. Bortz. What do you mean? I never taught Communist
classes.
    The Chairman. Did you ever teach what you thought was
communism?
    Mr. Bortz. No.
    The Chairman. You never taught classes in communism?
    Mr. Bortz. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever teach classes in Marxism?
    Mr. Bortz. I refuse to answer any of those questions on the
basis it is definitely self-incriminating.
    The Chairman. You have answered those others.
    Mr. Bortz. It is the same thing over and over. It doesn't
make any sense.
    The Chairman. Are you refusing to answer on the grounds it
doesn't make any sense?
    Mr. Bortz. On the grounds it may be incriminating to me.
    Mr. Surine. Did you live in Cleveland, Ohio?
    Mr. Bortz. That would be self-incriminating if I don't have
an attorney.
    Mr. Surine. Where were you living in 1940?
    Mr. Bortz. That would be self-incriminating. All these
questions, I can't see any other way. I refuse to answer that.
    Mr. Surine. Do you know Andrew Onda?
    Mr. Bortz. I refuse to answer that on the ground it is
self-incriminating.
    Mr. Surine. Do you know John Williamson?
    Mr. Bortz. Same thing. I can't answer on the ground it is
self-incriminating.
    Mr. Surine. Do you know William Z. Foster?
    Mr. Bortz. Self-incrimination. I can't answer that.
    Mr. Surine. Forgetting about the Cvetic case for the time
being and forgetting about December 4th meeting, were you ever
instructed or requested by members of the Communist party to
use physical violence against any individual?
    Mr. Bortz. That is self-incriminating.
    Mr. Surine. You refuse to answer that?
    Mr. Bortz. [Shakes head negatively.]
    Mr. Surine. Do you feel a truthful answer might tend to
incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. In some cases, ``yes,'' the same thing,
    Mr. Surine. Do you feel a truthful answer might tend to
incriminate you?
    Mr. Bortz. On this case, ``yes.''
    The Chairman. Then you are entitled to refuse then.
    Mr. Surine. Did you join the National Guard?
    Mr. Bortz. That question is self-incriminating.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer that question.
    Mr. Bortz. I can't answer. That question itself is self-
incriminating,
    The Chairman. Will you have the record show that the
witness was asked whether he joined the National Guard, and
that obviously it is not incriminating to join the National
Guard, and he has refused to answer. The chair has decided that
is abuse of the privilege. He has been ordered to answer and he
still refuses. The record should note that in the opinion of
the chair, he is in contempt and the committee will be asked to
hold him in contempt.
    Mr. Surine. When did you move to Pittsburgh?
    Mr. Bortz. [No answer.]
    The Chairman. Will you have the record show the witness was
ordered to answer that question and that in the opinion of the
chair, the witness is in contempt and the committee will be
asked----
    Mr. Bortz. I will answer that. I am just thinking of the
time. I was going to answer that.
    The Chairman. Strike that, Reporter.
    Mr. Bortz. I just don't exactly remember the time but I
think the whole thing is self-incriminating anyhow. I can't
answer it.
    The Chairman. When you moved to Pittsburgh did you join the
South Side Club of the Communist party, district number five?
    Mr. Bortz. That is self-incriminating. I can't answer that.
    The Chairman. Were you the educational director for this
Communist party club?
    Mr. Bortz. Self-incriminating, same thing.
    The Chairman. Were you chairman of this Communist party
group?
    Mr. Bortz. Self-incriminating. That question I can't answer
it.
    The Chairman. Were you a delegate to the First Annual
National Communist Veterans Encampment held in Washington,
D.C.?
    Mr. Bortz. That is an incriminating question. I can't
answer it.
    The Chairman. Do you hold Communist party meetings in your
residence?
    Mr. Bortz. Self-incriminating, that question. I can't
answer it.
    The Chairman. Did you circulate the Worker and the Daily
Worker?
    Mr. Bortz. That is self-incriminating, that question too. I
can't answer it,
    The Chairman. Were you a Communist party organizer?
    Mr. Bortz. That is a self-incriminating question. I can't
answer it.
    The Chairman. Were you treasurer of the Civil Rights
Congress in Pittsburgh?
    Mr. Bortz. That is the same kind of question. I can't
answer it. It is self-incriminating.
    Mr. Cohn. You refuse to answer.
    Mr. Bortz. I can't answer on the basis I shouldn't.
    The Chairman. Do you refuse to answer?
    Mr. Bortz. I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. When you are saying you can't answer, you
refuse to answer?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes, on the grounds that it is self-
incriminating to me.
    The Chairman. Were you active in behalf of Communist party
leaders?
    Mr. Bortz. I won't answer that on the grounds it is self-
incriminating.
    The Chairman. What is your father's first name?
    Mr. Bortz. Samuel.
    The Chairman. And your Mother's first name?
    Mr. Bortz. Ethel.
    The Chairman. Ethel Balanoff Bortz?
    Mr. Bortz. I think it was Lynn. I think she was half-
sister. She is dead now. I know her brother's name was
Balanoff.
    The Chairman. Your wife's first name is Ida?
    Mr. Bortz. That is right.
    The Chairman. Her last name is Rosen?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes. Maiden name.
    The Chairman. Was she a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Bortz. A question like that is self-incriminating and I
refuse to answer it.
    The Chairman. You were divorced from your wife?
    Mr. Bortz. That is right.
    The Chairman. Were you ever married to a woman whose first
name is Marie? M-a-r-i-e?
    Mr. Bortz. Was? I am. I am married to Marie.
    The Chairman. Her maiden name was Mazza?
    Mr. Bortz. No.
    The Chairman. What was her maiden name?
    Mr. Bortz. It wasn't Mazza anyhow.
    The Chairman. What was her maiden name?
    Mr. Bortz. Gratta. Two ``t's.''
    The Chairman. Where were you married?
    Mr. Bortz. Portage, Pennsylvania. The county seat is
Greensburg. It is the county seat of Portage County.
    The Chairman. What State?
    Mr. Bortz. Pennsylvania.
    The Chairman. You were married in Portage County.
    Mr. Bortz. That is Portage County, Pennsylvania.
    The Chairman. When were you actually married in Portage? Is
Portage the name of a city?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you remember the date you were married?
    Mr. Bortz. March 15, 1952.
    The Chairman. Is your present wife a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Bortz. I can't answer. I refuse to answer that on the
basis of self-incrimination.
    The Chairman. You refuse to answer?
    Mr. Bortz. That is right.
    The Chairman. Do you know a Marie Mazza?
    Mr. Bortz. That was her first husband's name and she has
been divorced for about, maybe, ten years. I don't know the
exact figure.
    The Chairman. You say that is her first husband's name? You
mean your present wife's first husband's name?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you know a woman who is known as the ``Red
Queen''?
    Mr. Bortz. Do you mean if I have read about her?
    The Chairman. Do you personally know a woman referred to as
the ``Red Queen''?
    Mr. Bortz. I refuse to answer that on the grounds it is
self-incriminating.
    The Chairman. Did you live with the ``Red Queen''?
    Mr. Bortz. I refuse to answer that on the grounds it is
self-incriminating.
    The Chairman. Was the ``Red Queen'' an espionage agent?
    Mr. Bortz. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it is
self-incriminating,
    The Chairman. Do you know a woman by the name of Tony Nuss?
    Mr. Bortz. I refuse to answer that on the grounds it is
self-incriminating.
    The Chairman. Was Tony Russ and the ``Red Queen'' one and
the same person?
    Mr. Bortz. I refuse to answer that on the grounds it is
self-incriminating.
    The Chairman. Have you ever lived with Tony Nuss?
    Mr. Bortz. I refuse to answer that on the grounds it is
self-incriminating.
    Mr. Surine. Mr. Bortz, do you know Rebecca Bortz?
    Mr. Bortz. That is my sister.
    Mr. Surine. Do you know Benjamin Bortz?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes, that is my brother. That is, he died in
service during the war. He is dead now.
    Mr. Surine. Is Rebecca living?
    Mr. Bortz. Sure.
    Mr. Surine. Is she a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Bortz. What do you mean by that? It is my sister. She
is my sister.
    Mr. Surine. Do you know whether she is a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Bortz. That would be self-incriminating.
    Mr. Surine. Were you ever a labor organizer?
    Mr. Bortz. I refuse to answer that on the grounds it is
self-incriminating.
    Mr. Surine. Did you ever operate, as co-owner, the Lake
View Service Center at Lake View, Ohio?
    Mr. Bortz. I refuse to answer that on the grounds it is
self-incriminating.
    Mr. Surine. Were you employed in the army as a wire man?
    Mr. Bortz. Self-Incriminating. I can't answer that.
    Mr. Surine. For how many years have you known Steve Nelson?
    Mr. Bortz. On the grounds that it is self-incriminating, I
won't answer that.
    Mr. Surine. Were you ever a member of an organization
called the Young Fraternalist?
    Mr. Bortz. On the grounds that it is self-incriminating.
Same thing. I can't answer that.
    Mr. Surine. Do you know a man by the name of Edward Lamb?
    Mr. Bortz. That would be self-incriminating. I don't want
to answer that.
    Mr. Surine. You refuse to answer that question on the
grounds of self-incrimination?
    Mr. Bortz. It would be incriminating.
    Mr. Surine. Did you ever in your position have letterheads
from some Hollywood Studio during the year of 1948?
    Mr. Bortz. That would be self-incriminating. I won't answer
that on the grounds it is self-incriminating.
    Mr. Surine. Have you ever carried any papers or documents
or credentials falsely showing your employment or your name?
    Mr. Bortz. No.
    Mr. Surine. Your answer is ``no''?
    Mr. Bortz. That is right.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to be here at 9:00
tomorrow morning.
    Mr. Bortz. Will it be all right to bring an attorney? I
imagine it would be.
    The Chairman. You can bring an attorney.
    Mr. Bortz. Nine o'clock?
    The Chairman. Nine-thirty.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned.]
            COMMUNIST PARTY ACTIVITIES, WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
                              ----------
                        THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 9:30 a.m., in the office of
Senator Karl Mundt, Senate Office Building, Senator Mundt
presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator
Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator John L.
McCellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Stuart Symington,
Democrat, Missouri.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Donald A. Surine,
assistant counsel; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
TESTIMONY OF LOUIS BORTZ (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, HARRY I.
                             RAND)
    Senator Mundt. What is the attorney's name?
    Mr. Rand. My name is Harry I. Rand. My address is the Wyatt
Building, Washington 5, D.C.
    If I may, I should like the record to show I was retained
by Mr. Bortz at 8:00 p.m. last night; that I had not received
any communication from him prior to that time, had not advised
or consulted with him. Mr. Bortz tells me there were some
instances yesterday when it was suggested that he may have been
contemptuous in some instances in his conduct before the
committee in session yesterday. Mr. Bortz has tried to
recapitulate that session, but has been unable to. Therefore, I
respectfully request that a transcript of the hearing yesterday
be made available to me so I can advise him and if he has been
contemptuous----
    Senator Mundt. He will be examined in open session and any
contempt action will flow from open session and you will be,
therefore, advised.
    Mr. Cohn, do you want to ask Mr. Bortz some questions?
    Mr. Cohn. To go over a couple of the main points covered
yesterday, will you tell us whether or not you are a member of
the Communist party?
    Mr. Bortz. I will have to tell you the same thing as
yesterday.
    Senator Mundt. Some of us were not there yesterday, so you
will have to start out anew.
    Mr. Bortz. I decline to answer on the rights of the Fifth
Amendment, which gives me the right to not incriminate myself.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you present at the Communist party meeting
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, at the Civil Rights Congress Hall
approximately December 4, 1952?
    Mr. Bortz. That is the same answer, that I have got to
decline to answer on the ground that it may be self-
incriminating.
    Mr. Cohn. During that meeting and after that meeting did
you state to those in attendance and to several persons outside
you had gotten the assignment from the party of liquidating
Senator McCarthy?
    Mr. Bortz. I must decline to answer that under the same
grounds.
    Senator Mundt. Under the Fifth Amendment?
    Senator McCarthy. I think the chairman should instruct the
witness he has that right.
    Senator Mundt. Do you feel if you answer that question
truthfully you might incriminate yourself?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. You do know what the word ``liquidate''
means?
    Mr. Bortz. Probably your explanation will help.
    Mr. Cohn. Give us your definition.
    Mr. Bortz. Liquidation probably means to do away with
someone or eliminate someone, I would say.
    Senator Symington. Put it in the waste paper basket?
    Mr. Bortz. Not much on that ground but something like that.
    Senator Symington. In other words, liquidation would be to
destroy, murder, or assassinate?
    Senator McClellan. In what sense is the word used in the
Communist party? You know that, don't you?
    Mr. Bortz. I don't know off-hand.
    Senator McClellan. Haven't you heard the word used in
Communist meetings?
    Mr. Bortz. I decline to answer that question.
    Senator McClellan. You are familiar with the use of the
word? You have heard it before, haven't you?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes, I have heard it before.
    Senator McClellan. You know what it means, then?
    Senator Mundt. Where is your home, Mr. Bortz?
    Mr. Bortz. R.D. 6, Butler, Pennsylvania.
    Senator Mundt. What is your means of livelihood?
    Mr. Bortz. Well, freelancing for electrical appliance work.
    Senator Mundt. You mean you are a freelance writer?
    Mr. Bortz. No. Electrical work. I just take up jobs on my
own.
    Senator Mundt. You have no regular employment?
    Mr. Bortz. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a paid functionary of the Communist party
at this time?
    Mr. Bortz. I must decline to answer that on the grounds of
the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever hurt anybody in a fight of
any kind?
    Mr. Bortz. I will have to answer that the same way.
    Senator Symington. What was that?
    Mr. Bortz. By declining to answer on the ground I may
incriminate myself.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever been arrested for a crime?
    Mr. Bortz. No.
    Senator Symington. Never have been?
    Mr. Bortz. No.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever taken money in order to
attack anybody on a strike--to be a strike breaker, for or
against a strike breaker?
    Mr. Bortz. I decline to answer that on the same grounds.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Bortz, how old are you?
    Mr. Bortz. Forty-two.
    Senator Dirksen. You have a family?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Consisting of what?
    Mr. Bortz. I have got two younger boys.
    Senator Dirksen. And your wife?
    Mr. Bortz. My wife.
    Senator Dirksen. And you live at RFD 6, Butler,
Pennsylvania?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. When you said freelancing in the
electrical appliance business, do you mean salesman or contract
work?
    Mr. Bortz. In service work.
    Senator Dirksen. Explain that a little more.
    Mr. Bortz. If anyone tells me they have got a washing
machine bad--to repair--they bring it out to my home or I go
out to theirs.
    Senator Mundt. Have you a business of your own?
    Mr. Bortz. I am trying to start one.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you have to carry a card for that kind
of work?
    Mr. Bortz. No, I may have to if things work out. What I
figure is to get a name and advertise as such and register in
Pennsylvania, but I don't know yet.
    Senator Dirksen. I just assume in electrical appliances you
have to have some experience in that field. Then, secondly,
there may be a requirement that you carry a union card. Are you
a member of the Electrical Workers Union?
    Mr. Bortz. No, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Never have been?
    Mr. Bortz. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this: Did you, as a Communist
party assignment, receive one time an assignment of beating up
Matt Cvetic?
    Mr. Bortz. I must decline to answer that on the ground that
it may incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know how to shoot a gun?
    Mr. Bortz. I think I must decline to answer.
    Senator Mundt. Were you born in this country?
    Mr. Bortz. Yes.
    Senator Mundt. Where?
    Mr. Bortz. Hartford, Connecticut.
    Senator Mundt. Give me a quick run-down on your career
until we find you now in Pittsburgh. You went to school, I
presume.
    Mr. Rand. What was that?
    Senator Mundt. A quick run-down on his career, where he
went to school; how he earns his living, etc.
    Senator McCarthy. You can answer that question upstairs.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned.]
                            SPECIAL MEETING
    [Editor's note.--During the spring of 1953, several members
of the subcommittee staff departed after encountering
difficulties in working with chief counsel Roy Cohn.
``Everything was in shambles . . . as far as staff was
concerned,'' chief clerk Ruth Young Watt later recalled,
``because everybody was at cross-purposes.'' On June 18, 1953,
Senator McCarthy announced the appointment of J. B. Matthews as
the new staff director. A former Methodist minister and Marxist
turned anti-Communist, Matthews had previously served as staff
director of the House Un-American Activities Committee.
Matthews had a reputation as an able administrator, but the
chairman had failed to consult with minority party senators on
the subcommittee before making the selection, at a time when
committee staffs were considered to be nonpartisan
professionals who worked for both the majority and minority.
Displeasure mounted when Matthews's article ``Reds and Our
Churches'' appeared in the July issue of American Mercury,
asserting that ``The largest single group supporting the
Communist apparatus in the United States is composed of
Protestant clergymen.''
    The three Democratic senators on the subcommittee met
privately with the chairman to demand Matthews' removal.
Members of the subcommittee met again on the afternoon of July
7, at which time Republican Senator Charles Potter joined the
Democrats in insisting on a change in staff directors. Senator
McCarthy refused to fire Matthews or accept his resignation,
and that meeting ended with no resolution of the issue. The
following day, the Democratic senators announced their
intention to protest to the full Committee on Government
Operations. Republican senators on the subcommittee then
drafted a compromise to preserve the chairman's exclusive right
to appoint subcommittee staff while at the same time replacing
Matthews as staff director. Senator McCarthy announced
Matthews' resignation on July 9. However, Democrats on the
subcommittee objected to his assertion of exclusive power to
appoint staff, and demanded authority to hire a minority
counsel. Denied their request, the three Democratic senators
resigned from the subcommittee and did not attend its meetings
for the rest of the year. In January 1954, they returned to the
subcommittee, having been permitted to hire Robert F. Kennedy
as the minority counsel.]
                              ----------
                         FRIDAY, JULY 10, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met (pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953) at 10:30 a.m., room 357, Senate
Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator
Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator John L.
McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Henry M. Jackson,
Democrat, Washington; Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat,
Washington.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Donald A. Surine,
assistant counsel; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
    The Chairman. The first thing I would like to do--Let me
first, if I may, give you a report on the meeting with Dulles.
    Senator Jackson. Allen Dulles.
    The Chairman. Allen Dulles. May I say that yesterday I said
we would take up this question of the chairman's power first,
but I would like first to give you a report on the conference
with Dulles.
    I talked to him last night and he suggested holding up
calling Bundy and Pforzheimer and he could come over and give
us his views on the case. Bundy, as you know, is now the
National Security Council's man at the Central Intelligence
Agency. He has been recommended, at least they have asked
clearance for him to act as liaison between the National
Security Council and the Atomic Energy Commission.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ William P. Bundy, the son-in-law of former Secretary of State
Dean Acheson, had joined the Central Intelligence Agency in 1951. His
father, Harvey Bundy, had been vice chairman of the Carnegie Endowment
for World Peace when it was headed by Alger Hiss, and had actively
solicited funds for Hiss' legal defense. William Bundy had sent two
checks to the defense fund for $200 each, contributions that Bundy
reported during his security review for his CIA post. In 1953, he was
designated to serve as liaison officer between the National Security
Council and the Atomic Energy Commission, work that required that he
receive a ``Q'' clearance. His case file was sent first to the Atomic
Energy Commission, chaired by Admiral Lewis Strauss, and then to the
FBI. The information soon afterwards reached the subcommittee.
    On July 9, Roy Cohn phoned CIA legislative counsel Walter L.
Pforzheimer and requested that Bundy testify before the subcommittee
that morning because ``he is up for a top security clearance and we
wonder whether he should be approved.'' Not wanting Bundy to testify
nor to be served with a subpoena, CIA director Allen Dulles ordered
that he leave town. Bundy immediately flew to Boston, and the
subcommittee was informed that he was ``on leave and would not be
available.'' Cohn then subpoenaed Pforzheimer to testify regarding
Bundy's sudden departure.
    In his book McCarthy (New York: New American Library, 1968), Cohn
recorded that over the weekend Vice President Nixon met with the
Republican members of the subcommittee and persuaded them not to call
CIA officials to testify. In return the CIA assured the chairman that
it would conduct an internal review of Bundy's background. Bundy
returned to Washington that Sunday and never appeared before the
subcommittee. Instead he was examined by a loyalty board and given a
lie-detector test. He received his ``Q'' clearance and he remained with
the CIA until 1960. Bundy later served as assistant secretary of
defense for International Security Affairs and assistant secretary of
state for the Far East during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Department of State informed us that some of his books
were in the shelves of the IIA [International Information
Agency]. I am not sure that is true. There is another
Bundy.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Bundy's brother, McGeorge Bundy, later National Security
Advisor to presidents Kennedy and Johnson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senator Jackson. His brother it says in the paper this
morning.
    The Chairman. They say they are using some of his books. I
assume they are not on the shelves as the IIA will be directly
responsible to the National Security Council.
    Some of the material against him, for example, is that he
belonged to organizations listed by not congressional
committees, but, by the attorney general as Communist fronts.
He contributed to Alger Hiss' defense fund on two different
occasions--$200.00 each. He is not an extremely wealthy man, I
understand, so that would be a very sizeable contribution. He
gave as his reasons: (1) that it was imperative that Hiss be
cleared; (2) he wanted to help out his father-in-law, Dean
Acheson; and (3) he wanted to help the Democratic party.
    Senator McClellan. Is he now in government service?
    The Chairman. He is working in the Central Intelligence
Agency, but he is on the payroll of the National Security
Council.
    Mr. Cohn called the liaison between the Central
Intelligence Agency and the Senate, Mr. Pforzheimer, and asked
him to have this man appear and Mr. Pforzheimer said he was not
in town. Roy called Bundy and talked to Bundy's secretary. She
said Bundy had just gone over to see the counsel for CIA.
Pforzheimer called back and said Bundy was away on vacation and
he didn't know where he was. Roy suggested that it was rather
unusual that the Central Intelligence Agency would not know
where its top operators were. Pforzheimer said he thought
somebody might know, but he didn't have any idea himself.
    We asked Pforzheimer to explain--to come over and explain
this unusual vacation at three o'clock. He then called at 1:30
and said he would be unable to make the three o'clock meeting.
    Roy then talked to Allen Dulles and he took the position
that no employees of the CIA could appear before any
congressional committee. I thought that was a bit unusual. I
feel that if we subpoena undercover agents and they don't want
that man exposed, we should go along. If they say here in
executive session or open session that calling an employee of
the CIA will endanger their operations, I think we should lean
over backwards to go along with them. We should not set
ourselves up as an authority as to how they should operate, but
I take the position that a man known to be working with CIA and
who has a record of this kind, must appear if he is subpoenaed.
I don't think any bureau should say none of its employees will
appear.
    Dulles asked us to hold this up. He wanted to come down and
give us some new aspects. He was down in my office this morning
and there was nothing much new he had to say. I asked him how
it would endanger his operations if Bundy were called. He said,
``Well, other intelligence agencies in the world would know we
were calling his men.'' He made no claim at all that we were
going to endanger his operations or secret information.
    We discussed the matter at some length and he took the
position that we should not call any of his people; that he is
responsible and if he felt he wasn't doing a good job, he
should be asked to resign.
    Senator McClellan. Is that Secretary Dulles?
    The Chairman. Allen Dulles.
    We pointed out to him how ridiculous his stand was--how
ridiculous I thought it was.
    Incidentally, I asked who sent Bundy out of town. He said
he gave him authority to go out of town after knowing we had
called him.
    Senator Symington. How did he justify that?
    The Chairman. He just said it.
    Mr. Cohn. He said he needed time to think about it.
    The Chairman. He asked until Tuesday to think this over
and, I assume, discuss it with others in the administration. I
told him it was okay with me, and I assumed it would be with
the committee. I don't know the position he will take Tuesday.
I don't know what your position is. I frankly think if he can
refuse to have any of his people testify, then every bureau
head can and the committee will have to fold up.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ The subcommittee later issued the following press release:
Statement by Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Chairman of the Senate
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations:
    ``Mr. Dulles, who by Congressional mandate is charged with the
security of the CIA, while not contesting the right of the Congress to
subpoena witnesses and uncover graft, corruption or subversion in any
branch of the government, pointed out that if his employees were
questioned in regard to their work or the work of their fellow CIA
employees, it might well impair the work of the agency, particularly as
that agency is concerned with intelligence outside the United States.
    It was agreed that representatives of the Subcommittee staff would
confer with representatives of the Central Intelligence Agency, with a
view to working out a formula whereby the Subcommittee could carry out
its proper investigative functions in protecting the security of the
United States, without impairing in any way the security of the
Intelligence Agency. . . . ''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senator Symington. Could I comment on that? Here are just
some of my thoughts about it.
    I don't think anybody has the right, except the president,
to refuse to testify before a congressional committee. Possibly
the Supreme Court, I don't know. I do think that this area is
very sensitive.
    Personally, I don't agree with his position. I hate to
disagree with a member of the other party, I think he ought to
be down here, but here is the problem you have got with respect
to Bundy. Hiss--I have also heard that Bundy is a Republican--
but Hiss has fooled an awful lot of people. His lawyer for the
first part of the trial, without a question, is one of the
leading young lawyers of Baltimore, who is, as Patterson told
me, one of the finest lawyers he ever knew. He is the only non-
graduate of Harvard who is a member of the board of trustees.
Now John Foster Dulles was a member.
    Some people did it because of belief in the man. This man
believed in him until he got the papers from the pumpkin, then
he said, ``This is no longer a case for me, but a case for the
Department of Justice.'' There were lots of people fooled by
Hiss and this boy might have been fooled by him too and thought
an injustice was being done and contributed to the defense of
injustice.
    My only thought is that Acheson has been out of the State
Department pretty close to six months, and as to what Bundy is
or isn't is primarily a problem for Allen Dulles, John Foster
Dulles and Eisenhower and that crowd. It is not a problem that
has to do with Acheson. It is a problem that has to do with
Bundy. The CIA reports to the National Security Council. The
statutory members are the vice president, the secretary of
state, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the
National Resources Board. They have now reorganized.
    Incidentally, my own father-in-law was the one that
introduced the bill against the wishes of the previous
administration to make the vice president----
    Senator Mundt. Who is your father-in-law?
    Senator Symington. Jim Wadsworth. He introduced that bill
and we discussed it. He felt the vice president should know
something about the presidency--not like Truman. In any case,
here you have an example of a case where it is a problem for
you and Nixon and/or the administration as I see it.
    To the best of my knowledge, I have never seen Bundy. I
wouldn't know him if he came into the room. I don't think,
inasmuch as there were so many good Republicans fooled by Hiss
that because Bundy contributed to Hiss' defense we should bring
him to trial as an imposter to serve as a public servant. On
the other hand, if you feel that is true, it is a matter
entirely within your province and the province of the committee
to investigate.
    The Chairman. We have told Dulles that we are not
convicting Bundy ahead of time. This is a routine subpoena. I
might also say that this fellow, Bundy, according to Dulles,
only met Hiss once and he is not a wealthy man and $400.00 is a
lot of money.
    Senator McClellan. Maybe he took up a collection. It is
quite possible.
    Senator Jackson. Was he a classmate of his at Harvard?
    Senator Symington. I don't think so. Hiss was three or four
years younger than I am.
    Senator Mundt. I understand Bundy was a member of Acheson's
firm and a good friend of Donaldson.
    Senator Jackson. Let me ask you this. I assume Mr. Dulles
is going to talk to the president; that he ought to know what
the policy of the administration is going to be regarding
calling of witnesses. I think it of sufficient importance--
there ought to be some definite statement of what the policy of
the executive branch is going to be.
    Senator Mundt. It might be better to can everybody in the
past administration.
    Senator McClellan. I would like to make a suggestion. This
is a pretty sensitive thing. My thought is to give him a week--
until Tuesday, next Tuesday, and invite him just to come in
here and informally talk to the committee. Then we all sit in
here and exchange ideas. I am pretty strong on this idea. We
have got a job. If we have got something that has possible
merit in it--to have it bombed by some department head, I am
not inclined to go along with that. But when you do have
something as sensitive as this is, we should proceed with the
utmost caution. I think you have handled it wisely as to this
morning. You had a conference with him and have given him time
to think it over. I think to keep it purely a committee action,
that is one thing, as they are gunning for you and shooting at
you every chance they get, so keep it a committee action. Have
him come here Tuesday morning and sit down here and talk to us
informally.
    Senator Mundt. Let me ask you this. When you were chairman
of the committee and we called a fellow from the department----
    The Chairman. I gathered in talking to Dulles this morning
the thing he resented most is that he hadn't been approached
directly.
    Senator Symington. Well, we didn't know anything about it
except from the newspapers. I was really a little irritated.
Yesterday the State Department called me trying to get hold of
Joe. An ambassador's money, bank account, had been impounded
and he wanted to talk to us about it. The ambassador was
raising cain and reported it to his country. He gave the name
of the investigator, who I didn't know was on the staff--
Sheridan. I may have met him, but I don't remember it.
    It is a little embarrassing to have a newspaper man call up
and say we are going to interrogate Bundy, ``What do you have
to say?'' Isn't there some way we could be apprised in advance.
It is a little embarrassing.
    Senator Jackson. They didn't say who the witness was, just
from CIA. The newspaper this morning gave Bundy. We didn't have
the name. I asked who was coming up.
    Mr. Cohn. We called you.
    Senator Symington. What time did you call? I was in my
office until after twelve o'clock.
    Senator Jackson. I got mine at lunch.
    Senator Symington. I got mine at ten minutes of two o'clock
for a two o'clock meeting.
    Senator Jackson. I got word at a quarter after 12:00.
    Senator Mundt. When you were chairman and you called people
before the committee, did you tell the department heads?
    Senator McClellan. I was not chairman of the subcommittee.
I think that is a proper thing. It seems if I were a department
head I would be justified in telling my employees not to go on
the Hill unless they told me they were going. I don't think
there is anything wrong in that.
    The Chairman. They appointed a liaison officer for this
purpose. They say he is the man to contact. They give us a man
they want us to contact. Pforsheimer for the CIA. For the State
Department, Mason Drury.
    Senator Jackson. Why couldn't the committee be notified the
day before they are going to be subpoenaed?
    Mr. Cohn. Because we didn't have time. We were trying to
set up a meeting.
    Senator Jackson. Why aren't we advised when you subpoena
people?
    Mr. Cohn. On these authors, we subpoena maybe fifty and
five show up. We were trying to subpoena him and trying to get
a meeting set up. We will be glad to do that.
    Senator McClellan. The point is, Roy. You start in at ten
o'clock. You get your news at ten o'clock. Our office gets it
at 12:00. We are on the floor and the meeting is at 2:00, but
if the thing is set up for the next day and you let us know--
What is wrong with advising us that so and so is going to be
here. Can't you arrange an appointment for a day in advance?
    Mr. Cohn. This was put to us in the form of a very
emergency situation. It was put to us by people in high
authority.
    Senator Symington. By who?
    Mr. Cohn. I can't tell you that.
    Senator Symington. You mean our own counsel can't tell us
that. How long have you known about these Alger Hiss
contributions?
    Mr. Cohn. Just a day or two. I knew about that Wednesday
night.
    The Chairman. I have had his name on a list a long time as
a contributor to Alger Hiss' defense but we only learned of his
imminent appointment then.
    I would like to add that I feel this subcommittee should
give the chairman power to hire and fire employees. First, let
me say, as a practice this has been done in the past. Every
committee on the Hill is doing it now. The full Appropriations
Committee here did.
    Senator Jackson. They are not under the Reorganization Act.
    The Chairman. The Judiciary Committee did the same, and the
Immigration Committee. I checked with legislative counsel and
he gave me a report. He gave you a report also.
    Senator McClellan. Let's make that part of the minutes.
    The Chairman. I think that is a good idea.
U.S. Senate,
Office of the Legislative Counsel,
Memorandum for the Chairman, Permanent Investigating
Subcommittee.
    By telephonic communication on July 9, 1953 you have
requested my opinion on the following questions:
    (1) Can a subcommittee give to the chairman of the
subcommittee the power to employ and terminate the employment
of subcommittee personnel?
    (2) Can the full committee reverse the action of the
subcommittee in giving such power to the subcommittee chairman?
    (3) What are the precedents of the Senate with respect to
delegations of authority to subcommittee chairman to employ and
terminate the employment of subcommittee personnel?
    I assume that questions (1) and (2) relate to the so-called
Permanent Investigating Subcommittee of The Committee on
Government Operations, which is now operating pursuant to S.
Res. 40, agreed to January 30, 1953. S. Res. 40 provides that
`the Committee on Government Operations, or any duly authorized
subcommittee, thereof, is authorized during the period
beginning on February 1, 1953, and ending on January 31, 1954.
. . . to employ upon a temporary basis such investigators and
such technical, clerical, and other assistants, as it deems
advisable.' Section 2 of that resolution provides that the
expenses of the committee shall be paid from the contingent
fund of the Senate upon vouchers approved by the chairman of
the committee or subcommittee, as the case may be.
    S. Res. 40 clearly confers upon the Committee on Government
Operations, or any subcommittee of that committee which the
committee may vest with the power, the function of appointing
and the concomitant function of terminating the employment of,
persons employed to enable the committee or subcommittee to
perform its duties under the resolution. If the committee has
not created a `duly authorized subcommittee' to carry on the
functions provided for by the resolution, then the power of
appointment and termination of appointment is clearly in the
committee. If, however, the committee has established a `duly
authorized subcommittee' for the performance of such functions,
the power of appointment and termination of appointment would
appear to be in the subcommittee. If the power has been vested
by the full committee in the subcommittee and the subcommittee
desires to delegate to the chairman of the subcommittee the
power of the subcommittee to employ and terminate the
employment of subcommittee personnel, it seems to me that no
effective challenge to that action of the subcommittee could be
interposed by any person. The expenses of the committee are
required to be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate upon
vouchers approved by the chairman of the committee or of the
subcommittee, if there be one, and I fail to see how the
disbursing officer of the Senate could question a voucher
signed by the chairman of the subcommittee providing for the
payment of the compensation of any person appointed to the
subcommittee staff by the chairman of the subcommittee pursuant
to delegated authority from the subcommittee.
    With respect to question (2) above, it seems to me that if
the Committee on Government Operations has provided a `duly
authorized subcommittee' to carry out the functions under S.
Res. 40, the power to employ personnel for the subcommittee
rests in the subcommittee (or the subcommittee chairman, if
delegated to him by the subcommittee) and not in the full
committee itself. It therefore seems to me that the full
Committee on Government Operations would so long as it permits
the `duly authorized subcommittee' to remain in operation, be
without power to regulate the employment and tenure of
employment of the subcommittee personnel. The Committee on
Government Operations, however, would be in a position to
withdraw at any time its authorization to the Permanent
Investigating Subcommittee to act as a `duly authorized
subcommittee' of the committee for the purpose of performing
functions under S. Res. 40. In the event that it should do so,
it would seem clear that the power to appoint and terminate the
appointment of persons employed to carry on functions under S.
Res. 40 would then be vested in the Committee on Government
Operations.
    As I indicated to you over the telephone, the only source
of information which I know with respect to your question (3)
would be the members or employees of the various existing and
former subcommittees of the Senate. Due to limitations of time,
I have been unable to make any inquiries to determine the
extent to which Senate subcommittees have previously authorized
their chairman to employ and terminate the employment of
subcommittee personnel.
    The Chairman. It points out as a duly authorized
subcommittee, the subcommittee can delegate to the chairman
that authority. I think the chair has got to have that
authority. As you know, I have attempted nothing up to this
point that hasn't had unanimous approval of the subcommittee.
The Matthews thing, I think, was unfortunate. As you recall
before you issued your statement, I asked that you do nothing
for a couple of days until I could work something out. The
statement, unfortunately, was issued. Maybe it was a political
move and you had to do it.
    Senator Symington. I think it is pretty obvious we had to
do it pretty quick.
    [The senators engaged in an off-record discussion.]
    The Chairman. I hope the committee will give me authority
to employ and discharge employees.
    Senator McClellan. I tell you what you do. Set a meeting
one day next week--an executive session--and we will go into
it.
    We are entitled to some members of the staff assigned to us
as a minority group and this committee moves so darn fast. They
have gotten out three reports and I haven't had time to read
any of them. I have got to have somebody on this staff, going
as fast as we are now, to help us.
    The Chairman. I have no objection to assigning a staff
member to the minority. I should inform you of the past
precedent. I asked the Democrats to give us one man. They
refused to do that. I don't think we are bound by that
precedent. I think in view of the amount of work, the number of
reports, etc., the minority should have one.
    Senator McClellan. I didn't know you ever requested one.
    Senator Mundt. We requested one three or four different
times. Clyde Hoey \52\ talked us out of it. I know exactly how
you feel; we were in the same spot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ Clyde R. Hoey, Democrat of North Carolina, chaired the
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations from 1949 to 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senator McClellan. What was his justification?
    Senator Mundt. That he didn't want any politics in this
committee and that would lead to partisanship. Still he had the
votes.
    Senator McClellan. On the full committee we didn't vote on
it.
    Senator Mundt. I know exactly how you feel, since it is a
prevailing custom. It shouldn't be different on this committee
than any other committee. I still don't like to see you pick on
Joe and pull the rug out from under him, but I shall certainly
vote to let you fellows have part of the staff. Hoey did turn
it down.
    Senator McClellan. I don't believe it ever came up in a
meeting.
    The Chairman. It came up in several meetings when he was
chairman.
    Senator McClellan. You know on the full committee I kept
the staff on just as Joe did here. The staff that had been
working, all except the staff director. You remember when I
took over, the committee had a staff director and clerk of the
committee. They were in a fight over jurisdiction--which one
had jurisdiction to do this and that. I kept on Walter
Reynolds. He had worked for a Republican for sixteen years. My
instructions were to serve the whole committee and I feel you
had just as much right to request this assignment. I certainly
would have done it. I tried to make them serve everybody
alike--Republicans and Democrats. If there was a disagreement
on the report, a committee split, I had them write the best
report.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this. I am not arguing whether
there should be a staff member assigned to the minority. Does
anyone have any complaint about the type of services Reynolds
or other members of the full committee have given?
    Senator McClellan. Not so far as I know.
    The Chairman. We have your own man that you have selected,
Walter Reynolds. He is a good man----
    Senator McClellan. I assume he is a Republican. He was born
in Arkansas and worked for Ham Fish for sixteen years.
    The Chairman. In any event, if you want a member of the
full committee or a member of the subcommittee assigned----
    Senator McClellan. I don't need a member of the full
committee, personally. I don't know about the other boys.
    The Chairman. I hope that if we have a change in control
that we get the same courtesy given the minority now. This
courtesy we did not get last year and the year before. We asked
for it three or four times. Despite that, I feel if the
minority wants somebody, they should have someone.
    Senator McClellan. I can't read the reports, can't check
them. I have no way. You know the work load here is two or
three times as heavy as under Hoey.
    Senator Symington. I want to find a fellow who thinks
senators don't work hard after six months of this.
    The Chairman. Now, we are going to take up this question of
whether you are going to give the chairman the authority to
hire or discharge staff members.
    Senator McClellan. You give us a list of the staff at
present and set up a meeting now for next Monday or Tuesday or
whatever day you want.
    The Chairman. John, I have got the press waiting out here.
    Senator Mundt. If the committee is going to function
properly during recess, I don't see how they are going to
without delegating this authority to the chairman. I don't want
to have to pass on people during recess.
    Senator McClellan. I certainly wouldn't want to hamper the
work of the committee.
    The Chairman. It has happened on the Jenner committee,
McCarran committee, and other committees have given the
chairman the right because of the necessity of it.
    Senator Symington. I only said I would like to see Mr.
Matthews leave the committee. I have gotten along very well
with the other members of the committee. Isn't that right, Roy?
    Mr. Cohn. That is correct.
    Senator Symington. I expressed dissatisfaction with one
member of the committee and you are building a very broad issue
out of it. Inasmuch as the committee delegated work with and
for members of the committee, I have taken full responsibility
with you for the activities of the committee and I have not
protested that until this particular happening. I think based
on this happening and the basis of the circumstances, I ask you
to read the record to decide whether I brought up anything
except the fact I would not want Matthews on the committee.
    The Chairman. As far as I am concerned, I have no thought
or desire to take any arbitrary action in employing or
discharging. I have tried, as you know--I have gone all out to
make every action unanimous. I can't operate if each time I
hire or discharge someone I have to round up several members.
    I am just asking today for what the chairman has always
had. If the committee finds the chair abuses his power, and I
don't think he will, you have got a perfect right to vote to
take that away.
    Senator Symington. May I respectfully say you hired
Matthews, according to my memo in writing, subject to the
approval of the committee.
    Senator Mundt. The committee does have the right to
delegate this power. Matthews has resigned and it has been
accepted. Assuming he had not resigned, the committee had the
right to say, ``You do not have the right to keep him on.''
    The question now is: Just how do we operate. If we can
delegate that power to the chairman, we can withdraw it. If he
abuses it and there is another incident like Matthews, we can
pass a resolution to withdraw it. We have got to have some
working mechanism.
    Senator Symington. Nobody objected to Matthews being put on
the committee.
    Senator Mundt. Having had this issue now, we are in a state
of confusion. Does he have authority to hire a new staff
director?
    Senator Symington. I don't see any state of confusion. I am
trying to be intelligent and fair, but I don't see the issue.
    Senator Mundt. Where do we go from here?
    Senator Symington. Here is where I say we go from here. If
Matthews or somebody else comes on and if he is a writer and
writes an article and says 50 percent of this or that does thus
and so, then I think we should have the right to get rid of
him, whether we are in recess or not. We are taking the
responsibility with our people for his actions.
    Senator Mundt. Then we could have a meeting and discuss it.
    Senator Symington. Suppose the chairman says, ``No, I don't
want to get rid of him.''
    Senator Mundt. Then we will pass a resolution that the
chairman no longer has the right to hire and fire.
    Senator Symington. I don't see why we have got to pass a
resolution in the first place. I am no lawyer, but it seems to
me we are getting involved.
    Senator Mundt. Matthews is out. His resignation has been
accepted and he is gone. Now, do we hire a new staff director?
I think the chairman should choose him.
    Senator Symington. If the chairman only says what he said
in the memo; that he is hiring a new fellow subject to the
approval of the committee. Why change now?
    Senator Mundt. I don't want to have to vote on every staff
member. I will put that responsibility on the chairman as part
of his job.
    Senator Symington. But the implication of the resolution is
that we can't fire any member of the staff.
    Senator Mundt. No. You give the chairman the right to hire
and fire. Anytime the committee can withdraw that power by a
majority committee vote.
    Senator Symington. Here is your other side of it. If the
chairman forces a vote here and we agreed with his vote, then
we would in effect be saying that the Matthews' discharge was a
mistake. We would be saying in effect that from here on anybody
hired by the chairman, he had the full authority to do it, and
we didn't have the authority to discharge him.
    The Chairman. The only thing I am asking is that you
authorize the chairman to do what other committees have been
doing and by a majority vote of the committee, you can revoke
that power. It only authorizes me to do what other chairmen
have been doing already.
    Senator Mundt. Now, what would be wrong with giving the
chair authority to hire and fire subject to a gentlemanly
agreement between the two parties so we could keep this thing
operating without getting into a lot of partisanship.
    Senator Symington. Let me put it to you this way. The
president of a company operates subject to the approval of the
board of directors. Everybody knows that he hires and fires and
he is operating the organization. Now, when there is a
difference of opinion, the majority of the board rules over the
president. If we pass this resolution today, we are repudiating
our action and the impression will be that Matthews should have
been left on.
    Senator Potter. I don't think that is so. The thing, as I
understand this resolution, we are making proper form what has
been the past practice, not only with this committee, but other
committees, and I will be very frank, I don't want to have that
responsibility when I am out in Michigan. As it turned out I
had a chance--I was asked whether I wanted him on or not.
    Senator Symington. You say the chairman of the committee
should have the right to hire subject to the approval of the
committee--operating in a normal business fashion.
    Senator Potter. No, it makes me responsible. I felt a
responsibility for Matthews.
    Senator Mundt. I think we should give the chairman the
right to hire and fire them and if he makes a mistake or does
anything wrong, I move the chairman no longer has that right.
    Senator Symington. But he already has the right.
    Senator Mundt. All right, take it away.
    Senator Symington. Karl, what do you think of Matthews'
article? Do you think the article was all right for the
director of the staff? Why delegate your rights to have a say
in the matter by passing a resolution that you didn't have a
right?
    Senator Potter. I don't see what Matthews has got to do
with it. That is out the window. He has resigned and his
resignation has been accepted. He is out now. The question in
how the committee in going to function now--if you want to
function as two political parties or function together in one
room. Let's forget about Matthews. That is out the window. It
seems to me a matter of practical cooperation. I don't see how
we can have it any other way. We will be gone for months. Joe
will be in closer contact with the committee than any of the
rest of the committee members. He may hire a man for two weeks
because of the nature of the work he has. I certainly don't
want to be responsible for who he hires.
    Senator Symington. Charles, let me ask you this. If you are
up in Michigan and somebody puts out an article that all rabbis
in Michigan are Communists don't you want the right to say this
man ought to leave the committee?
    Senator Potter. Sure and I would. I would still have the
right.
    Senator Symington. You want to pass a resolution saying you
wouldn't.
    Senator Potter. It would take away authority of any
individual member of the committee. It just gives in lieu of
action of the committee, it gives the chairman the right to act
on his own. I think you have got to have that kind of system.
    Senator Mundt. Let me try to make a motion. In order that
there can be a clear cut understanding of the procedure of the
operations of the Committee on Government Operations, I move
that the chairman of the committee shall have the right to hire
and dismiss employees of the subcommittee, and that the
chairman of the committee shall assign to the minority chairman
a staff member agreeable to him and to operate under his
direction.
    Senator McClellan. You mean any member of the staff----
    Senator Mundt. Select one agreeable to you.
    Senator Symington. Karl, let me ask you a question.
Employees subject to the approval of the committee.
    Senator Mundt. That makes me responsible. I don't want that
responsibility.
    Senator Symington. Haven't you got confidence in your
chairman? You have got four members of the Republican party. I
am perfectly willing to go along with the majority of the
committee. It makes it look like we are abdicating our entire
position in the committee.
    If another Matthews comes up and writes another article, I
want the right to oppose it.
    [The senators had an off-record discussion.]
    Senator Symington. You pass that resolution. I know Joe has
great respect for Senator McClellan. I say this: If you pass
that resolution you have the implication that he has completely
abdicated from his position. That is what I think and I always
say what I think.
    Senator Mundt. I always say what I think too.
    If you delegate that authority, you can certainly withdraw
it.
    Senator McClellan. I move, as a substitute, that the matter
be deferred until next Tuesday morning at ten o'clock.
    The Chairman. I don't see how you can gain anything by
deferring it. I intend to get a vote before I leave here today.
I have taken too much kicking around.
    Senator McClellan. Take your vote.
    The Chairman. Ruth, call the roll. This will be on Senator
McClellan's.
    Mrs. Watt. Senator Mundt?
    Senator Mundt. No.
    Mrs. Watt. Senator Potter?
    Senator Potter. No.
    Mrs. Watt. Senator McClellan?
    Senator McClellan. Aye.
    Mrs. Watt. Senator Jackson?
    Senator Jackson. Aye.
    Mrs. Watt. Senator Symington?
    Senator Symington. Aye.
    Mrs. Watt. Senator Dirksen?
    The Chairman. Senator Dirksen will vote ``No.''
    Mrs. Watt. Senator McCarthy?
    The Chairman. No.
    We will now take a vote on Senator Mundt's motion.
    Mrs. Watt. Senator Potter?
    Senator Potter. Aye.
    Mrs. Watt. Senator McClellan?
    Senator McClellan. No.
    Mrs. Watt. Senator Jackson?
    Senator Jackson. No.
    Mrs. Watt. Senator Symington?
    Senator Symington. No.
    Mrs. Watt. Senator McCarthy?
    Senator McCarthy. Aye.
    Mrs. Watt. Senator Dirksen?
    The Chairman. Senator Dirksen votes ``Aye'' and I insert
his proxy in the record.
    I hereby authorize the Chairman to vote my proxy in favor of a
resolution providing that personnel for the Subcommittee shall be
employed and discharged by the Chairman of the Subcommittee.
                                   s/ Everett M. Dirksen,
                                           U.S. Senate.
    There is one other thing asked by Dr. Matthews. In view of
the charges made against him about what he wrote, he has asked
for the right to appear and produce evidence to show the truth.
I wrote him that in view of the fact the alleged charges were
made by the three Democratic members of the committee, I would
not hold a hearing except with unanimous approval of the three
Democratic members. If they want to have a hearing, I will call
such a hearing.
    Senator McClellan. May I make this statement for the
record. Mr. Matthews made charges against a large group and
segment of our people, charges over which this committee has no
jurisdiction. We were only concerned with whether Mr. Matthews
was a suitable person to serve on the staff of this
subcommittee. That matter has been disposed of. If Mr. Matthews
is interested in establishing the accuracy of the charge, the
Un-American Activities Committee of the House of
Representatives has full jurisdiction and is now in the process
of making similar investigation and he has the opportunity to
establish it there.
    The Chairman. May I just correct one statement. You state
``an unsuitable person has been disposed of.'' That I would
certainly disagree with. Dr. Matthews resigned. He quit. I
think Dr. Matthews is an outstanding man. I don't think
quitting established him as unsuitable.
    Senator McClellan. I am not suggesting that the three
Democrats--what I have said, I am not speaking for the other
members. They can speak for themselves.
    Senator Jackson. I wish to concur in the statement made by
the Senator from Arkansas.
    Senator Symington. Well, I must say that last night I was
very anxious to see that Dr. Matthews be brought before us in
open hearings. I thought it over and believe the committee has
no jurisdiction. I discussed it last night and on advice of
other people and I think he now should not be brought before
this committee. I join Senator McClellan in that.
    The Chairman. I may say if the three Democratic members
wanted to give him this hearing, it is my thought, subject to
the approval of my Republican colleagues, I may call the
Democratic chairman of this subcommittee to hear it so there
can be no claim of any bias in favor of Dr. Matthews. I think
as a general proposition when a man is smeared as badly as he
was in the Star yesterday and by so many papers, we have
serious accusations made against him, something so untrue that
he is not fit for a job with the committee, that under normal
circumstances that man should be given a hearing. I can see the
difficulty here if we get into an investigation of communism in
the clergy, I am not advising the three Democratic members what
to do. I will abide by the decision of the three Democratic
members, the minority.
    Senator McClellan. I want to make it clear that for him to
refuse the charge for which the three of us based our
unsuitability, namely, that the largest single group in the
United States supporting the Communist apparatus was the
Protestant clergy, to prove that charge would involve a
wholesale investigation of the clergy, and as I understand it,
this committee has no jurisdiction.
    Senator Mundt. I think the decision is right. It would be
extremely bad taste to investigate alleged charges of communism
in the clergy, which obviously has nothing to do with
expenditure of government funds.
    Senator Jackson. I take it you concur.
    Senator Mundt. Yes.
    Senator McClellan. I think I pointed out, if he wants a day
in court, wants a hearing, there is a proper tribunal that I am
sure will hear him; that is the Un-American Activities
Committee of the House of Representatives. It is their job. We
do not have jurisdiction. If we get into it, it could go on
indefinitely. The committee would be detracted from its other
duties or its proper functions and over which it has
jurisdiction.
    Senator Potter. I doubt if we have any legal right to spend
public funds for that type of thing.
    The Chairman. May I say the last thing I am going to do is
investigate the clergy. For that reason I decided if you were
going to give Matthews his day in court, I would ask John to
sit as chairman.
    Senator Jackson. I take it it is unanimous that we not got
involved in an investigation of the clergy as something we
should not go into.
    The Chairman. Not unanimous. I am leaving it up to the
three Democrats. Matthews has been involved in a number of
cases. I don't have complete knowledge and I don't intend to
get into them myself. I must ask him to continue to work with
the investigators for four or five days or a week in order to
turn the stuff he has over to them.
    One other thing, I would like to get suggestions as to a
successor to Matthews. We have one man under consideration now,
Frank Carr. He is head of the FBI Subversive Activities in New
York. He has got about three hundred men working under him. He
is an outstanding administrator. We might have some difficulty
getting Hoover to consent to have him leave the bureau. I will
be glad to get suggestions.
    Senator Symington. I would like to say, if you want to hire
him, I am for it.
    Senator McClellan. I wouldn't want to say without further
investigation. Let's have a full-field investigation.
    Mr. Cohn. He can't be an FBI agent without a full-field
investigation.
    Senator Symington. If you want him, I am for him.
    Senator McClellan. What I am saying is, ``Let's be durn
sure.''
    The Chairman. I think it will be easier for an older man,
fifty-five or sixty years of age, to run that staff. I found
that a young man in charge of other young men doesn't work out
too well.
    Another man that I had in mind, whether or not he would be
interested in the job, Herb O'Conor.\53\ If he would take it,
he would be a very good staff director, I haven't talked to
him. That would keep the political pattern consistent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ Former Senator Herbert R. O'Conor served as a Democrat from
Maryland from 1947 until January 1953 and was not a candidate for
reelection in 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned.]
              ALLEGED BRIBERY OF STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL
    [Editor's note.--Elected president of Nicaragua in 1936,
National Guard chief Anastasio Somoza Garcia chose not to run
for reelection in 1944 and instead established a puppet
government headed by the elderly Leonardo Arguello. After
Arguello defied Somoza's authority, the National Guard staged a
coup to install Benjamin Lacayo Sarcasa as president. The
Truman administration withheld diplomatic recognition from this
new regime, and Somoza formed a Constituent Assembly to draft a
new constitution. The assembly appointed his uncle as the new
president. In mid-1948 the U.S. restored diplomatic relations
with Nicaragua. Somoza was assassinated in 1956.
    Among the family members whom Somoza appointed to key
positions within government was his brother-in-law, Guillermo
Sevilla-Sacasa, who served as Nicaraguan ambassador to the
United States from 1936 until the Sandanistas took power in
1979. Juan Jose Martinez-Locayo, former Nicaraguan counsel
general in San Francisco and New York, and nephew of Benjamin
Lacayo Sarcasa, did not testify in public session.]
                              ----------
                         MONDAY, JULY 13, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 10:30 a.m., in room 357 of the
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, chairman,
presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Francis D. Flanagan, general counsel; James
F. Sheridan, investigator; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk; Mason
Drury, liaison officer, State Department.
    The Chairman. In this matter now in hearing before the
committee, do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I do.
    Mr. Flanagan. Mr. Martinez-Locayo, will you give your full
name?
             TESTIMONY OF JUAN JOSE MARTINEZ-LOCAYO
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Juan Jose Martinez-Locayo.
    Mr. Flanagan. And your present address?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. 52 Tamalpius Terrace, San Francisco
16, California.
    Mr. Flanagan. Are you now a citizen of the United States?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. No, I am a citizen of Nicaragua.
    Mr. Flanagan. Were you formerly in the service of the
Nicaraguan government?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I served as Consul General of
Nicaragua at San Francisco from July 1936 to October 1943, and
consul general in New York from November 1943 to the 6th of
February 1948. Also I served as Nicaraguan delegate on
different occasions to the United States in 1946 and 1947. Also
I served as Nicaraguan delegate to the first Inter-American
Travel Congress, held in San Francisco, in 1939, in April.
    Mr. Flanagan. In May of 1947, on May 25th I believe, was
not the president of Nicaragua deposed?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. May I make a short history of the
situation?
    Mr. Flanagan. Yes. Go ahead.
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Nicaragua held an election for a new
president and a new congress. On the 1st of May 1947, the new
president and the new congress got into office. This is to the
best of my knowledge, you know. I was very close to Nicaraguan
politics, even though I have never been in Nicaragua for the
past seventeen years.
    The new president, who was before a good friend of General
Somoza, S-o-m-o-z-a, became suddenly against Somoza, and Somoza
didn't like it at all, and within a very short while, on the
25th day of April 1947----
    Mr. Flanagan. Of May?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Pardon me. Of May 1947, Somoza,
through the congress, declared this president incapable of
handling office.
    On the very same day, the congress met and elected a
president. It happened to be a brother to my mother. His name
is Benjamin Locayo-Sacasa, L-o-c-a-y-o-S-a-c-a-s-a.
    The very same day this new president took office, Nicaragua
was out of recognition from the United States government.
Therefore, we didn't have an ambassador with fully recognized
powers in the United States, because there was no recognition
made to the government. Automatically when a new government
gets in office, if they send a diplomatic representative, he is
accepted. But on this change of government, even though it was
legal, according to the Constitution of Nicaragua, the way that
it was done didn't please at all the United States government.
    About the 27th of May, 1947, I came to Washington to make
company to the wife of Dr. Guillermo Sevilla-Sacasa, G-u-i-l-l-
e-r-m-o S-e-v-i-l-l-a-S-a-c-a-s-a, because she thought she was
treated, you know, badly by the Nicaraguan residents here. They
wanted to get into the Nicaraguan embassy and take her out.
    Mr. Flanagan. At that time, Sevilla-Sacasa had been
ambassador, up until the time his government was not
recognized?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. He was ambassador from June, I
believe, 1943, to the 25th of May 1947.
    Mr. Flanagan. Go ahead.
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. So I came to Washington with my wife
and daughter, stopped at the Nicaraguan Embassy, and this was
my last visit to the embassy and to Washington up to today. I
never come back.
    Mr. Flanagan. Go ahead.
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. During the trouble, Sevilla-Sacasa was
in Nicaragua. So he returned to the United States as permanent
representative to the United Nations, but not under the
prestige of the Nicaraguan ambassador to the United States. He
came in the last days of May or the very first days of June,
1947.
    When he got here in Washington, he telephoned me, first to
thank me for making company to his family and giving them
protection, as he said; secondly, to inform me that he was
prepared to start the movement to get recognition for the new
government. And he has brought with him thirty thousand United
States currency, dollars, you know, for any eventuality that
may come up.
    Mr. Flanagan. Did he say what the $30,000 was for at that
time?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. No, just like that, that ``I have
$30,000 for any eventuality that may come up.'' Spruille Braden
was a member of the State Department, and he was very much
against Peron, Somoza of Nicaragua, and a few other dictators
of Latin America.
    The situation of Sevilla-Sacasa in Washington during June
1947 was not satisfactory at all. But a few days later, Braden
went out of the State Department, and they had a big
celebration in the Nicaraguan Embassy. As a matter of fact,
they phoned me and invited me for the celebration. I didn't
accept the invitation. I didn't return to Washington.
    But things continued you know, not so favorable and he got
in touch with Somoza, who is a strong man of Nicaragua, and
also his father-in-law. Because Sevilla-Sacasa is married to
the only daughter of Somoza, the baby of the family. And he
informed Somoza that $30,000 wouldn't do enough to get things
going.
    It was necessary to have $80,000, instead.
    Mr. Flanagan. Now, at that very point, how did you know
that $30,000 wasn't enough, and that he needed $80,000?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I will tell you why.
    Then, you know, Somoza sent a representative, who was the
former foreign minister of relations of Nicaragua, a very
prominent attorney, and internationalist, who had served in the
United Nations and many other posts, and also a very honest
man--because he is, to the United States----
    Mr. Flanagan. Who was this man?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Dr. Mariano Arguello-Vargas, M-a-r-i-
a-n-o A-r-g-u-e-l-l-o-V-a-r-g-a-s. And he came direct to New
York. He didn't want to stop in Washington before talking to
me. He came direct to New York on or about the 1st of July.
Because I can remember it was a holiday. The consulate was
closed. He got to the airport around six o'clock in the
morning, to the New York airport, and we went directly to the
Nicaraguan Consulate Office in the RKO Building in Rockefeller
Center. He opened his briefcase and he explained to me what
Sevilla-Sacasa has informed General Somoza of the $80,000
instead of the $30,000.
    Mr. Flanagan. Did Dr. Vargas have any idea what they were
going to need this eighty thousand for?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. He asked me if I knew. I said, ``This
is completely unknown to me.'' And then I said: ``Why don't we
have the ambassador come to New York?''
    They said, ``We will invite him for a conference in New
York.''
    Mr. Flanagan. At this time when you were discussing the
need for this eighty thousand with Dr. Vargas, did you have any
idea what they were going to need the eighty thousand for?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. No.
    Mr. Flanagan. Did Dr. Vargas know anything about that?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. No, he didn't know anything about it.
So he opened his briefcase, and he had a letter from General
Somoza to me, which I have here, dated July 2nd, 1947. The
letters that Vargas brought were opened, were not sealed.
Because Vargas will never accept, you know, a sealed envelope.
So my letter was opened, and so was the letter that he carried
for the late Lawrence Duggan. My letter said: ``My esteemed
friend.'' Dated 2nd of July 1947, Managua:
    It is to inform you that Dr. Mariano Arguello Vargas is
going to the United States on a very confidential mission for
our Government and with my personal representation relative to
the affairs of Nicaragua.
    Very highly recommend to you, and very specially also, that
you give him your very previous help in every way necessary. I
know how capable you are and your good relations, and I am sure
he will be in the benefit of our political affairs.
    With my kindest personal regards to you and your family,
all of them very close to my heart, I remain as always, your
very true friend, A. Somoza.
    I am afraid if it gets back there.
    Mr. Flanagan. You say you are afraid of a reprisal if it
gets back there?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I am helping you find out things, you
know.
    Mr. Flanagan. Your family still resides there?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Yes, my brother is the paymaster of
the Nicaraguan army and my mother and my sister, and a very
large family of my wife.
    Mr. Flanagan. At that same meeting that you had with Dr.
Vargas in New York, probably on the 4th of July, there was also
a letter to the late Lawrence Duggan?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Flanagan. Did you see that letter?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I saw the letter. And I say, ``Have
you seen Lawrence Duggan?'' He said: ``I haven't seen him for
many years.'' The only time I have seen him was in San
Francisco in April 1949, when he represented the United States
government in the first Inter-American Travel Congress. He
approached me in such a cordial way, you know, in San
Francisco, and he suggested that I be the chairman of the Pan-
American Highway Committee. And I was the chairman of the Pan-
American Highway Committee in that Congress. And I say to Dr.
Arguello-Vargas at that time: ``I would like to see the letter
before delivering it, because I don't want to compromise myself
under no circumstances.''
    So he say: ``The letter is open.''
    The letter more or less said, you know, in Spanish, whether
in Spanish or English--
    ``Mr. Lawrence Duggan''--it was an address on Park Avenue
New York. And it said: ``Dr. Arguello-Vargas is in the United
States for a special mission''--just more or less what he said
to me in the first part. ``I would appreciate to get from you
the very same service you rendered me in the past,'' and then
all the love, and etcetera. And Arguello-Vargas said ``Why do
you put inside a Nicaraguan consulate envelope and send it to
Duggan?'' I said, ``It is easy to put a three-cent stamp and
mail it to Duggan.''
    Mr. Flanagan. Why didn't you want to deliver it to him?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Because I don't believe you know that
a president or a dictator should go, you know, to a small-scale
representative, and not go to the right channels, you know. I
got suspicious, to tell you the truth. Because Duggan was very
friendly to Somoza, and as a matter of fact, he had a maid, a
servant, in Nicaragua, in his home for many years. Sevilla-
Sacasa didn't go to New York. We called him. But when we called
him, he informed Arguello-Vargas that things were getting
tougher and tougher every day and he need not $80,000 but
$150,000.
    Mr. Flanagan. He now tells you on the telephone that he
needs not $80,000 but $150,000, to get your nation recognized?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. To get my nation recognized; to get
the government recognized.
    Mr. Sheridan. Did he say that the demand had gone up and
they now needed $150,000?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. He said things are getting tougher,
and ``We have to get recognition right away before we go to the
Rio de Janeiro Conference.''
    Mr. Flanagan. Did he indicate at that time what he would
need all that amount of money for?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. He never did. He only mentioned that
he needed money to get the recognition. He never mention names.
He never mentioned what for.
    Mr. Flanagan. Now, after he hung up the phone, did you have
any discussion with Dr. Vargas about this large amount of
money?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. We certainly did. And we said, ``I
don't understand why we should spend money on recognition when
it is legally what Nicaragua has done in accordance with the
Constitution.''
    Mr. Flanagan. Did either one of you at that time express
any idea as to why you were going to need $150,000?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. We didn't express any idea, but
Arguello-Vargas asked me, ``What do you think of it?''
    I said, ``Why don't we get in touch with some of my
friends, explain to them the situation, and see what they think
about it?'' And then I contacted Harry K. Stone.
    Mr. Flanagan. Harry K. Stone?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Yes. Harry K. Stone, Honorable Harry
K. Stone, Judge, Brockton Probate Court and Court of
Insolvency.
    Mr. Flanagan. Brockton, Massachusetts?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Brockton, Massachusetts. And also
Anthony U. Meyerstein, 66 Court Street, Brooklyn, who was
vacationing at that time. I believe he was in Canada.
    Mr. Flanagan. So you and Dr. Vargas decided that you would
get in touch with your friend, Judge Stone, in Brockton and
with Mr. Meyerstein in Brooklyn?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. In Brooklyn.
    Mr. Flanagan. Before you did that, I notice in your
affidavit you were speaking of the same meeting, and you said,
``I told Vargas that there should be no secrets between us, and
that I would absolutely have nothing to do with any attempted
bribery of United States officials.''
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I said that.
    Mr. Flanagan. You said that to Vargas?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I did.
    Mr. Flanagan. At that time?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. At that time.
    Mr. Flanagan. What made you think they were going to use
the money to bribe United States officials?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Because I believe if you have a right
to get recognition of a government, you don't have to spend a
single penny. It comes by itself automatically. The law, you
know, provides the procedure. So, naturally, you know, if money
is involved, there are doubts why the money had to be used. How
the money was used, I don't know.
    Mr. Flanagan. So then on July 4th, you and Dr. Vargas were
of the opinion that this money was going to be used to bribe
somebody in the United States government?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Well, we kept quiet.
    Mr. Flanagan. But I mean among yourselves.
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I was of the opinion that money was
going to be expended to influence or to bribe.
    Then a telephone call came through with Somoza.
    Mr. Flanagan. The same day?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I believe it was the 5th or the 6th. I
don't remember dates very good. It is so many years ago.
    Mr. Sheridan. In July?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. In July--to the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel.
    Mr. Flanagan. Put the number in.
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. 1170.
    Mr. Flanagan. Room 1170 at the Waldorf.
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Yes; where Arguello-Vargas was
stopping.
    Mr. Flanagan. And you were in the room with Vargas?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I was in the room with Vargas, and we
held a telephone in between us to listen to the conversation.
    Mr. Flanagan. Who called?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Vargas was the one who did the
talking.
    Mr. Flanagan. I mean: who was the call coming from?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. From Somoza.
    Mr. Flanagan. In Nicaragua?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. In Nicaragua.
    Mr. Flanagan. And what was the conversation? Repeat it,
what Vargas said, and what you said.
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. More or less like this: ``General, now
that I am here, the things have changed. Instead of the last
figure, it is $150,000.''
    Somoza, kind of angry, replied: ``Don't go around the
bushes. Why don't you get in touch directly with President
Truman?'' Arguello-Vargas was speechless. The conversation was
over, more or less, you know. And after a while, Arguello-
Vargas said, ``Somoza talk too much.'' Then Judge Stone came to
New York.
    Mr. Flanagan. Who came to New York?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Judge Stone. And we gave him a
memorandum of the procedure that took place in Nicaragua during
the change of presidency. He was under the impression that it
was a legal matter, that he could be able to talk to members of
the State Department to convince them that the Congress then
was recognized as a legal Congress on the same election of the
president as was recognized by the United States government,
proceeding in accordance with the constitution of Nicaragua to
have a new president in accordance with the constitution.
    Mr. Flanagan. Did you tell Judge Stone the fact that the
ambassador, Sevilla-Sacasa, had this money or talked about this
money?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Nothing at all.
    Mr. Flanagan. You didn't mention that?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Nothing at all.
    Mr. Flanagan. Did you tell Judge Stone that you felt that
there were improper steps being taken or about to be taken in
connection with it?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. No, we only mentioned that we would
like to have recognition in the proper manner, due to the fact
that we thought we were entitled to have it, you know. Because
the procedure was legal in Nicaragua.
    Mr. Flanagan. Judge Stone is your personal friend. Is what
why you went to him?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. He is a personal friend of mine, and
he is a friend of Somoza. At that time, he was consul of
Nicaragua in Boston.
    Mr. Flanagan. Then in your discussions at that time with
Stone, you were merely seeking legal means to get your
government recognized?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. By all means.
    Mr. Flanagan. And I have here a letter of July 11, 1947,
which is addressed to you by Harry K. Stone. It is merely a
discussion of the problem of recognizing your government, and I
will put that in the record at this time, to make it complete.
    Mr. Flanagan. I also have here a letter of July 11, 1947,
unsigned, but bearing the initials ``hks'' addressed to Dr.
Mariano Arguello at the Waldorf Astoria. That was the man that
was with you?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. That was the one.
    Mr. Flanagan. We will put that in the record.
    Then did you talk to your friend, Mr. Meyerstein, about
this?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. When he came back from his vacation, I
talked to him, and I put up the same idea that I put up on
Judge Stone, the legal procedure that Nicaragua took to have a
new president; and see what he can do, you know, with some of
his friends, as an advice.
    Mr. Flanagan. Who is Meyerstein?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Meyerstein has been a friend of mine
since 1925.
    Mr. Flanagan. Is he a lawyer?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. No, he is a contractor. At that time,
he had several contracts with the government. I believe he was
a very close friend to Sol Bloom, the late senator.
    Mr. Flanagan. Congressman Sol Bloom?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Congressman Sol Bloom.
    Mr. Flanagan. Now, I have here a letter, undated, but there
is an envelope attached to it, under date of September 25,
1947. The envelope is addressed to you. It is unsigned.
    And I will show you this copy and ask you if that is not a
letter that you received from Meyerstein.
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. The letter is addressed to Dr. Mariano
Arguello; with a copy sent to me.
    Mr. Flanagan. And this is the copy that you received?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. And I kept the envelope because it
didn't have any date. It says ``September, 1947.'' So I kept
the envelope for records.
    Mr. Flanagan. Without reading this letter, because we will
place it in the record, this is from Meyerstein to Arguello, a
copy of which was sent to Mr. Locayo.
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. The letter was sent to Nicaragua to
Arguello.
    Mr. Flanagan. We will place this in the record.
    There is one thing I want to ask you. The fourth paragraph
in this letter says this:
    It appears that futile and improper methods are being
pursued to obtain recognition with negligible results.
    What is he talking about when he refers to ``futile and
improper methods''?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I don't know.
    Mr. Flanagan. Had you told Mr. Meyerstein, or had Dr.
Vargas told him----
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Dr. Vargas didn't see Meyerstein
because he was on vacation.
    Mr. Flanagan. Then you don't know what he is talking about
when he speaks about improper methods being used?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I don't know what he is talking about.
May I say something else?
    Mr. Flanagan. Go ahead.
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. The last time I saw Meyerstein was in
May 1948.
    Mr. Flanagan. At that time did you discuss with him the
fact that all this went on?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Nothing. In May 1948, just before I
left for California.
    Mr. Flanagan. Now, following your conference with Dr.
Vargas in New York, what next happened in this problem?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Well, Dr. Vargas went back to
Nicaragua, and I was kept completely on the side, you know, on
this matter. I never heard a thing about it. Then the Rio de
Janeiro Conference came.
    Mr. Flanagan. When was that?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I believe it was late in August 1947.
I am not sure about the date. And Nicaragua was not admitted.
That was a Pan-American Conference. Nicaragua was not admitted.
And Sevilla-Sacasa was a member of the delegation. Then
Sevilla-Sacasa came back to the United States, on or about the
10th or 11th or 13th, or in the first week of September 1947.
He went to Washington. He came back to New York the night
before the opening of the General Assembly session, that
started in September 1947. He asked me to present the issues
for the Nicaraguan delegation as he did not want to have
another turn-down, you know, as he had it in Rio de Janeiro. So
I presented the credentials, and everything went nice and
smooth, no troubles.
    When I went and informed him that we were seated and
recognized, he was kind of amazed and surprised, and at the
same time, you know, happy. He said, ``That gives me a little
idea''--after I explained the point, you know, why we were
accepted. Because the United Nations chapter said, you know,
that the United Nations can not interfere in the internal
affairs of the nations that form this organization.
    We never discussed about recognition. He never mentioned
anything about recognition. On or about the 15th of November
1947, riding in my own car----
    Mr. Flanagan. Where was this?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. In New York, riding from Lake Success
to the Belmont Plaza. I was driving to the Belmont Plaza Hotel.
He told me that we don't have to worry about the recognition
anymore, that he has been working an idea to have the Pan-
American Union recognize the government of Nicaragua, having
something similar to the United Nations chapter, to recognize
the government as a fact, as they call it. And a couple of very
dear friends of his, William Dawson----
    Mr. Flanagan. Was he in the State Department at that time?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I don't know. William Dawson and a
Daniels, Paul Clement Daniels.
    Mr. Flanagan. At that time was he in the State Department?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I believe so. They were helping him to
draft a resolution to be presented in the Bogota conference.
    Mr. Flanagan. Now, Ambassador Sevilla-Sacasa at this time
told you that William Dawson and Paul Daniels of the State
Department were assisting him in drafting a resolution?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. He mentioned Dawson and Daniels.
    Mr. Flanagan. Is that a normal way to do it, to get two
people that are not in your own government but in a foreign
government to draft a resolution for you?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I doubt it. I don't believe it is a
proper way. Besides that, you know, not having recognition
Sevilla-Sacasa was not recognized, and therefore he cannot
approach and he cannot walk into the State Department.
    Mr. Flanagan. But he indicated that he had worked it out
with these two?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. With these two friends of his. He
mentioned Dawson and Daniels. Everything was going to be all
right when the conference in Bogota becomes a law for the
American nations.
    A few days later, he asked me to go to Washington with
him--this was in New York--and he wanted me to handle $150,000
to a certain attorney's office in Washington.
    Mr. Flanagan. He wanted you to take $150,000 to a certain
attorney in Washington?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. To a certain attorney in Washington
who acted as the in-between man or the contact man working on
the recognition.
    Mr. Flanagan. The contact man between whom?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. He never mentioned.
    Mr. Flanagan. Did he indicate between whom?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. No. The contact man. The in-between
man.
    Mr. Flanagan. Would he be the contact man between Sevilla-
Sacasa and the State Department?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I don't know.
    Mr. Flanagan. What did you gather from that?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I answered immediately, ``I won't
accept that invitation, because I don't believe in bribery.''
    Mr. Flanagan. Then you thought he was going to bribe
someone?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I answered it that way. It came from
my heart.
    Mr. Flanagan. Who was the lawyer?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I didn't know.
    Mr. Flanagan. Did he ever mention the name of the lawyer?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. No, he just said, ``I will tell you
where to go in Washington,'' and handed the $150,000. He
insisted. He said, ``Don't be afraid. You will be covered by
diplomatic immunity.''
    Mr. Flanagan. In other words, he said you would be covered
by diplomatic immunity. And didn't that indicate to you there
was something illegal about the whole thing?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. That is why I answered him no.
    Then he suggested if I don't want to go to Washington, I
should post $150,000 in my bank account and give him a blank
check for $150,000. And I answered him, ``'What do you think I
am? Either you are a jackass or you think I am a jackass. I
would never do such a thing,'' I said.
    ``I have been in the United States previous to my
appointment as consul general, and I want to be in the United
States as long as I can, and I don't want to have any tales
after I leave the diplomatic arena, and I want to enjoy life
with my clean conscience.'' He got awful mad at me.
    Mr. Flanagan. What did he say?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Well, he said, ``If you do this, you
will be permanent delegate to the UN Assembly.''
    Mr. Flanagan. At the UN?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. At the UN. I said, ``No. Thank you
very much.'' He left. He went to Washington. He came back to
New York.
    On the very same session when the vote was cast for the
partition of Palestine, the very same session, at the General
Assembly meeting in Flushing Meadows, he came to me, and he
say, ``Do you know anything about a letter written by
Meyerstein to Arguello-Vargas?''
    Mr. Flanagan. That is the letter we already put in the
record, the undated letter?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Yes; in which he suggests that ``You
are the proper person to get the recognition of the Nicaraguan
government.'' I say, ``I have a copy. And I will gladly show it
to you, because I have no objection whatsoever.''
    He say, ``I have the original in my hands already, and you
will pay for it.'' I kept quiet. I didn't say a word. But after
that session, I kissed goodbye to my desk at the United
Nations. I was pretty sure, you know, that things were getting
tough.
    Then, you know, he started, through his wife, to get me out
of the service. And Somoza always backed me, saying I was on
the job and I have played very honest for nearly twelve years,
that he has nothing against me. And he insist then I should be
fired, through Sevilla-Sacasa's wife. Things continue, and they
even refused me a right to look at the report, being a delegate
of Nicaragua to the United States, to see the report he wrote
about the United States--being a delegate. And I have a letter
and can prove you that--signed by the secretary of Sevilla-
Sacasa to my secretary. So he was undermining my own office.
    Mr. Flanagan. You don't need to read it. Just explain or
paraphrase it.
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. It is from the secretary of Sevilla-
Sacasa in Washington to my secretary in New York.
    Mr. Flanagan. What is the date?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. January 14, 1948. He gives
instructions there to prepare the final report about the
General Assembly Conference in regard to the question of
Palestine. The ambassador requests that it be in complete
privacy and that no one should know or should see it.
    ``You are to work it after office hours and keep it away
from Martinez-Locayo''--from me. ``The situation between
him''--me, you know--``and the ambassador continues as you know
it.''
    Mr. Flanagan. Now, how long after that did you leave the
service of your government?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I receive a cablegram from the
government accepting my resignation as consul general in New
York on the 5th of February 1948, and informing me that they
have a good position in Nicaragua. I answered it immediately,
asking for instructions as to who should handle the office, and
I was not going back to Nicaragua, and I was not accepting any
other kind of position. Also I say, ``For nearly twelve years I
have been a consul general of Nicaragua, and my only business
has been the consulate and the Nicaraguan government officials'
affairs. I have never been mixing in any business clean or
dirty. Now that I am quitting this position, I am not going to
be mixing in any politics, and I am going to dedicate my time
to making an honest living, working in whatever I find. And
this is the first time that I have discussed politics since
1948.''
    Mr. Flanagan. In November, when Sevilla-Sacasa asked you
about whether you had put this $150,000 in your bank account,
did he indicate that he had the money with him?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Well, I imagine so, because he invited
me to come to Washington and handle the $150,000.
    Mr. Flanagan. Did he say how he had it, in cash or check?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. No.
    Mr. Flanagan. How would he be likely to get that much money
up from Nicaragua?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Quite often deposits were sent to the
United States banks. As a matter of fact, the United States
government should have a law against gangsters of Latin America
depositing, you know, huge quantities of money in the American
banks.
    Mr. Flanagan. How do you know he ever deposited huge
quantities?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Because I made several deposits for
Somoza, and one of the deposits I made for Somoza was at the
Chase National Bank, at the Rockefeller Branch, on or about the
7th of October 1946.
    Mr. Sheridan. How much was that?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Close to $290,000, one single deposit.
And on the same day, I also opened an account for Somoza's wife
at the Chemical Bank and Trust Company, Rockefeller Center, for
$11,000; almost $300,000, one single deposit.
    Mr. Flanagan. What name is his account in?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. A. Somoza, Rockefeller Center. It was
opened by me. And the man who opened the account was Mr. James
Rogers, and the one who opened the account for Somoza's wife,
Salvadora D. de Somosa, S-a-l-v-a-d-o-r-a D. d-e S-o-m-o-s-a.
The man who opened that account at the bank was a John V.
Miller.
    Mr. Flanagan. Did Sevilla-Sacasa have accounts here in the
United States?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. He has.
    Mr. Flanagan. Where does he have accounts?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. To the best of my knowledge, at the
Riggs National Bank in Dupont Circle. I don't know if he
carries any other accounts.
    Mr. Flanagan. Do you think if he was handling this $150,000
he would have put it in his own account after what he told you?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I doubt it. Because he was afraid
because he did not have any official, direct official
recognition, from the United States government, at that time.
    Mr. Flanagan. In other words, he did not enjoy the
diplomatic immunity that you then enjoyed?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I was a consul general, and I never
lost my recognition as a consular official. Because a consular
official is not a diplomat. He is a business representative in
a country dealing with the business and not with the diplomatic
affairs.
    Mr. Flanagan. You mentioned the fact or testified to the
fact that he wanted you to bring this money to a lawyer.
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever know any lawyers that worked for
Sevilla-Sacasa?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Never met any of them.
    Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever know any of them?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. No, sir. He keeps things very quiet.
Whatever goes on in the Nicaraguan Embassy has been a secret.
    Mr. Flanagan. Based on your knowledge of Sevilla-Sacasa, do
you believe he would be capable of bribing someone, that he is
that type of man?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. He is, by all means.
    Mr. Flanagan. Why do you say that?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Because that is very common with a
government that doesn't have, you know, the backing of its
people. They have to buy the good will.
    Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever see him do anything that
indicated that he was not a man of honor and integrity?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo.Well, I have been away from Nicaragua
many times, but from what I saw here in the United States I
didn't like it. I would never agree with him.
    Mr. Flanagan. Do you know of one occasion when he brought
some jewels into this country?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I certainly did.
    Mr. Flanagan. Will you tell us that story?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Certainly. I hope I will be protected.
    When he came from the Rio de Janeiro Conference, his wife
was vacationing some place in Atlantic City.
    Mr. Flanagan. This was in August?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. August of 1947. And she phoned several
times at my house and office and questioned would I meet
Sevilla-Sacasa at the airport. I met him at the airport.
    Mr. Flanagan. At what airport?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. The LaGuardia International Airport. A
couple of hours later or an hour later, he changed planes, and
he went to Washington. He never mentioned anything about any
jewelry at all.
    Some time during October or November, he offered me a
little business. He say, ``I have some jewelry that I want to
sell.''
    Mr. Flanagan. Who said that?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Sevilla-Sacasa. ``But New York is a
better market than Washington. How would you like to go fifty-
fifty with me?'' Either he wanted to put me on the spot or
wanted to have me, you know, for something. My answer was,
``Once before we had a consul general in New York, married to a
sister to the wife of Somoza, who did something similar. And a
lot of people were involved in that, including Jack Benny.''
    You remember that case? So I said, ``No monkey business
with me or with the Nicaraguan office while I am there.''
    After we got into this, he got, you know, a little
disappointed at the way I was acting, you see. So I saw it was
very good idea to establish a record that he owns that jewelry.
But he never mentioned that before. So he mentioned to me that
he has quite a number of pieces. I said, ``But how can we quote
the prices?'' So he brought one quart of what he has.
    Mr. Flanagan. One quart?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. No, one quarter of the lot he has.
    Mr. Sheridan. Did he say where he got this jewelry?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Just a second, please. He made four
different lots. And he brought it to New York.
    Mr. Flanagan. He brought one quarter to New York?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. To New York. And he said, ``Here they
are.'' So I say, ``Why do we not do something for your safety?
Why do we not appraise it?'' I wanted to have a record, you
know, of this jewelry. ``We appraise it if you take charge of
it,'' he said.
    I said, ``Let's go together.'' I called Tiffany. I wanted,
you know, a reliable firm to appraise the jewels. Then we went
to James Ackerson.
    Mr. Flanagan. James what?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. James Ackerson. That is the only
record I kept on that, you know. That is 745 Fifth Avenue,
Eldorado 5-4025.
    So when he got there, I told the man in charge, ``I am just
here relating what this man has to say.'' He look at me,
astonished, you know.
    Mr. Flanagan. Who did?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Sevilla-Sacasa.
    Mr. Flanagan. Why was he astonished?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Because he wanted me to face the
situation. So when we got there, I said, ``May I have your
card?'' He said, ``I am here with the understanding you will
face the situation.'' I said, ``You have been believing I am a
dumbbell. But now I have you on this spot, and you can't get
out from here.''
    So he wanted to know the price of that. When he opens up, I
saw most were aquamarines, some bracelets and necklaces, things
like that, you know. And I say, ``Also have it insured'' so we
can have an extra record, for the insurance. And I said ``Now
will you sign that you brought this jewelry?'' And he signed
the responsibility.
    When he got out, my God, you know, he was so mad at me!
    Mr. Flanagan. How such was the jewelry appraised for?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I wanted to get to that point. When we
got out, he looked at me. He said, ``I never expected this from
you.'' I said, ``This is the record I have wanted. You want to
have me involved in something dirty. Now I have the record, not
in my own handwriting but in somebody else's handwriting.''
    He says, ``Suppose it is for insurance.'' I say, ``The
brokers take care of that. You don't have to go so far away,
you know, to have insurance.'' And I say, ``From now on, I
don't want to see that jewelry again.'' So he went over and
picked it up himself.
    Mr. Flanagan. How much was it worth?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I don't know.
    Mr. Flanagan. How much was it appraised at?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. They were supposed to give him the
appraisal when the jewelry was----
    Mr. Flanagan. Where did he get it? Where did he bring it
from?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Well, the jewelry, if you see the
records--you will see that that jewelry, you know, is the
typical Brazilian jewelry. The aquamarines are very famous in
Brazil.
    Mr. Flanagan. In other words, you think he brought it up
when he came back from Rio de Janeiro?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. I am pretty sure.
    Mr. Sheridan. Did he tell you how much it was worth?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. He told him the whole lot cost him
$7,000, that they were very cheap in Rio de Janeiro. He
mentioned that to me; and that there was a good profit on it.
    Mr. Flanagan. Do you think he smuggled it in?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Well, he was traveling under a
diplomatic passport as a United Nations representative.
    The Chairman. In other words, apparently he bought it down
in Brazil, where it was cheap, and brought it into this
country?
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Brought it into this country. Now,
that is very easy to check up, you see, with the Customs
authorities.
    Mr. Flanagan. I have no other questions.
    The Chairman. Here is the only thing I would like to say. I
think Mr. Martinez-Locayo should have a chance to go over this
record and cut out anything he feels might endanger him or his
family. Even though we promised to keep this completely secret,
if we give it to the State Department we never know but what
someone over there, you see, will hand a copy of this over to
the ambassador. I want to be completely honest with you, now.
    So I think if there is any part of this that Mr. Martinez-
Locayo would feel he does not want in this record, that might
ultimately find its way down to Nicaragua, we can not guarantee
it after it leaves our possession and goes over to the State
Department, and I think he should have an absolute right to go
over it and cut out what he wants to.
    Here is what we had in mind doing, in no way at all making
public the fact that you are here, but if we want this checked
on we have got to do it through the State Department. And as I
say, I do not have complete faith in everyone over in that
State Department yet. It is entirely possible that one of them
might get this record and make a copy of it, and two weeks from
now it might be in the hands of Somoza. So I do not want to
break faith with you in this at all.
    Mr. Martinez-Locayo. Thank you. The fact that I am here,
even that I have come, you know, blind-folded, and haven't
spoken a word--if the government of Nicaragua knows that I came
to Washington especially to see you, and you don't like monkey
business, it will put me in the spot. Nobody knows but you and
my wife that I am here. That is why, you know, I asked Mr.
Sheridan. Because there are several Nicaraguans here in
Washington. I just made a special trip to give you this
information in a very friendly way to the best of my knowledge,
but at the same time I don't want my family to pay for it.
    But I make a suggestion. Why not, as a matter of
investigation, without mentioning names, write to James
Ackerson and get a copy of that thing, you know, on Sevilla-
Sacasa. It was during either late October or early November
1947. And then you can ask the State Department, you see, why
that valuation.
    [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., Monday, July 13, 1953, the
hearing was recessed, to the call of the Chair.]
                            INTERNAL REVENUE
    [Editor's note.--President Eisenhower appointed T. Coleman
Andrews (1899-1983) as Commissioner of Internal Revenue in
1953. Andrews was the first certified public accountant to hold
the post. Among his initiatives was ``Operation Snoop,'' by
which revenue agents went door-to-door in search of tax
evaders. Andrews eventually concluded that federal taxes were
too high and resigned in 1955, running for president the
following year on the Independent States' Rights ticket.
    The Senate Rules Committee had previously investigated
allegations of irregularities in Senator McCarthy's federal
income taxes and the Internal Revenue Service audited his
returns. After the 1952 election, Senator Carl T. Hayden,
Democrat of Arizona, had encouraged Andrews to reopen the
investigation of McCarthy's returns, but opposition from
Treasury Secretary George M. Humphrey blocked the probe.
Andrews did not testify in public session.]
                              ----------
                         FRIDAY, JULY 31, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 11:00 a.m., in room 357 of the
Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, chairman,
presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M.
Cohn, chief counsel; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk; Maurice
Joyce, Senate Appropriations Committee.
   TESTIMONY OF T. COLEMAN ANDREWS, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF
                        INTERNAL REVENUE
    The Chairman. We invited Mr. Andrews down here to discuss
in general terms the matters that we might go into concerning
the alleged fraud and corruption in the department before he
took over.
    Incidentally, we have a hard and fast rule that when
senators are present everyone gets sworn who comes before the
committee. If you have no objection----
    Mr. Andrews. I have no objection.
    The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you
are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Andrews. I do.
    The Chairman. We have got a number of cases that look
extremely interesting, but rather than go into individual
cases, perhaps it might be a good idea for Mr. Andrews to
designate someone the committee could contact. What do you
think, Frank?
    Mr. Carr. I think that would be very helpful.
    Mr. Joyce. Would your chief of intelligence division be
involved with this?
    Mr. Andrews. Well, the cases you are talking about would
not be intelligence cases. Some of them might be ordinary cases
settled in the course of discussion of a disagreement with the
taxpayer.
    I think the best thing for you to do would be, and it won't
be any imposition, to let me know what cases you want, and I
will do what is necessary to see that you get complete
cooperation from us.
    I might say from my point of view, anybody in the bureau
now, if anybody is still in the bureau who participated in
improper settlement in the past, I, perhaps, am just as
interested in knowing it as you are.
    The Chairman. I think most likely those 161, or how many
resigned, they were thorough in cleaning it out. I am inclined
to think from preliminary check, some of those cases you find
unlimited graft and corruption prior to your administration. I
hope there is none going on now.
    One thing we want to be very careful about is not to give
your administration the blame for what has gone on. I know that
will be easy to occur in the mind of the public. We are talking
about what happened a year ago.
    Mr. Andrews. The situation on that is this, Senator. I have
to make a choice whether I am going forward or go back and
review the past. The ideal thing, of course, would be to strike
a happy balance between the two, but we have so many problems
of administrative and organizational character to deal with
that we frankly concentrated on forward-looking things and from
my point of view, it would help us considerably for a committee
of Congress to investigate these cases.
    If they find that they were improperly handled and people
are still there who participated in that improper handling,
then I will be in a position to make proper disposition. The
only risk I see, and I think I have to face up to, someone
says, ``Why hasn't Andrews gotten rid of these people?'' The
answer is Andrews hasn't had the time to convert his shop into
an investigating unit entirely to neglect current operations.
We have to allow the committee to dig these things out. There
will be no lack of willingness or lack of speed in disposing of
any situation that is not right. After all the thing we have
got to sell is integrity. If we don't produce, then this
administration will have failed utterly.
    Senator Mundt. I am convinced that we are losing a lot of
tax that we should collect. We have got to have restoration of
confidence in the integrity of the tax collecting machinery.
Those of us who know Mr. Andrews' sponsor, Harry Byrd, know
that he is a white knight on a white horse. We want the country
to know that those who have gotten by with mayhem and murder in
the past administration are going to be exposed.
    Mr. Andrews. Senator, may I say one thing. I would like to
explain something we are now doing which I think is very
important to what you are addressing yourself. This is just to
be shown to set the record straight. I am sure Senator Byrd
would want me to say it. He didn't put me in this job.
    Senator Mundt. You came highly recommended.
    Mr. Andrews. I enjoy his good opinion and am proud of it.
    Now, as to this other thing, I think you will find that
there is a resurgent, a very marked, notable resurgent return
of faith in the bureau. We see it everyday in correspondence we
are getting. When I first went in we never received a letter
except one of condemnation. Now, we rarely receive a letter of
condemnation, and we are getting an increasing number of
complimentary letters on what we are doing, which I like to
see.
    In addition to that we are seeing a return of pride on the
part of revenue agents in the service which they had lost. I
think that is extremely important. I have been going around the
country meeting revenue officials and addressing revenue
employees, shaking hands with them, talking to them, addressing
public meetings to tell the public what we are doing, which is
all helpful but only a drop in the bucket when you think there
are 155 million people in this country and I am only one man.
    The other thing I want to tell you about, the current
provision in the law, Section 3600, which requires that the
collectors shall periodically canvass their areas and be sure
that everybody is filing returns that should be filing returns.
    Well, when I came into the office, I know from my own
experience, thirty years as an enrollee of the Treasury
Department, that there were some people who just weren't even
filing returns at all. I, very soon after I took office,
inquired. Private studies have been made to find out what the
situation is. We found in one situation that 14 percent of the
people in the area we were studying were not filing one or more
or several returns they were required to file. Following that
we called attention of the region commissioners to the
situation and in various parts of the country they are going on
now, right now they are canvassing under Section 3600. One of
the most intensive is being made in the New England area. It is
hot in the newspaper at the present time. I have had several
phone calls in the last two or three days.
    Of course, some people will get the wrong idea and think we
are just, snooping. We are not looking under anybody's rug, or
looking behind pictures, or bureau drawers, and the results, up
to this time, have been good, gratifying, and public reaction
is good. The average person says, ``My gosh, we think this is
fine. We pay our taxes and we'd like to be sure everybody else
is paying theirs.'' On the other hand, some people think it is
a snooping type of operation. They don't realize we are acting
strictly in accordance with the mandate of law, which gives us
considerable power in that respect. We are trying to use that
power in a reasonable, decent sort of way. Of course, if we
find people evading tax, we take proper action. If it is a
matter of ignorance or oversight we deal with them in a manner
that a situation of that type requires. I mentioned that
because you are going to hear more about it. It is going to be
put into effect all over the country. There may be some
criticism. Generally, if we go by what happened thus far, the
reaction will be all right.
    Senator Mundt. This is going to be a sustaining and valid
machine which simply enforces the law and tries to work with
honest taxpayers helping them make honest returns, and
dishonest persons we would like to have the chips fall where
they are found.
    Mr. Andrews. It is going to fifty-four thousand employees.
There will be a great many engaged in this effort. It is not a
thing we are trying to offer minutely. Fifty-four thousand
people wouldn't be enough to make a complete canvass. There has
been an increasing number of people who will call in and say,
``How do I go about filing my returns? I am delinquent and
would like to get it straightened out.'' A lot of people have
already got their papers ready to show us that they paid their
taxes. They are cooperating nicely.
    Now, out of fifty-four thousand people you will get one
with a policeman complex, which incident will not be pleasant
and I can assure you we will deal with those properly. We will
keep as close control on it as we can.
    The difficulties of running the Revenue Service Department
is a terrific one when you stop to consider that we have fifty-
four thousand people spread out over the entire United States
and possessions and incidental set-ups, with over fourteen
hundred offices.
    It is a terrific organization and a tremendous job. I hope
we are doing it intelligently. I believe we are, but being
human, we are going to make mistakes that we are going to have
to correct--change our directives or methods. From time to time
we will see things develop which are not just what ought to be
done. We have to learn to some extent by experience. No matter
how much contact we have had, there is always today to be
considered and today's conditions.
    Senator Mundt. On these specific cases referred to and
which we have been studying, it will be your recommendation
that Mr. Carr or whoever represents the staff in this
particular problem will consult with you personally about them
rather than have some member of your staff assigned.
    Mr. Andrews. Initially at any rate until we get a pattern
established and then we might designate somebody in the
organization. You won't be delayed; just let me know what you
want and I will do my best to get it to you promptly.
    Senator Mundt. Do you have any questions, Mr. Carr?
    Mr. Carr. In connection with some of these cases that we
have looked at just briefly, there appears to be a few of them,
not a great many of them, but there appears to be a few of them
which your bureau has recommended prosecutive action that has
been declined. Is that a thing that you run across frequently?
In other words, you recommend prosecution and it is declined in
the department. Is there a good deal of that?
    Mr. Andrews. No, I will tell you what the story on that is,
as I understand. it. An average tax case where it gets to the
point prosecution is recommended or not recommended has gone
through a number of hands in the bureau or rather in the
Internal Revenue Service. We don't call it the bureau anymore.
By the time it gets to the point where a decision must be made
as to prosecution and non-prosecution, we are usually pretty
near right as to whether the case should be prosecuted.
Consequently, those sent to Justice with that recommendation,
there are relatively few that are not prosecuted. Justice
sometimes, however, takes a look and if they don't think we can
win this case and we would be foolish to try to prosecute it,
we listen to what they have to say. Maybe we agree or maybe we
don't. I don't know.
    Senator Mundt. If you do not, have you any other further
recourse?
    Mr. Andrews. No, what we can do about the question of
prosecution is up to the Justice Department. We leave it to
them.
    There is always in civil matters, if we have to sue on
civil employee collection, that is done by Justice and I don't
understand that there has ever been any serious difficulty with
respect to whether Justice would or would not undertake action
if we would ask them. Generally, through sifting, when we do
recommend a case for prosecution it has been thoroughly gone
over by us and we think the case should be prosecuted. I don't
recommend so many that it would make a difference in that
respect.
    We try to be realistic as to whether a case should be
prosecuted or whether it shouldn't. Often you will find
yourself in this position and this is a very troublesome
problem to us. There is 50 percent for fraud. Well, that
penalty can also be inserted in cases where there is no
prosecution and when it is, there frequently arises, the
question of whether the assertion of the fraud penalty is in
order, and it is difficult to determine sometimes whether a
taxpayer should be accessed with that penalty or just negative
penalty. That kind of thing pops up all the time, It is
troublesome because it is hard to tell. The general rule as I
understand it from my point of view, is that criminal fraud is
fraud that you think is sufficient evidence that you would be
able to obtain an indictment. Civil fraud is fraud of the type
where the preponderance of evidence points to fraud but is not
sufficient to obtain an indictment. That is a fine distinction
to draw as I am sure you will understand, all being lawyers.
Frankly, it puts me in a very difficult position, but I am not
complaining. It is difficult to know whether a man has really
tried to give you the business or whether he hasn't.
    Senator Mundt. We senators are in the same position when we
vote on the floor. When you have something that is 49 percent
wrong and 51 percent right, how are you going to vote.
    Mr. Andrews. That is right. It is a question of accessing
the degree of intention or the part of the taxpayer. Of course,
that is not simple.
    The Chairman. It leaves you in a position for which you can
be criticized either way. Let's say the preponderance of
evidence shows fraud. To the average individual, a criminal
case must be beyond a reasonable doubt. It could be very easy
to embarrass a collector by taking up a case where you are
pretty sure of fraud but couldn't prove it.
    Mr. Andrews. Senator, there you put your hand on the very
sensitive aspect of the commission's activities and its duties.
    I am frequently confronted with the decision which no
matter how I make it, I am going to be confronted with
criticism. For instance, these fraud penalty problems are one
of them. Closing agreements is another; regulation is another.
We have before us at the moment, for instance, a very extremely
important case from a taxpayer point of view, involving one of
the very largest companies of American. Now, if I decided in
favor of closing the agreement in favor of the taxpayer,
somebody will be criticizing me and because of the character of
the company. Well, frankly, my attitude towards that is very
simple.
    A man in my position has got to be prepared to make those
decisions and willing to make them. I am willing to make them
because I know I will not do anything wrong. Any decision I
make I am perfectly willing for anybody to investigate it all
they want.
    The Chairman. In that connection every member of the
committee feels you are doing a good job and we are not going
to do anything in that direction. We are not going to start
digging into cases of judgment on your part. We want to get
into the cases of clear-cut, all-out dishonesty and corruption
that apparently has been rambling in the past.
    Senator Mundt. The mere fact that there was a wholesale
exodus of careless Internal Revenue collectors which, as far as
I know, nobody completed the job of finding out how far they
did go, which left a lot of lingering doubts in the minds of
the people. We think that could be rescued by a well conducted,
reasonable, factual, investigation. The facts being what they
are we are probably going to find one or two popping up again.
    Mr. Andrews. When we find them, they will go.
    Senator Mundt. That is all expected. We can't expect of
fifty-four thousand--you can't guarantee every one of them.
    Mr. Andrews. Senator, every now and then we have a fellow
that gets off the bean. Recently a fellow undertook to
shakedown a taxpayer up in the east and we dealt with that
promptly and he is now already in jail.
    You are going to have that. Let's not kid ourselves, but I
have a very simple philosophy about it. We can't have a Revenue
Service, which as a service, is honest and above board unless
there is absolute and unquestionable integrity at the top.
    That is my philosophy and I have told that to my top
people, and I have told them whether they like it or not they
live in a goldfish bowl and they have got to be beyond
reproach. I am determined we will have that kind of
administration. I think we have got people that will provide
it.
    The Chairman. I think it may be well while the staff is
here to make this suggestion. Where you find someone in the
present organization who appears to be guilty of wrong or fraud
in the past, it would be well to handle that in executive
session, give Mr. Andrews a chance to become familiar with it
because I know, no matter how careful you are, you can't have
that completely cleaned out in one or two years. I think we
should be careful to dig out errors of the past, and anything
that is going on now, that could be handled in executive
session.
    Frank, I don't mean we are going to cover anything up, [to
Mr. Andrews] but I think first we should give all the
information to you.
    There is one question I have been asked to go into by one
of the senators who heard you were coming over here today. He
asked me to ask you these questions.
    First, is it correct that the White House has contacted you
or anyone else in Internal Revenue and asked for an
investigation of the members of the committee?
    Mr. Andrews. No, sir. There has been no request come down
to me from the White House or Treasury or anybody else.
    The Chairman. There has been no meeting of the cabinet
members that they want to get stuff on somebody and some
members of the committee they want to investigate?
    Mr. Andrews. No, sir. I have heard of no such thing. Any
action we take in examination of returns of any one member of
this committee, or anyone else, is left entirely to the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
    The Chairman. Just so the record will be very clear, I can
report back to the senator that you have positively stated that
there has been no contact from anybody outside of the bureau,
White House or otherwise, urging investigation of tax returns
of any of the members of the committee?
    Mr. Andrews. That is right, sir.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12:15 p.m.]
                  SECURITY--GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    [Editor's note.--Mary Stalcup Markward (1922-1972) operated
undercover for the FBI from 1943 to 1950. The twenty-one-year-
old wife of a soldier serving in Europe was working in a beauty
parlor when the FBI asked her to join the Communist party in
Washington, D.C. Markward advanced through the party ranks to
become treasurer and membership director. She later testified
in federal court and at numerous congressional committee
hearings, including her public testimony before the
subcommittee on August 17, 1953.
    The two Government Printing Office (GPO) employees who
testified in executive session on August 10, James B. Phillips
(1920-1986) and Edward M. Rothschild (1911-1981), both worked
in the bindery division. Phillips testified at a public hearing
on August 17; and Rothschild on August 18. Esther Rothschild
(1908-1993), who did not work for the government, testified in
public on August 19, 1953.
    Following this executive session, Senator McCarthy told
reporters that the subcommittee had received evidence that a
member of the Communist party had access to secret documents
through the GPO, and described the new investigation as having
``tremendously more important aspects'' than the charges he had
made against the information service. The chairman then made
public portions of Edward Rothschild's executive session
testimony, but Rothschild's attorney, Stanley Frosh, countered
that the remarks had been ``lifted from context'' with
``explanations cut off.'' Concluding that the transcript had
been altered, Frosh advised his clients to take the Fifth
Amendment in order to avoid charges of perjury. When Rothschild
declined even to acknowledge that he worked at the GPO, Senator
McCarthy interpreted his actions as an admission of guilt:
``Your refusal is telling the world that you have been stealing
secrets, that you are a member of the party, that you have
engaged in espionage.'' The day after Edward Rothschild invoked
the Fifth Amendment at the public hearing, the GPO suspended
him without pay. He was later dismissed from government service
but never prosecuted.]
                              ----------
                        MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 2:00 p.m. in room 357, Senate
Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Everett M. Dirksen, Republican, Illinois.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M.
Cohn, chief counsel; Richard O'Melia, general counsel,
Committee on Government Operations; Karl Barslag, research
director; Herbert Hawkins, investigator; Ruth Young Watt, chief
clerk.
                 TESTIMONY OF MARY S. MARKWARD
    The Chairman. Mrs. Markward, do you solemnly swear that the
testimony you are about to give in the matter now in hearing
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
    Mrs. Markward. I do.
    The Chairman. I may say I read your testimony given before
the House committee and feel you have performed a great
service.
    Mrs. Markward. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Mrs. Markward, you joined the Communist party in
cooperation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Is that
correct?
    Mrs. Markward. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. In 1943?
    Mrs. Markward. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time?
    Mrs. Markward. I was active through October of 1949. My
dues were paid through January of 1950.
    Mr. Cohn. During that time were you in touch with the FBI?
    Mrs. Markward. I was.
    Mr. Cohn. Furnishing them with information?
    Mrs. Markward. Correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Concerning the Communist conspiracy?
    Mrs. Markward. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. You joined the Communist party in cooperation
with and at the request of the FBI?
    Mrs. Markward. That is right. After I was interviewed by an
agent of the FBI, I joined the Communist party.
    Mr. Cohn. And since the time you ceased being active in the
Communist party you have responded to the call of the
Department of Justice and testified when you were subpoenaed
and called on to do so concerning people you knew as Communists
and concerning the operation of the Communist conspiracy?
    Mrs. Markward. I did.
    Mr. Cohn. You testified at Foley Square?
    Mrs. Markward. I did.
    Mr. Cohn. And the Smith Act trial, Department of Justice,
Baltimore?
    Mrs. Markward. Correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Mrs. Markward, I would like to direct your
attention to a woman----
    Senator Dirksen. Where were your activities as a party
member?
    Mrs. Markward. In Washington, D.C. Washington is part of
the Maryland District so part of my activities had to do all
over the state of Maryland and Washington, D.C., as well as the
suburban areas of Virginia.
    Senator Dirksen. Where did you attend meetings?
    Mrs. Markward. My club was in Washington, D.C. However, for
about six months of 1949 I was active in the Virginia club.
    Senator Dirksen. Generally, what was the nature of your
activities?
    Mrs. Markward. I became a paid Communist party functionary
in Washington, D.C. I was membership director and city
treasurer after June of 1944. I was also on the district
committee of the Communist party and from August of 1945 I was
a member of the district committee of the Communist party and
the district board.
    Senator Dirksen. Among other things you recruited members
and attended meetings?
    Mrs. Markward. That is right. As far as recruiting members,
I did as little of that as possible. I wasn't interested in
building up the Communist party, but it was necessary to
participate in those activities to a certain extent. I
generally recruited persons who met with or cooperated with
other Communists and who would have joined whether or not I
recruited them.
    Senator Dirksen. It was your job to go through the motion
of recruiting. As far as you were concerned, you were not eager
to recruit anyone but you had no choice but to carry out your
duties and do the recruiting assigned to you.
    Mrs. Markward. That is correct.
    Senator Dirksen. Were you suspected at any time?
    Mrs. Markward. I couldn't read the folks mind. I imagine at
times we were all under suspicion. In my position I knew almost
all of the party members in Washington. Every time someone came
up they wondered who might have told on them, and guess they
considered me among the persons who might have done that.
    Senator Dirksen. But you were never under enough suspicion
to be removed from any post of authority while you were in the
party?
    Mrs. Markward. I was re-elected to the highest station in
the District and Maryland as late as 1948. I was one of three
people given special security information in the spring of
1949.
    Senator Dirksen. I assume as a matter of course one would
have to carry on a certain amount of defensive activity to keep
covered. By that I mean the normal activities of the party to
make it appear that you were----
    Mrs. Markward. I tried to be the best kind of a Communist
they wanted anybody to be as far as appearances were concerned.
    Mr. Cohn. Now let me ask you this. Did you see a woman
sitting in this room?
    Mrs. Markward. I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Could you identify her?
    Mrs. Markward. Mrs. Esther Rothschild.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever see Mrs. Esther Rothschild before
you saw her in this room this afternoon?
    Mrs. Markward. Innumerable times.
    Mr. Cohn. Under what circumstances?
    Mrs. Markward. I met her as a member of one of the White
Collar Clubs during the period----
    Mr. Cohn. White Collar Clubs of what?
    Mrs. Markward. The Communist party of the District of
Columbia. I first met her during the period after the Communist
party had changed its name and was known as the Communist
Political Association.
    Mr. Cohn. That was during 1944?
    Mrs. Markward. That was during 1944.
    Mr. Cohn. You met her as a member?
    Mrs. Markward. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend any meetings at which Mrs.
Rothschild was present?
    Mrs. Markward. I attended meetings of the Thomas Jefferson
Club; I also attended meetings where all persons present from
the Communist Political Association of D.C.----
    Mr. Cohn. You say the Communist Political Association. That
was the Communist party and at that time they changed the name
from the Communist party to the Communist Political
Association.
    Mrs. Markward. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you remember where any of the meetings you
attended with Mrs. Rothschild were held?
    Mrs. Markward. I remember specifically attending one in a
room over the Superior Print Shop in the 600 block of
Massachusetts Avenue. I attended another meeting at the home of
John Anderson. His wife, I believe, owned a pharmacy in
Washington and he was working with her. His home is near Glen
Echo on Seminary Road, I believe. Those were the only meetings
of that club. At a later date the Communist party re-formed and
the Communist Political Association was abandoned.
    I attended meetings at her home, Rothschild's home. This
was not a club meeting as such. This was a meeting--she was
secretary of her club, Gertrude Evans was chairman of that
club, known at this time as the Civil Liberties or Civil Rights
Club. Elizabeth Searle, who was--I believe at that time she
was--administration secretary of the Communist party. I believe
that was after William Taylor came to town. She had held the
post of chairman until he came to town. This meeting could have
taken place in 1946. The party didn't change its name until
October 1945 in Washington.
    Mr. Cohn. Concerning this meeting in the Rothschild home,
Mrs. Rothschild was an official of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Markward. She was secretary of the Civil Liberties
Club of the Communist party of Washington, D.C.
    Mr. Cohn. And what were some of her duties?
    Mrs. Markward. Well, to see that the members of that club
were in attendance at meetings; if they weren't there to check
up, to see why they were not; check to see they paid their
dues; check with the chairman to see that they carried out the
required duties of their Communist party membership.
    Mr. Cohn. Would the Civil Liberties Club be properly
described as a cell of the Communist party? Would you call that
a cell meeting?
    Mrs. Markward. Well, they didn't use the term cell at that
time, but I think it would be synonymous. At this period there
were twelve or fourteen members of the club.
    Mr. Cohn. But no one except the members of the Communist
party belong to the Civil Liberties Club?
    Mrs. Markward. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. That was definitely a Communist club?
    Mrs. Markward. Yes. It was a Communist club with a special
security designation. It took a little more knowledge of the
party to be trusted--for the Communists to trust each other
well enough to be included in a club of that kind.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you attended meetings in the Rothschild
home. Do you remember the approximate location?
    Mrs. Markward. To the best of my recollection it was Dix
Street, N.E. I remember it was on the east side of Annacostia
River, and south of Benning Road. That is my recollection of
the street.
    Senator Dirksen. Were you invited to those meetings?
    Mrs. Markward. That was a meeting which was arranged by
Elizabeth Searle, who as I said, was an official of the
Communist party, next above me among the functionaries. I was
at that time working in the office of the Communist party as
office functionary, and I think it was arranged sometime while
in the office; that we would have a meeting with the leadership
of the club and arranged for the exact time.
    Senator Dirksen. Was identification required?
    Mrs. Markward. We all knew each other very well. We didn't
need that.
    Mr. Cohn. You talk about special security rating.
    Mrs. Markward. These were persons who either themselves
were employed some place where they would have been fired had
it been known they were members of the Communist party, or were
working in a mass organization where they had a position of
leadership and couldn't attain that or where it would be
detrimental, or front organizations here if it were known they
were leaders of the Communist party people wouldn't join it.
Also in some cases where someone in their family was--for
instance a husband or wife, if they were Communists they were
kept in a security group.
    The Chairman. Because of the position of the individual,
his or hers or the position of some member of the family, it
was very important to the Communist party that they remain
definitely underground and not be known as a member of the
party.
    Mrs. Markward. It applied to a member of the party that a
member of the family was valuable to the Communist party. I
mean Joe Doakes, and his brother-in-law was head of the
American Legion Post, the brother-in-law didn't go along with
party plans. They wouldn't care about the brother-in-law
because they would use that to hurt that person, but someone
where the brother-in-law was a Communist or close to the
Communist party.
    Mr. Cohn. And one of those agencies for which they required
this kind of protection was the U.S. government. In other
words, if the person, him or herself, were sympathetic to the
party or in the party, would that involve this?
    Mrs. Markward. To a certain extent. I would amend that a
little, that only during the time of the Communist Political
Association did they have a husband and wife a government
employee to be in the open party, the White Collar Clubs of it.
There came a time, for protective purposes, that someone in a
government position, the party would strip them of formal
membership so as not to embarrass them as such.
    This was pointed out in reverse to me in my position as
membership director. Chiefly through the fact that when a
number of men who had been employed in the government, chiefly
the Navy Yard, machinists, when they went in service a number
of their wives transferred from the super security group into
the White Collar groups, and when the husbands came out of
service those were among the women who were required to drop
party membership, on the surface at least, so it wouldn't
embarrass their husbands.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, let's be specific. Do you know whether Mrs.
Rothschild had any close relatives working in the government?
    Mrs. Markward. I knew her husband had been affiliated with
the Government Printing Office.
    Mr. Cohn. By the way, did anything ever happen to make you
believe that Mr. Rothschild was anything but sympathetic to the
Communist party?
    The Chairman. Let's put the question positively. Did you
have anything happen to indicate that Mr. Rothschild was also a
member of the party?
    Mrs. Markward. In the era in which I was active I didn't
have any occasion to really know that he actually was a party
member, because the party was careful not to have government
employees identified as party members, but Esther was free to
come to party meetings, do party work at her home. I was
certainly under the feeling that the atmosphere was sympathetic
to what she was doing.
    The Chairman. Was Mr. Rothschild ever present when you
attended a meeting?
    Mrs. Markward. He was not.
    The Chairman. Your testimony is that you are not in a
position to say ``yes'' or ``no'' as to whether he was a
Communist, but in view of the fact Mrs. Rothschild did party
work at home and freely came to the Communist party meetings,
you would assume in the normal course that he must have known
and must have been sympathetic to it?
    Mrs. Markward. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did there come a time in 1947 when a further
party decision was made concerning people who had close
relatives employed in the United States government?
    Mrs. Markward. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What was that about?
    Mrs. Markward. The decision was at that time after there
had been some inquiries and investigations, etc., of
Communists, that not only would there not be any Communists
openly affiliated with the Communist party in Washington, but
also any wife or husband of a government employee would be
dropped from the rolls of the open party in Washington, D.C.
    Mr. Cohn. Mrs. Markward, your firm testimony is that Esther
Rothschild, whom you have seen here in this room this
afternoon, was in the Communist party with you, and, in fact,
was secretary of the Civil Liberties Club of the Communist
party; that you worked with her; attended meetings with her;
observed her carry out the functions of the Communist party;
and had knowledge of the fact that her husband was employed in
the Government Printing Office.
    Mrs. Markward. That is correct.
    The Chairman. Mrs. Markward, sit in the back and observe
her so there will be no question. We appreciate your coming
down here. I know it was an inconvenience.
TESTIMONY OF EDWARD R. ROTHSCHILD (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL,
                       STANLEY B. FROSH)
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand? In the matter
now in hearing before this committee, do you solemnly swear to
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
    Mr. Rothschild. I do.
    The Chairman. Would counsel identify himself?
    Mr. Frosh. My name is Stanley B. Frosh. I am a member of
the Bar of the District of Columbia, State of Illinois and the
State of Maryland.
    The Chairman. You are practicing in Washington, D.C.?
    Mr. Frosh. My office is in Washington, D.C., Investment
Building.
    The Chairman. Mr. Frosh, this is your first appearance
before the committee so we would like to give you a quick run
down on the rules of the committee insofar as counsel is
concerned. Counsel is entitled to advise his client at any time
he cares to. If a matter comes up of a serious nature and you
want a private conference, we will try and get a private room.
Other than advising your client and discussing matters with
him, you are not allowed to take part in the proceedings.
    The statement by counsel will not be received. If your
client wants to make a statement he may make any statement he
cares to make. I note in this you request to have witnesses
called to contradict anything that is said here of a derogatory
nature against Mr. Rothschild. Any witnesses that you suggest
we call, we will be glad to call, either a witness you consider
a friendly witness to him or if you think certain witnesses
under cross-examination will be unfriendly and could give
information clearing up any charges made against Mr.
Rothschild, they will be called.
    Normally, we don't advise clients in the presence of an
attorney but since this is your first appearance, I would like
to suggest to your client that he either tell the truth or
refuse to answer. We have a great deal of material concerning
Mr. Rothschild.
    We have witnesses who come before this committee and assume
they can get by with withholding the truth. This is a very,
very unwise thing for them to do. He has a right to refuse to
answer any question if he honestly thinks his answer will tend
to incriminate him.
    Mr. Frosh. May I interrupt and ask some questions?
    The Chairman. Go ahead.
    Mr. Frosh. First of all I want to know whether the
transcript of testimony will be available to me.
    The Chairman. It will be available for correction of any
typographical errors or anything like that by your client.
However, we do not, unless the transcript is made public, send
it to you. You can have a private space to go over the record
and correct any errors.
    Mr. Frosh. In other words, it is the committee's procedure
and ruling that a copy of this transcript may not be obtained
by myself or Mr. Rothschild, because we do want to get such a
copy and will pay for a copy.
    The Chairman. Well, we haven't up until now. Once we give
copies out it no longer is executive session. We have been very
careful not to give the press evidence taken in executive
session. However, this matter I consider to be of great
importance to your client. I think we can make an exception
here, Senator Dirksen, if he wants to purchase a copy of the
transcript and gives us his firm assurance it will not be used
until the entire transcript is made public by the committee.
    Senator Dirksen. It will depend, I think, whether there are
public hearings on the same subject matter. Unless there is, I
don't think a transcript should be permitted to leave
possession of the committee. The public session will be
elaborated on and that, of course, will become available.
    The Chairman. For the time being, Mr. Frosh, the transcript
will be available for complete, thorough examination by you in
one of the committee rooms and we will decide later whether or
not we will deviate from the usual rule and give you a
transcript.
    I might say, if no public hearings are held on this most
likely we will furnish you with a transcript. I would say most
likely we will in any event.
    I say we undoubtedly will, but that ruling is not final
until we take it up with the other senators. You will have
completely free access to the transcripts in the committee room
and complete privacy to go over that as much as you want.
    Senator Dirksen. I think it should be made clear that it is
usual after an executive session to have a public hearing which
usually embraces the subject matter and a more amplified
transcript with all the data becomes available. If transcripts
of executive sessions are given out, it loses its executive
character and then, of course, it can be used for any purposes
beyond the control of the committee. It has been customary not
to reveal anything from an executive transcript to anybody. It
is not a matter revealed to the press or any public purpose
whatsoever.
    Mr. Frosh. Now, the question of witnesses. You indicated,
Senator McCarthy, that any witnesses that we might want to be
summoned in our behalf will be called. We have a great number
of witnesses we want to have before this committee. We would
prefer that these witnesses be before the committee at the same
time Mr. and Mrs. Rothschild are here. I wonder if it would
suit you gentlemen to give us perhaps a further date for even
the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Rothschild?
    The Chairman. We would not allow other witnesses to attend
sessions of Mr. Rothschild.
    Mr. Frosh. But I mean during identical session of this
committee.
    The Chairman. We will continue the session and hear all of
the witnesses. I assume it will take all afternoon to hear Mr.
and Mrs. Rothschild.
    If you want to give the names to counsel, if they want to
appear without subpoena. You understand I can't call one
hundred witnesses from Los Angeles. The committee couldn't
afford it. Within reason we will try and call all your
witnesses.
    Mr. Frosh. You have indicated that those witnesses whom we
feel we can elicit rebuttal testimony on cross-examination, we
will have a right to summon these witnesses and they will be
subject to cross-examination.
    Will the committee advise us of the names of persons who
have given testimony which is adverse to Mr. and Mrs.
Rothschild so we may summon those people?
    The Chairman. They will be summoned. They will be here.
    Mr. Frosh. We want to be assured that those people are
going to testify at a hearing during which time I am here and
allowed to cross-examine.
    The Chairman. You will not be allowed to cross-examine. You
will be allowed to submit questions to the chairman or any
member of the committee.
    Mr. Frosh. Would those questions be asked by the chairman
or persons conducting the hearing?
    The Chairman. Normally, yes, unless the chairman considered
the question irrelevant and had nothing to do with the matter.
    Mr. Frosh. During the cross-examination of such witnesses
would Mr. Rothschild and Mrs. Rothschild be present? Of course,
if it is necessary in order to help me identify those witnesses
if I can----
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Frosh. Again as to procedure and form, the questions
that are asked either by the committee or by counsel for the
committee, do those questions conform to the normal evidentiary
requirements?
    The Chairman. They must be material to the issues.
    Mr. Frosh. And are we advised as to what the issues are?
    Senator Dirksen. It is not a judiciary proceeding. Counsel
tries to keep the questions relevant and germane and keep out
evidence that is incompetent, irrelevant or immaterial to what
is before us. The issue drawn will be very clear; that I think
you will see as the investigation unfolds. The committee is not
bound by evidentiary rules. If it were a judicial proceeding
that would be true.
    Mr. Frosh. You have indicated also that the statement I
have submitted to Mr. Cohn and to the chairman is not to be
received in evidence; therefore, I request that we be given
time to revise the statement so instead of being placed in the
third person, placed in the first persons and made by Mr. and
Mrs. Rothschild.
    The Chairman. We will give you as much time as you consider
necessary.
    Does that finish your questions?
    Mr. Frosh. That is all I have at this point.
    The Chairman. I might say we want you to feel perfectly
free to ask questions on procedure.
    Mr. Rothschild, you have been working in the government how
long?
    Mr. Rothschild. Since March 24, 1930. That is over twenty-
three years.
    The Chairman. Give us your full name.
    Mr. Rothschild. Edward Meyer Rothschild.
    The Chairman. And your wife's name?
    Mr. Rothschild. Esther Brainin Rothschild. Brainin was her
maiden name.
    The Chairman. Mr. Rothschild, you have been working in the
Government Printing Office during all that period of time, have
you?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir. I don't know how to say it. I was
there before the war. I was gone for twenty-six months in the
navy and then I went back there. I say I worked there twenty-
three years or better as far as retirement and all is concerned
I am carried on the rolls.
    The Chairman. What branch of the navy?
    Mr. Rothschild. When I left boot camp I came to the
Hydrographic Office. As I understand it, at the time the
Hydrographic Office moved to Suitland, Maryland, there was a
big demand for skilled help and during my boot camp training,
rather when it was just about over, I had orders to report to
the Hydrographic Office. I worked there at the Hydrographic
Office.
    The Chairman. What kind of work?
    Mr. Rothschild. I printed and folded them. There was a
great deal of coded work, terrain charts and it was, I
understand, pretty confidential, secret, top secret work.
    The Chairman. In other words you were handling secret, top
secret and confidential work.
    Mr. Rothschild. No more than anyone else.
    The Chairman. You volunteered for the navy?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, the records won't show that. I had a
youngster coming along. When my draft number came up I asked
for a chance to wait for the youngster and the draft board was
nice enough to do that. After the child was born I went down
and requested it and they wouldn't accept me then.
    The Chairman. How old were you then?
    Mr. Rothschild. Thirty-two. By navy standards I was
considered an old man when I got to boot camp.
    The Chairman. Do you know how you happened to get assigned
to the Hydrographic Office?
    Mr. Rothschild. There were men working with me before that
told me about it. Some of them came back to visit and mentioned
the Hydrographic Office.
    The Chairman. You applied for it?
    Mr. Rothschild. Yes, in a manner of speaking. I understand
that naval officers had come into the printing office, I think,
I don't know for sure, looking for skilled help and finding out
who was ready to leave.
    The Chairman. Did you apply for this work?
    Mr. Rothschild. They asked me what I would like to work at
and I told them my trade, bookbinding. I was sent back to the
barracks and then later received notice.
    The Chairman. Now, at the Government Printing Office did
you print material for the International Information Program?
    Mr. Rothschild. I don't know. They probably do.
    The Chairman. The Voice of America?
    Mr. Rothschild. I don't know that for sure.
    The Chairman. State Department?
    Mr. Rothschild. Yes, State Department.
    The Chairman. For the military establishments?
    Mr. Rothschild. Yes.
    The Chairman. Atomic Energy Commission?
    Mr. Rothschild. I have seen the name around. By that I mean
on work. We get a dummy and it is written on there what
department or agency it is for.
    The Chairman. Some of that material is classified secret,
top secret and confidential?
    Mr. Rothschild. It is classified restricted, confidential
and secret. If it is confidential or secret it is locked in a
vault and somebody has been screened and watches it all the
time. It is never left unguarded or unlocked.
    Senator Dirksen. How is the work distributed?
    Mr. Rothschild. Well, if a man is working on the gathering
machine, the process requires gathering. It depends on whether
they are in a hurry for the work. If so, the foreman tells one
of the laborers to get it out of the vault in the basement and
it is brought up and you handle it, set your machine and
process it, gather it or wire stitch or whatever you have to
do. It is the same with trimming it or folding it or anything
else. It is handed out by the foreman or immediate supervisor.
    The Chairman. I read in the paper the other day that there
was a party for one of the officials who is leaving GPO and
that certain people were excluded from this social gathering
because they couldn't get past security. From that I would
gather security restrictions are rather tight.
    Mr. Rothschild. They weren't as tight as in the navy. I say
that because top secret work in the navy, there was a naval
officer and he either wore side arms or had a seaman along
wearing side arms.
    The Chairman. Now, we have information giving the number of
top secret, secret and confidential and other materials the
army had printed in GPO. Now, let me ask you this. When the
military establishments, Atomic Energy Commission or any other
government department sent over secret, top secret, or
confidential material, did you have occasion to work on that
material?
    Mr. Rothschild. I started to say ``no,'' but that is not
correct. Yes, prior to--let's see what date that was--prior to
1948. I am not certain of the dates. I worked on any work
anyone else did. Where it came from, the process before it got
to the room, before I completed it, I don't know that process.
I have worked on one part of printing over many years.
    After 1948 or during 1948 I was called up by our agency
loyalty board and I was given a hearing and at that time I was
told to go back to work. Meanwhile, I underwent an operation.
During my convalescence I received further notice for another
hearing. There were certain accusations made at those hearings
and I apparently disproved them enough to satisfy my own
loyalty board because in March of 1949, Mr. Wright, the then
chief clerk, now retired, left word for me to report to his
office before eight o'clock.
    At about a quarter of eight my foreman allowed me to go
upstairs. I worked at night. Mr. Wright, as I walked in, smiled
and said, ``Mr. Rothschild, I was getting ready to drop this in
the mail, but thought you would feel better to get it a day
early.'' The letter stated the board was satisfied with my
testimony.
    The Chairman. May I make a suggestion? You can answer at
such length as you want to. I would suggest, however, that you
try and stick to the question. The question here was: Do you
have access to classified material?
    Mr. Rothschild. Frankly, I have access. I have to qualify
that statement, I don't want to draw this out any. After that
hearing a list came down, and the foreman told the people
listed on there not to handle confidential or secret work.
Since that, it has not been the practice to give Ed Rothschild
secret or confidential work, which I like.
    The Chairman. You say it hasn't been the practice, but it
is a fact that you have access to secret and confidential
material?
    Mr. Rothschild. Yes.
    The Chairman. Up until today?
    Mr. Rothschild. Up until this moment.
    The Chairman. In other words, while your name was on that
list as a practical matter, you have had access to any secret
and confidential material that you care to see?
    Mr. Rothschild. If the man working next to me had the job,
you might say I had access to it. It would be a matter of
reaching across and taking it if nobody was looking. Strangely
enough, in handling any of this work, if you handle one copy--
someone tells you they are on secret work and you have natural
curiosity, but when you handle thousands, one looks like
another and you are not interested.
    The Chairman. If there were an espionage agent working in
GPO having access to top secret, confidential material as you
do, he could do a great deal of damage, couldn't he? I am not
saying you are.
    Mr. Rothschild. I will have to assume this; that if he were
an espionage agent he would be a trained man and consequently
he would know how to go about it.
    The Chairman. Let's say I were working in your job. Let's
assume McCarthy is a Communist espionage agent and assume I had
access to secret, top secret and confidential material to the
same extent you have. I could do a great service to the
Communist cause, couldn't I?
    Mr. Rothschild. I don't know how to answer that. I could
say you could get your hands on a copy if you were clever
enough.
    The Chairman. I wouldn't have to be very clever.
    Mr. Rothschild. I couldn't do it. To give you an example,
someone apparently screened is watching it. Someone was working
on a job and I went over to ask him about drainage in my cellar
and the minute I got over there, he said, ``Beat it.'' I hadn't
stopped to think.
    The Chairman. You say you haven't had occasion to read
secret or top secret material?
    Mr. Rothschild. I usually run the gathering machine. I see
the jacket number, signature number and the page numbers, but
as far as the inside is concerned, I have had no occasion to
look at it.
    The Chairman. Is it correct to say that you have gathered
top secret and secret material?
    Mr. Rothschild. I only opened it to see that the pages were
in order. That is part of the job. Once it is set and running
every once in a while you pick up a copy to see if it is paging
properly.
    Senator Dirksen. Let me get clear in my mind the
progressive steps. Let's assume you receive top secret document
from the Department of Defense, it is first referred to the
print section and put on a linotype, or whatever it is.
    Mr. Rothschild. I will have to assume some of this myself,
Senator. It is printed in the press room and then it goes to
the bindery. The bindery is the only part of the shop I am
familiar with.
    Senator Dirksen. Then in the bindery you gather all the
pages?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, they are first folded. If it is a side-
stitch book it is gathered. If it is a saddle stitch book, then
it is done like this one [illustrating]; then it is trimmed.
    Senator Dirksen. The jacket is on it by this time?
    Mr. Ruthschild. The jacket number has gone along all the
time and the instruction slip.
    Senator Dirksen. The jacket is put on in the bindery also?
    Mr. Rothschild. The jacket is there already.
    Senator Dirksen. The jacket I am speaking of is the cover.
    Mr. Rothschild. Our word jacket means the instructions. The
cover is put on and is gathered all in the same process, or
stitched.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, it is ready to go on the truck and is
in piles of one thousand or five thousand. What prevents
anybody from taking a copy?
    Mr. Rothschild. Because from the time it comes in the
bindery until the time it is delivered, at least as far as the
platform is concerned, someone stands with it.
    Senator Dirksen. Has it ever been your job to stay with it?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir. I have never had that job,
    Senator Dirksen. Now, what happens to any overrun?
    Mr. Rothschild. They are burned.
    Senator Dirksen. What check is made on the total number
that comes off the presses and what go back to the bindery? If
I, for example, were gathering secret job and the order called
for 1,000, and I made 1,010, and the person bundling up and
boxing them would want exactly 1,000, what happened to the 10?
    Mr. Rothschild. The ten would go back to the vault and held
there.
    Senator Dirksen. Who are the monitors that watch and keep
these under surveillance?
    Mr. Rothschild. Each section and each shift have their men.
They are not monitors but security men screened by the FBI.
They have a key to this bricked-in, iron-doored vault.
    Senator Dirksen. Are they always there?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, there is more than one. In case one is
absent due to sickness or leave or there is more than one job
running at the same time in various sections of this floor,
since there are more than one assigned to watch each particular
operation or each particular machine. I hope I made that clear.
    Senator Dirksen. If there is an overrun and unless there is
a monitor there constantly watching, copies could disappear.
    Mr. Rothschild. Not unless the man himself, as I understand
or I can see, unless the man doing that particular operation
knew that there was someone over him which he could find out
easy enough from the man before him who handled it. If he knew
that then he might be able to take one. What he would do with
it, I don't know. Slip it under his shirt or just what.
    The Chairman. Up until today you have been doing the
gathering of classified material?
    Mr. Rothschild. Yes, of all material, Senator.
    The Chairman. And that would include some of the top
secret, and secret?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, I didn't say that. Since my hearing,
the office felt it would be a safeguard not only to them but
the men themselves.
    The Chairman. Up until today what kind of classified
material do you gather?
    Mr. Rothschild. Work that can be purchased at the
Superintendent of Dockets or restricted matter. Confidential
and secret work is something I haven't touched since that
hearing, since the office felt it would be much better if I
didn't touch it.
    The Chairman. Then you have not gathered secret, top secret
or confidential material since your hearing in 1948? It is your
testimony that you have not handled any material classified as
top secret or confidential?
    Mr. Rothschild. I just remembered something. I want to
qualify that. One night on a machine I usually worked on, a job
came in that that machine handled, under secret. My foreman
came over and told me to take it. I shook my head and said,
``No.'' He looked at me and said, ``What the hell is the
matter?'' I told him I couldn't touch secret. He said, ``That
is right. I forgot for a moment.'' Later he comes back and
said, ``Go ahead.'' It just happened that all the men qualified
to run that machine were off except myself.
    The Chairman. This man who stays with top secret and secret
material is an employee of GPO?
    Mr. Rothschild. Yes, the men are usually bookbinders. The
women are binder girls.
    The Chairman. In other words, Atomic Energy Commission
work, they do not send a man along to guard it?
    Mr. Rothschild. He is an employee like myself, the same
status.
    The Chairman. Fellow workers?
    Mr. Rothschild. Yes.
    The Chairman. And a number of your good friends handle top
secret material?
    Mr. Rothschild. I think everybody in the shop is my friend,
and everybody handles it.
    Senator Dirksen. You have met them socially?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir. Strangely enough, outside of one
or two, I haven't gone out with the fellows I work with. When I
was single, I went out with a few. Since I have been married, I
have found no occasion. One of the men I am fairly friendly
with and both my wife and I have gone to their home. They had a
youngster recently and we were interested in him. Even those
visits are few and far between.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this. Assume that I were in
your office in your job. Assume that I were a Communist
espionage agent, would you say I would have much difficulty
obtaining top secret, and secret material that my other friends
were binding and taking care of?
    Mr. Rothschild. Yes, I think you would. I won't say whether
you would be unable to do it, Senator. I don't know how clever
you would be. I seriously doubt if you were working beside that
you wouldn't get it.
    The Chairman. How about shipping copy? I understand
sometimes there are one thousand or two thousand there in a
pile.
    Mr. Rothschild. They are not there very long. They are
never by themselves.
    The Chairman. One of your friends, one of your co-workers
guard them?
    Mr. Rothschild. If that man wanted to go to the washroom or
wanted to go get a smoke, or wanted to leave the job for any
reason, the security man, he would call over to the foreman or
supervisor and ask him to keep an eye on it.
    The Chairman. Now, have you ever belonged to the Communist
party?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir. I haven't.
    The Chairman. Were you ever solicited to join the Communist
party?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you ever solicited anyone to join the
party?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever solicit Jim Phillips to join the
Communist party?
    Mr. Rothschild. By Jim Phillips--I know James. I know a
James Phillips.
    The Chairman. Did you ever solicit James Phillips to join
the Communist party?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, I never solicited him.
    The Chairman. You never talked to him about joining the
party?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you know Fred Sillers?
    Mr. Rothschild. I have to say ``yes,'' because I had two
FBI men at the house. I was asked by them if the name was
familiar.
    The Chairman. Were you ever brought up before a
disciplinary board of the Communist party?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, because I didn't belong to the
Communist party.
    The Chairman. Were you ever accused by a Communist group of
``white chauvinism'' and asked to appear?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, because I didn't belong to the
Communist party.
    The Chairman. Did your wife belong to the Communist party?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir, she hasn't.
    The Chairman. Are you sure of that?
    Mr. Rothschild. As sure as any man can be of his wife.
    The Chairman. Did she ever attend Communist party meetings?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you know that your wife never attended
Communist party meetings?
    Mr. Rothschild. To the best of my knowledge and as sure as
a man can be of his wife, I say ``no.''
    The Chairman. Do you know Charles Gift?
    Mr. Rothschild. Only because two FBI agents asked me that
question. I don't know him. I heard the name.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether Communist party meetings
were ever held in your home?
    Mr. Rothschild. I know they weren't.
    The Chairman. Did you ever hear of the Civil Liberties Club
of the Communist party?
    Mr. Rothschild. Prior to the hearing held at the printing
office, no, sir. Then I heard of it because of the hearing.
    The Chairman. Did you live on Dix Street?
    Mr. Rothschild. Yes.
    The Chairman. What was the address over there?
    Mr. Rothschild. 3430.
    The Chairman. Do you recognize the Civil Liberties Club as
a Communist party club?
    Mr. Rothschild. Only because my hearing at the printing
office mentioned it. Other than that I don't recall ever
hearing it.
    The Chairman. Do you have any kind of criminal record?
    Mr. Rothschild. Yes, I have.
    The Chairman. Would you care to tell us what that was?
    Mr. Rothschild. I would like to very much.
    The Chairman. First, do I understand that it is your
unqualified statement under oath that you never belonged to the
Communist party; your wife never belonged; you never attended
any Communist party meetings?
    Mr. Rothschild. That is right.
    The Chairman. And that you were never solicited to join the
party and never solicited anyone else to join?
    Mr. Rothschild. Yes.
    The Chairman. All right.
    Mr. Rothschild. I was arrested on Christmas Eve of 1934. I
was picked up for drinking and a pistol was found on me. I was
given six months probation. Then again I was arrested for
disorderly conduct and fined $25.
    Now, I have not been arrested since.
    The Chairman. What was the disorderly conduct?
    Mr. Rothschild. I was coming off my shift around midnight
and some woman thumbed a ride going up 14th Street. I picked
the person up and hadn't gone but a few feet when a police car
stopped me and charged me with disorderly conduct.
    The Chairman. It was a lady you picked up?
    Mr. Rothschild. I don't know if she was a lady.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been arrested for anything
else?
    Mr. Rothschild. Arrested or convicted?
    The Chairman. Either arrested or convicted?
    Mr. Rothschild. In 1946, Halloween, some kids were raising
a lot of Cain. The children had been around for trick or treat.
This was now 10:00 or after. I was on my way to work and as I
stepped out of the door, two apparent children and one, I
thought, grown-up crossed the lawn. I saw them stop at one
house two or three doors down. I called them to get off the
lawn. The two youngsters got off but the one in dungarees and
T-shirt with a sack over her head--I later found out she was
5,8" youngster--called out something either derogatory or
making something out of it. I lashed out for her and much to my
surprise and chagrin and sadness found out it was a little
girl. She wasn't so little really, and her glasses were broken.
She ran off in the direction, not in the general direction of
her home.
    The case came to court before Judge Margo. I was charged
with assault. The case came up before Judge Margo and he asked
them if they knew what lying was. They were cute kids. They
both agreed they knew what lying was. The judge then asked them
to relate what happened. They did. Then Judge Margo wanted to
know when they went from door to door and asked for trick or
treat, what happened if they don't treat. The kid answered,
``We kick the screen door in.'' Judge Margo didn't particularly
appreciate that and he claimed that a man had a right to
protect his property.
    I was then arrested again in 1951. I was building a flower
bed and on my way to work somewhere between my home and work,
on my way to work, they were building a brick building and I
picked up some of them. The case was dismissed.
    Those are my only arrests other than traffic turns.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Rothschild, you told us you have never been a
member of the Communist party. Have you ever read the Daily
Worker?
    Mr. Rothschild. Yes, sir, I have.
    Mr. Cohn. How long have you been reading the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Rothschild. I can't tell you exactly, two or three
occasions. I would like to elaborate on that.
    The Chairman. Do you have it delivered to you regularly?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you ever a regular subscriber?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir.
    The Chairman. And the occasion when you read it you
purchased it on the newsstand?
    Mr. Rothschild. On two or three occasions. Once it was part
of my work to help bind that among other labor papers.
    The Chairman. Is it your conception that the Daily Worker
is a labor paper?
    Mr. Rothschild. I said labor papers--Labor Department.
    The Chairman. For what purpose did you bind that?
    Mr. Rothschild. The Labor Department.
    Mr. Cohn. I don't think you understand. Give us the details
under----
    Mr. Rothschild. The Labor Department sent in a group of
papers that they classified as labor papers. That was back in
the '30s. They were bound in large volumes, dark buckram with
red buckram on it. It was my job to letter them across the
back, give titles and dates. I saw the word Daily Worker.
    Mr. Cohn. On how many occasions have you bought the Daily
Worker?
    Mr. Rothschild. I had heard of the Daily Worker. I stopped
at a newsstand, I believe it was 7th Street and New Jersey
Avenue where I transfer, and bought a copy on one or two
occasions and read it.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you in sympathy with any of their ideas?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir. I was not in sympathy with any
Communist ideas.
    The Chairman. Do you know Fred Sillers? I believe you said
that you heard the name from two FBI agents. Had you known him
before that?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend a meeting of a Navy Yard
group of Communist party members?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir. I never met any Navy Yard workers
except one former neighbor of mine.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend meetings with James
Phillips and Fred Sillers?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir. I don't know James Phillips except
at my work and the fact that he lives past me. I have seen him
in the grocery store.
    The Chairman. It is your positive testimony that you did
not attend a meeting in 1939 with James Phillips or Fred
Sillers?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Is that correct?
    Mr. Rothschild. That is correct.
    The Chairman. Do you recall a meeting at which time you and
Fred Sillers asked Phillips to join the party?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir. I don't recall such a meeting.
    The Chairman. Do you know of any Communists in the
Government Printing Office?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, I don't.
    The Chairman. Did you ever hear that there was being a
group of Communists formed in the Government Printing Office?
    Mr. Rothschild. I didn't hear that, Senator.
    The Chairman. Did you ever hear that there was a Communist
group being formed in the Government Printing Office?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, I didn't.
    The Chairman. Did you ever know a Frederick Miller?
    Mr. Rothschild. Frederick Miller? No, I don't recall a
Frederick Miller in the printing office or anywhere else.
    The Chairman. You say as far as Frederick Sillers, you
never heard of him until the FBI. Did you meet him at that
time?
    Mr. Rothschild. They came to the house two, three, or four
months ago.
    The Chairman. Did you ever meet Frederick Sillers?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir, not knowingly.
    The Chairman. Some of these questions may seem like surplus
since you say you never attended a meeting but I will have to
ask them of you.
    Did you ever know a man in the Communist party by the name
of ``Fred''?
    Mr. Rothschild. Since I never was a member of the Communist
party I didn't know anybody by that name.
    The Chairman. Did you ever know a John Anderson?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir, I didn't.
    The Chairman. Did you and your wife ever visit the home of
John Anderson?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever know Gertrude Evans?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, I didn't.
    The Chairman. Elizabeth Searle?
    Mr. Rothschild. No.
    The Chairman. Martin Chauncey?
    Mr. Rothschild. I never knew him but I heard the name when
I was questioned at my hearing. That is about the only time
except when the FBI agent asked me that question.
    The Chairman. If you met him today, as far as you know you
wouldn't remember him?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir, I wouldn't.
    The Chairman. Jack Zucker?
    Mr. Rothschild. I never met a Jack Zucker, either, sir.
    The Chairman. Does counsel have a copy of Mr. Rothschild's
loyalty board hearing?
    Mr. Frosh. Yes.
    The Chairman. Would you have any objection to making it
available to the committee?
    Mr. Frosh. It is the only copy Mr. Rothschild has. We have
no objection to the committee making a copy.
    The Chairman. Would you have Mr. Rothschild step out and
Mrs. Rothschild come in.
    Mr. Frosh. If the committee pleases, at this point I want
to submit a statement prepared for Mr. Rothschild either now or
after Mrs. Rothschild has appeared.
    The Chairman. I may say, Mr. Frosh, if you want a day or
two to prepare that, there is no rush as far as the committee
is concerned.
    I may say further, Mr. Frosh, we won't accept statements by
other witnesses unless they appear here under oath.
             TESTIMONY OF ESTHER BRAININ ROTHSCHILD
    The Chairman. Mrs. Rothschild, in the matter now in
hearing, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mrs. Rothschild. I do.
    The Chairman. You are the wife of Edward Rothschild. Is
that correct?
    Mrs. Rothschild. Yes.
    The Chairman. You never appeared before the loyalty board,
did you?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No, I have not.
    Senator Dirksen. You do not work for the government?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No, I did not.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been a member of the Communist
party?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No, I haven't.
    The Chairman. Have you ever attended any Communist party
meetings?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No, I haven't.
    The Chairman. Were you ever the secretary or any other
officer of the Civil Liberties Club of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No, I am not. I haven't been.
    The Chairman. Were you ever a member of any other
organization that was, to your knowledge, directly or
indirectly affiliated with the Communist party?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No, not that I know of.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend a meeting over the
Superior Print Shop?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No.
    The Chairman. Do you know where the Superior Print Shop is?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No, I don't.
    The Chairman. Just to fresh your recollections, I
understand it is in the 600 block of Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
    Mrs. Rothschild. Of course, I have been by that plenty of
times.
    The Chairman. But you never attended a meeting up over that
print shop?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend a meeting at the home of
Joe Anderson--John Anderson?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No.
    The Chairman. Were you ever in his home?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No.
    The Chairman. Do you know John Anderson?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No, I don't.
    The Chairman. Was there ever a meeting of the Communist
party or any organization to your knowledge affiliated with the
Communist party held in your home?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever live on Dix Street?
    Mrs. Rothschild. Yes.
    The Chairman. Did you know Gertrude Evans.
    Mrs. Rothschild. No.
    The Chairman. Your answer is ``no''?
    Mrs. Rothschild. That is right.
    The Chairman. Did you know Miss Markward?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No.
    The Chairman. One other question, do you know Elizabeth
Searle?
    Mrs. Rothschild. [Shakes head negatively.]
    The Chairman. Mrs. Markward, I wonder if I could ask you to
come up here.
    [Mrs. Markward comes forward.]
    Would you look at this young lady? Do you recognize her?
    Mrs. Rothschild. Are you asking me?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mrs. Rothschild. No, I don't.
    The Chairman. You never met her?
    Mrs. Rothschild. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Mrs. Markward, is this the lady you knew as
Esther Rothschild?
    Mrs. Markward. During the party I was using my maiden name,
Mary Stalcup. When I joined the party, the Communist party, and
for party purposes, that was the name I was using.
    The Chairman [to Mrs. Rothschild]. Did you ever know this
lady as Mary Stalcup?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No.
    The Chairman. Mrs. Markward, how well do you know this
lady?
    Mrs. Markward. I saw her at least a dozen times.
    The Chairman. And you can see no reason why she wouldn't
remember you?
    Mrs. Markward. I attended meetings in her home. One
meeting--the original type of meeting had to do with the
workings of the Civil Liberties Club of which she was
secretary.
    The Chairman. She was secretary of that club?
    Mrs. Markward. Yes.
    The Chairman. You attended a meeting with her also over the
Superior Paint Shop in the 600 block of Massachusetts Avenue--
--
    Mrs. Markward. Yes.
    The Chairman. And you knew her rather well as a Communist
party worker?
    Mrs. Markward. That is correct.
    The Chairman. There is no doubt in your mind that this lady
is the lady known to you as Esther Rothschild, a member of the
Communist party?
    Mrs. Markward. There is no doubt.
    Senator Dirksen. Mrs. Rothschild, do you know an
organization called the Thomas Jefferson Club?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No, I don't.
    Senator Dirksen. Have you any notion as to the Thomas
Jefferson Club which might have been known as a White Collar
Club?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you know anything about the Civil
Liberties Club?
    Mrs. Rothschild. Not to my knowledge.
    Senator Dirksen. You had no identity with an organization
known as the Civil Rights Club in 1946?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No.
    Senator Dirksen. And you know nothing about the so-called
Thomas Jefferson Club nor had any identity with it in October
1945 or in that period?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No, I haven't.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you have anything to do with the Washington
Bookshop? \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \54\ The Washington Bookshop Association offered cultural programs
and lectures on radical issues and sold books at a discount, it also
issued membership cards and maintained a mailing list of members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mrs. Rothschild. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever heard of it?
    Mrs. Rothschild. Only in the hearing my husband had.
    Mr. Cohn. How about the American Peace Mobilization?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No, I don't recall anything like that.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever read the Daily Worker?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No, we take the Post.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever brought up on any charges before
anybody in the Communist party?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You were not?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You never attended Communist party meetings?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend meetings or have meetings at
your home on Dix Street?
    Mrs. Rothschild. Well, I belong to the P.T.A.
    Mr. Cohn. Outside of the P.T.A.?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No. I can't recall any.
    The Chairman. May I make a suggestion to your counsel that
he take some time and advise with his client for her benefit.
We have a number of witnesses that Mr. and Mrs. Rothschild were
in the Communist party. We have one witness who joined the
party at the request of the FBI, used by the bureau, reported
to the bureau at the time of the meetings. Those reports are in
existence putting Mrs. Rothschild in the party. Forgetting
about the sworn testimony, as you know it is no crime to be a
member of the Communist party unless you are aware of the fact
that it is dedicated to the overthrow of this government by
force and violence. If you want to discuss it with her.
    I might say, Mrs. Rothschild, your attorney can't advise
you unless you tell him the absolute truth. We have no interest
in seeing anyone prosecuted for perjury. I suggest you discuss
this and he may want to advise you on this. If you care to. If
you don't care to, it is okay.
    Mr. Frosh. You may proceed. We will stand on the record.
    The Chairman. That is sufficient.
    Senator Dirksen. Mrs. Rothschild, you said you belonged to
the P.T.A.
    Mrs. Rothschild. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. And do you belong to any other
organizations besides the P.T.A.?
    Mrs. Rothschild. I belong to the Hadassah. It is a Jewish
sisterhood connected with the congregation.
    Oh yes, I was an Air Raid Warden in World War II; the
Hadassah, and of course, the P.T.A. has a number of
organizations connected with it that I was active in, like the
Eastern Suburban Study Group, the Child Study Groups. I worked
in the cafeteria there in the school. I was a room mother in
the school--my little boy's room--and I think I went as a
delegate one time from the P.T.A. to the Washington Convention.
    Senator Dirksen. Have you ever heard, either through
newspapers or radio of an institution known as the Washington
Bookshop?
    Mrs. Rothschild. Well, I said I have read of it in my
husband's hearing.
    Senator Dirksen. It gained a lot of publicity a good many
years ago known as the Washington Bookshop, and I am quite sure
at that time it was located on lower Connecticut Avenue. Had
you ever heard of that?
    Mrs. Rothschild. I don't know. I might have heard of it. I
am not too familiar with it.
    Senator Dirksen. It carried that name--the Washington
Bookshop--and was really operated by an organization. Were you
ever a member of that organization that operated the Washington
Bookshop?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No.
    Senator Dirksen. And you say you never heard of the so-
called Thomas Jefferson Club. The Thomas Jefferson Club has
been identified as a White Collar Club affiliated with the
Communist party. As I recall it, it was tagged by the Attorney
General a number of occasions as being either affiliated with
or a front organization of the Communist party.
    You say you never heard of the Thomas Jefferson Club or the
so-called White Collar Club.
    Mrs. Rothschild. I never heard of it unless I read it in
the newspapers and passed over it.
    Senator Dirksen. And you have never heard of an
organization called the Civil Liberties Club?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No.
    Senator Dirksen. Is it your testimony that you never met at
your home at any time?
    Mrs. Rothschild. I am sure.
    Senator Dirksen. And you are sure you have had no official
connection with any such group?
    Mrs. Rothschild. That is right.
         TESTIMONY OF MR. AND MRS. EDWARD M. ROTHSCHILD
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Rothschild, do you have a relative by the
name of Rose Rothschild?
    Mr. Rothschild. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever address envelops as a Communist
party assignment?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever deliver such envelops to Mary
Stalcup at 5th and New York Avenue in the presence of other
people?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever deliver any material?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Anything to Mary Stalcup?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No.
    Senator Dirksen. You are certain, Mrs. Rothschild, that you
never saw the lady that appeared here a moment ago and
introduced herself as Mary Stalcup?
    Mrs. Rothschild. Well, she may have been in the hall. I was
in the hall.
    Senator Dirksen. I mean before today?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No, I haven't.
    Senator Dirksen. You have never seen her before today?
    Mrs. Rothschild. Not to my knowledge. Not that I am aware
of.
    Senator Dirksen. You never addressed any material for the
Communist party?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No.
    Senator Dirksen. You would know if she brought the material
and you addressed it?
    Mrs. Rothschild. Well, sure.
    The Chairman. Mr. Rothschild, did you ever remove any
classified material from the Government Printing Office?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir. No classified material.
    The Chairman. You never took any material out of the
building that was top secret, secret or confidential and
restricted?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you have any material in your home at this
time that is classified?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, I don't.
    The Chairman. Are you sure about that?
    Mr. Rothschild. I am, yes.
    The Chairman. What is your present address?
    Mr. Rothschild. 1805 Belvedere Boulevard, Silver Spring,
Maryland.
    Mr. Cohn. Just two questions. Did you ever work for the
United States government?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No.
    Mr. Cohn. What was the date of your marriage?
    Mrs. Rothschild. 1935, I believe. I can verify that. I have
it on my ring. Yes, I am almost sure.
    Mr. Rothschild. Could I answer that question? July 10,
1935.
    The Chairman. In closing, I understand it is your
testimony, Mr. Rothschild, that you do not personally know
anyone who to your knowledge is or has been a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Rothschild. No, I don't know anyone. If I did I am sure
I would stay clear of them.
    The Chairman. Mrs. Rothschild, it is your testimony you
don't know anyone personally who is or has been a member of the
Communist party?
    Mrs. Rothschild. No, not knowingly I haven't.
    The Chairman. Both of you will consider yourselves still
under subpoena and we will notify your counsel when you are to
return.
    Mr. Rothschild. Senator, I would like to make a request. We
have a little boy at home. We don't like to leave him alone,
and I try to sleep during the days. I work at night.
Fortunately, Monday is as good a day as any. If and when we are
called again, if it is necessary to do a night's work----
    The Chairman. We will try and work it out to your
convenience. If you are called during the day, we will ask your
boss to give you the night off.
    Mr. Rothschild. We will appreciate that.
    Mr. Frosh. Now, Mr. Senator, for the record, at the next
hearing of the committee, we would like the committee to summon
Mr. John Anderson, and Gertrude Evans.
    The Chairman. Give us John Anderson's address?
    Mr. Frosh. That we don't have.
    The Chairman. What do you have in mind Anderson could
testify to?
    Mr. Frosh. I would like to get him to identify Mr. and Mrs.
Rothschild. We would like Mrs. Markward to be returned to the
committee for cross-examination.
    The Chairman. You will not be given any right to cross-
examine her but can submit questions through the chairman.
    Mr. Frosh. We would like Elizabeth Searle summoned. We
would like Frederick Siller summoned. We would like Frederick
Miller summoned. We would like Martin Chauncey summoned.
    The Chairman. May I say I think, Frederick Miller is mis-
statement. That is Fred Siller.
    Mr. Frosh. All right. We would like Martin Chauncey
summoned. We would like Jim Phillips summoned; and Charles Gift
summoned. We would like Jack Zucker summoned. We would also
want summoned a person by the name of Esther Rothschild, whose
name appears in the Washington telephone directory.
    The Chairman. How many Esther Rothschilds are there in the
telephone directory?
    Mr. Frosh. There is one Esther Rothschild listed in the
Washington directory.
    We would like her summoned to have Mrs. Markward identify
this Esther Rothschild as she did the one appearing before the
committee today. We maintain that this is not the Esther
Rothschild who held the office the committee suggested.
    The Chairman. I believe unless you have some reason to
believe this other Esther Rothschild is a member of the
Communist party. We have no reason to believe anything.
    Mr. Frosh. May I ask this? Has the committee ever contacted
this person?
    The Chairman. We have witnesses positively identifying your
client. I think the committee should give you every possible
consideration in subpoenaing witnesses that would be
beneficial, but not just because you know of someone with the
same name. Is the Esther Rothschild listed in the telephone
directory Miss or Mrs?
    Mr. Frosh. There is no indication as to whether she is
married or single.
    Of course, we would assume the committee before it summoned
Mrs. Rothschild to the stand has made an investigation and
determined that she is the one--is the Esther Rothschild.
    Mr. Cohn. That is a correct assumption.
    Mr. Frosh. We assume the committee made a determination
with the same name, whether she had the same appearance and
that Mrs. Markward might be mistaken. For that reason we would
also want someone the same name summoned so Mrs. Markward can
be confronted with her as well.
    The Chairman. Mr. Frosh, it would be unusual to have
another Esther Rothschild with a husband working in the
Government Printing Office.
    Mr. Frosh. It may be that the connection is erroneous. I
think it would be one of those things that the committee staff
could investigate.
    The Chairman. I doubt we would be justified in having an
official investigation of this Esther Rothschild without
probable cause.
    Mr. Rothschild. Is it possible that someone could assume
that; that she looked like her?
    The Chairman. Mr. Rothschild, we have a witness who swears
under oath to have attended Communist meetings in your home,
gives the address of your home, exactly where it was. There is
no reason why an FBI agent back in 1942, 1943, or 1944 would
give an erroneous report to the Bureau of these meetings. It
would be rather odd coincidence that she would have to be a
great enemy to do that, especially in view of the fact she says
she knows none of these people.
    You may step down. We will let you know when you are to
return. Most likely it will be some day this week.
    I assume before public hearings in this, you would like to
have subpoenaed some of the witnesses in executive session. I
have no way of knowing how many we will be able to locate. It
is rather difficult when you are dealing with the Communist
party to locate some individuals after meetings are held but we
will do the best we can. Counsel will let you know which ones
we are able to subpoena.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, we can say definitely as to
Elizabeth Searle, we have developed this afternoon she was last
reported as being in Philadelphia as a functionary of the
Communist party. Rose and John Anderson, according to our
information, have left the United States and they have been
identified as Communist party functionaries. Gertrude Evans, we
have an address and will subpoena promptly.
    Mr. Rothschild. Senator, could I point out something. At
the hearing I had at the printing office my attorney then
brought out the fact that struck me as very important at that
time; that he assumed that I and anyone else would have to
assume to be a member of the Communist party and certainly a
functionary or someone who holds some sort of office, they must
do something other than belong. Now, the lawyer at that time
brought out the type of work I had been doing, the hours that I
have worked, have had, and the desire to get sleep, you
couldn't very well do anything at all, let alone do even a
little bit, and the value to an organization, the Communist
party, would be null and void. I wonder if you had considered
that.
    The Chairman. I may say I don't propose to argue the point
as to whether you are a Communist or not. All we know is that
you have an important job and if you were a Communist you could
do untold damage to this country. Either your wife was a
member, active in the Communist party, or the witness has
perjured herself. We have a clear-cut case either of perjury of
yourself or other witnesses.
    Mr. Rothschild. Naturally the other witnesses wouldn't
admit they are wrong.
    The Chairman. No more than you would admit you were wrong.
    Mr. Rothschild. Sure. I feel and my wife feels the same
way; that we are telling the truth to the best of our
knowledge. I feel there is a possibility of mistaken identity.
    The Chairman. We will develop all the testimony we can. It
would be a rather unusual case for an undercover agent for the
bureau--just so you will understand the committee's position--
--
    If I were an undercover agent for the FBI and submitted
reports periodically; if I showed I went to your home and
attended a Communist party meeting; if I filed a report the
following week saying your wife delivered envelopes she
addressed in behest of the Communist party; if I reported to
the bureau exactly the address at which I attended Communist
party meetings which happened to be your home, unless I was
deliberately trying to frame you, I wouldn't hardly do that. I
might say that there is as strong a case at this point of
perjury as I have seen. It isn't up to me. We have had evidence
to that developed in this committee at this time.
    In view of the great importance of your work, your access
to top secret work of the military and Atomic Energy, and we
have no choice but to run this down to the very end.
    Mr. Rothschild. I might add I requested to the point of
being taken off the floor not to handle that type of work.
    The Chairman. Incidentally, do you handle work for CIA?
    Mr. Rothschild. I am not aware of it if we do. We may but I
am not aware of it.
    I just want to point out this. This thing has been
financially and emotionally quite an expensive proposition to
me. You know my earnings, or can find them out very easily.
That is the only income I have. This is constantly being
brought up. For instance, four years ago that was costly and
this isn't any less costly, to say nothing of what it is doing
to us emotionally. I was hoping that the committee would
consider that.
    Senator Dirksen. We don't enjoy this. We have an unpleasant
job, bringing husband and wife up. We have positive testimony
from a reliable witness in time, place and dates and with this
country at war, we have no choice at all. We have got to do
unpleasant jobs. If you are a member handling that secret
material, you could do untold damage to this country. We have
no choice but to bring in all the witnesses.
    Mr. Rothschild. I fully agree with you if I were such a
person I could be a great danger. No one knows that better than
I.
    You use the word reliable witness. I question the word
``reliable.'' The only witness I have seen is Mr. Phillips. I
mean someone who is stable and lives a normal life, continues
to be married to one person and doesn't do anything that we
consider unstable. I am not sure I consider Phillips a stable
person.
    I have worked with Mr. Phillips some few years since my
return from the navy. That is when I first saw him. I don't
remember exact dates.
    The Chairman. You say you had not seen him any time prior
to going with the navy?
    Mr. Rothschild. After I came back from the navy to the
printing office.
    The Chairman. You say that was the first time you ever saw
Mr. Phillips?
    Mr. Rothschild. I immediately came on nights again when I
got out of the navy.
    The Chairman. You didn't know him from 1938 to 1942?
    Mr. Rothschild. He didn't work in the section I worked in.
    The Chairman. It is your sworn testimony that you didn't
know him until after your return from the navy?
    Mr. Rothschild. I remember him after I came out of the
navy.
    The Chairman. See if you can give me a direct answer.
    Mr. Rothschild. I can't remember dates.
    The Chairman. I want to know--I understand your testimony
to be you had not had any conversation with Mr. Phillips until
after you got out of the navy in 1945?
    Mr. Rothschild. That is the best of my recollection, yes,
sir.
    The Chairman. You didn't know him before that?
    Mr. Rothschild. I don't recall ever meeting him before
that. I am not sure when he came on at the shop.
    Mr. Frosh. May I ask one other thing? You say there are
other reliable witnesses who have stated they attended meetings
at the Rothschild home, knows these people as members of the
Communist party. Is the chairman prepared to disclose the names
of those persons at this time?
    The Chairman. We will give you the name of every witness
called. Where you have a question of an individual holding an
important job is concerned, he has the choice of admitting or
committing perjury. I am not referring to your client but
talking in generalizations. If she or he knew who the witnesses
are and to what they were going to testify, that gives them a
great choice to know when they can safely commit perjury. Every
witness called will be known to you.
    Mr. Frosh. Will they be called in the same executive
session?
    The Chairman. They will be called in executive session.
    Mr. Frosh. And we will be given the opportunity through the
chair to direct questions at them?
    The Chairman. You will be given the opportunity to direct
questions to them.
    Senator Dirksen. May I make one observation for the record.
I am responsive to what Mr. Rothschild said. I can readily
understand this is an unhappy, emotional experience for you and
not a happy experience for us. Let's look at it in this light.
There was a gentleman by the name of Klaus Fuchs, one of the
most inoffensive, self-effacing people I have yet seen who
finally got to England, and it became known through the FBI he
was one of those who would destroy our basic form of government
by giving information on the bomb.
    Now, this committee is also confronted with this kind of
information. Here is confidential material which goes through
the government printing plant. Doubtless, some of it might be
of great value to those who might want to violate or reform or
change this form of government. When a record is made by the
official investigating agency in the executive branch and made
available to this committee, I think you can appreciate the
committee does have a responsibility. It goes to the very
security of the United States. I think you will admit that.
    Without being invidious or making aspersions of any kind,
it is on the basis of the record that has been made that we
have--that we must go through and ascertain the truth as best
we can.
    Mr. Rothschild. I fully appreciate and understand that. You
used the statement there ``wanting to change this form of
government.'' This is the only form of government I am
interested in, want to see perpetuated. I want to make that
clear. To me that is a very important thing in view of what
happened in Germany a few years ago and what is happening now.
    Senator Dirksen. The committee tries to be guarded in its
approach to this thing. You are in the presence of the staff,
two members of the committee who have been pledged to secrecy.
We don't try to impair anybody; we don't try to hurt anybody.
We do have the responsibility of ascertaining the truth as best
we can.
    Mr. Rothschild. I am just bewildered.
    Mr. Cohn. I want to ask you this: About how many occasions
did you purchase the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Rothschild. I would say possibly two or three.
    Mr. Cohn. For what purpose?
    Mr. Rothschild. Just idle curiosity. I just picked up a
newspaper. The Daily Worker is not a paper you see around. That
has been many years ago. I haven't seen a copy since that time.
    Mr. Cohn. Who was on the loyalty board that heard you?
    Mr. Rothschild. At the printing office?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Rothschild. There was a Mr. Hipsley, Mr. Wright, Mr.
Miller, Mr. McLean and then later at the second hearing there
was added to that Mr. Christopher and the chairman.
    Mr. Cohn. All friends of yours?
    Mr. Rothschild. No sir, I had never known any of them. I
knew Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Cohn. You knew Mr. Wright?
    Mr. Rothschild. Only as chief clerk at the printing office.
    The Chairman. Do you know why they didn't call your wife,
and put her under oath?
    Mr. Rothschild. We asked them, the lawyer and myself, if
they would like to and they said they would think it over.
Apparently, I assume, they felt there was no need.
    The Chairman. You may step down.
              TESTIMONY OF JAMES BENJAMIN PHILLIPS
    The Chairman. Will you stand and be sworn?
    In the matter now in hearing, do you solemnly swear to tell
he truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
    Mr. Phillips. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Could we get your name, please?
    Mr. Phillips. James Benjamin Phillips.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you now employed in the Government Printing
Office?
    Mr. Phillips. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period?
    Mr. Phillips. Fifteen years.
    Mr. Cohn. You have been there fifteen years. Is that right?
    Mr. Phillips. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you recognize Edward Rothschild?
    Mr. Phillips. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Does he work in the Government Printing Office?
    Mr. Phillips. Yes, he did.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know him fairly well?
    Mr. Phillips. I know him fairly well.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you work in the same vicinity?
    Mr. Phillips. I work across the aisle.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended Communist meetings?
    Mr. Phillips. Yes, I have.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Phillips. In 1938 or 1939.
    Mr. Cohn. Was Mr. Edward Rothschild there?
    Mr. Phillips. Yes, he was.
    Mr. Cohn. Where was this meeting held?
    Mr. Phillips. At Mr. Charles Gift's house, 1229 Queens
Street, N.E.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you were there and Mr. Rothschild was
present. Is that right?
    Mr. Phillips. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Was there any discussion about forming a new
party group consisting of Government Printing Office employees?
    Mr. Phillips. That was the objective of the meeting.
    Mr. Cohn. And it was discussed at that meeting?
    Mr. Phillips. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did there come a time after this meeting when Mr.
Rothschild knew whether or not you would like to join such a
group?
    Mr. Phillips. One Sunday morning, as far as I can recall, I
was in front of my mother's house on C Street, S.E. and Mr.
Rothschild and this man named ``Fred'' approached me and said
they would like to talk to me. I said, ``I don't want to talk
here.''
    I said, ``Walk down the street.'' So we went down the
street to the corner of 1st and C and they said, ``We want to
know what you are going to do. Are you with us or against us.
You know too much and we have our families and our jobs to
protect.''
    Mr. Cohn. What was your reply?
    Mr. Phillips. I told them I would like to think it over.
They said, ``How long?'' I said, ``Give me two months. I will
let you know.''
    Mr. Cohn. Did you talk to them later?
    Mr. Phillips. They never mentioned it to me again. After
apparently I was unresponsive, they never brought it up again.
    Mr. Cohn. Did there come a time when Mr. Rothschild was
away from the Government Printing Office for awhile?
    Mr. Phillips. I only know what I hear. He was in service
and I was in service.
    Mr. Cohn. After you both came back, did you have occasion
to see him again?
    Mr. Phillips. He worked practically next to me for quite a
few years.
    Mr. Cohn. If he says he never saw you or talked to you
before 1945, would that be truthful?
    Mr. Phillips. No, sir, it would not.
    Senator Dirksen. What is the nature of your work?
    Mr. Phillips. Machine operator, grade A.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you work in the same room with Mr.
Rothschild?
    Mr. Phillips. I work behind the column.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you go to the same washroom and have
conversations? Do you visit back and forth?
    Mr. Phillips. Well, we have occasion to go to the washroom.
    Senator Dirksen. What do you do on your lunch hour? Do you
visit?
    Mr. Phillips. No, I did not.
    Senator Dirksen. Going back to the meeting at the home of
Mr. Gift, were you invited to that meeting?
    Mr. Phillips. Well, I was keeping company with Mr. Gift's
daughter. Every time I would go in he would get me to read the
Daily Worker.
    Senator Dirksen. You are speaking of Mr. Gift?
    Mr. Phillips. Yes, sir. This time he said that he would
like for me to stay; that there was going to be a meeting
concerning the printing office.
    Senator Dirksen. This was the night of the meeting referred
to?
    Mr. Phillips. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. How many were at this meeting?
    Mr. Phillips. Well, they had a room full.
    Senator Dirksen. A dozen or fifteen perhaps?
    Mr. Phillips. Probably more than that. I would say more
than that.
    Senator Dirksen. All from the Government Printing Office?
    Mr. Phillips. No, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Mixed company?
    Mr. Phillips. Yes, sir. As I recall it was.
    Senator Dirksen. Was Mr. Rothschild there?
    Mr. Phillips. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Was Mrs. Rothschild there?
    Mr. Phillips. I don't recall seeing her before I saw her in
the grocery store several months ago. That is the first time I
had seen her.
    Senator Dirksen. How long did that meeting last?
    Mr. Phillips. I don't recall, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. An hour or two?
    Mr. Phillips. Probably, yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Was there a formal opening? When the
meeting opened did Mr. Gift make an announcement and say why?
    Mr. Phillips. I don't remember anyone making an
announcement. It has been quite a while since then.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you remember generally the discussion
that went on in the course of the evening?
    Mr. Phillips. Well, as far as I can remember there was a
discussion about forming a Government Printing Office unit of
the Communist party, and I believe there was a reference to
further meetings and election of officers. Whether they were
elected at that meeting, I don't remember. I know there was
some reference to the election of officers.
    Senator Dirksen. Were there people there who identified
themselves as being members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Phillips. Other than Charles Gift. I imagine they were
all there for that purpose.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you know whether Mr. Gift actually was
a card-carrying member?
    Mr. Phillips. As far as I know his wife was and his family
always referred to it and said that he gave more money to the
party than to his family.
    Senator Dirksen. One could fairly assume from his
interests, expressions, from the things he read and cracks he
made that either he was a card-carrying member or deeply in
sympathy with the Communist party?
    Mr. Phillips. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. What does Mr. Gift do?
    Mr. Phillips. I don't know what he does now.
    Senator Dirksen. Does he work for the Government Printing
Office?
    Mr. Phillips. He was a machinist at the Navy Yard.
    Senator Dirksen. Was this before you went into service?
    Mr. Phillips. Yes, it was.
    Senator Dirksen. This was before Mr. Rothschild went into
naval service?
    Mr. Phillips. It was. I had only been at the printing
office approximately a year.
    Senator Dirksen. Insofar as you know, Mr. Rothschild knew
Mr. Gift before that time.
    Mr. Phillips. I wouldn't say. It would only be an
assumption.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you at any time notify the bureau of
all these things?
    Mr. Phillips. The FBI you mean? Yes, sir. They have
approached me several times over the last ten years.
    Senator Dirksen. About how soon after this meeting did you
indicate the nature of the meeting, who was there?
    Mr. Phillips. It has been since I came from the service,
sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Would you recognize the names of others at
the meeting that night?
    Mr. Phillips. I don't know their first name. I remember
Frisby, Borrass. This fellow ``Fred'' was there.
    Senator Dirksen. Would that be Fred Sillers?
    Mr. Phillips. I couldn't tell. I didn't know his last name.
I had never seen his last name.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think you would be able to recognize if
you saw him?
    Mr. Phillips. The bureau was supposed to get me a picture.
    Mr. Cohn. We have got him coming in and you will get a
chance to look him over.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, after this conversation on the street
with Mr. Rothschild about joining the party and you indicated
that you wanted to think it over a couple of months, did he
ever talk to you again about it?
    Mr. Phillips. No, sir, he never mentioned it.
    Senator Dirksen. It was dropped then and there? You were
associated in work after that but he never mentioned it?
    Mr. Phillips. I had never seen him at the printing office
that time. It was the time after I went on night work and I
happened to see Mr. Rothschild at that time. At that time I
believe he was working in the record room. Since then he has
been working in pamphlet bindery and I see him every night.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you know him after he got into the
navy? Did you encounter him while in service?
    Mr. Phillips. No, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Were you in the navy?
    Mr. Phillips. No, sir. Air force.
    Senator Dirksen. During that period of service you did not
see him?
    Mr. Phillips. No, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. When you got back to the printing office
after your tour of military and naval service, did he ever
bring up the subject?
    Mr. Phillips. No, sir. He never mentioned it. He never
indicated anything about it.
    Senator Dirksen. Have you seen Mrs. Rothschild before
today?
    Mr. Phillips. I saw her one time several months ago at the
grocery store. I believe he introduced her to me.
    Senator Dirksen. You did not discuss matters before this
committee?
    Mr. Phillips. No, sir, I did not. Not since the two men
threatened me.
    Senator Dirksen. What is your rating at the printing
office?
    Mr. Phillips. Laborer, grade 4, machine operator.
    The Chairman. Do I understand that you knew Rothschild
before he went into the navy?
    Mr. Phillips. Yes, sir. On two occasions I had seen him in
the printing office.
    The Chairman. Were you working in the same room before you
went in the navy?
    Mr. Phillips. Not right in the same room. I was working in
a room across from where he worked.
    The Chairman. Did you know him fairly well?
    Mr. Phillips. Well, yes.
    The Chairman. Have you reason to believe that there is an
active Communist unit in the Government Printing Office?
    Mr. Phillips. Well, I wouldn't know.
    The Chairman. Is there evidence that might reasonably lead
you to that assumption?
    Mr. Phillips. That I wouldn't say. After this incident
where Mr. Rothschild and this ``Fred'' came to see me, I
noticed that they distributed ``GPO Worker'' on the street in
front of the office.
    The Chairman. ``GPO Worker''?
    Mr. Phillips. Yes, it is a red mimeographed sheet.
    The Chairman. Is it the official house organ of the
Government Printing Office?
    Mr. Phillips. That I don't know. I just saw them
distributing it. Just a handbill.
    The Chairman. Is it sponsored by the organization over
there?
    Mr. Phillips. I wouldn't know. I took it, being a ``GPO
Worker,'' it was.
    The Chairman. Do you know what its contents were?
    Mr. Phillips. No, sir, I don't recall.
    The Chairman. You wouldn't know where a copy might be
obtained.
    Mr. Phillips. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, could we have Mr. Phillips come
back tomorrow morning?
    The Chairman. Could you come in and see if you recognize
``Fred''? Are you on day shift or night shift?
    [Discussion off the record.]
    The Chairman. How about material stamped secret and
confidential? That is printed over there at GPO for the
military, the Atomic Energy Commission and CIA. Would it be
easy for anyone in this shop to stick it in their coat and take
it along with them.
    Mr. Phillips. The work is locked up in a vault. It comes
from the press room to the bindery. It is processed through the
bindery, and confidential employees go along to watch it and
guard it. They really don't have enough people to do the job of
guarding it.
    The Chairman. Let's say you wanted to get some of these
confidential documents, copies of them, would you have much
difficulty doing that, do you think?
    In other words, let's assume that I am a member of the
Communist party. I am trusted by my fellow workers and I have
the job assigned to me by the party of finding out what is in
some secret and top-secret documents. I wonder how much
difficulty I would have taking a look at them or sticking one
in my coat.
    Mr. Phillips. I think it could be done fairly easy.
    The Chairman. I don't suppose in your type of work you
would know the volume of secret, top-secret and confidential
material?
    Mr. Phillips. No, sir. I have handled some secret work on
my machine. Secret navy, secret Civil Service Commission.
    The Chairman. How about Atomic Energy?
    Mr. Phillips. I have never handled it, no, sir. Not that I
know of.
    The Chairman. You do a lot of printing for the State
Department information program?
    Mr. Phillips. We run the State Department bulletin. Outside
of that, we don't run much work. I think they have their own
shop.
    The Chairman. There is no doubt in your mind that the
Rothschild in the hall is the same Rothschild whom you saw at a
Communist meeting and later asked you whether you would join
the party?
    Mr. Phillips. No, sir. There isn't.
    The Chairman. Do you have any hard feelings towards
Rothschild or any reason to misrepresent the facts?
    Mr. Phillips. No, sir. I don't.
    The Chairman. You have had no fights or anything like that?
    Mr. Phillips. No, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. You do believe, however, as a good
citizen, if top-secret work were being published and somebody
was a member of the Communist party and sought to purloin it
and hand it over to the enemy, it is the patriotic duty on the
part of everybody to let the government know?
    Mr. Phillips. Yes, sir. I do. We had a colored lady working
on a machine, Bertha Lomack, and hearsay is she has just been
represented as being a ``Joiner'' and seemed to be hard to get
along with. They went out for timeout one morning and when we
came back she had restricted material. It was Navy Intelligence
Quarterly, and happened to be about Russia, had pictures of
Russia. She laid it on the table over at the end of the
machine. A little later she placed her pocketbook over it. I
called to the assistant foreman. Eventually she put it in her
pocket. The assistant foreman told me to watch. I watched her
and he went for the superintendent and when she walked out she
still had it in her pocket. They took her into the office and
asked her if she had something restricted. She said she didn't
know it was restricted and pulled it out and showed it to him.
She got it that time. It is a matter of record what happened.
She said she was interested in what was going on everywhere
else, about Russia and again hearsay has it she had visited
Russia. Of course, she had hearings, but in the meantime she
was still working there. I understand one of the girls still
pays her insurance there. In the same three months the FBI came
in and wanted to know why they hadn't been notified about it.
    Senator Dirksen. Is she still there?
    Mr. Phillips. No sir, she isn't. That is an incident, if I
hadn't been there and noticed it.
    Senator Dirksen. It can be done, can't it?
    Mr. Phillips. Yes, sir it can.
    Mr. Cohn. When was this?
    Mr. Phillips. I would say it was four years ago.
    Mr. Cohn. What was the name of the assistant foreman?
    Mr. Phillips. Edward Walsh.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4:30 p.m.]
                  SECURITY--GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    [Editor's note.--Frederick Sillers (1900-1988), testified
in public on August 17, 1953, at which time he repeatedly
declined to answer questions and cited the Fifth Amendment. The
chairmen then ordered that portions of his executive session
testimony be included in the printed hearing.
    Gertrude Evans (1883-1966) testified in public on August
18. Charles Gift (1893-1980), a former machinist at the Naval
Gun Factory, testified in public on August 20, 1953.]
                              ----------
                        TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 10:30 a.m. in room 357, Senate
Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Everett M. Dirksen, Republican, Illinois.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M.
Cohn, chief counsel; Richard O'Melia, general counsel,
Committee on Government Operations; Karl Barslag, research
director; Herbert S. Hawkins, investigator; Ruth Young Watt,
chief clerk.
  TESTIMONY OF FREDERICK SILLERS (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL,
                          DAVID REIN)
    The Chairman. Mr. Sillers, will you raise your right hand?
    In the matter now in hearing before this committee, do you
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. What is your full name?
    Mr. Sillers. Frederick Sillers, Jr.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Sillers. Rolla, Missouri.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been employed by the United States
government?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever work in the Government Printing
Office?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. During what period of time?
    Mr. Sillers. From 1939 to 1943, I think that was, if I
remember correctly.
    Mr. Cohn. After 1943, where did you go?
    Mr. Sillers. Bureau of Standards
    Mr. Cohn. How long were you at the Bureau of Standards?
    Mr. Sillers. I think three or four years. I can't remember.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you go from the Bureau of Standards?
    Mr. Sillers. Bureau of Mines.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time were you at the
Bureau of Mines?
    Mr. Sillers. Well, I would say seven years.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you cease your employment at the Bureau
of Mines?
    Mr. Sillers. In February of this year.
    Mr. Cohn. What have you done since that time?
    Mr. Sillers. Practiced my art, a painter.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a chemist with the Bureau of Mines?
    Mr. Sillers. I was a metallurgist.
    Senator Dirksen. What was the work you did at the Bureau of
Mines?
    Mr. Sillers. Well, I was employed as metallurgist.
    Senator Dirksen. Have you ever been schooled in the art of
metallurgy?
    Mr. Sillers. I was schooled in the art of chemistry, but
even while I went to school I practiced metallurgy.
    Senator Dirksen. Are you a chemist?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes. I have a B.S. in Chemistry, George
Washington School. I was with the Bureau of Mines in
Washington, then I transferred to Rolla.
    Senator Dirksen. How long?
    Mr. Sillers. A year and three months, I guess.
    Senator Dirksen. Your employment with the government
terminated in February of this year?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Voluntarily?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. You quit?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. And you are still located at Rolla,
Missouri?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. What are you doing?
    Mr. Sillers. Practicing my art as a painter.
    Senator Dirksen. You paint pictures?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes, portraits and landscapes. Something or
other about those things concerned with painting.
    Senator Dirksen. But you are pursuing that avocation?
    Mr. Sillers. I had hoped to pursue that avocation if things
look as promising at the end of the year as they have in the
beginning. I don't mean necessarily pursue that as a
livelihood. Everybody knows painting doesn't pay. I had thought
perhaps I would go back to metallurgy. I don't know, I may play
around a few years.
    Senator Dirksen. How old are you?
    Mr. Sillers. Fifty-three.
    Senator Dirksen. Married?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Children?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    Mr. Cohn. By the way, are you drawing any money from the
government, pension or anything along those lines?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Sillers, have you ever been a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended any Communist party
meetings?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you asked by anybody to join the Communist
party?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    Mr. Cohn. If somebody tells us you attended Communist party
meetings and asked them to join the Communist party, is that
person lying?
    Mr. Sillers. Absolutely.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man by the name of Charles Gift?
    The Chairman. May I suggest for the witness' own
protection--I think he is entitled to know that a witness has
identified him as a member of the Communist party. May I say
this, we don't take it upon ourselves to advise witnesses when
they have counsel. I might suggest, however, witnesses come in
here a number of times and were guilty of no crime. It is no
crime to be a member of the Communist party unless you know
that it conspires to overthrow this government by force and
violence. Is that correct, Mr. Cohn?
    Mr. Cohn. That is correct.
    The Chairman. I want to advise you very strongly either you
tell the truth or refuse to answer, just for your own
protection in case of perjury. I think counsel is entitled to
know we have these witnesses.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, have you ever been a member of the American
League for Peace and Democracy?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had any connection with that
organization?
    Mr. Sillers. No, I have not.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you ever attend any meetings?
    Mr. Sillers. Not that I know of.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you know what the American League for
Peace and Democracy is?
    Mr. Sillers. I recall the name.
    Senator Dirksen. That it has been identified by the
attorney general?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. But you have not attended any meetings?
    Mr. Sillers. Not that I know of. I can hardly recall the
organization.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a member of the United Public
Workers of America?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. When?
    Mr. Sillers. During my employment with the government until
the time the union was dissolved.
    Mr. Cohn. What year would you fix that?
    Mr. Sillers. I don't know--1939 to 1943, something like
that. I really don't remember the years. I was employed at the
Bureau of Mines. I think about four years.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know the union was under Communist
domination? When did you hear that for the first time?
    Mr. Sillers. Well, it was accused in the newspapers. I
didn't believe it.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you do anything to check the statements you
read in the newspapers?
    Mr. Sillers. Well, I didn't know how to check it.
    The Chairman. Do you know any member of the Communist party
in that organization?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever known a member of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Sillers. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have any connection with the
Washington Bookshop?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes, I was a member.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know it was a Communist front?
    Mr. Sillers. As a matter of fact, it was open to question
about that time.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this. You were a member of
UPW. Do you now remember that as having been Communist
dominated?
    Mr. Sillers. Well, I wouldn't say any more than when it
existed.
    The Chairman. Do you have any thought?
    Mr. Sillers. I don't know. The whole point is on union
organizations, of which I have always been a firm believer.
They have been accused of a number of things.
    The Chairman. I am not talking about accused. Do you have
any reason to believe or doubt that it was Communist dominated?
    Mr. Sillers. No, I don't have any reason to believe it.
    The Chairman. Do you know that it was expelled from the CIO
on the grounds that its activities and policies were directed
toward the achievement of the aims of the Communist party
rather than the constitution of the CIO? Are you aware of that
fact?
    Mr. Sillers. I am aware of the fact the policy decision of
the CIO was to expel the UPW. I don't know, being a believer in
fairness, I wouldn't say the top governing body of the CIO was
a group that was in a position to really know.
    The Chairman. Were you still a member at the time UPW was
expelled?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes, I guess I was. I don't remember when it
was.
    The Chairman. February 16, 1950?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes, I guess so.
    The Chairman. Were you ever an officer of the UPW?
    Mr. Sillers. Well, local.
    The Chairman. What office did you hold?
    Mr. Sillers. Financial secretary of the Interior Branch.
    The Chairman. Would you tell us what the Interior Branch
is?
    Mr. Sillers. Well, the Interior Branch of UPW is composed
of the members that work for the Department of Interior, the
same as another branch.
    The Chairman. Did you continue as financial secretary after
it was expelled by the CIO?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    The Chairman. And you were aware of the fact that it had
been expelled because of Communist activities?
    Mr. Sillers. No. I was aware of the fact that it had been
expelled.
    The Chairman. Weren't you aware of the reason why it was
expelled?
    Mr. Sillers. The supposed reason?
    The Chairman. Not supposed reason; were you aware of the
reason? You were financial secretary of your union which was
expelled. Did you know the reason given for the expulsion?
    Mr. Sillers. The reason given by CIO? Yes, I did.
    The Chairman. And you knew that reason was because of
Communist activities and Communist control of the union?
    Mr. Sillers. Well, that is what was claimed.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Sillers, I assume you know the CIO
convened a special board to provide a hearing for certain
unions that were affiliated with the CIO. You know that, don't
you?
    Mr. Sillers. that is right.
    Senator Dirksen. And that board convened for the purpose of
giving them a hearing to determine whether or not particular
affiliated unions were Communist dominated?
    Mr. Sillers. That is right.
    Senator Dirksen. You knew they had conducted something in
the nature of a trial and announced the charges against them
and gave them opportunity, through respective officers, to
defend themselves?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes, sir. I don't want to appear to banter or
to argue, but I still think that is open to question because,
well, if I remember, that was held in Washington; there was all
kinds of charges and counter-charges, and as a matter of fact--
--
    Senator Dirksen. Was Abraham Fletcher president of the UPW
at that time?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Well, now, he and others were given ample
opportunity to appear and defend their particular union against
the charges made by the CIO.
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you appear at any of those hearings?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    Senator Dirksen. Now then, a report was made and it was
published as a Senate document. I presume you knew that.
    Mr. Sillers. A report of what?
    Senator Dirksen. A report of the board convened to try
these particular unions.
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    Senator Dirksen. You knew, of course, about that kind of
trial?
    Mr. Sillers. I am sorry. I don't quite understand. You say
Senate document?
    Senator Dirksen. I will get back to that in a moment. The
board had to make findings.
    Mr. Sillers. You mean the CIO?
    Senator Dirksen. Yes. The CIO set up this special board.
You remember that?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Of course, charges were made and they were
permitted to defend themselves. Testimony was taken and then a
report was made.
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. I believe that report was published as a
Senate document. The findings of this so-called trial board in
respect to eleven unions published as Senate documents.
    Did you ever read that?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever read the findings of the board
in regard to your union?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Is it your position that the CIO was wrong;
that the UPW was not Communist dominated?
    Mr. Sillers. I said that it was open to question and I
didn't feel and don't feel that the CIO board is a competent
judge. Whatever they decided, that isn't the way to decide
things by naming certain unions.
    The Chairman. You mean you feel the CIO did not have the
right to expel unions which it found were dominated by the
Communist party?
    Mr. Sillers. The CIO, being built on a democratic
foundation has a right to make its own decision. At the same
time, there may be disagreement. I, myself, have no opinion.
    The Chairman. You said you did not think that was the way
to do it. I don't follow what you mean. Do you think they did
not give UPW a fair hearing?
    Mr. Sillers. Well, I don't know that they are competent to
judge.
    The Chairman. Did you think they did not competently judge
UPW at that time?
    Mr. Sillers. I say I don't know.
    The Chairman. Did you feel when they made the finding that
the activities and policies of UPW were consistently directed
towards the achievement of the purposes of the Communist party
rather than the policies set forth in the constitution of the
CIO--do you think that was a correct finding?
    Mr. Sillers. Not to my knowledge. I don't think it was
correct.
    The Chairman. How long did you continue as an officer of
UPW after the CIO expelled it?
    Mr. Sillers. Oh, maybe a year. May of 1952.
    Senator Dirksen. Are you still a member of UPW?
    Mr. Sillers. No, sir. UPW is not in existence.
    Mr. Cohn. UPW was merged with some other unions. Is that
right?
    Mr. Sillers. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. It didn't just go out of existence. A new union
was formed consisting of membership of the UPW and certain
other unions. Is that correct?
    Mr. Sillers. I don't know about that.
    Mr. Cohn. Don't you know for a fact that UPW consolidated
with the, I think, Food Brokers and Agriculture Workers, making
up a new union, Distributing and Processing Workers of
American. Don't you know that?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you belong to any union after UPW resolved?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You stayed with the UPW until the end and did not
join any other union?
    Mr. Sillers. Well, the UPW, I don't know when it went out
of existence. I know--That is all right.
    Mr. Cohn. The fact is you stayed with it until it
dissolved?
    The Chairman. What was the occasion of your relinquishing
your post as financial secretary or having lost that post?
    Mr. Sillers. Well, I was transferred by the Bureau of Mines
and there were no people, to my knowledge, interested in UPW in
Rolla, Missouri. I asked to relinquish that post. That was, I
closed the bank account and that was the end of it.
    The Chairman. You stayed on as an officer of UPW until you
left Washington, were transferred to Missouri. Is that correct?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes, but I would like to differentiate between
an officer elected in a branch, whether Interior or
Agriculture. The one willing to do the work got it and I got
it.
    Senator Dirksen. What did you do with the funds?
    Mr. Sillers. I closed them out and gave them to local--name
of the Washington local for the city as a whole.
    Senator Dirksen. You were just financial secretary for the
Interior Branch and the funds went back to the parent union.
    Mr. Cohn. By the way, did you work for Republic Steel?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. How long?
    Mr. Sillers. Two years, I guess.
    Mr. Cohn. What were your duties?
    Mr. Sillers. Well, I was working in a metallurgy capacity
in the laboratory.
    Mr. Cohn. And how did you terminate your employment there?
Did you quit?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes, I resigned and took a job with another
company, Tinimall Manufacturing Company, Niagara Falls.
    Mr. Cohn. How long were you there?
    Mr. Sillers. A few months.
    Mr. Cohn. Then you quit? On your own volition?
    Mr. Sillers. Well, it was sort of mutual. I didn't like it
and----
    Mr. Cohn. Then you went where?
    Mr. Sillers. Then I did freelancing for a while. Came back
to Washington and did some popular science writing, etc.
    Mr. Cohn. Then what?
    Mr. Sillers. Then the Bureau of Standards as a research
associate, not as a government employee.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you go to the Government Printing
Office?
    Mr. Sillers. Those dates, I think I said 1939.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you did freelancing by writing articles,
etc; then where was your contract with the government. What was
your first government job?
    Mr. Sillers. I worked for two years at the National Bureau
of Standards, or a year and a half, as a research associate.
    Wait a minute. I am a little bit mixed up in these dates,
from Niagara Falls in 1947 or 1948, back to Washington. My next
employment was with the Government Printing Office,
    Mr. Cohn. You went there before you went to the Bureau of
Standards?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. That was your first government employment?
    Mr. Sillers. No, I have worked for the government since
1919.
    Mr. Cohn. That was earlier. You left Niagara Falls and came
to Washington to the Government Printing Office. That was 1939?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. How did you get in the Government Printing
Office?
    Mr. Sillers. I went down and applied for the job in the
laboratory.
    Mr. Cohn. What duties were you assigned to there?
    Mr. Sillers. Oh, analyses and checking of materials.
    Mr. Cohn. Particularize just a little.
    Mr. Sillers. They have many materials come into the
Government Printing Office. They have their own specifications.
They don't have to buy government standards. They have their
own standardization laboratory, everything from paper to type.
    Mr. Cohn. Did this involve metallurgical work you were
accustomed to doing at Republic Steel?
    Mr. Sillers. Well, in a sense, yes. I certainly picked up
the analyses there, and testing.
    Mr. Cohn. Did they maintain a regular laboratory in the
Government Printing Office?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And you worked in the laboratory?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. How many other people worked there?
    Mr. Sillers. Oh, a dozen, maybe. I don't remember.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you have other duties--analytical work?
    Mr. Sillers. While in the laboratory, no. Later I was made
foreman of the typemetal casing section, which took me more in
the direct metallurgical work. I think I was about two years on
that.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you become a member of a union or
organization during the time you were in the Government
Printing Office?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    Mr. Cohn. No organization of any kind?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Did you hold any office other than financial
secretary of UPW?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. What was the occasion of your leaving
government service?
    Mr. Sillers. When?
    The Chairman. When you finally left?
    Mr. Sillers. I decided to give myself a break and do this
art work.
    The Chairman. In other words, you resigned?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been the subject of a loyalty
investigation or hearing to your knowledge?
    Mr. Sillers. Was I? Oh, yes.
    The Chairman. How many times?
    Mr. Sillers. Once.
    The Chairman. When was that?
    Mr. Sillers. I don't know. It may have been four or five
years ago. It is a matter of record.
    The Chairman. Do you have a record of it?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    The Chairman. You have got the transcript?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. No transcript. What kind of record do you
have?
    Mr. Sillers. I have a record that I had a hearing. My
notification of the charges, etc.
    The Chairman. You have that yet?
    Mr. Sillers. I couldn't say whether I have or not, but
somewhere I must have a record of the hearing unless it has
gotten lost.
    Senator Dirksen. You were formally charged? Were formal
charges filed against you? By a loyalty board?
    Mr. Sillers. I had a hearing at Interior, yes.
    Senator Dirksen. You had formal charges filed against you,
and your loyalty was in doubt.
    Did you get a notification of some kind to appear before a
loyalty board?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Did they set out any reason?
    Mr. Sillers. They were alleged to have said this and that.
    Senator Dirksen. What were these allegations--this and
that? You have some recollection.
    Mr. Sillers. I was alleged to have some connection with the
Communist party--a Communist.
    Senator Dirksen. Did they allege you were a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Sillers. I forget how they worded it, but I will say
they did. I don't know.
    The Chairman. You think they said Communist? There might be
a fine distinction.
    Mr. Sillers. I can't remember, sir.
    The Chairman. There must have been an allegation of some
kind?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes, there was. The thing stated that the man
I worked with at Republic Steel made certain allegations. The
point was that he probably misinterpreted things I talked about
and the board upheld me. Two boards upheld me, and beyond that
they never produced this man as a witness to face me. I never
did get exactly what they were talking about.
    The Chairman. Who was this man?
    Mr. Sillers. I forget his first name.
    The Chairman. Donald Babcock?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    The Chairman. What was his job at Republic Steel?
    Mr. Sillers. Metallurgist.
    The Chairman. He was an associate of yours?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    The Chairman. Did you know him very well?
    Mr. Sillers. Well, I knew him. I knew him pretty well for a
short period of two years.
    The Chairman. You knew him at Republic Steel for a period
of two years?
    Senator Dirksen. Did you know him socially?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Did your families get together?
    Mr. Sillers. I had no family there. He didn't either.
    Senator Dirksen. You saw him socially beyond working hours?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you appear before the loyalty board in
person?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. And these charges were then made?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. They read things in meetings and you made
some type of answer, either orally or in writing, I assume?
    Mr. Sillers. Well, I answered in writing and orally. That
is right.
    Senator Dirksen. That was about when?
    Mr. Sillers. Well, I can't remember the date.
    Senator Dirksen. Roughly? How long had you been at the
Government Printing Office when these charges were filed?
    Mr. Sillers. I was at Interior. It might have been 1944 or
1945.
    Senator Dirksen. After you left the Government Printing
Office?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    The Chairman. You say you have no transcript of the
testimony taken at the hearing?
    Mr. Sillers. No, I did not ask for one.
    The Chairman. Did you have an attorney?
    Mr. Sillers. Joe Forer.
    The Chairman. Was Forer a member of the Communist party at
that time?
    Mr. Sillers. Was Forer a member of the Communist party at
that time? How in the world would I know? As far as I know he
wasn't any such thing.
    The Chairman. Did you meet Mr. Rothschild last night or
this morning?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. When have you last seen him?
    Mr. Sillers. Edward Rothschild?
    The Chairman. Do you know Edward Rothschild?
    Mr. Sillers. I may have.
    The Chairman. You can't recall him now?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes, I----
    The Chairman. Was the answer ``Yes''? Do you recall him?
    Mr. Sillers. No. I can't recall him.
    The Chairman. You don't recall ever having met him?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes, I recall him now.
    The Chairman. Tell us what you recall about him?
    Mr. Sillers. He worked in the Government Printing Office.
That is about all I know.
    The Chairman. When did you last see or talk to him?
    Mr. Sillers. I wouldn't have the slightest idea.
    The Chairman. Do you recall having seen or talked with him
in the last years?
    What is your answer to that question?
    Mr. Sillers. When did I last see this guy? I don't
remember.
    The Chairman. Do you remember having seen him within the
last year?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Did you talk to him by phone in the last
week?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. You did not talk to Rothschild by phone?
    Is the answer no?
    Mr. Sillers. No, I haven't seen Rothschild for years.
    The Chairman. The question was not: Have you seen him? The
question was: Have you talked to him by phone?
    Mr. Sillers. Not that I know of, no.
    The Chairman. Did you talk to anyone who represented
himself as Rothschild within the last week?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. How about Mrs. Rothschild?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Did you know Esther Rothschild, his wife?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    The Chairman. Have you been at their home?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    The Chairman. How often?
    Mr. Sillers. Now it comes back to me. Well, I don't know
how often. We used to visit back and forth.
    The Chairman. You knew them quite well, didn't you?
    Mr. Sillers. I don't know. It all depends on how well you
can know a person.
    Senator Dirksen. You say visited back and forth. Did they
visit your home?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. How many times were you in his home?
    Mr. Sillers. I couldn't tell you.
    Senator Dirksen. But you visited back and forth with them,
and you are sure Mrs. Rothschild was there and Mr. Rothschild
was there?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. How long ago was that?
    Mr. Sillers. It must have been ten years ago. Seven, eight
or ten years ago.
    Senator Dirksen. The last time you visited his home you say
was at least seven years ago?
    Mr. Sillers. I would say 1943 or 1944. I would say it must
have been around that.
    Senator Dirksen. You knew him by that name?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Edward Rothschild? And you knew her by the
name of Esther Rothschild?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Where was his home?
    Mr. Sillers. He lived over in S.E., N.E. or S.E.
    Senator Dirksen. Was it on Dix Street?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. What kind of home?
    Mr. Sillers. Private home.
    Senator Dirksen. Brick or frame?
    Mr. Sillers. I don't know.
    Senator Dirksen. Have you visited his home more than a
dozen times?
    Mr. Sillers. Oh, I doubt it.
    Senator Dirksen. Would you say about a dozen times?
    Mr. Sillers. I wouldn't think it was that many. Maybe a
half dozen.
    Senator Dirksen. You had dinner with the Rothschilds, at
their home?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes, we had dinner with them and had them up
to our house.
    Senator Dirksen. Did they have dinner at your house?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. About how many times?
    Mr. Sillers. Oh, I don't know. Maybe three or four.
    Senator Dirksen. The Rothschilds' lawyer asked us to call
you as a witness, so we are rather curious to know how well you
know them.
    Mr. Sillers. May I say something in a personal way. The
relations were never good between the Rothschilds and my wife
and I. For a while we were very friendly and then, I don't
know; they kind of cooled off.
    The Chairman. You were very friendly for a while?
    Mr. Sillers. I wouldn't say very friendly.
    The Chairman. You see it is rather unusual. You couldn't
remember the names of the Rothschilds at first. Now you
suddenly recall that you had visited back and forth for dinner
at your house and he at yours.
    Mr. Sillers. Not suddenly. When your friendship cools--it
has been a long time. When I recalled it, I told you so.
    The Chairman. About how many times have you visited his
home--roughly?
    Mr. Sillers. You suggested a dozen. I would say half a
dozen.
    The Chairman. And when you visited his home were there
people other than the Rothschilds present?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes. There sometimes would be friends around.
    The Chairman. Were there occasions when just you and your
wife and Mr. Rothschild and his wife would have dinner at his
home--or your home?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes, there would be times like that.
    The Chairman. You would say you were a guest in his home a
half dozen times?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    The Chairman. How many times was he a guest in your home?
    Mr. Sillers. Maybe an equal number. Maybe less.
    The Chairman. I understand your testimony to be that the
last time you saw Edward Rothschild or Esther Rothschild was
about seven years ago?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes, and I think maybe if I can try to
remember, maybe it was longer than that, it may be as much as
seven or ten years, I don't know.
    The Chairman. Who were some of the other people who
attended the dinners when you and the Rothschilds were present?
    Mr. Sillers. I don't know. Sometimes friends would drop in.
    The Chairman. Can you think of any of the names of them?
    Mr. Sillers. No, I can't think of names.
    The Chairman. You can't think of the names of people who
were in your house when the Rothschilds were there or in the
Rothschild home when you were there?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever tell Donald Babcock that you
were a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Sillers. I wouldn't because I wasn't.
    The Chairman. The answer is ``No, you did not''?
    Mr. Sillers. No, I did not.
    The Chairman. Did you tell him you helped form the
Washington Bookshop?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Did you help form the Washington Bookshop?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Were you an officer in the Washington
Bookshop?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    Senator Dirksen. You were a member?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Who asked you to join?
    Mr. Sillers. I joined myself.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you know that was a front for the
Communist party at the time you belonged to it?
    Mr. Sillers. I will put that in the same category as other
charges not made officially.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you now think it was a front for the
Communist party at the time you belonged to it?
    Mr. Sillers. I couldn't say.
    Senator Dirksen. You wouldn't know?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    Senator Dirksen. At the time you belonged to it did you
think it was either Communist-dominated----
    Mr. Sillers. No, I don't know if it was listed as such.
    Senator Dirksen. If you thought it were Communist-
dominated, or a front for the Communist party, would you have
resigned from it?
    Mr. Sillers. That is a hypothetical question.
    The Chairman. I think it is a very simple question. If you
had thought at the time that it was Communist-dominated, or a
front for the Communist party----
    Mr. Sillers. I don't think that is a fair question. I don't
know what I might have thought. I might have thought, ``Well,
it is under fire----''
    The Chairman. In other words, you don't know whether you
would have stayed on as a member if you thought it was
Communist-dominated?
    Mr. Sillers. I can't answer that, Senator McCarthy.
    The Chairman. And did you tell the loyalty board about
that?
    Mr. Sillers. The Bookshop? I told them I was a member of
the Bookshop, etc., and the reason for belonging.
    The Chairman. Did you know a James Phillips?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. You never met him?
    Mr. Sillers. Who is James Phillips? No, I don't think so.
The answer is ``no.''
    The Chairman. Do you recall a James Phillips who testified
in regard to you before the Dies committee?
    Mr. Sillers. No, I didn't know anybody had testified.
    The Chairman. Did you ever know a Navy Yard group of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Did you know anyone in such a group?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend a meeting of a Navy Yard
group which you had reason to believe was a Communist party
meeting?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist party
meeting with the Rothschilds?
    What is the answer to that?
    Mr. Sillers. What was the last question?
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist party
meetings with Edward Rothschild?
    Mr. Sillers. Not that I know of.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any meetings with Edward
Rothschild?
    Mr. Sillers. No, I don't think so.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any meetings in the Navy
Yard at which Rothschild was also present?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any meetings at which
James Phillips was present?
    Mr. Sillers. I don't recall anybody by the name of
Phillips.
    The Chairman. No, you didn't recall the Rothschilds and
then you remember you had dinners with them. Would you like to
try to recall Phillips?
    Have you ever asked anybody to join the Communist party?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. The answer is ``no.''
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Mr. Phillips, will you look at this man
carefully and tell whether he is the ``Fred'' you testified
about yesterday?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes, he is.
    The Chairman. Mr. Sillers: Having seen Mr. Phillips, do you
recall having met him?
    Mr. Sillers. He doesn't look very familiar. No.
    The Chairman. You don't recall ever meeting him?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Will you tell us now that you never suggested
he join the Communist party?
    Mr. Sillers. I certainly couldn't have.
    The Chairman. You mean you did not?
    Mr. Sillers. No, I did not.
    The Chairman. Do you recall that you and Rothschild ever
together suggested to anyone that he or she joining the
Communist party?
    Mr. Sillers. I don't know. Did who suggest?
    The Chairman. Did you and Rothschild together ever ask
anyone or suggest to anyone he or she should join the Communist
party?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. You did not?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any meetings in the
Rothschild home?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether or not Communist party
meetings were held in the Rothschild home?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever have any reason to believe Mr.
Rothschild was a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Did you have any reason to believe Mrs.
Rothschild was a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss the Communist party with
him?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss the Communist party with
Mrs. Rothschild?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Was Mrs. Rothschild a member of the
Washington Bookshop at the time you were?
    Mr. Sillers. I couldn't tell you. I don't remember that.
    The Chairman. Was Mr. Rothschild a member of the Bookshop
when you were?
    Mr. Sillers. I couldn't tell you that.
    The Chairman. Did you ever solicit anyone to join the
Washington Bookshop?
    Mr. Sillers. I don't think so.
    The Chairman. Did you ever address literature for the
Communist party?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever address literature for any
organization?
    Mr. Sillers. Oh, I might have on something like that union,
but I can't recall whether I did or not.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you know a Mr. Charles Gift? Mr.
Sillers?
    Mr. Sillers. It is vaguely familiar.
    Senator Dirksen. Wouldn't you know whether you knew Charles
Gift or not?
    Mr. Sillers. I don't remember him.
    Senator Dirksen. Were you ever at his home?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    Senator Dirksen. You are certain about that?
    Mr. Sillers. Well, if I don't remember him, I couldn't
remember whether I was there or not.
    The Chairman. Did you know of any Communist activities at
the GPO?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Do you know anyone now personally who is a
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Sillers. No, not that I know of.
    The Chairman. Did you discuss with anyone whether you
should refuse to testify whether you are a Communist party
member or use the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. You did not? You did not discuss with anyone
the question of whether or not you should refuse to tell
whether you were a member of the Communist party and claim the
privilege of the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Sillers. I have thought about whether that would be a
fair question or not for anybody to answer.
    The Chairman. You mean whether it would be a fair question
to answer whether or not you are a member of the party?
    Mr. Sillers. I am not speaking of myself. Say somebody is
accused of being a member of the Communist party or having
Communist affiliations and according to news reports it appears
that if he doesn't answer, on general principles, that they
figure that is not a fair question.
    The Chairman. Do you think it is an unfair question to ask
a government worker whether he or she is a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Sillers. It is a law so that is right. It is a fair
question. ``Yes.''
    The Chairman. The question which you haven't answered yet
is: Did you discuss with anyone whether you should refuse to
tell whether you are a member of the Communist party----
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. You did not?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. And claim the privilege of the Fifth
Amendment?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. I think we have covered this already but I
want to get it on the record very clearly.
    Your positive testimony today is that you have never been a
member of the Communist party; that you never solicited anyone
to join the Communist party; that you were never asked to join
the Communist party?
    Mr. Sillers. That is right.
    The Chairman. And that you don't know any members of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Sillers. That is right.
    The Chairman. What is your wife's first name?
    Mr. Sillers. Charlotte. On a personality basis, I don't
care to discuss her. Her name is ``Charlotte.'' She is my wife.
I don't care to have her discussed.
    The Chairman. If we ask any questions which your counsel
thinks are improper, you have the right to refuse to answer. I
am sure he will advise you on that. We are dealing with a very
important matter today.
    Mr. Sillers. On a personal basis, I don't care to discuss
my wife.
    The Chairman. Why don't you wait until we ask the question.
    Was your wife a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Sillers. Of course not.
    The Chairman. She never has been a member of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Did she ever attend Communist meetings?
    Mr. Sillers. Again, I don't like this at all, as an
American custom, my wife's name dragged into this. I am not
going to answer any questions for her.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether she ever attended any
Communist party meetings?
    Mr. Sillers. I am sure I couldn't tell you and I will not
answer for her.
    The Chairman. Your answer is that you do not know if she
attended any Communist meetings?
    Mr. Sillers. That is right.
    [Consults with counsel.]
    Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Rein advised me that I have a right not
to talk about my wife on the basis of personal relationship. He
says I appeared to be ambiguous and I have answered for her. If
there is anything I have answered, I assure you I didn't intend
to.
    The Chairman. Your lawyer has correctly advised you. You
are not required to answer any questions involving any personal
relationships. You are not required to answer anything that
occurred when only you and your wife were present--confidential
relationship. This committee had no right to go into any
confidential relationship between you and your wife.
    Mr. Sillers. I am very firm on that whatever the legal
angle is.
    The Chairman. You have that right.
    Let me ask you this question, and I am not including any
knowledge you received confidentially from your wife when just
you and she were together. Is it your knowledge she never
attended a Communist party meeting?
    Mr. Sillers. To my knowledge. I don't know what is covered,
I am not answering for her and I----
    The Chairman. It is a very simple question.
    The question is: To your knowledge did your wife ever
attend a Communist party meeting. You can refuse to answer
that?
    Mr. Sillers. I will not involve my wife in any regard. I
don't care to answer it and I don't know what is covered and
what is not covered.
    The Chairman. Then I would suggest each time we ask you a
question you discuss the matter with your lawyer. You have a
perfect right to do that. You can't make any blanket refusal.
There are only certain privileges which you have. Your lawyer
has correctly advised you. If you have any question, take all
the time you want to discuss it with Mr. Rein.
    The question is: To your knowledge did your wife ever
attend a Communist party meeting?
    Mr. Sillers. I am a little bit perturbed and I hope you
will give me time to recover my temper. Let's say the
relationship is so sacred, I don't care to discuss it. If it is
to my knowledge, I don't think she did. I don't want to answer
whether she did or didn't.
    The Chairman. Let's rephrase the question.
    Mr. Sillers. I don't want to discuss my wife.
    The Chairman. Let's rephrase the question. Did you and your
wife, in the presence of other people, attend Communist party
meetings?
    Mr. Sillers. Sir, you say no blanket refusal. To each
question I will have to say ``no'' because I don't know where
the law ends and decency begins and, I am not going to talk
about her.
    The Chairman. You mean you refuse to tell us whether you
and your wife ever attended a Communist party meeting?
    Mr. Sillers. No, I didn't say that. She never did as far as
I know.
    I asked you to give me a chance to recover my temper.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend what you considered to be
a Communist meeting in the home of Edward Rothschild?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. You did not?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. What is the largest number of meetings or
dinners you attended in the Rothschild home?
    Mr. Sillers. I don't know. I couldn't tell you.
    The Chairman. Were you ever there with a crowd of ten or
twenty people?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. The answer is ``No.''
    Mr. Sillers. No, that is right.
    The Chairman. It was always a small group?
    Mr. Sillers. It would be a small group.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Sillers, when you came from Niagara
Falls to Washington, I believe, you said you did freelance
writing. I believe you said you wrote scientific articles,
popular science. Was that popular science magazine?
    Mr. Sillers. No, by that name I meant I wrote for a number
of magazines.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you write other articles?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you ever contribute to newspapers?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you write any articles for the Daily
Worker?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a reader of the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever contribute to it?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You never had any connection with the American
League for Peace and Democracy?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever live on Upshur Street?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Could you explain why the list--American List for
Peace and Democracy--contains your name?
    Mr. Sillers. It doesn't.
    Mr. Cohn. Don't say it doesn't. It does.
    Mr. Sillers. I don't see how it could.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any other Frederick Sillers who lived
on Upshur Street?
    Mr. Sillers. No, of course not.
    Mr. Cohn. On this Washington Bookshop, did I understand
your testimony to be that if you believed the Washington
Bookshop a Communist front, you would have stayed?
    Mr. Sillers. I say again. That is hypothetical.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you give that same answer to the loyalty
board--if they asked you.
    Mr. Sillers. They didn't ask me.
    Mr. Cohn. They didn't ask you whether you would have stayed
on if you had known it was a Communist party front?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Who appeared as witnesses for or against you
at the loyalty hearing?
    Mr. Sillers. Associates on the job, and former associates.
    The Chairman. What were their names?
    Mr. Sillers. It is a matter of record.
    The Chairman. Give us the names of your witnesses who
appeared for you; who were they?
    Mr. Sillers. Mr. Ralston.
    The Chairman. Do you know his first name?
    Mr. Sillers. E. C.
    The Chairman. He appeared in your behalf?
    Mr. Sillers. He appeared to testify and answer whatever
questions they asked.
    The Chairman. Were you present at the time?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    The Chairman. If you could list for us the witnesses you
considered as your witnesses--friendly to you--and those who
appeared against you----
    Mr. Sillers. No one gave unfriendly testimony. There wasn't
anyone who gave unfriendly testimony to me, and I was present
the whole time.
    The Chairman. Was Mr. Babcock called?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. He made the original accusation that you were
a member of the Communist party? It was on his statement that
they based the allegations, and he was not called as a witness?
    Mr. Sillers. The answer is ``no.''
    The Chairman. Do you know who was on the board?
    Mr. Sillers. Senator McCarthy, honestly. You can get the
files on that. I had the regular set-up there--four or five
members.
    The Chairman. Do you know who was on the board? If you
know, say so. If you don't know, tell us.
    Mr. Sillers. Mr. White was chairman. Maston White was
chairman.
    The Chairman. What is his job?
    Mr. Sillers. Solicitor--or something.
    Senator Dirksen. He is solicitor for the Department of
Agriculture, isn't he?
    Mr. Sillers. He didn't work for Agriculture. He was
chairman of the board at Interior.
    The Chairman. Can you list the other witnesses who
appeared?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes. Mr. Waggaman.
    The Chairman. Was he from GPO?
    Mr. Sillers. From Interior, where I worked.
    The Chairman. How do you spell that?
    Mr. Sillers. W-a-g-g-a-m-a-n.
    The Chairman. Who else?
    Mr. Sillers. I'd like to ask my counsel. I figure this is a
matter of record at the Department of Interior.
    Mr. G. Willard Quick, Bureau of Standards.
    Mr. Hardy K. Hermann, Bureau of Standards.
    I think there were some others, but I can't remember them.
    The Chairman. In any event, the board didn't call anyone
who made charges of your Communist connections or that you were
a Communist?
    Mr. Sillers. I was called to have this hearing and was
allowed to bring witnesses, and there was nobody, I say, who
presented charges against me.
    The Chairman. In other words, the only witnesses called
were the witnesses you brought. Is that correct?
    Mr. Sillers. That is correct.
    Mr. Rein. I don't want to interrupt, but this witness
wouldn't know whether the board called anybody. What he would
know was who appeared. He wouldn't know whether the board
called Mr. Babcock and he didn't know.
    The Chairman. You are distinguishing between being called
and being there.
    The only people present who testified were those whom you
brought?
    Mr. Sillers. I was present.
    The Chairman. You understand the question, don't you?
    The only people present who were present and testified were
people whom you brought, is that right?
    Mr. Sillers. That is right.
    The Chairman. You don't know who the board had tried to
call?
    In any event, no one appeared as an adverse witness. No one
made charges of Comnunist connections or Communist activities.
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    The Chairman. How many people in the Interior Department
were members of UPW while you were financial secretary?
    Mr. Sillers. Oh, maybe there were thirty. I don't know.
They left one by one.
    The Chairman. Do you have any of the records which you kept
as financial secretary.
    Mr. Sillers. All I had was a bank balance and I turned it
over to the local----
    The Chairman. What was that the maximum membership?
    Mr. Sillers. I daresay it was more. I would say----
    The Chairman. Well, you would know from the dues that came
in.
    Mr. Sillers. Maybe thirty. I don't remember that at all.
    The Chairman. Could it have been as many as one hundred or
two hundred?
    Mr. Sillers. Not while I was secretary.
    The Chairman. As an outside figure, what would you say the
maximum membership was when you were financial secretary?
    Mr. Sillers. I have to think on that one.
    The Chairman. I would think that would leave a pretty clear
impression in your mind.
    Mr. Sillers. Some members keep up with their dues and
members that don't and at the time--sometimes there would be
more and sometimes less. I would say about thirty is what I
remember.
    Mr. Cohn. I want to ask you this Mr. Sillers. Who do you
think was at fault--who started the Korean War?
    Mr. Sillers. Listen. Those questions--I think that is
asking me my opinion. My opinion is no better than anybody
else's. I might be right and I might be wrong and it is a
question of--Well, I don't know--You are asking me what I would
think. Those are the questions that I think a witness has a
perfect right not to answer just on the basis they don't want
their thoughts controlled.
    The Chairman. Did you consider Joe Stalin a ruthless,
bloody dictator?
    Mr. Sillers. These questions to me are, and I don't want to
use the wrong word--sort of on the fence. I will just say I
don't care to discuss it. These matters are ones of thought and
opinion.
    The Chairman. Did you refuse to answer whether or not you
consider Stalin a ruthless and bloody dictator?
    Mr. Sillers. How can you answer what you thought. I might
think one thing one time and another at another time. I don't
think that is fair questioning. I don't know much about law. I
don't think it would stand up in a court of law to ask a
question like that.
    The Chairman. We consider it fair. We have positive
testimony that you were a member of the Communist party, and we
think it is fair to ask you about what you think of the leader
of the Communist party. That has some bearing upon the
question. I am going to make you answer that question if I have
to order you to answer it.
    The question is: Did you consider Stalin, while he was head
of the Communist party, as a ruthless, bloody dictator?
    Mr. Sillers. I cannot say. That is my answer.
    The Chairman. You mean you don't know whether you thought
he was or not?
    Mr. Sillers. That is right.
    The Chairman. Today, do you think he was?
    Mr. Sillers. I can't answer that, either.
    The Chairman. You mean you don't know whether he was or
not?
    Mr. Sillers. That is right.
    The Chairman. While you were working in the government, did
you consider the Communist form of government superior to ours?
    Mr. Sillers. That is a hypothetical question. I always
maintained----
    The Chairman. There is nothing hypothetical about that.
    The question is: When you were working for our government,
did you consider the Communist system superior to ours?
    Mr. Sillers. I wouldn't know. I never lived under it. I
have said that our form of government, the Constitution and
everything that goes with it, all have laws and
implementations, are rights. The thing is, it must be enforced.
Any ideas I may have about the situation today can be taken
care of by our Constitution and I mean ours.
    The Chairman. I am asking you a very simple question.
    Did you consider the Communist system superior to ours?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Your answer is you did not?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Did you consider it a system not as good as
ours?
    Mr. Sillers. I have no opinion about it.
    The Chairman. It is not a question of what you have now.
    At the time you were working in the government, you had no
opinion as to whether the Communist system was a poorer system
than ours?
    Mr. Sillers. That is right.
    The Chairman. You had no opinion?
    Mr. Sillers. That is right,
    The Chairman. Mr. Sillers, when you were a member of UPW
and they held a national convention at Atlantic City----
    Mr. Sillers. I recall that.
    The Chairman. Was Mr. Fletcher president then?
    Mr. Sillers. I don't remember.
    The Chairman. Did you attend that convention?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Did you attend any of their conventions?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Did you recall at the Atlantic City
convention a resolution was introduced by one group of UPW
asserting the right to strike against the government. Do you
recall that controversy?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Did you participate?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    The Chairman. Did you express any opinion?
    Mr. Sillers. I don't recall the resolution, as a matter of
fact.
    Mr. Cohn. At any time during your government employment,
did you ever see any classified material?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    What do you mean, classified?
    Mr. Cohn. Everything. Restricted, confidential or secret.
Well, restricted, not classified.
    Mr. Sillers. Confidential I used to handle. Everything to
do with my work.
    Senator Dirksen. Where did you handle those?
    Mr. Sillers. Interior.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you handle any at Government Printing
Office?
    Mr. Sillers. No.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you ever see any at the Government
Printing Office?
    Mr. Sillers. I wasn't in that department. I worked in
chemical metallurgy.
    The Chairman. When you worked in the Government Printing
Office, did you have access, go through rooms bringing up
confidential material?
    Mr. Sillers. Not that I know of. I used to have to go to
different sections to see about different things. They had
their inspector----
    Senator Dirksen. You say in the Interior Department you
handled confidential materials?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    The Chairman. After the loyalty board hearing did you
continue to handle confidential material?
    Mr. Sillers. Before the loyalty board hearing, I don't
think they had classifications. Afterwards, I handled
confidential.
    The Chairman. Did you handle confidential material up to
the time you left the goverment this year?
    Mr. Sillers. Yes.
    The Chairman. Mr. Sillers, in a general way, what was the
nature of the confidential material that you handled in
Interior? It related to what general subject matter?
    Mr. Sillers. Manganese was my specialty.
    The Chairman. Nothing relating to atomic energy or uranium
or plutonium?
    Mr. Sillers. I dealt entirely in manganese and related
steel and alloys.
    The Chairman. Would you gentlemen step outside, please.
                      TESTIMONY OF GERTRUDE EVANS
    The Chairman. Will you stand and be sworn? In the matter
now in hearing, do you solemnly swear that the testimony you
are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mrs. Evans. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Mrs. Evans, have you ever been a member of the
Communist party?
    Mrs. Evans. I refuse to answer on the Fifth Amendment,
self-incrimination. I also want to state, I protest. I was
unable--I have not a lawyer. I did not have time to consult
with my lawyer. I would like, on that basis, to ask for a
postponement.
    The Chairman. I think, Mrs. Evans, you are entitled to
that.
    Mrs. Evans. You see I got the subpoena about 10:30. My
attorney was tied up.
    The Chairman. May I say you were not called at the request
of the committee. You were called at the request of one of the
other people involved, who asked that you be called in
executive session. One of the individuals who appeared here
asked that you be called and we agreed to have you called.
    You have requested to have time to consult your lawyer, I
think that is a reasonable request. How much time would you
like?
    Mrs. Evans. I would like a couple of days. Of course, I
don't know I will have to go see him and find out whether he is
available between now and Thursday. Would that be agreeable to
the committee?
    The Chairman. How about Thursday morning. Counsel can
check. If your lawyer is in court or something----
    Mrs. Evans. If I would have time to consult with him.
    The Chairman. Who is your lawyer?
    Mrs. Evans. Mr. Joseph Forer.
    Mr. Cohn. I know Mr. Forer. I will be glad to talk to him.
    Mrs. Evans. Thursday would be agreeable with me if Mr.
Forer considered it that.
    The Chairman. We will make it 10:30 Thursday morning. In
the meantime Mr. Cohn will contact Mr. Forer. If Mr. Forer
would rather be here Thursday afternoon, we will work that out.
    Mrs. Evans. Thank you for your courtesy.
                       TESTIMONY OF CHARLES GIFT
    The Chairman. Mr. Gift, will you stand and be sworn? In the
matter now in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly
swear that the testimony you are about to give shall be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
    Mr. Gift. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Your full name, please?
    Mr. Gift. Charles D. Gift.
    Mr. Cohn. And your address?
    Mr. Gift. 70 Rhode Island Avenue.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever worked for the United States
government?
    Mr. Gift. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. In what agency or department?
    Mr. Gift. Navy.
    The Chairman. Mr. Gift has had very short notice to he
here. One of the other parties involved has asked that you be
subpoenaed, otherwise we would have given you more notice. If
you feel additional time is needed to have counsel, we will be
glad to give you time to have counsel.
    I don't know if you know the rules of the committee, but
you can have counsel and he is free to advise you at any time
during the hearing. If you feel this is too sudden, we will be
glad to give you additional time.
    Mr. Gift. They caught me short.
    The Chairman. Would you prefer time to get counsel?
    Mr. Gift. Yes.
    The Chairman. How much time?
    Mr. Gift. Three or four days, something like that.
    The Chairman. How about Thursday morning or Thursday
afternoon?
    Mr. Gift. As far as I know, I don't have counsel yet.
    The Chairman. Let's set it at ten o'clock Thursday morning.
If you have trouble with counsel, have your lawyer call Mr.
Cohn or Mr. Carr here at the committee.
    You know how to get hold of counsel?
    Mr. Gift. Yes, I can make a note of the number.
    Mr. Carr. It is National 8-3120, extension 1145.
    Mr. Gift. That will help me a whole lot.
    The Chairman. You are entitled to that time. You are
excused until Thursday morning at ten o'clock.
    [Whereupon, the hearing adjourned at 12:20 p.m.]
                  SECURITY--GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    [Editor's note.--The Public Printer, Raymond Blattenberger,
and Deputy Public Printer, Phillip L. Cole, testified before
the subcommittee in a public hearing on August 29, 1953. At a
news conference on August 21, Cole denied that the Government
Printing Office's security was lax or that it had leaked secret
material. He said that nuclear secrets were not made available
to GPO employees, that very little secret or top secret
material was processed there, and that agencies responsible for
atomic secrets maintained their own printing facilities and
security systems.]
                              ----------
                        TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 3:00 p.m. in room 357, Senate
Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Everett M. Dirksen, Republican, Illinois.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M.
Cohn, chief counsel; Richard O'Melia, general counsel,
Committee on Government Operations; Ruth Young Watt, chief
clerk.
TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND BLATTENBERGER, PUBLIC PRINTER, GOVERNMENT
                        PRINTING OFFICE
    The Chairman. Will you gentlemen raise your right hand and
be sworn.
    In the matter now in hearing before the committee, do you
solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give shall
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
    Mr. Blattenberger and Mr. Cole. I do.
    The Chairman. The principal reason we asked you both to
come over is to give us a picture--to find out just how much
classified material is handled over in the Government Printing
Office--how much top secret, secret, confidential and
restricted.
    We have a report that classified material is handled by
GPO. I assume you gentlemen are fully informed on the testimony
here the last couple of days. If you are not, it will be made
available to you.
    Mr. Blattenberger. All we know is what has been in the
papers. I said, ``Well, in the words of [Will] Rogers, all I
know is what I read in the papers.''
    The Chairman. We will make available to you a transcript of
the testimony.
    If I may just quickly review the testimony for your
benefit, we have the testimony of Mrs. Markward who was an FBI
employee and as such joined the Communist party and worked for
them; attended Communist meetings constantly over the past five
or ten years, up until 1949; and I understand--I have not
confirmed this with the bureau--I understand that she submitted
reports constantly as to the meetings she attended, where she
attended, whose home, who appeared at the meetings, etc.
    She identifies Mrs. Rothschild as an active member of the
Communist party over a sizeable number of years. She attended
Communist meetings in the Rothschild home and gave the name of
other places where she attended Communist meetings with Mrs.
Rothschild.
    Mr. Rothschild has been identified under oath as a man who
solicited other men to join the Communist party.
    [Off-the-record discussion.]
    Senator Dirksen. Well, I thought the first thing we would
like to know--let us ask Mr. Blattenberger--you have been there
how long?
    Mr. Blattenberger. I have been there three months and of
course, I came along not being in any position to answer
questions other than I just wanted to put in an appearance.
    Mr. Cole has been there thirty years and has been the
deputy for the last five years. I find I have got a lot of
things to learn. One of the things I am trying to do is set up
budget meetings with the idea of trying to save manpower.
Gradually, I am trying to get on top of things.
    Of course, as you well know, I have been pretty busy with
communications from my friends on the Hill, trying to satisfy
the people inside and outside, so I, of course, have not
noticed security regulations. I can imagine security restricted
work is done there, but I haven't entered into any of that. I
know Mr. Cole has been, and I retained him as my deputy.
    Senator Dirksen. We assume, of course, the government
printing plant is a large plant with a number of people, and
you certainly could not familiarize yourself with everything in
this short period, and Mr. Cole no doubt would be familiar with
it.
    Mr. Blattenberger. When my term is over, I hope to be
somewhere near the top of it.
    The Chairman. I think the first line of inquiry, and I
think Mr. Cole can answer this by way of a general statement,
the first question then would be: How much work has the
International Information Administration had done by way of
publications and printing at the Library of Congress? Would it
be substantially all of their work or only a part of it? Would
you be in a position to indicate?
TESTIMONY OF PHILLIP L. COLE, DEPUTY PUBLIC PRINTER, GOVERNMENT
                        PRINTING OFFICE
    Mr. Cole. No. The name of the outfit is not even familiar
to me.
    The Chairman. It is the Voice of America.
    Mr. Cole. I would guess Voice of America material would
come through the State Department as a State Department job and
wouldn't be identified, as far as I am concerned, with Voice of
America.
    The Chairman How much a volume of State Department do you
do? Just in a general way.
    Mr. Cole. You are in figures that are going to be awfully
hard. The State Department is one of our largest customers.
    The Chairman. In the State Department is there a
substantial amount of restricted, confidential, secret and top
secret work?
    Mr. Cole. The answer would be that there is. There is some
qualification to that. The GPO, as we know it, over here on
North Capitol Street handled some secret, some top secret, a
good deal of confidential, and a mass of restricted material
for all defense agencies and all the rest.
    Most of the top secret material is handled in a separate
plant, known as the State Department GPO plant, and that is a
security cleared plant with every employee in it having
clearance by the CIA system, FBI classification, and they do
Atomic Energy, State Department, the Defense agencies and CIA
work of a top secret nature in that secured plant.
    The Chairman. Now, then you have how many plants all
together?
    Mr. Cole. Well, we have the main GPO plant, Field Service
Office plant in Washington, which is a duplicating plant; then
this top secret plant at the State Department in the State
Department Office; then we have our four other field plants
around the country. One is in New York, one in Denver, one in
Seattle and one in San Francisco. We have a highly confidential
or secret plant in the Supreme Court. That is a very small unit
with four or five people who handle advance opinion of the
Supreme Court in that building. We have a single man at the
Smithsonian Institute who does nothing but label stuff, exhibit
cases. We have a rather large bindery in the Library of
Congress building.
    The Chairman. Is all of the secret, confidential or
classified work done in the one plant?
    Mr. Cole. No, the great mass of secret work is done at the
State Department Office plant. However, last year in the main
office we had 250 secret and top secret jobs. Practically all
of those were secret, although there were a few top secret jobs
in there.
    We had 250 secret or top secret jobs in the plant last year
and they were made up of all of our customers who do secret
work. That would be defense agencies, State Department, Atomic
Energy, probably, although most likely all of Atomic Energy
secret work was done in the State Department plant.
    Mr. Cohn. How about CIA?
    Mr. Cole. Probably not CIA. I can't say offhand. CIA
generally does its own work or has it done in the State
Department plant.
    The Chairman. I think in that connection we want this
pinned down definitely. When you say probably, it may be
``yes.'' There should be someone you could call and have them
over. I would like to know, and I am sure Senator Dirksen
would, the extent to which top secret work of Atomic Energy,
CIA, State Department, military or other branches of the
government is handled.
    I might say the witness has testified--Rothschild has
testified--that secret material has been handled in the general
plant.
    Mr. Cole. We have 250 jobs. I would have to go back through
the records.
    The Chairman. The thing I would like to know--I am not
concerned with how many top secret jobs CIA, Atomic Energy has
had. The number is not important. One can be as important as
fifty top secret jobs.
    I would like to know whether or not all have been
represented in the 250 jobs done in the general plant?
    Mr. Cole. That I can find for you with very little trouble.
    The Chairman. I wonder if you could phone someone in your
plant now and have them bring over that information. I assume
that is readily available.
    Mr. Cole. It is going to take some research to do it. We
are going to have to go through the records. I will be glad to
bring it back tomorrow or anytime you want.
    Senator Dirksen. Is the State Department plant complete in
itself and does everything, including binding?
    Mr. Cole. Yes, what little binding that we do. Binding for
the State Department is not a very extensive thing. Most of it
is wire stitched, punched, rings--generally small rung stuff.
They do not have a complete bindery.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, still going back to the State
Department plant, what is the degree of security required from
all the employees or are there some who are not given a
security rating?
    Mr. Cole. All employees are required to have the top
clearance and that is the CIA, or the Atomic Energy, whichever
is the greater. That is the state of security of everybody in
the plant. They are all security tested. We supply personnel
for the plant but very often it takes two or three months
before a person is available for the plant because of the
intensive investigation.
    Senator Dirksen. And is that security required for all
grades and classifications including the custodial service?
    Mr. Cole. The custodial service does not belong to us. It
would not be our employees. Our employees are the actual
workers in the plant.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, I wonder, Mr. Cole, if you can tell
us how the matter is handled over there and how these top
secret documents and publications are monitored and kept under
surveillance. If everybody is given top security clearance, I
suppose it doesn't make too much difference. Is there some
special surveillance?
    Mr. Cole. At the State Department plant all of the work is
under the direct control of the head of the organization and
there is only 106 employees in that plant, so it is rather a
compact group and the heads know who has the job at all times
and where it is because of the fact it is such a small plant
with 106 employees.
    Senator Dirksen. Now then, what would be the situation in
the main plant with respect to handling secret and top secret
publications?
    Mr. Cole. The situation in the main plant of the GPO----
    Senator Dirksen. I wonder if you could take it this way, in
more or less chronological order, from the time it is brought
up by special messenger and handed to someone in GPO. Follow
all the way through until the publication has been completed
and goes back into the vault--until such time as it is picked
up by the agency for whom it is done?
    Mr. Cole. Yes, sir. The top secret and secret work has been
done in GPO probably as long as the GPO has been in existence.
During my years there secret and top secret work have been
handled through a routine, a single tract, and it has been
handled through the production manager's offices. The
requisition comes into the production manager's office, where
it loses its identity by title and department. It is assigned a
GPO number and from there on it is known as 6974 or whatever
number it is given and not by a requisition, etc. After it
comes in it immediately loses its identity as to departments.
It goes from the production manager's office into the plant
manager's office or into the Plant Planning Division and it is
handled by the superintendent and the top line officials all
down through the plant. Normal material doesn't follow this
routine. It is hand-carried, receipts are signed for it in
every instance with the material going through all of the
various places.
    The job goes through any number of operations in the plant.
Being a big plant, it is of course impossible to assemble all
of the equipment in one spot. We handle the job partly on this
floor and it moves to another wing down two blocks. The jobs
have to be scheduled around the plant where the equipment is.
In each instance receipts are obtained and given for handling
of the operation. Secret material is handled by top line
officials all down through the plant. Secret or top secret jobs
are never left on the floor unattended. If for any reason they
stay overnight, they are locked in the vault or parts of it are
locked in the vault.
    Senator Dirksen. When the job is completed it is returned
to the production manager's office and delivery is made from
his office.
    Mr. Cole. It used to be years gone by that was true in
every case because secret work had very few copies--just a few
copies. In the past few years that has not been the case
because of the quantity of secret documents, ranging from 250
to 20,000, depending on what job and how big the job was. We
couldn't move skid loads of books or material to the production
manager's office. It has to be delivered to the platform for
the agency to pick it up. Any secret or top secret material
that is carried on trucks always has the head of the delivery
section go with it; obtain receipts when the handling agency
picks it up, although in most cases where the number of
printing jobs are small, the delivery is made directly from the
production manager's office. That is not the case where large
quantities are ordered and it becomes necessary to move a mass
of material. In all cases where we make truck deliveries, the
head of the delivery service rides the truck in order to obtain
the proper receipts from the people the work is going to.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, when a job gets a GPO number,
obviously the first place it goes is to the typesetter machine
or linotype or monotype.
    Mr. Cole. It goes through a series of planning operations
to determine what is going to be done with it,
    Senator Dirksen. Then the jacket----
    Mr. Cole. When the job comes in it receives a GPO number
and then it goes to the planning division. The planning
division determines what has to be done, what machinery will be
used, the schedule and the general procedure, issue the paper
and that type of thing. All of this information is written on
the face of the jacket which becomes a job ticket, so to speak,
for the people in the plant.
    Senator Dirksen. When a copy is given to a machine
operator, is that particular machine operator given a security
clearance?
    Mr. Cole. No. The security clearance--We have asked for 176
sensitive clearances under the new loyalty regulations. So far
we do not have those, but we have in the plant 200 security
representatives who have been security cleared to handle,
monitor and watch this material and that is done on all
confidential as well as secret and top secret work.
    Senator Dirksen. And in addition to that you have the top
layer officials handling and watching the material?
    Mr. Cole. When a job is given to a linotype operator, he
sees a very small piece of it since it is copy edited and cut
into small sections, maybe a single typewritten page, maybe
half, depending on the speed. A faster job would be a smaller
section. They might handle two or three but they would not be
in any sequence.
    Senator Dirksen. When the printing is done, it has to go
finally to the bookbinding room for gatherings possibly
stitching, and possibly for a card binder of some kind?
    Mr. Cole. That is right.
    Senator Dirksen. What about people book gathering, or book
binding?
    Mr. Cole. No, they would not have security clearance as the
clearance given to the State Department people. The particular
people handling the key jobs have been put before the new
committee for a new security clearance. However, the monitors
are watching the job the whole time it is going through. When
it is in the bindery, the security representative is with the
job.
    The Chairman. The people who gather the material, I am
speaking of secret and top secret material, do not have the
type of security clearance that those over in the State
Department building have?
    Mr. Cole. That is right.
    The Chairman. Would that mean that anyone working in the
GPO as a gatherer might or might not be assigned to secret, top
secret gathering?
    Mr. Cole. No, sir. The group of people who are assigned to
that work are people that we have reason to believe are the
best employees, the most loyal employees.
    Senator Dirksen. In any case, where an employee, the
loyalty of an employee has been questioned, whether the result
was favorable or not in his case, he is not given that kind of
an assignment?
    Mr. Cole. That is right.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, if there were an employee in the
gathering and bookbinding section who wanted to purloin one of
these documents after it had been completed and stitched and
ready to go in the vault, how difficult would it be for him to
snitch it and put the book in his shirt, for instance, and
carry it out of GPO?
    Mr. Cole. We believe it would be almost impossible, but I
am not going to say it is impossible. We all know things like
that could happen, but the degree of security handling involved
in this thing would, in my estimation, practically eliminate
that kind of chance. Everything is counted. Everything is
counted, even all of the spoiled copies, even the old sheets
off the press, that type of thing. They are returned to the
production manager for destruction in the incinerator. The
chance of actually losing a publication off the stack would be
very remote.
    Senator Dirksen. Those are machine counted?
    Mr. Cole. In some cases. In most cases they are hand
counted.
    Senator Dirksen. I asked the question yesterday of one of
the witnesses whether in case an order came for five thousand
copies of a certain secret document, in how many instances
there might be an overrun of ten or fifty or one hundred
copies.
    Mr. Cole. There would be an overrun in practically every
case because in the printing business you never start out with
the same figure you end up with because of spoilage all along
the line. Someone is going to slip. It will take a couple of
books to get the machine started. All of the copies are
accounted for to the production manager. We know how many
sheets started on the job. We know how many sheets we end up
within the bindery. We know the number of sheets of spoilage,
etc. We know when we have finished a job calling for five
thousand copies, whether we delivered twenty short or had five
over. It is known in the production manager's office.
    Senator Dirksen. Have there been instances where copy
sheets disappeared and couldn't be accounted for?
    Mr. Cole. I would say ``no.'' We have had cases where
material turned up in unexpected places, where shipments had
been made and packages broken and that type of things, but that
has been scattered over a long period of time. There would be a
few of those cases, but generally speaking, and it is so
general I would say it is almost obsolete, all of the delivery
of this secret and top secret job is handled by the department
during the order. When we turn it over to the department, we
lost track of it. How it is handled from there on in is their
problem.
    Senator Dirksen. We had testimony yesterday to the effect
that a certain employee had taken one of those documents, eased
it over to the edge of her machine and gradually put her purse
on it; then when quitting time came she put it in her pocket.
Somebody saw her and reported it and she was then brought into
the production manager's office and asked why she had the book,
and she said that she was curious about it. We didn't have any
testimony that this was discovered as a result of a check or
count. She was only seen and reported.
    Mr. Cole. That was the Lomack case. Yes, that was--Lomack
was before the loyalty board as a possible loyalty suspect and
she had a background which lent a lot of weight--the fact she
might have made tours through Russia and what not. The
evidence, as evidence before the loyalty board, was not
conclusive. The board wanted to discharge Lomack but the
feeling was that the discharge was because she was generally no
good rather than the fact she was a loyalty suspect and that
they were using the loyalty as a basis, as a means of getting
rid of an undesirable employee. Now, the fact is she should
have been fired long before that as an undesirable employee
rather than on this loyalty basis. That case came to review
before me and I found from the evidence that the board had not
convinced us that she should have been fired as a loyalty case
and it was immediately after that that this incident occurred
where she picked up one of the pieces as it came from the
folding machine. The security people brought her right on into
the office with the material and then she was separated for
that particular offense at that particular time.
    The Chairman. You said immediately separated?
    Mr. Cole. She was separated directly because of that
incident.
    The Chairman. That seems to be in conflict with testimony
given yesterday, if I recall correct. I think the testimony was
that she was around in the same job approximately three months
after that time and had the same access to classified material
she had before.
    Mr. Cole. No. The three months probably is the three months
from the time that the loyalty operation went into effect until
the time that she picked up this material. This material,
supposedly at the time was picked up in passing, not because
she was working on it.
    Mr. Cohn. Did I understand the sequence correctly?
    What was the finding of the loyalty board?
    Mr. Cole. The GPO board recommended dismissal.
    Mr. Cohn. On loyalty grounds?
    Mr. Cole. On loyalty grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. And you overruled that?
    Mr. Cole. Then this incident occurred afterwards.
    Senator Dirksen. How many loyalty hearings have been
conducted in GPO since it was set up?
    Mr. Cole. We have had thirty full field investigations that
were handled by our loyalty board prior to the time that the
other agency took it over. We had twenty-three cases that have
been referred to that board with field investigations or
partial FBI field investigations. We have nineteen people that
had field reports on them in which favorable findings were made
and they were not discharged and of those twenty, including
Rothschild and he fitted into that category, out of those
twenty, all twenty of them are still employed with one
exception who has applied for disability retirement.
    The Chairman. Rothschild was the subject of a loyalty
hearing and what did the board find in his case?
    Mr. Cole. Rothschild was entered ``derogatory'' in 1948. He
was sent a letter of charges 8/30/48. He had two hearings and
the report was favorable; that the evidence was conclusive at
the time. It went to the loyalty review board for post audit
and it was closed when it was returned from the loyalty review
board after their audit.
    The Chairman. I am rather curious about the Rothschild
case. The GPO loyalty board had information to the effect his
wife was a member of the Communist party. Rothschild offers to
produce his wife to answer questions. The loyalty board never
interrogated her.
    Mr. Cole. The record shows that.
    The Chairman. Do you think that was a good practice?
    Mr. Cole. Well. I don't know. I can't answer for the
loyalty board's operations, but I would think it wasn't.
However, the board did interrogate a great number of people in
that case.
    The Chairman. In that connection we have had the testimony
that one of the--you said interrogated a number of witnesses.
We have received from Rothschild's attorney a transcript of the
testimony, I have not examined it but my staff has gone over it
and apparently the only witnesses interrogated were friendly
witnesses. Much of the transcript consisted of trying to find
out who made ``these baseless charges'' against him that he was
a Communist. I assume you were not head of the security branch
at that time. You personally weren't responsible.
    May I ask this question. Is that practice still followed?
    Mr. Cole. We do not have a loyalty board as such. It come
under the new regulations where it is handled by the field
group.
    The Chairman. Let's go back to a date prior to the new
loyalty setup.
    Did the loyalty board follow the practice of calling only
the witnesses who would clear a man?
    Mr. Cole. No, the board, all through its record, has
interrogated people that were available and in each case had
field reports with the statements from the FBI agent of people
they have interrogated.
    Mr. Cohn. I want to ask you this. In this Rothschild case
the FBI must have furnished a report indicating that one of its
most reliable informants, an undercover agent of the FBI, had
actually attended Communist party meetings at the Rothschild
home; knew Mrs. Rothschild as not only a member but a
functionary of the Communist party; and in face of that,
Rothschild denied all those facts, although he was undoubtedly
lying and the FBI agent was telling the truth; even though his
wife was offered as a witness, the board didn't go to the
trouble.
    Mr. Cole. As I recall the information in the Rothschild
case, the material in the FBI reports is the usual material in
these reports that reliable witness T38-7 something says this
and this and this. The most damaging things in the Rothschild
case, as I recall, was the fact that an ex-employee, I believe
she was in New Orleans, testified that she had seen Rothschild
remove confidential material by way of under his shirt.
    Now, testimony developed in the case----
    Mr. Cohn. What is her name?
    Mr. Cole. [Cleta] Guess.
    It developed that she was an employee--this is from the
testimony in the case and from the background as given to me--
that she was part of a working team of which he was the
bookbinder. In most of those instances you have a bookbinder
and then some operatives working with him, either women or men,
who handle less intricate work, and she was one of the feelers
on a big three-way cutter this man was operating; that there
was some kind of difficulty between two girls, she and another
girl, on the machine. Rothschild had found in favor of the
other party, and her testimony was believed to have been
because of that background rather than factual by the board,
and the board, I am sure, placed a great deal of weight on the
belief that this was a malicious--or an attempt by this person
to get back at a man who had been over her and the decision he
had made in this affair that had happened between these two
girls.
    The Chairman. Is it your understanding that there is
nothing in the file to show Mrs. Rothschild was a Communist?
    Mr. Cole. The only thing I recall in the file which says
she was was that she was believed to have been--Well, I am
going on supposition. To answer your question specifically, I
do not recall seeing in the testimony or FBI report that she
was a Communist. I had the Rothschild papers on my desk, but
only for a few minutes.
    Mr. Cohn. I looked at the transcript this morning and one
of the allegations submitted was very specific, in so many
words, that his wife was a member of the Communist party, was
the secretary of the Civil Liberties Club of the Communist
party, was a member of this unit of the Communist party and
that unit of the Communist party.
    Mr. Cole. It could be in the report. My plea is I have not
gone through the reports.
    Mr. Cohn. Of course if the FBI says an informant is
reliable, that, of course, means he is reliable. If there is
any doubt about it the FBI will say ``confidential informant of
unknown reliability'' or whatever qualifying classification
they have of known liability. That is a seal of great
authenticity of an agency unimpeachable for accuracy and
integrity.
    The Chairman. I may say I can't conceive a loyalty board
tying a serious charge against a man, that his wife is a
Communist, allegedly an officer in a Communist cell, and then
the man comes in and says my wife will come down and testify
and the board said, ``No, we charged your wife with being a
Communist but we are no longer interested. We won't hear her.''
Can you conceive of the members of that loyalty board being
kept on at GPO? Shouldn't they be discharged for gross
incompetence?
    Mr. Cole. That is a hard question to answer. I don't
believe I could answer the question ``yes'' or ``no.'' It
depends on what the rest of the circumstances were in the case.
Now, all of the members of the loyalty board certainly are the
top flight people in the Government Printing Office. The
membership was made up of the director of personnel----
    The Chairman. Let's interrupt you right there. I am not at
this point criticizing him. I don't know what you have to do. I
have heard that so often in the departments. They catch
someone--a Communist in the Commerce Department, etc. I have
always gotten difficulty pinning them down. I think it is
fantastic--the idea of clearing men like that. When you talk
about top personnel to me, I don't know the individuals, but
they certainly don't sound very top. They merely call defense
witnesses. They spend their time saying who they think is
trying to get even with them. ``Who is your enemy?'' They don't
call a woman after the FBI has said she is a member of the
Communist party. Would you call that competent work?
    Mr. Cole. All right, I will answer your question and say
``No.'' There is one thing which I believe you have to think
about; that is, that these teams are not made up of
investigators. We do not hire people for that. We have no money
for that type of thing. We don't have competent people who
have, as Senator Dirksen phrased it, had experience with these
people. What we have are people who have been handling
personnel cases primarily and other officials of the office
designated to look into this material.
    Now, I don't expect that you would expect to find Supreme
Court decisions coming from a group of people who have not
passed the bar examination. By the same token, I don't think
you could expect top flight investigations from people who had
not been investigating this type of thing.
    The Chairman. What you have said would appear to me to be a
complete indictment of the loyalty system over there. You
handle secret, top secret material which affects the very life
of this country and the life of America's young men. You say
you handled 250 pieces last year of Atomic Energy, CIA,
military material. If what you say is true and there is
incompetence in the loyalty setup over there, wouldn't you say
that indicates very, very gross negligence on the part of
whoever is responsible? If you don't have trained
investigators, if you don't have qualified people to do a job,
is that an excuse to risk the security of this country? Isn't
someone over there responsible? If so, I think we should have
the people right before us and find out why they have a system
you, yourself, say in slipshod. Shouldn't you have qualified
people on the loyalty board? Why do you have a loyalty board?
    Mr. Cole. That has been changed now. We no longer have a
loyalty board since the presidential order.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you have any loyalty cases in the
State plant?
    Mr. Cole. I would say not. I know we fired one man from the
field plant, the Washington field plant, not the State plant.
    Senator Dirksen. How were these loyalty cases developed?
What was the first step? Is it an original charge? Does
somebody in authority make the charges or is it an anonymous
letter, or how?
    Mr. Cole. It could be any way derogatory information is
sent into the office. Generally, it comes into the office by
way of field examinations from the FBI or Civil Service--
information from the Civil Service Commission. When such a
report comes in, authorities at the GPO----
    Senator Dirksen. What is the first processing step?
    Mr. Cole. In these cases now under the new setup, they are
referred to the regional office handling that operation. It is
not handled in the GPO. It is not handled in GPO until a report
comes back from that particular agency. Then there is a
determination by the director of personnel as to whether the
findings indicate the person should be separated or taken from
the rolls, with appeal rights, of course, to the public
printer.
    Senator Dirksen. Of course, that loyalty board does not
exist today?
    Mr. Cole. That is right, it doesn't.
    Under the new system the board will be made up of three
members, none of which will be an employee of the Government
Printing Office.
    Senator Dirksen. In how many cases have they overruled the
GPO loyalty board?
    Mr. Cole. One. Only two cases came to the public printer.
    Senator Dirksen. Are you speaking of the new setup?
    Mr. Cole. The old one. Those two cases were Lomack and
McGee. McGee was separated.
    Senator Dirksen. You have been in the plant thirty years?
    Mr. Cole. Yes, sir. I started as an apprentice in 1923.
    Senator Dirksen. In that time, I assume, you have gotten to
know lots of people by their first and last name, particularly
people who have been there quite some time?
    Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Would there be any way of detecting
whether or not there is Communist activities or crusading
activities on the part of any employee who might be a member of
the Communist party or have inclinations in that direction?
    Mr. Cole. Well, I would believe that any activities carried
on in the plants as such would come to the front office in very
short order because we have all of the officials down the line.
We have all of the trade unions represented, some twenty-three
or twenty-four that we deal with specifically, and very little,
in my estimation, happens in the plant that the information
doesn't come through channels to the front office.
    The Chairman. You are referring to any attempt to recruit
members in the Communist party or someone publicly discussing
communism?
    Mr. Cole. That is right, union politics, union activities.
    The Chairman. If a Communist is smart, he doesn't shout to
them. If I were over in your plant and wanted to get access to
secret and top secret material, I would naturally not start
joining Communist front organizations.
    Mr. Cole. That is right. I am trying to answer Senator
Dirksen's question.
    The Chairman. If I were a Communist over in your plant
working in Rothschild's job, if I just had average
intelligence, I would be able to discover what was in some of
the secret and top secret documents, wouldn't I?
    Mr. Cole. I guess that would be a fair statement.
    The Chairman. So that of all the government agencies which
handles the top secret material from a sizeable number, yours
is actually one of the most sensitive, isn't it?
    Mr. Cole. It could be, but the thing--I won't say you are
overlooking--but the thing that is not carrying weight in
handling and printing material, you don't read it. You don't
get the opportunity to read it as so much brick, so much unit.
You don't have time to stop and turn it over and see what is on
page three. It is handled on a production basis for speed,
basis for quantity production and as such, jobs will go through
and the men handling them won't have the slightest idea what is
in them.
    Senator Dirksen. That would mean, Mr. Cole, if a person had
designs to get the entire document, the place to get it would
be the gathering or bookbinding room?
    Mr. Cole. At that point all of the bindery equipment is
moving at high speed and the stuff is flowing. It is handed
from somebody to somebody else. The stuff is moving.
    Senator Dirksen. When it gets to the room where it is
gathered and stitched and bound and assembled, if a person
wanted an entire document, that would be the place to get it.
    Mr. Cole. That would be the first place it would all be
together.
    Senator Dirksen. Assume you checked it and the counting
machines counted everything and one volume or one document was
missing. How would you go about determining what had happened?
    Mr. Cole. Well, we would trace back to receipt, back to the
last full count. Whoever picked the job up and handled it from
there. Everybody who handled the job.
    Now, as a matter of fact, the latest addition to our
security plant is that the Armed Forces want a register kept of
the names of everybody coming in contact with the job.
Actually, we are doing that now, making a list of everybody who
touches or comes in contact with the job while it is under our
roof.
    The Chairman. Have you ever discovered any classified
material not where it should be?
    Mr. Cole. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. How about the time when Miss Guess said she
saw Mr. Rothschild with a confidential document? Did you check
the number of documents to tell positively whether he had or
not?
    Mr. Cole. The problem goes back to a point where at some
time in the past she had seen the man take a job. There is no
way of checking.
    The Chairman. If you have got an accurate count. He says
such and such and such a date. If you keep a positive count you
could go back to the books and see if anything was missing.
    Mr. Cole. That would probably be so, but that hasn't
happened.
    The Chairman. As a matter of fact, see if this isn't
correct. I know infinitely less than you do but in talking to
your people, I get the strong impression there is no positive
check; that there are pieces of stuff run through, material
that is half obliterated, some parts spoiled and that there is
no complete check of the number of complete documents turned
out; that if you had a Communist agent, he would have no
difficulty whatsoever in picking up parts of secret documents
or the whole document. In other words, from the time it goes
into your printing press to the time it leaves the plants there
are stages when it is impossible to keep an accurate count. If
that is not true, I would like to know it.
    Mr. Blattenberger. Might I say a word. Back in the days of
Edward Stern and company we had a plant during the war set up
for the government. I know it was almost impossible to find a
condition like that existing. They were certainly very, very
carefully following through the press and everything had been
accounted for. They had somebody responsible to take everything
bad and----
    The Chairman. We are not interested in what happened during
the war.
    Mr. Blattenberger. I am saying I don't know this situation.
    The Chairman. Let's get this situation. I would like to get
this situation. I have talked to a sizeable number of people
working in the plant who have no reason to lie. I asked them
what difficulty a Communist agent would have obtaining
material, as I asked you the question today; whether there is a
positive count all through the procedure. They say absolutely
not; that it is impossible to keep an accurate count; that you
have got secret and top secret material and you must have
security regulation and people handling it that can be trusted.
What would you say to that?
    Mr. Cole. I would say that in those cases where there is a
possibility that an accurate count is not kept that a security
representative is standing with the job and any spoilage is
under his direct supervision to be taken care of and returned
to the production manager for destruction.
    The Chairman. Now, we have 250 different secret and top
secret jobs, how many documents, booklets would that be?
    Mr. Cole. You can't tell. That depends. It could be 150
copies of a top secret document to 20,000 copies of a secret
document. Secret because of a phase of it rather than the whole
job. That could be a construction job or late aircraft.
    The Chairman. While the number is not terribly important,
for 250 jobs, would you say you average one thousand copies per
document? Would that be reasonable?
    Mr. Cole. I don't think that would be unreasonable. In the
course of the last year we have had 250 thousand secret and top
secret documents. I assume that would be a fair figure.
    The Chairman. That means that any time of the day or night
that I walked in the plant and walked through it I would find
secret, and top secret material some place.
    Mr. Cole. There would be secret or top secret somewhere but
you wouldn't walk into the plant to find it unless somebody was
with you.
    The Chairman. We had evidence here yesterday that
Rothschild, a man accused of being a Communist, at one time,
was ordered to work on either secret or top secret material and
he told the security man in charge that he was not supposed to
do that. I believe the testimony beyond that was that he was
ordered to do that. That would indicate that your security men
in charge, at least on one occasion, ordered a man, allegedly
barred from top secret work, to do it.
    Mr. Cole. It could happen that he was the only man
available to work on that machine with a security man standing
at his elbow; and he was trimming three sides of the book with
the book closed. That would be possible.
    The Chairman. Mr. Rothschild was asked some questions. See
if you agree with him on this.
    The Chairman. . . . Do you have access to classified
material?
    Mr. Rothschild. Frankly, I have access. I have to qualify
that statement. I don't want to draw this out any. After that
hearing a list came down and the foreman told the people listed
on there not to handle confidential or secret work. Since that,
it has not been the practice to give Rothschild secret
confidential work, which I like.
    The Chairman. You say it hasn't been a practice, but is it
a fact you have access to confidential material?
    Mr. Rothschild. Yes
    The Chairman. Up until today?
    Mr. Rothschild. Up until this moment.
    The Chairman. In other words, while your name was on that
list as a practical matter, you have had access to any secret
or confidential matter that you care to see?
    Mr. Rothschild. If the man working next to as had the jobs
you might say I had access to it as a matter of reaching across
and taking it. Strangely enough in handling any of this work,
if you handle one copy--someone tells you they are on secret
work and you have natural curiosity, but when you handle
thousands, one looks like another and you are not interested.
    The Chairman. Would you agree that is the situation?
Rothschild is technically barred from access but the people
next to him are working on top secret and secret work----
    Mr. Cole. It would be a possibility.
    Mr. Cohn. On this Miss Guess situation. That seems like a
rather serious thing. As I recall, her testimony was to the
effect that Rothschild's taking secret documents occurred more
than once. Wasn't that right?
    Mr. Cole. I believe that the indication was that.
    Mr. Cohn. I am just wondering what motivated them to cast
aside her testimony so quickly. Would you know that?
    Mr. Cole. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You wouldn't have any knowledge on that?
    Mr. Cole. No.
    Mr. Cohn. When was this Lomack case?
    Mr. Cole. We started it 9/22/49 when the charges occurred.
    The Chairman. Do you have any objection to the committee
seeing the Rothschild and Sillers file?
    Mr. Cole. We have no file on Sillers. Sillers was at the
GPO and left the GPO in 1942 to go to the Bureau of Standards.
    The Chairman. Do you have any objection to the committee
seeing the Rothschild file?
    Mr. Cole. I have no objection to them seeing the Rothschild
file with the exception of the FBI reports, which I am certain
you will already have. That material is supplied with the
understanding it will not leave our hands. The rest of the
file, as far as the Government Printing Office is concerned, is
certainly available.
    The Chairman. We would like very much to examine that. I am
curious to know what prompted the thinking and actions of the
loyalty board. I inclined to think we might have to call the
members of the loyalty board, even though they are no longer
acting on the loyalty board. I am curious to know what type of
appearance they would make. I think, Roy, we will ask that the
members of the loyalty board be called in executive session.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Cole, does the CIA clear the people at
the State office?
    Mr. Cole. It is a CIA clearance--what is required for their
clearance and the Atomic Energy. There is an agreement with the
State Department that all employees of the State Department
plant will be cleared by the highest clearance necessary to
handle any one of the agency's work.
    The Chairman. Do you review those clearances?
    If there is a loyalty case of someone over in the State
building, would you have the function of reviewing the loyalty
decision?
    Mr. Cole. Not unless the loyalty decision was unfavorable.
The review comes to the public printer's office only when the
board was unfavorable.
    The Chairman. How about a case like Rothschild. Was there
no further review?
    Mr. Cole. It would stop at the board with the exception of
possible audit by the then loyalty review board.
    The Chairman. That would be Seth Richardson.
    Senator Dirksen. Is the volume of secret and top secret--it
couldn't all be concentrated in one plant like the State plant?
    Mr. Cole. No, you see the printing business is a
complicated thing. It requires a mass of machinery for small
individual parts. There is no concentration of all of that
machinery except the main plant. Practically all of Atomic
Energy's jobs go through the State Department plants.
    The Chairman. Do you know why the other 250 secret and top
secret jobs did not go through the State Department plant?
    Mr. Cole. I can't say for sure. It depends largely on the
type of job, the speed required and equipment necessary to do
it.
    The Chairman. It does not depend upon classifications?
    Mr. Cole. No, it depends on whether it comes to us. In some
cases the department goes directly to the State Department
plant. The type of work that has been set up to go in there, we
don't see it. Otherwise, it comes directly to our production
manager's office and at that point a decision is made as to
whether it will go to the State Department plant or put down
there in the plant.
    The Chairman. Let's say five jobs come from your various
customers, military, Atomic Energy, CIA, State. Let's assume
that all five are classified top secret. You or no one else
examines the material to determine which is more secret and the
more secret goes to the State plant. It would be solely a
question of the type of job, speed required, type of equipment
used?
    Mr. Cole. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Is it customary for an agency to indicate
whether it wants a job to go to the State plant or the general
plant?
    Mr. Cole. It is customary for the department to come over
and talk to us about the type of thing they have. Repetitively
we have a job where we need fifty multilith copies of Atomic
Energy material. It has to be handled top secret and they want
to know if we can handle it in the State Department plant.
Permission is given to go directly to the State Department
plant for that type of operation.
    The Chairman. The thing I can't understand, why did you
clear people for top secret work in one building and then have
the same type of material printed in another building where no
such clearance is given and where their loyalty is
questionable?
    Mr. Cole. The State, War and Navy coordinator of the
Security Advisory Board examined the setup in 1947 thoroughly,
went through the whole plant, examined the whole setup and
cleared the organization for secret operation at that time.
Since then many additional security connections have been
added, but the organization that was charged with security at
that time did go through the plant and made periodic checks and
the agencies themselves have made periodic checks as to the
manner in which material was being handled.
    [Off-the-record discussion.]
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Blattenberger and Mr. Cole, I will
address this to both of you. I think you will agree with the
general committee viewpoint that if a document is printed that
is top secret and that could be a value to those whom we refer
to as our enemies, that might have conceivably jeopardized some
elements of our national security; that it is a question which
ought to be probed against possible leaks and the personnel
weaknesses that can creep into a large organization.
    [Off-the-record discussion.]
    The Chairman. One other thing, just a suggestion. If you
could move all that work to one building where you have got a
higher degree of security--I don't know how difficult that
would be from the standpoint of moving machinery--but it seems
rather ludicrous to go to all the trouble to get clearance for
one building and the other building not have that degree of
security when they are handling the same type of work.
    Mr. Cole. If that would be possible it would probably be
the finest way to handle it. The difference in the number of
employees required to handle big jobs and the small ones--For
instance, in our place we have 7,300 employees and 160 at the
State Department. It is obviously impossible to security check
7,300 people, not only from the cost standpoint, but we could
never keep on top. We could never keep ahead of that many.
    [Off-the-record discussion.]
    The Chairman. This is executive session. Normally we don't
hand out executive sessions to anyone. However, I think your
department will be vitally concerned and I see no objection to
making the testimony available with the understanding that
there is no leak to the press.
    Mr. Cole. I think that is a good idea. We can read it and
get the main points ourselves and get it back to you.
    Mr. Cohn. If you could communicate with Mr. Carr, give him
the Rothschild file--We don't want the FBI reports--and the
breakdown of all the agencies for which you do secret or top
secret work. I would say classified----
    Mr. Cole. I can't do that. It would take me six months.
There are thousands of confidential and restricted jobs.
    Mr. Cohn. We don't want a list of every job. We want to
know, ``Did you do any classified jobs at all for CIA at the
main plant,'' etc.
    Mr. Cole. That we can give you.
    [Off-the-record discussion.]
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4:45 p.m.]
                  SECURITY--GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    [Editor's note.--Ernest C. Mellor (1902-1972), chief of the
Employment Relations Section, and S. Preston Hipsley (1895-
1993), director of personnel at the Government Printing Office,
served on the loyalty board that reviewed charges against
Edward Rothschild. Both Mellor and Hipsley testified in public
on August 18, 1953.]
                              ----------
                       WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 10:00 a.m. in room 357, Senate
Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Everett M. Dirksen, Republican, Illinois.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M.
Cohn, chief counsel; Karl Barsalag, research director; Richard
O'Melia, general counsel, Committee on Government Operations;
Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
                 TESTIMONY OF ERNEST C. MELLOR
    The Chairman. Will you rise and be sworn, please? Raise
your right hand.
    Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give
shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
    Mr. Mellor. I do.
    The Chairman. Mr. Mellor, you are a member of the loyalty
board that passed on the case of Edward Rothschild?
    Mr. Mellor. Yes, that is correct.
    The Chairman. You recall the case?
    Mr. Mellor. I recall the case clearly, yes sir.
    The Chairman. Did you vote to clear Mr. Rothschild?
    Mr. Mellor. No. I was secretary of the board, and as such
did not vote, but attended all the meetings.
    The Chairman. What were your functions as secretary of the
board?
    Mr. Mellor. It was the function of the secretary to handle
all details in connection with these cases; these reports came
in and we presented the matters to the board at regular
meetings, and conducted any recommended correspondence with
employees.
    The Chairman. Does the secretary largely make decisions
whether or not formal charges will be made against employees
for action by the board itself, or does the secretary make
recommendations? In other words, I assume that the secretary is
the man who brings detailed information to the attention of the
board, and makes recommendations to the board?
    Mr. Mellor. No, we have not operated in that fashion. The
secretary has not been requested to make recommendations.
    The Chairman. So that in this instance you had nothing to
do with the witness to be called?
    Mr. Mellor. No. Witnesses to be called were brought by
their lawyers whenever directed to do so by the board.
    The Chairman. Did the board direct you to bring in this
case any witnesses?
    Mr. Mellor. Not that I recall, but witnesses were present.
    The Chairman. Is it correct that only witnesses were
present whom Rothschild had asked you to call?
    Mr. Mellor. That is true, but there were a number of
employees of GPO present.
    The Chairman. People whom Mr. Rothschild had asked to
testify?
    Mr. Mellor. That is right.
    The Chairman. If you were using legal parlance would you
say that only defense witnesses were called?
    Mr. Mellor. That is true in this particular case.
    The Chairman. Was that the usual practice, or an unusual
exception in this case?
    Mr. Mellor. That was the usual practice.
    The Chairman. Do you personally feel that you can arrive at
the facts by calling only witnesses for the accused?
    Mr. Mellor. Well, actually, we had the benefit of an
investigation made earlier in the case, and that included both
friendly and unfriendly witnesses.
    The Chairman. Do you think you can arrive at a correct
verdict when the only witnesses you call to testify before you
are one-sided in their views--when the only ones called are
friendly witnesses for the defense? Such as in this case?
    Mr. Mellor. Well----
    The Chairman. Can you tell me why witnesses were not called
by the board--witnesses other than those requested by
Rothschild?
    Mr. Mellor. Well, there were quite a number who indicated
they would not be available for hearings.
    The Chairman. Did you or anyone else ever serve any
proposed witnesses with subpoenas?
    Mr. Mellor. No.
    The Chairman. The file does not indicate that you requested
any witnesses to appear or to furnish information except those
who were called at Rothschild's request. Could you give us
further information?
    Mr. Mellor. As mentioned before, the report we had of the
inquiry listed quite a number of witnesses, the majority of
whom indicated they would not be willing or would not be
available for hearings.
    The Chairman. Can you tell as whether or not you were ever
directed by the security board to get any of those witnesses
who had given information to the effect that Rothschild or his
wife were Communists?
    Mr. Mellor. No, sir. However, I recall that one witness
reported that she would be willing to appear and the board
considered calling her, but discovered the witness was located
in New Orleans, a great distance away, and decided against it.
    The Chairman. Is that the reason Miss--What is it?--Miss
Guess--What is her first name?
    Mr. Mellor. Cleta Guess was her name. She had given
testimony--or a statement--to the effect that she had seen
Rothschild steal confidential papers from the files; also that
she knew that Rothschild was a member of the Communist party.
This I recall from her statements given at the time.
    The Chairman. And the board decided that because she was in
New Orleans she would not be called, even though she could and
would be ready to testify under oath that Rothschild had stolen
security material and was a member of the Communist party. That
was the decision of the board. Would you rate that as an
extremely unusual decision?
    Mr. Mellor. No, I believe not. There were several factors
entering into it.
    The Chairman. You think that was in accordance with the way
the board usually operated?
    Mr. Mellor. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. And was in accordance with your own personal
opinions?
    Mr. Mellor. Yes, although I had no vote at meetings.
    The Chairman. There was information that you also had
available another witness who had been working for the FBI, and
who had made the statement that she had attended Communist
meetings with Mrs. Rothschild. Can you tell us why this FBI
agent, who had attended Communist party meetings, was not
called--meetings in the Rothschild home?
    Mr. Mellor. Possibly the reason being that we had
statements from this agent already in the files.
    The Chairman. Mr. Mellor, did the board consider the
question of whether or not Mrs. Rothschild was an active member
of the Communist party, an officer of a Communist Club of any
importance in passing upon Mr. Rothschild's case?
    Mr. Mellor. Yes, the board did and Mr. Rothschild was
questioned at length concerning the activities of his wife.
    The Chairman. And you were satisfied, the board was
satisfied, that Mrs. Rothschild was not a Communist?
                TESTIMONY OF S. PRESTON HIPSLEY
    Mr. Hipsley. The board satisfied itself as well as you can
that she was not a Communist.
    The Chairman. And can you tell us why you didn't call her?
    Mr. Hipsley. Well, there were a number of reasons why the
board did not call Mrs. Rothschild. In the first place, the
officials who had come at the invitation of Rothschild were
also our officials. They were his witnesses and our officials
whom we had great confidence in, one being the superintendent
of the division where he worked and others being immediate
supervisors.
    The testimony we took was not only for him but for the
office because they were all security people. We believe that
there was some basis for their reliance on the man; their
belief in him; what the man said; the way he conducted himself.
The board in its best judgment felt we had sufficient
information from the individual himself and the witness who had
appeared. There is one other point, if I talk too long, cut me
off. There is one other point. The board was specifically
interested in Mr. Rothschild.
    The Chairman. If you knew she was a Communist, would you
still have given his clearance?
    Mr. Hipsley. That is pretty hard to answer. We didn't have
the case. I don't know what our reaction would have been. I
would say as a rule of thumb, we would not say--no, I couldn't
answer that way.
    The Chairman. The question is: If you knew she had been an
active member of the Communist party at the time, would you
still have given him clearance?
    Mr. Hipsley. If we knew she had been an active member, we
certainly would not have.
    The Chairman. And you satisfied yourself she was not?
    Mr. Hipsley. On the basis of his testimony and the FBI
reports, we felt we had come to the best conclusion we could.
    The Chairman. In any event you had satisfied yourselves she
was not a Communist?
    Mr. Hipsley. No. I can't answer that, sir, I cannot say.
    The Chairman. You said if you found she had been a
Communist----
    Mr. Hipsley. Sir, if we were convinced his wife was a
member of the Communist party, we certainly would have handled
the man differently. We were not convinced. We didn't have
specific information to that effect.
    The Chairman. You had the report of the FBI agent to the
effect she had attended Communist meetings with Mrs.
Rothschild.
    Mr. Hipsley. May I comment on that without answering first.
    The Chairman. You certainly may. It is important.
    Mr. Hipsley. This committee had been working on these cases
since the old Un-American Activities and we had worked with the
FBI reports for a number of years. In the majority of cases
where we had FBI information, it was always true that the
majority of witnesses were not available. In this particular
instance I think there were some forty informants and I think
there were less than five who were willing to testify. That was
generally the picture.
    The Chairman. In other words, you have five informants who
would testify to her Communist activities?
    Mr. Hipsley. I am not sure there was five, but not more
than five.
    The Chairman. There were four or five witnesses who
testified under oath as to the Communist activities of Mr. and
Mrs. Rothschild?
    Is that correct?
    Mr. Hipsley. That is true, sir.
    The Chairman. Can you tell us why you didn't call them?
    Mr. Hipsley. Yes, the board had read carefully the
information furnished by the bureau. In a number of instances
it was very general. It was pointed to the effect that the
person was a Communist. It was surrounding circumstances and
that sort of thing.
    The Chairman. Well, you had this report the FBI agent gave
Mrs. Markward, that she attended Communist party meetings at
the Rothschild home? There is nothing indefinite about that.
    Mr. Hipsley. We have a denial of the man under oath that he
didn't know her. We gave a lot of weight to what the man said.
    The Chairman. If you believed Mrs. Markward, you believed
there were Communist meetings held at the Rothschild home. My
question is: Did you decide that wasn't true?
    Mr. Hipsley. I certainly wouldn't dispute the word of an
FBI agent.
    The Chairman. If you had believed that, would you have
given his clearance?
    Mr. Hipsley. If we had believed that one of our employees
was married and living with and protecting a woman who was a
Communist, we certainly would not have cleared him.
    The Chairman. I am not talking about protecting.
    Mr. Hipsley. If we believed his wife were a Communist, we
would not have cleared him?
    The Chairman. I am asking you if you believed the FBI, if
you were convinced that report were true, would you have given
him clearance?
    Mr. Hipsley. If we had satisfied ourself as a board--I am
only one member, but as far as one member is concerned, if I
was satisfied she was a Communist of the type who would
advocate the overthrow of our government by force, I certainly
would not have kept that employee.
    The Chairman. Can you distinguish between types of
Communists?
    Mr. Hipsley. We operated under that philosophy, under the
procedure that said mere membership in a Communist organization
was not the complete deciding factor.
    The Chairman. So that if a man were merely a member, he
still might be qualified to work?
    Mr. Hipsley. I am quoting you the words of Mr. Seth
Richardson. That is what we followed. He gave the example at
the Federal Personnel Counsel when he cited a number of
personnel directives in operation. He gave an example and it
was very interesting. He said it depended not on membership but
purpose and intent. He said, ``One time I was interested in
belonging to the Odd Fellows, not because I wanted to be a
fraternal man but because I wanted to use their library, but
the charter I had nothing to do with and knew nothing about
it.'' I think I am quoting him literally and accurately, so
that in all our activities as a board, we kept in mind when a
person was supposed to be a member of a Communist list or one
of the groups on the list, that alone was not sufficient. It
was the acts of the person.
    The Chairman. Let me ask this then. If you were convinced
that one of your employees was a member of the Communist party,
but you were convinced he did not believe in the overthrow of
this government by force and violence, you say you would not
bar him from employment?
    Mr. Hipsley. No, I would not say that. My own feeling is
that if I were sure that any employee was a member of the
Communist party irregardless, I wouldn't want him around.
    The Chairman. You would say mere membership would bar him?
    Mr. Hipsley. We couldn't get away from the other philosophy
in general board discussion. It was not a one-man board.
    The Chairman. Tell us how and why the board acted--was it
the philosophy of the board following the reasoning of Seth
Richardson that it took more than mere membership?
    Mr. Hipsley. That was our general promise but we didn't
arrive at any case where the individual was definitely proved
to be a member of a Communist group.
    The Chairman. You said previously you had confidence the
people whom Rothschild asked you to call, that they were people
who worked in GPO and because of your confidence in them, you
decided it was unnecessary to call Mrs. Rothschild.
    If that isn't correct, I would like to have that cleared
up. There is nothing mysterious about this. It seemed
ridiculous to the point of being ludicrous and rather tragic
too, to think that you had positive evidence that a man's wife
was a member of the Communist party and an official of the
Communist party, which made her more than a mere member, using
your words, that you had forty informants, furnished by the
FBI, who had given information about the Communist activities
of Mr. and Mrs. Rothschild, but five were available to you;
that there was available to you a witness who was willing to
testify under oath that she saw Rothschild steal secret
material and that you didn't call the witness who was willing
to testify about the stealing of the secret documents; didn't
call any of the five informants available; didn't call the wife
who was allegedly an officer of the Communist party, that you
spent your time--and I have the record here of your calling all
of the witnesses whom Rothschild said would clear him. To me
that seems worse than incompetence; that seems almost criminal
incompetence; handling top secret material; handling Atomic
Energy material; handling State Department secrets; CIA
secrets; and defense secrets. For that reason I am curious to
know from the members of the board why she was not called and
put under oath.
    Mr. Hipsley. It would take me almost as long to answer you
as it did you to pose the question. I understand why, looking
at this thing outside and from an investigator's point of view,
where it would look almost like incompetence, using your minor
term. I don't think our board was incompetent. I think the
government had on that board a group of loyal employees who
were not originally employed as investigators, but who assumed
a responsibility as board members as one of their
responsibility and who have done everything they could to carry
out that job in an honest, decent fashion. On the board, as to
honesty, competence, we have the chairman who is a member of
the bar.
    The Chairman. Who is the chairman?
    Mr. Hipsley. Mr. Cristofanes, Felix.
    The Chairman. Did he act in this case?
    Mr. Hipsley. For a while, and I finished up.
    As far as I am concerned, I have legal training, although I
am not a member of the bar. This is the background of the
members of the board. The other two members, one is assistant
production manager, who had, I think, good judgment and a level
head. The final member of the board is the chief clerk, an old
federal employee of many years standing who has had lots of
experience with members. That is the board membership. As to
why they did these things which seem to you--and I can see your
point of view as to why it seemed not competent--they did not
do what they were supposed to do, you are not there. You were
not affected as a judge as the board would be. All things go
into making a decision. We had to study the FBI reports. We
spent much time on them. We tried to determine in this
information you, yourself must know all the information is not
on the point. Lots of it is on other facts that go to make up
the whole picture. In any event we picked out the facts which
were sufficient to make charges against the man. We made the
charges. We charged him with being a member of the Washington
Bookshop, association with Communists, he and his wife, and the
third charge was having made derogatory statements concerning
the United States and favoring the Communist party.
    The Chairman. Why did you omit the charge of stealing
secret documents?
    Mr. Hipsley. That charge we didn't think possible.
    The Chairman. Can you tell us why?
    Mr. Hipsley. I would like to finish the other. When this
man was called in for his first hearing, he brought with him
his attorney, and his attorney named a number of people whom we
would have called. It was not our fault he called the
superintendent; not our fault that he called the foreman; not
our fault that he called three or four others. We anticipated
calling witnesses and letting them give testimony.
    In the meantime, prior to the hearing, the assistant
production manager, with all the facilities at his command,
made many inquiries, where the man worked, what opportunities
he had for removing classified work and satisfied himself under
our security program the matter wasn't possible.
    The Chairman. As well as removing secret material, reading
and carrying away the information?
    Mr. Hipsley. We were satisfied by the officials close to it
that was not the fact.
    The Chairman. He could look at it and not read it?
    Mr. Hipsley. The top flight staff was guarded at all times.
    The Chairman. Did you have other cases which would compare
roughly with Rothschild or was this one of the worst cases you
have had?
    Mr. Hipsley. I wouldn't like to answer that off-hand.
    Off-hand, I would say this was one case where the matter of
handling confidential material was featured.
    The Chairman. Now, as far as Communist activities--as far
as anyone brought before your board was concerned--would you
say this was a rather normal case?
    Mr. Hipsley. Are you asking me if we have a number of
people charged with being Communists?
    The Chairman. You have had some thirty-five people come
before the board. I am wondering if this is a typical case as
far as Communist activities are concerned, or was this one more
aggravated?
    Mr. Hipsley. We had many cases where people were charged
with being members of the Washington Book Club. I don't think
we had any other cases where anyone was charged with taking or
reading classified material.
    The Chairman. Did you have any other cases of individuals
accused of Communist activities?
    Mr. Hipsley. Oh, yes. That is why they came under the
loyalty board.
    The Chairman. You have some proofreaders who read secret
and top secret material. Is that correct?
    Mr. Hipsley. Proofreaders, in itself, is entirely
impossible.
    The Chairman. Would they have entire pages?
    Mr. Hipsley. No, sir, to my knowledge. I am not speaking as
an official on security. What happens, as nearly as I know--I
am not a security man--but all of the material----
    The Chairman. If you are passing upon the loyalty of
proofreaders, then you must know how proofreaders read
material.
    Mr. Hipsley. I was about to tell you. When confidential
material comes in, it is put on a tape and a small segment is
given to one person and some to another. No one person has the
whole story except if you have top flight people who get the
finished work or some segment of it.
    The Chairman. Let's say you had a top secret document of
fifty pages. The time comes when your galley proof is run?
    Mr. Hipsley. Right, yes.
    The Chairman. That is run in pages?
    Mr. Hipsley. Right.
    The Chairman. That must be proofread?
    Mr. Hipsley. That is right.
    The Chairman. And you don't mean you cut the pages up and
let one man have half of the page and another man the other
half?
    Mr. Hipsley. Believe me, I am not too sure.
    The Chairman. Don't you think when passing upon the loyalty
of a proofreader accused of Communist activities that you would
have known that?
    Mr. Hipsley. No, sir. I do not. I think I have every right
to rely on the security program.
    The Chairman. You were chairman of the loyalty board.
    Mr. Hipsley. That is not so.
    The Chairman. You acted as chairman. All right. Is not the
chairman of the loyalty board a very, very important cog to the
security program?
    Mr. Hipsley. I am not he.
    The Chairman. You rely on the security program, meaning
yourself as chairman of the board. My question is this: Do you
mean to tell us you would pass upon proofreaders accused of
Communist activities and you would not know how many entire
pages of the top secret documents he would read--how it was
handled?
    Mr. Hipsley. This I do know, sir. I think I am answering
your question. I know we have scattered all through the plant a
number of cleared people, cleared under our plan, who keep
under surveillance all other people, employees, when secret
work is being done.
    The Chairman. Now, when you clear those people, you follow
roughly the same procedure followed in clearing Rothschild?
    Mr. Hipsley. We have not had a full-field investigation on
our security people up until this new program of security.
    The Chairman. So that when you say cleared, you don't mean
that there was a full-field investigation?
    Mr. Hipsley. There was a Civil Service check made on the
employees, and their personnel records and their habits in the
office.
    The Chairman. So that the clearance you gave those people
was the same type of clearance you gave Rothschild, except
Rothschild's may have been a higher type clearance because you
held a hearing and he was officially cleared.
    These other security people you talk about merely had a
Civil Service check. Is that correct?
    Mr. Hipsley. I see what you mean, but I find it very hard
to answer. I am trying to get the information. I will certainly
try to help you. I don't like to answer when I do not believe
there is any laxity in clearing the security people.
    The Chairman. I am just asking how they were cleared. You
said it was not a full-field investigation. What type of
clearance did they have?
    Mr. Hipsley. They had clearance given by the investigative
group of Civil Service Commission, plus the check of the
officials of personnel records, conduct in the offices, etc.
    The Chairman. In other words, their clearance was no
different than the clearance Rothschild had? Is that correct?
    Mr. Hipsley. I wouldn't say that is correct. Rothschild was
not cleared for confidential work.
    The Chairman. He told us that he was. He said he had been
cleared and was handling top secret until that hearing.
    Mr. Hipsley. I can't answer you officially. I don't think
he was.
    The Chairman. Well, do you question his statement that he
had been cleared? Do you think he was lying?
    Mr. Hipsley. Yes, I do.
    The Chairman. Then he has perjured himself on another
count.
    Mr. Hipsley. That would be easy to determine, Senator,
because the people who were cleared are listed, and have been
listed, and we can determine whether he is on the list or not.
    The Chairman. His testimony was that he was handling
classified material until after his loyalty hearing; then there
came down a list that he was not supposed to have access to top
secret material, but he still had access to it.
    Mr. Hipsley. That can be determined factually.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether your board recommended
that Rothschild not have access to top secret material?
    Mr. Hipsley. Yes, sir, definitely. Not only that man, but
all of our thirty-five cases. There are some twenty left. The
rest resigned or they were separated. At any rate, twenty are
left. The twenty do not have access to top secret, classified
work.
    The Chairman. Then when you denied Rothschild access to top
secret work, there must have been some doubt in your mind about
his loyalty or security?
    Mr. Hipsley. It has been the action of the board in this
case, where there have been charges made that we have done the
best we could to determine whether or not they should be
separated, but we take no chance.
    The Chairman. The question is: Did the board ever doubt his
loyalty?
    Mr. Hipsley. I can't speak for the board, but as far as I
am concerned, I thought he was a safe employee.
    The Chairman. To handle top secret work?
    Mr. Hipsley. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Why not?
    Mr. Hipsley. Because the charges, we had not the effort,
time or ability to run down.
    The Chairman. You said you had examined the FBI files and
from the examination of the files and the witnesses who were
called, you were satisfied that Rothschild's wife was not a
Communist. Is that right? Without calling her?
    Mr. Hipsley. We were reasonably sure she was not. I will
give you a few details if you have the time.
    The Chairman. I would like to stick to this question. Was
there anything in the FBI file to the effect that she was not a
Communist?
    Mr. Hipsley. Not that I recall, sir.
    The Chairman. Were any of the witnesses other than the
Rothschilds in a position to tell you whether or not they were
Communists?
    Mr. Hipsley. There were neighbors who said they did not
believe she was, who lived in her vicinity for six or seven
years. That brings me--bear with me a second. The one thing
that seemed to us to make it impossible to us to be certain a
person engaged in activities similar to Communist activities,
she was married to this man around the time the charges were
set out. She was bearing a child. There was a longer period
when she was ill. She was bearing a child and she was ill.
That, along with the other statements made by the man and the
witnesses, indicated to us, at least, that there was not
sufficient evidence; that was a basis for our decision. That
was not sufficient evidence on Communist activities and to go
further----
    The Chairman. The fact that she got pregnant convinced you
she could not be a Communist?
    Mr. Hipsley. I certainly would not----
    Mr. Cohn. Judy Coplon got pregnant after she was convicted.
    Mr. Hipsley. I can see the humor of your question. The time
element accounted for the time which was the time she was
supposed to be flying around doing this and that and the other.
That is the thing I am trying to make.
    The Chairman. I think there is nothing further. I may say
if you were ordered by Seth Richardson not to consider mere
membership in the party as a bar--I can't understand how you
work on the general premise that mere membership would not bar
a man.
    Mr. Hipsley. Those were the orders.
    The Chairman. To me that is an inconceivable position. I
can understand if that was the general premise you were working
under why we have still over in the GPO individuals, including
proofreaders, against whom there is very substantial testimony
of Communist activities, and I would like to ask you one
question.
    You said one of the reasons why you did not call the
witness who testified that he had stolen secret material was
because you felt no secret material could be stolen.
    In that connection, I ask you if you are familiar with the
Lomack case?
    Mr. Hipsley. Yes, I am.
    The Chairman. In which a woman did steal either secret or
confidential material, had it in her purse and was leaving the
building, and the only reason she was caught was because an
alert fellow worker saw her take it. A fellow worker who
incidentally identifies Rothschild as a Communist. In view of
the fact here is a woman who could steal secret material, a
woman much less important than some others in your plant. You
say Rothschild could not have stolen it. Therefore, you did not
call the witness who said she saw him steal it.
    Mr. Hipsley. Senator, I think you make a point in favor of
what I just said if you will allow me to comment. The fact is,
Lomack did not got away with her attempt. She was caught.
    Mr. Chairman. It was no security officer who saw her.
    Mr. Hipsley. More than one person saw her, I think it can a
determined. I think you will find there was more than one
person involved in the catching of Mrs. Lomack.
    The Chairman. Will you check that and notify us if that is
true or not?
    Mr. Hipsley. You were referring to Seth Richardson and our
guidance on his leadership, which I think is a safe statement.
In Memo No. l, under date of March 9, 1946, Subject: ``Effect
of Proof of Membership or the Equivalent Thereof in Any
Organization on So-Called Attorney General's list.'' I won't
read it all. I will just read a paragraph.
    It must be clearly understood that such membership in any
particular organization is not, and must not be considered, as
per se establishing disloyalty under the required test. Despite
such membership, a Board might properly, upon a consideration
of the entire record, find that the employee in question was
not disloyal. As the President has stated, ``Membership in an
organization is simply one piece of evidence which may or may
not be helpful in arriving at a conclusion as to the action
which is to be taken in a particular case.'' Membership alone,
therefore, is not of itself to be considered as conclusive, and
Boards should clearly understand that their determinations,
while taking the fact of membership into consideration, must
still be made upon the entire record in the case.
    The Chairman. While I have no admiration at all for Seth
Richardson, I thought under him the Loyalty Program was
misnamed, I do think you have misconstrued that order.
    I do think what Seth Richardson is referring to is
membership in so-called Communist fronts. I think you
misunderstood that to mean membership in the Communist party.
That is a gross mis-construction.
    Mr. Hipsley. I am sorry, sir. I didn't misunderstand. From
other orders, membership in the Communist party was included in
this.
    The Chairman. Could we see this?
    Mr. Cohn. Could you get the whole file? I would be shocked
to see it.
    The Chairman. In any event, you and the board felt mere
membership in the Communist party was not a bar? That it took
more than that?
    Mr. Hipsley. Other facts and circumstances? That is
correct, sir.
    The Chairman. I think that is all.
    [Whereupon, the hearing adjourned at 11:45 a.m.]
                  SECURITY--GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    [Editor's note.--Irving Studenberg did not testify in
public. During the public hearing on August 19, Esther
Rothschild declined to answer questions about whether she knew
Studenberg or had attended Communist study groups with him.
Responding to similar questions on August 20, Charles Gift said
that he could not recall having met Studenberg.]
                              ----------
                       THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 10:00 a.m. in room 357, Senate
Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M.
Cohn, chief counsel; Karl Barsalag, research director; Richard
O'Melia, general counsel, Committee on Government Operations;
Herbert S. Hawkins, investigator; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
                 TESTIMONY OF IRVlNG STUDENBERG
    The Chairman. Mr. Studenberg, will you stand and raise your
right hand?
    In the matter now in hearing, do you solemnly swear to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
    Mr. Studenberg. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Studenberg, I will just ask you this one
question at present.
    You are not a member of the Communist party today?
    Mr. Studenberg. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you employed at the Government Printing
Office?
    Mr. Studenberg. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. About when was that?
    Mr. Studenberg. 1935 to 1943.
    Mr. Cohn. You were not an open member of the party at any
time during your employment at GPO?
    Mr. Studenberg. No, sir. I became a member after leaving
GPO. I had no contact during that period of time. Then I went
back and inquired and made application--I was told to make
application--for a membership as a new member.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, during the period of time you were with the
GPO, the 1940s, did you ever attend any Communist meetings
anyplace?
    Mr. Studenberg. I never attended any open Communist party
meetings.
    Mr. Cohn. You attended no open meetings?
    Mr. Studenberg. That is right.
    May I amend that statement? Which to my knowledge were
Communist party meetings.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you attend what we might call Communist
discussion meetings?
    Mr. Studenberg. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. And how would you describe those meetings?
    Mr. Studenberg. Well, they seemed to be made up of a group
of people who at the time were interested in discussing some of
the very hot phases of the day. Naturally, in the period of the
emergency before we entered World War II, the discussion of
other people who were involved with the entrance into the war.
They discussed the role this country would take, economic and
political and what we, as people working for the government,
what we should do, etc.
    Mr. Cohn. Were those who participated Communist
sympathizers?
    Mr. Studenberg. I would say they could be classified as
people who were interested enough to be anxious to find out
information, that is party information and to discuss that
information.
    Mr. Cohn. That is Communist party information?
    Mr. Studenberg. I will not say group as such. Individuals
as such always agreed with the Communist party line. Because in
many instances which come to mind, they didn't agree but we
discussed it and read the literature.
    The Chairman. In other words, you wouldn't be in a position
to say everyone there was a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Studenberg. No, sir. Definitely not.
    The Chairman. But it was recognized that this was the
Communist line that was being discussed at these meetings?
    Mr. Studenberg. That is right. That was the basis of our
discussion. As I explained before, we were free to discuss
anything we cared to discuss. In other words, we would take the
Communist party pamphlet, sheet, article, whatever fitted our
need and discussed it. We not only used Communist party source
material as the basis of our discussions, we used newspapers
and the magazines of the day and other things so that our
discussion was in the nature of a debate usually with two
sides.
    The Chairman. At that time were you a member yourself?
    Mr. Studenberg. I was a member of this discussion group.
    Mr. Cohn. It was definitely along the Communist party line?
    Mr. Studenberg. No, we didn't talk about anything except as
we felt it pertained to educating or acquainting of ourselves
with what was the Communist party----
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, it all related around Communist
party theories?
    Mr. Studenberg. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did you know a man by the name of Edward
Rothschild?
    Mr. Studenberg. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know him in the Government Printing
Office?
    Mr. Studenberg. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he ever attend these Communist discussion
groups?
    Mr. Studenberg. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Were any ever held in his home?
    Mr. Studenberg. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Where was his home located?
    Mr. Studenberg. River Terrace on Dix Street.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he ever present at any of these meetings at
his home?
    Mr. Studenberg. Yes, he was present. Not all the time.
Sometimes he worked nights and wasn't present.
    Mr. Cohn. Could you name some of the persons present?
    Mr. Studenberg. His wife.
    Mr. Cohn. Esther?
    Mr. Studenberg. Yes. Isadore Kornfield.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Mr. Kornfield worked at GPO?
    Mr. Studenberg. Yes. Edward M. Burke.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Burke is deceased. Is that right?
    Mr. Studenberg. That is right. A Fred Siller, who worked at
GPO. That is all the people from GPO to the best of my
knowledge who were there.
    Mr. Cohn. Was Charlotte Sillers there?
    She was not then Charlotte Sillers.
    Mr. Studenberg. That is right. She came in there sometime
in that period of time.
    I amend that. I believe she was there when I came into the
group.
    Mr. Cohn. Did Mr. and Mrs. Rothschild participate in the
discussions at some of these meetings?
    Mr. Studenberg. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, what literature was customarily distributed
or discussed at the meetings?
    Mr. Studenberg. Well, once a month we would usually get
hold of a magazine that was a magazine put out every month--the
official magazine Political Affairs.
    Mr. Cohn. That is the official monthly organ of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Studenberg. Yes. Sometimes we would get it late because
sometimes we would go to the Washington Bookshop and purchase
it. I mean sometimes we would get it early. We would usually
purchase that. We might miss a month every so often. That was
usually the basis for one discussion during the month.
    Mr. Cohn. And was the Daily Worker ever discussed?
    Mr. Studenberg. No, the Daily Worker, as such, wasn't
discussed.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, you can't recall any discussion
around the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Studenberg. Any article discussed--not as such. I think
some of the articles might have appeared later in the monthly
magazine.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you remember any specific articles or specific
material discussed?
    Mr. Studenberg. Yes, one I specifically remember which
comes to my mind right now, there was an article when we went
into the war, an article on ``What Should the Role of American
Labor Be Now That We Are at War?''
    The Chairman. In other words, at that time you were curious
to know what the Communist party had to offer. You scrutinized
what they had to offer, listened to the discussion of the
Communist line and philosophy and decided that that was not the
answer to the ills of the world?
    Mr. Studenberg. I took quite an agnostic view. I thought it
might be the answer, but knowing nothing about it when
approached, I felt joining such a group--as explained to me I
would not be a member--would be a good way of finding out.
    The Chairman. Who asked you to join this group?
    Mr. Studenberg. This I could not remember. I could explain
the place where it took place but I can't remember the name of
the man. It was evidently somebody who had been asked to speak
to me. He had seen me at a couple of the meetings and he asked
me. I met him down on 17th and K, that park down there, and he
asked me if I was interested and said he could get me into such
a group.
    The Chairman. Now, was Mr. Rothschild in this group before
you were in?
    Mr. Studenberg. He was there when I came into it.
    [Off-the-record discussion.]
    The Chairman. In other words, you couldn't say at this time
which of the members at this study group were Communist party
members and which were not because if they were party members
they couldn't divulge that to you?
    Mr. Studenberg. They wouldn't divulge it to me.
    The Chairman. Nobody asked you if you wouldn't like to
strengthen your ties. In other words, this was it?
    [Off-the-record discussion.]
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Studenberg, was any money ever collected at
any of these meetings?
    Mr. Studenberg. Yes. I never collected any, I don't
remember how much it was or anything like that but there was
money collected.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you say that money was collected for
Communist activities of one sort or another?
    Mr. Studenberg. Yes, the general nature was to assist in
the Communist party activities.
    Mr. Cohn. Could you give us any typical examples?
    Mr. Studenberg. Just in general. It wasn't too often. As I
said, we might be requested to donate money for fund drives. As
it was explained to us, it cost more to put out these
magazines, etc. and then different people would give whatever
they saw fit. In other words, they might give from $1.00 to
$15.00. The spread might have been about that.
    Mr. Cohn. How often did they have a Daily Worker fund
drive?
    Mr. Studenberg. I think about once a year.
    The Chairman. As far as you know, anyone at the study
groups would understand that this was a study group called for
the purpose of studying the Communist party line, philosophy
and that sort of thing?
    Mr. Studenberg. You say did everybody understand?
    The Chairman. Yes. Do you think everyone would understand
that?
    Mr. Studenberg. That was my understanding.
    The Chairman. In other words, that was the way it was put
to you when you came into the group.
    Mr. Studenberg. This was never discussed. The only thing we
discussed--if there might have been an open meeting of the
Communist party or something like that and if somebody said he
went to it or he thought he might go to it, it came out in our
discussions that it probably was best for us not to go since we
were government workers and it probably would be best for us
just--if we were interested--to restrict ourselves to this, so
that anywhere there was an open meeting which was sponsored by
the Communist party, I know I didn't go.
    [Off-the-record discussion.]
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Studenberg, would you say that the one thing
that united the member of this group was a general agreement on
the support for the open platform of the Communist party?
    Mr. Studenberg. As published publicly, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And that these discussions concerned methods of
carrying out the platform and which would be the right methods
and wrong methods on those things would be reported and
discussed?
    Mr. Studenberg. Yes. Specifically the program that I am
talking about was, which I found out later was considered the
minimum program, such things as extension of social security,
old age benefits, recognition of unions and things like that.
All of those professed things also in our international
policies to put forth re-effort to defeat Fascism.
    Mr. Cohn. In general that was the thing?
    Mr. Studenberg. In general, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. On specific things you might disagree, but in
general you agreed that it was a good platform?
    The Chairman. And the platform was obtained by reading
Political Affairs, the Communist party publication?
    Mr. Studenberg. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you remember the author of ``What Should the
Role of American Labor Be?''
    Mr. Studenberg. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you remember Esther Rothschild giving a report
on that issue?
    Mr. Studenberg. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. About when was this? Could you fix a definite
date?
    Mr. Studenberg. Shortly after we entered the war. I would
say early 1942.
    Mr. Cohn. Could you give us the names of anyone else who
attended those meetings that we haven't gone into, either in or
out of government?
    Mr. Studenberg. I have only given you names of people in
the government. Names of people who were out of the government:
John Tafer; Saul Minowitz.
    In case of such a kind, I think it was explained we were
asked if we would accept such a person and it was explained--I
guess the reason why those persons wanted to be in a group such
as ours--and so in some cases we said, ``No,'' and in these
cases we said ``Yes.''
    The Chairman. Did the study group have any name that it was
known by other than just the study group?
    Mr. Studenberg. As far as I can remember, it was just known
as a group. In other words, we didn't have a name as such that
I can remember.
    The Chairman. Do you recall ever having attended any
meetings in the Rothschild home of the Civil Liberties Club?
    Mr. Studenberg. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you join the party?
    Mr. Studenberg. Not until a year after I left the GPO.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time did you remain in
that?
    Mr. Studenberg. Well, I remained--let me put it this way.
As a member I guess I remained five or six years. It was
somewhere about five or six years.
    The Chairman. Did you visit the Rothschilds after you had
joined the party?
    Mr. Studenberg. No, sir, nor did I see them from the time I
left the government.
    The Chairman. In other words, after you left the government
you had no contact with the Rothschilds?
    Mr. Studenberg. That is right.
    The Chairman. I think that is all for the time being. I
want to thank you very much.
    Herb, would you arrange if we want to get any further
information from Mr. Studenberg, that he will be available.
    Mr. Studenberg. I just want to ask the committee this. I
would prefer, if possible, that if Mr. Hawkins is to get in
touch with me or any other member of the committee, to do it at
my home and not at my place of employment.
    The Chairman. Sure. In other words, Herb, do not contact
Mr. Studenberg at his place of business.
    I think that is all. Thank you very much,
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12:00 noon.]
                  SECURITY--GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    [Editor's note.--Gertrude Evans (1883-1966) and Charles
Gift (1893-1980) testified at a public hearing on August 20,
1953. Despite the chairman's assertions, the Senate cited
neither of them for contempt.]
                              ----------
                       THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 1:30 p.m. in room 357, Senate
Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M.
Cohn, chief counsel; Richard O'Melia, general counsel,
Committee on Government Operations; Herbert S. Hawkins,
investigator.
TESTIMONY OF GERTRUDE EVANS (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL, JOSEPH
                             FORER)
    The Chairman. Mrs. Evans, will you stand and be sworn.
    In the matter now in hearing, do you solemnly swear to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
    Mrs. Evans. I do.
    The Chairman. For the record, Mrs. Evans, is it Miss or
Mrs.?
    Mrs. Evans. Mrs. Mr. Joseph Forer is my counsel.
    The Chairman. I assume you have told Mrs. Evans what her
rights are?
    Mr. Forer. I have, Senator.
    Mr. Cohn. Mrs. Evans, are you a member of the Communist
party?
    Mrs. Evans. I refuse to answer on the basis of my privilege
under the Fifth Amendment not to be a witness against myself.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, were you a member of the Communist party
between the year 1948 and 1953?
    Mrs. Evans. It is the same answer.
    Mr. Cohn. And are you today receiving money from the
Communist party as salary?
    Mrs. Evans. Same answer.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation?
    Mrs. Evans. I am executive secretary of the Progressive
party of the District of Columbia.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you held that
position?
    Mrs. Evans. I am trying to think. I think it must be
between four and five years. A year after the election in 1946.
A year after.
    Mr. Cohn. Mrs. Evans, did you ever attend a Communist party
meeting at the home of Mrs. Esther Rothschild on Dix Street
N.E., Washington, D.C.?
    You may consult with counsel any time you care to.
    Mrs. Evans. I refuse to answer on the same basis--my
privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. May I suggest, while you definitely have that
right and you have a competent lawyer to advise you, the
Rothschilds have asked that you be called, probably on the
theory that you may be some help to them. When you refuse to
answer whether or not you attended Communist party meetings in
their home, you are not being much help to them.
    I can understand if you did attend such meeting that you
would naturally want to refuse to answer. In fairness to these
people who are accused of membership in the Communist party and
deny it, if you have not attended Communist party meetings at
their home, in view of the fact they think you might help them.
I think you should answer the question. However, you have a
very competent lawyer here and we are not going to advise you.
If you persist, you may refuse to answer that question.
    Mrs. Evans. I still abide by my refusal.
    The Chairman. In other words, you feel if you gave a
truthful answer as to whether or not you attended Communist
party meetings at their home that might tend to incriminate
you?
    Mrs. Evans. I think that is an assumption. As I understand
incrimination it doesn't mean guilt or knowledge.
    The Chairman. The question was: Do you feel a truthful
answer to that question might tend to incriminate you?
    You can consult with your lawyer at any time you care to.
    Mrs. Evans. The answer is ``yes.''
    The Chairman. Then you are entitled to the privilege.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you specifically attend Communist meetings at
the home of the Rothschilds in the years 1944 and l945 when
Elizabeth Searle and Esther Rothschild were present?
    Mrs. Evans. My answer will be the same.
    The Chairman. By the same, do you mean you refuse to answer
on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment?
    Mrs. Evans. My privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Esther Rothschild as a member of the
Communist party?
    Mrs. Evans. To the best of my recollection, I do not recall
Mrs. Rothschild. Perhaps I knew her under her maiden name but I
do not recall a Mrs. Esther Rothschild to the best of my
knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you recall Elizabeth Searle?
    Mrs. Evans. I refuse to answer on the basis of the Fifth
Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. How about a Mr. Thomas? Do you know a Mr. Thomas?
    Mr. Forer. Excuse me, Senator. Do you have the first name?
    The Chairman. Unfortunately, I don't have. Mr. Thomas
testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee on
the 13th of June 1950.
    Mr. Forer. Is that Henry Thomas?
    Mr. Hawkins. That is Henry.
    The Chairman. Henry Thomas.
    Mrs. Evans. I refuse to answer on the same basis.
    The Chairman. Mr. Thomas has testified that you were a
member of the Communist party. Would you care to tell us
whether he was telling the truth at that time or not?
    Mrs. Evans. I decline to answer on the same basis.
    Mr. Cohn. The question is this. We have testimony that you
and Elizabeth Searle and a woman named Mary Stalcup attended a
Communist party meeting at the Dix Street home of Mrs. Esther
Rothschild. Is that true?
    Mrs. Evans. I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been to the home of Mrs. Rothschild
on Dix Street?
    Mrs. Evans. I told you previously that I do not recall Mrs.
Rothschild to the best of my recollection.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you attend any Communist party meetings at a
home on Dix Street?
    Mrs. Evans. I refuse to answer under the privilege of the
Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. I am going to ask you to go out and view the
Rothschild home on Dix Street and we are going to recall you
again so you will be in a position to either answer ``yes'' or
``no'' as to whether you attended meetings there or if you care
to refuse to answer, you will have that privilege. I want you
to go out and view that home, 3430 Dix street N.E. And the
committee, of course, will pay your cab fare to and from.
    Mr. Cohn. That is quite important, Mr. Forer. We have sworn
testimony that Mrs. Evans was present with Mrs. Rothschild and
Miss Searle at Mrs. Rothschild's home. If she said she does not
recall----
    Mrs. Evans. I said I do not recall.
    Mr. Forer. Mrs. Evans will go out and look at the home.
    The Chairman. Will you show these pictures to Mrs.
Rothschild and see if she recognizes this man.
    Mrs. Evans, will you take a look at that and see if you
recall him?
    Mrs. Evans. That is not familiar to me.
    The Chairman. Did you know a Mary Stalcup?
    Mrs. Evans. I decline to answer on the basis of the Fifth
Amendment.
    The Chairman. To refresh your memory, she is an undercover
agent for the FBI. She is now Mary Markward. With that
additional information, do you care to answer whether you knew
her?
    Mrs. Evans. My answer is the same.
    The Chairman. On the grounds of the Fifth Amendment?
    Mrs. Evans. Yes.
    The Chairman. I don't know if you were asked this question
or not. Are you now a member of the Communist party, as of
today?
    Mrs. Evans. I refuse to answer on the grounds of the Fifth
Amendment.
    The Chairman. Would you consider the Communist form of
government as presently found in Russia superior to our form of
government?
    Mrs. Evans. All I can answer to that is I don't know about
the details of it. I think this government if carried out--the
Bill of Rights and the Constitution as indicated by our
founding fathers, we would have a fine government and procedure
here in this country.
    The Chairman. Have you ever advocated the overthrow of our
government?
    Mrs. Evans. I certainly have not.
    The Chairman. Have you ever attended any Communist meetings
in which was advocated the overthrow of our government by force
and violence?
    Mrs. Evans. I have never attended any meetings when I have
heard anyone advocate the overthrow of the government by force
and violence.
    The Chairman. Is it your thought that the Communist party
does not advocate the overthrow of our government by force and
violence?
    Mrs. Evans. The only answer I can give to that is that I
have never met anyone personally who advocates the overthrow of
the government by force and violence.
    The Chairman. You apparently haven't heard my question.
    Is it your opinion that the Communist party does not
advocate the overthrow of this government by force and
violence?
    Mrs. Evans. It is my opinion that it does not advocate the
overthrow of this government by force and violence.
    The Chairman. Under the circumstance you will be ordered to
answer the question of whether or not you are a Communist.
    For the benefit of your counsel, the grounds for ordering
the witness to answer is that under our laws it is no crime to
be a member of the Communist party unless you are aware of the
fact that the party advocates the overthrow of this government
by force and violence. This witness has said that she is of the
opinion they do not advocate the destruction of our government
by force and violence. Therefore, she could be a member of the
Communist party and be guilty of no crime. Therefore, she is
not entitled to the privilege under the Fifth Amendment. For
that reason I am ordering Mrs. Evans to answer the question. If
you do not answer, I will ask the committee to have you cited
for contempt.
    Just answer the question of whether or not you are a member
of the Communist party. Just so the record will be clear and so
there will be no doubt in your mind in any further legal
proceeding, you were first asked if you were a member of the
Communist party.
    You were entitled to refuse to answer that question on the
ground that that answer might tend to incriminate you, if you
feel the Communist party advocates the destruction of our
government by force and violence.
    If, as you say, you do not believe that is the aim of the
Communist party, then to be a member of the Communist party
would not incriminate you--would be no crime. Therefore, you
could not avail yourself of the Fifth Amendment. For that
reason you are being ordered to answer the question as to
whether or not you are, as of this moment, a member of the
Communist party.
    Mrs. Evans. I still decline to answer on the basis of my
privilege under the Fifth Amendment--not to be a witness
against myself.
    The Chairman. Just for the benefit of counsel, you
understand the position of the chairman, whether you agree or
not is another thing.
    Mr. Forer. Of course.
    The Chairman. I may say it may be sometime before you are
cited for contempt because of the fact the Senate is out of
session, but I am going to ask them to cite you for contempt on
this matter.
    Roy, will you send this record over to the attorney general
and to the United States attorney with her position on the
case, and get an opinion from them on that question.
    Mr. Forer. I don't know how busy you are. I assume you are
busy. I would like to have this cleaned up this afternoon. I
wonder if you could have your client go out and see the
Rothschild home now.
    Mr. Forer. You mean this Dix Street address?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mrs. Evans. May I say something? I don't recall ever being
on Dix Street in my life.
    The Chairman. We want this positive. We have positive
testimony of several witnesses you were there. I want you to
see the home so that you won't make any statement now that you
will be called upon to change later.
    Mr. Forer. Senator, can we work it this way. As I
understand, you are calling back Mrs. Evans for an open
hearing. Can we work it so she goes out and takes a look at the
house and get in touch with Mr. Cohn by phone.
    The Chairman. I had much rather have her back here. I'd
like to have her see Mrs. Rothschild also. Mr. Hawkins can take
you and Mrs. Evans out. I'd like to have you take them out to
see the house on Dix Street, number one. Number two, take her
over to see Mrs. Rothschild so she can come back here and tell
us whether or not she knows Mrs. Rothschild. Will that foul up
your schedule for this afternoon, Mr. Forer?
    Mr. Forer. I don't know as I have to go along.
    The Chairman. Herb, why don't you take Mrs. Evans. Then by
the time you get back we should be through with Mr. Gift.
    Mrs. Evans, have you ever been to a Communist party meeting
on Riverside Terrace?
    Mrs. Evans. Was I ever in Paris?
    The Chairman. The question was not: Were you ever in Paris?
Were you ever to a Communist meeting at Riverside Terrace?
    Mrs. Evans. I decline to answer under my privilege under
the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Dix Street is Riverside Terrace.
    Have you ever been to Communist meetings at the Rothschild
home?
    Mrs. Evans. The answer is the same.
    The Chairman. You decline to answer.
    Mrs. Evans. Yes.
             TESTIMONY OF GERTRUDE EVANS (RESUMED)
    The Chairman. Mrs. Evans, since you were in here, you have
had a chance to get a look at the Rothschild home. That is the
home on Dix Street, the former Rothschild home.
    Mrs. Evans. This house was pointed out to me by Mr.
Hawkins.
    The Chairman. Since seeing it can you tell us whether you
ever attended any meetings in that home?
    Mrs. Evans. I decline to answer under my privilege under
the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Since then you were taken over to see Esther
Rothschild. Did you attend any Communist meetings with her?
    Mrs. Evans. I haven't had a chance to see her.
    The Chairman. I understand she slammed the door in your
face.
    Mrs. Evans. I didn't see her.
    The Chairman. That will be all for the time being.
    Mr. Frosh has asked that you be called as a witness in
public session and he said he may have written questions to
submit to the committee.
    Mrs. Evans. I am sorry, Senator. I couldn't hear you.
    The Chairman. You will be called again. Mr. Frosh, the
attorney, has asked that you be called. Mr. Cohn or Mr. Carr
will be in touch with Mr. Forer.
    Mr. Forer. Senator, one thing I wanted to raise. Mrs. Evans
was planning to go on vacation. If it would be at all possible
to get her Monday it wouldn't spoil her vacation. If you could
get her as one of the early ones.
    The Chairman. If you will remind us Monday, we will arrange
that some way.
    Mrs. Evans. Then I will know through Mr. Forer.
    The Chairman. We will arrange to get you on Monday.
    Will Monday or Tuesday be all right?
    Mr. Forer. Monday would be better. Tuesday will be second
best.
    The Chairman. Barring the unforseen, we will definitely get
you on Monday.
 TESTIMONY OF CHARLES GIFT (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, JOSEPH
                             FORER)
    The Chairman. In the matter now in hearing do you solemnly
swear that the testimony you are about to give shall be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
    Mr. Gift. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Gift, have you ever been a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Gift. I decline to answer that question on the basis of
my privilege under the Fifth Amendment not to be a witness
against myself.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the party today?
    Mr. Gift. I refuse on the same basis.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Gift was there a Communist party meeting at
your home in the year 1939?
    Mr. Gift. I refuse to answer on that same basis.
    Mr. Cohn. Was there a Mr. Edward Rothschild and Mr. Fred
Sillers at a Communist meeting at your home in the year 1939?
    Mr. Gift. I decline to answer that on the same basis.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Edward Rothschild in the Communist
party?
    Mr. Gift. I decline to answer that one also.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Fred Sillers in the Communist party?
    Mr. Gift. I think I decline on the same thing.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know anybody by the name of Jim Phillips?
    Mr. Gift. I decline to answer that one also.
    Mr. Cohn. Were Mr. Phillips, Mr. Rothschild and Mr. Sillers
present at a meeting at your home in 1939 in which formation of
a Communist party cell in the GPO was discussed?
    Mr. Gift. I decline to answer that one on the same basis.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you arrested in 1952, January 12, 1952?
    Mr. Gift. I was not.
    Mr. Cohn. You were not, you say?
    Mr. Gift. I was not.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you arrested in 1952 at all to your
knowledge?
    Mr. Gift. I was not arrested at all.
    Mr. Cohn. In 1951?
    Mr. Gift. Neither in 1951.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you arrested any time in the last few years?
    Mr. Gift. I was not arrested in the last three years.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you arrested in connection with collecting
defense funds for Marie Richardson Harris, who is awaiting
trial in a court down here?
    Mr. Gift. I was not arrested. I just wasn't arrested.
    The Chairman. We seem to have information here to indicate
that you attended a meeting called by the District Communist
party to raise defense funds for Marie Richardson Harris. We
have the date as January 12, 1952. Will you tell us whether or
not you attended such a meeting?
    Mr. Gift. I decline to answer that one.
    The Chairman. In any event, you say you were not arrested?
    Mr. Gift. I was not arrested, period.
    The Chairman. Were you spoken to by any officer of the law
concerning that meeting?
    Mr. Gift. I decline to answer that one also.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you picked up by the police on January 12,
1952?
    Mr. Gift. I was not picked up by the police.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you spoken to?
    Mr. Gift. I might have been.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you recall?
    Mr. Gift. I don't recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you recall any contact with the police or law
enforcement officials in connection with your attendance at a
party at 641 4th Street, N.E. on January 12, 1952?
    Mr. Gift. You mentioned attendance.
    Mr. Cohn. I am speaking of any police, law-enforcement
officials who spoke to you, whether you attended that party or
not.
    Mr. Gift. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. You were in no contact whatsoever at your
attendance at this party for the collection of defense funds
for Marie Harris? Did they speak to you?
    Mr. Gift. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been arrested?
    Mr. Gift. Almost.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Gift. That was a long time ago. Two minor traffic
violations.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever arrested for anything other than
traffic violations?
    Mr. Gift. I was not
    The Chairman. How many children do you have?
    Mr. Gift. Two. Two daughters.
    The Chairman. Did one of them used to keep company with a
Jim Phillips?
    Mr. Gift. That I have to refuse to answer on the same
grounds.
    The Chairman. Were your daughters members of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Gift. Not that I know of.
    The Chairman. Was your wife a member of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Gift. Not that I know of.
    The Chairman. Where do your daughters now work?
    Mr. Gift. One of them is not working.
    The Chairman. Is she married?
    Mr. Gift. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. And where does she live?
    Mr. Gift. She lives near the edge of Maryland.
    The Chairman. Do you have her address?
    Mr. Gift. I do not.
    The Chairman. Do you know her address?
    Mr. Gift. I do not. It is Southeast.
    The Chairman. What is her married name?
    Mr. Gift. Fisher.
    The Chairman. What is her husband's first name?
    Mr. Gift. Phillip.
    The Chairman. What does he do?
    Mr. Gift. He used to work for the government. I think he
works for an attorney in some sort of job.
    The Chairman. Is he a lawyer himself?
    Mr. Gift. No. I think not.
    Mr. Cohn. What agency did he work for in the government?
    Mr. Gift. I think the Navy Department.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know how long since he left government
work?
    Mr. Gift. I imagine it was a couple of years.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend any Communist party meetings
with this man Fisher?
    Mr. Gift. I will have to refuse to answer that question
also on the basis of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever take either of your daughters to
Communist party meetings?
    Mr. Gift. I refuse to answer that one also.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever take your wife to Communist party
meetings?
    Mr. Gift. The same answer on that one.
    Mr. Cohn. Where is the other daughter?
    Mr. Gift. She is in Washington.
    Mr. Cohn. Is she working in the Justice Department?
    Mr. Gift. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. What is her first name?
    Mr. Gift. Gale.
    Mr. Cohn. And do you know what type of work she is doing in
the Justice Department?
    Mr. Gift. Clerical work.
    Mr. Cohn. In the Anti-Trust Division?
    Mr. Gift. Well, now, it was. I am not sure it is right now.
    Mr. Cohn. And you refuse to answer whether or not you ever
attended a Communist party meeting with your daughter Gale.
    Mr. Gift. Of course, I didn't.
    Mr. Cohn. You did not.
    You never attended a Communist party meeting with your
daughter Gale?
    Mr. Gift. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever suggest to her that she join the
Communist party?
    Mr. Gift. I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. How about your other daughter, the wife of Mr.
Fisher. Did you attend a Communist party meeting with her?
    Mr. Gift. I did not.
    The Chairman. Just a moment ago you refused to answer that
on the grounds that your answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Gift. I said on the basis of my privilege not to be a
witness against myself.
    The Chairman. Do you think you would be a witness against
yourself if you gave us a truthful answer to that?
    Mr. Gift. I might.
    The Chairman. In what way could you be a witness against
yourself if you had never attended a Communist party meeting
with her?
    Mr. Gift. I don't know what the circumstances would be.
    The Chairman. When you refused to answer did you feel that
a truthful answer might incriminate you?
    Mr. Gift. It might. I just don't know.
    The Chairman. The answer that you did not attend meetings
with them would incriminate you?
    Mr. Gift. No, that would not incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Then do you feel you improperly used the
privilege?
    Mr. Gift. No, I don't feel I improperly used the privilege.
    The Chairman. In other words, you feel you are entitled to
the privilege if your answer won't incriminate you.
    You have just told us, number one, that the answer won't
incriminate you. Just a bit ago you told us that the answer
would incriminate you. I am going to tell you something. You
are not going to play with this committee. This is no laughing
matter. The privilege under the Fifth Amendment is a very
important privilege. You will not come in here and play with
it. You have told us you would not answer whether or not you
attended Communist party meetings with your daughter on the
grounds that a truthful answer might incriminate you. Another
minute later you say you attended no such meetings.
    My question is: Do you feel that to tell the truth as to
whether or not you attended Communist party meetings with your
daughter, that would incriminate you?
    Mr. Gift. No, the truth will not incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Your case will be referred to the full
committee and I am going to ask them to cite you.
    I may say, Mr. Forer, I am getting sick of witnesses
playing around with this committee. They are not going to do
it, I am just telling you. Unless you feel a truthful answer
will tend to incriminate you, don't take advantage of the Fifth
Amendment.
    The Chairman. Are you a Communist as of today?
    Mr. Gift. I refuse to answer that question.
    The Chairman. On what grounds?
    Mr. Gift. On the basis of my privilege not to be a witness
against myself.
    The Chairman. Do you honestly feel a truthful answer might
tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Gift. I refuse to answer that question.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer that question.
    Mr. Gift. I think I am right in declining to----
    The Chairman. The question is: Do you feel if you told us
the truth as to whether or not you are a member of the
Communist party today, that a truthful answer might tend to
incriminate you?
    Mr. Gift. I think it might.
    The Chairman. You think it might?
    Mr. Gift. That is right.
    The Chairman. If you were not a Communist today and you
told us you were not, do you feel that would tend to
incriminate you?
    Mr. Gift. I wish you would repeat that.
    The Chairman. If you were not a Communist today and you
truthfully told the committee you were not a Communist, do you
think such an answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Gift. I would like to exercise my privilege on that.
    The Chairman. If a man other than yourself were on the
witness stand and he was asked whether or not he is a Communist
at this moment, if he were not a Communist and he were to
truthfully say he were not a Communist, do you think that might
tend to incriminate him?
    Mr. Gift. I have no way of knowing whether it would or not.
    The Chairman. Then we will get back to the question and
you.
    If you are not a Communist and if you were to tell us that
you were not a Communist, do you think that would tend to
incriminate you?
    Mr. Gift. I think I am entitled to decline on that one on
the same basis of my privilege.
    The Chairman. Mr. Cohn and Mr. Forer also, both of you are
lawyers. In fact all of the men here are lawyers. I think
before I order the witness to answer that, let's discuss it.
    In order to determine whether a man is entitled to the
privilege of the Fifth Amendment, we must know what he has in
mind when he says it will tend to incriminate me. This is
doubly true in view of the fact that he has said an answer
might tend to incriminate him and then given an answer that it
could not even conceivably tend to incriminate him. I will be
glad to hear you on that.
    Mr. Forer. I don't see any particular reason in getting
into a legal discussion. I think it is clear you and I have
different views. To me it seems quite clear under the decision
that he can claim his privilege, can refuse to answer, when
non-essential cross-examination is seeking to get behind the
original privilege.
    The Chairman. The committee has the right to determine if
the privilege is used in good faith.
    Mr. Forer. The committee in not entitled to go as far as it
is going.
    The Chairman. Is it your view that the mere assertion of
the privilege is an assertion of good faith?
    Mr. Forer. Of course not. The whole business of inquiry,
which are innocent on face and setting and here the questions
involved are not innocent on face and certainly not in their
setting; once that has been established, I don't think you have
any right.
    Senator, I want to add one other thing. I don't mean to be
disrespectful, but I think you are making a mountain out of a
mole hill. The witness is sitting there and has questions fired
at him and he claims the privilege sometimes. I don't think
that necessarily impeaches his good faith all the way through.
It is perfectly clear to me that Mr. Gift answered in good
faith on the question about his daughters when it was first
asked. He didn't consult counsel. You know the witness is faced
by an interrogator and is not in the most comfortable position
in the world.
    The Chairman. I think the witness has shown completely bad
faith by claiming the privilege when he would not have claimed
the privilege previously. I believe we should find out the
basis for his claiming the privilege. Therefore, you will be
ordered to answer the question, Mr. Gift, and I assume you will
want to discuss it with counsel.
    Do you recall the question? The question is: Do you feel
that if you were not a member of the Communist party and you
were to tell us that you were not that, such an answer might
tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Gift. I decline to answer for the same reason as
previously stated.
    The Chairman. Have the record show that the witness has
been ordered to answer and he still declines to answer.
    Mr. Gift, is it your opinion that the Communist party is
dedicated to the destruction of our form of government by force
and violence?
    Mr. Gift. I don't know of any organization who is committed
to force and violence. I know of no such contact.
    The Chairman. The question is: Is it your opinion that the
Communist party has as its program the destruction of this
government by force and violence?
    Mr. Gift. I decline to answer that question.
    The Chairman. Is it your testimony that you never attended
a Communist party meeting with either of your two daughters or
with your wife?
    Mr. Gift. No, I didn't attend any such with my wife or
daughters, either one.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist party
meetings with your son-in-law?
    Mr. Gift. I decline to answer that question.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist meetings
with Jim Phillips?
    Mr. Gift. I decline again to answer that question on the
same basis.
    The Chairman. Do you know Edward Rothschild?
    Mr. Gift. I decline to answer that on my privilege.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend a Communist party meeting
with Edward Rothschild?
    Mr. Gift. The answer would be the same.
    The Chairman. Do you decline to answer on the grounds that
a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Gift. Yes.
    The Chairman. Just so you can't claim later that you did
this too hurriedly, is it your testimony today, after taking
all the consideration that you think necessary that a truthful
answer as to whether you attended a Communist meeting with
Edward Rothschild would tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Gift. It might.
    The Chairman. You say that might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Gift. Yes.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend a Communist meeting at
Edward Rothschild's home?
    Mr. Gift. I decline to answer that on my privilege.
    The Chairman. On the ground that a truthful answer might
tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Gift. It might.
    The Chairman. And you feel that a truthful answer might
tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Gift. It might.
    The Chairman. Do you know Miss Stalcup, Miss Mary Stalcup?
    Mr. Gift. I decline to answer that one on the basis of my
privilege.
    The Chairman. Did you ever solicit Mr. Phillips, Mr. Jim
Phillips to join the Communist party?
    Mr. Gift. I decline to answer that one on the privilege
stated before.
    The Chairman. Do you know Jim Phillips?
    Mr. Gift. I decline to answer that one.
    The Chairman. Do you know Mary Markward?
    Mr. Gift. I decline to answer that one.
    The Chairman. Were there ever Communist meetings held in
your home?
    Mr. Gift. I decline to answer that one.
    The Chairman. Do you decline to answer on the grounds that
the answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Gift. On my privilege, yes. My statement is there, that
I am not required to be a witness against myself.
    The Chairman. You are declining to answer whether or not
Communist party meetings were held in your home on the grounds
that a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Gift. It might.
    The Chairman. Is that correct?
    Mr. Gift. That is correct.
    The Chairman. Were there Communist party meetings held in
your home at which either of your two daughters were present?
    Mr. Gift. No, there was no such thing.
    The Chairman. Never when they were present?
    Mr. Gift. I told you. I never attended meetings with my
daughters, neither of them.
    The Chairman. Was there ever such a meeting in your home
while your wife was present?
    Mr. Gift. There was not.
    The Chairman. Did you and Mr. Rothschild ever solicit Mr.
Phillips to join the Communist party?
    Mr. Gift. I decline to answer that on my privilege stated
before.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that if you told the truth on
that that answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Gift. It might.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you live at 1227 Queen Street, N.E.?
    Mr. Gift. I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have any Communist party meetings at
that place?
    Mr. Gift. I refuse to answer that.
    Mr. Cohn. Was Mr. Rothschild ever in your home at that
address?
    Mr. Gift. I refuse to answer that on the same basis.
    The Chairman. You will remain available, Mr. Gift, and we
will notify your attorney, Mr. Forer, when we want you here. It
will be Monday most likely.
    Mr. Gift. I can pretty well count on Monday.
    The Chairman. I think so. This hearing appears as if it may
last sometime and it is difficult to know when we will get to
any particular witness. I should say most likely Monday.
    Mr. Gift. What time do you expect to start?
    The Chairman. Ten o'clock, I would say.
    Mr. Gift. I should be available all day?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12:20 p.m.]
                  SECURITY--GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    [Editor's note.--On August 11, 1953, a spokesman for the
Atomic Energy Commission told the press that none of its
restricted information was printed ``at the regular Government
Printing Office.''
    Harold Merold, production manager at the Government
Printing Office, testified in public session on August 19. Jack
Zucker (1910-2001), a former labor organizer for the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, then serving as director of the
bail program for the Civil Rights Congress, testified publicly
on August 20, 1953.
    Neither Howard Koss nor Isidore Kornfield (1898-1982)
appeared in public session. The Government Printing Office
later transferred Kornfield and all other employees under
security investigation to the Library of Congress.]
                              ----------
                        FRIDAY, AUGUST 14, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 10:45 a.m. in room 357, Senate
Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M.
Cohn, chief counsel; Richard O'Melia, general counsel,
Committee on Government Operations; Ruth Young Watt, chief
clerk.
  TESTIMONY OF HAROLD MEROLD, PRODUCTION MANAGER, GOVERNMENT
                        PRINTING OFFICE
    The Chairman. In the matter now in hearing, do you solemnly
swear that the testimony you are about to give shall be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
    Mr. Merold. I do.
    The Chairman. Mr. Merold, you are the production manager
for the Government Printing Office?
    Mr. Merold. Right, yes, sir.
    The Chairman. We have some questions here about whether
Atomic Energy material, material concerning the A-bomb and the
H-bomb--There has been some dispute as to the extent of the
Atomic Energy printing done in GPO.
    Now, we have this list from the Government Printing Office
and this would indicate that apparently the navy's work and
Atomic Energy work is bunched and I wonder if you could give us
a run-down on that? Could you give us a breakdown on this, I
wonder, as to the extent of Atomic Energy work produced by the
Government Printing Office?
    Mr. Merold. Well, sir, on one occasion, which was around
the 1st of March of this year, I personally saw some proofs
that were returned by the Department of Navy okay to print. My
attention was called to the classification marking on some of
the pages which was restricted data. To us that means that it
is material that came from, originally, the Atomic Energy
Commission.
    The assistant security officer at that time, to the best of
my knowledge, called Mr. Duggan at the Navy Department and
advised him that we had received this material to print and
that we noted that it contained restricted data and asked him
for further orders. We were told that we were to proceed to
print the job for navy; that the classification officers at the
navy made the determination that that material could be printed
in the GPO. We, therefore, proceeded printing and delivered the
job.
    The Chairman. One other question. There seems to be
considerable confusion as to how work is divided up between the
general GPO office and this Department of State service
building. Who makes the decision on that?
    Mr. Merold. Sir, the Department of State service office was
first run by the Office of Strategic Services in World War II.
After the cessation of hostilities that plant was turned over
to the public printer as one of the branches of the Government
Printing Office.
    The Atomic Energy Commission made a determination sometime
later that that plant could be cleared and that it had a
reasonable number of employees to perform Atomic Energy
restricted data work, printing.
    The Chairman. By restricted I presume you include secret,
top secret and confidential?
    Mr. Merold. Yes.
    The Chairman. In other words, you mean classified?
    Mr. Merold. I mean restricted data, which encompasses all
classifications.
    The Chairman. The reason I asked that, there are
classifications secret, top secret, confidential and
restricted. You are not using restricted in that sense?
    Mr. Merold. I meant restricted data, which would be all
writing emanating from the Atomic Energy Commission.
    The Chairman. Running up as high as top secret?
    Mr. Merold. Yes, sir.
    After that it was determined that that plant would also be
used for printing for the CIA, and there may have been one or
two other agencies that obtained permission to have their
printing done there also, direct that is.
    With regard to one of the jobs handled for navy, navy had
no such authorization to submit there work direct to that
plant. Their orders all come to the central office and on one
of their orders termination was made to send the work to the
State Department plant for production.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this while we are talking
about sending material directly to the State Department plant.
    Mr. Cole, the other day, and the other gentleman, Mr.
Blattenberger, they told us that if you sent work over to GPO,
as they referred to one of their customers--that may be army,
navy, Atomic Energy or CIA--they said that the determination
was then made as to where it should be printed; whether it
should be printed in the State Department building, if you can
call it that, or in the general office; and they told us also
that the degree of secrecy required had nothing to do with
where it was printed but it was solely a question of the type
of job and type of equipment required, the speed with which you
were supposed to get it out; that the degree of secrecy or
importance of the documents had nothing to do with whether it
was assigned to the State Department printing shop or the
general GPO plant, that it was solely a question of the type of
job.
    Mr. Merold. That is true.
    The Chairman. Then am I correct--let's say I am over at
Atomic Energy and I have some top secret work. I send it over
to have printed. Even though I may think it is going to the
State Department building, if the job can adequately, speedily
be handled there, that would not be shifted over to there.
    Mr. Merold. May I say--I think I can clarify one point
here.
    The Chairman. May I say that the reason I asked you that
was because Atomic Energy made the announcement yesterday that
no work of Atomic Energy was printed in GPO. We know from a
number of witnesses that that is untrue. I am trying to find
out whether whoever made that statement was deliberately lying
or under the impression that all of his stuff went to a
separate building.
    Mr. Merold. To the best of my knowledge the material that
emanates from Atomic Energy which is classified or restricted
data, they send directly to the State office under an agreement
reached with the public printer. The non-classified work from
Atomic Energy comes direct to the central office.
    The Chairman. Let's say you are dealing with the Nike
project. That is a project having to do with atomic matters.
They are working now towards putting atomic warheads in Nike.
That, I assume, would be sent over by the military while it
would deal strictly with atomic warheads and not from Atomic
Energy. In that way do you get atomic work?
    Mr. Merold. The two jobs cited, that is exactly the way we
got those.
    The Chairman. So there is no question about the fact that
there has been some Atomic Energy classified work handled in
the general GPO office?
    Mr. Merold. There is no question.
    The Chairman. No question at all?
    Mr. Merold. No, sir.
    The Chairman. I think that is about all we want, Mr.
Merold.
    We wanted to clear up this question. Again I will thank you
very much. We don't like to disrupt your office but this is so
important we have got to do it.
TESTIMONY OF JACK S. ZUCKER (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, HAROLD
                            BUCHMAN)
    The Chairman. Mr. Zucker, will you raise your right hand
and be sworn.
    In the matter now in hearing before this committee, do you
solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give shall
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
    Mr. Zucker. I do.
    The Chairman. Would counsel identify himself.
    Mr. Buchman. Harold Buchman, 205 Tower Building, Baltimore.
    The Chairman. I am not sure you have appeared before the
committee before----
    Mr. Buchman. I have not.
    The Chairman. Let me quickly run over the rules of the
committee insofar as counsel is concerned. The witness may at
any time he cares to consult with counsel, advise with counsel.
Counsel may not interrupt the proceedings himself to advise his
client. If at any time a matter of such importance to your
client comes up that you want to have a private conference with
him, we will try and find a room so you can do that.
    The Chairman. Mr. Zucker, what is your first name?
    Mr. Zucker. Jack.
    Mr. Buchman. Before proceeding may I make a statement for
the record.
    The Chairman. Go ahead.
    Mr. Buchman. I want to enter for the record--I want to
challenge the competency of the committee on the ground of lack
of a quorum.
    The Chairman. Just for your information, I will inform you
that under the rules of the committee one member constitutes a
quorum.
    Mr. Zucker, do you know a Mr. Edward Rothschild?
    Mr. Zucker. I invoke the privilege of the Fifth Amendment
and refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. In other words, it is your position that if
you tell us the truth as to whether or not you knew Rothschild
that might tend to incriminate you.
    Mr. Zucker. In reply to your question, I feel you have no
right to ask the question, therefore, I invoke the privilege
again to the second question.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer that and I will
explain to you why so there can be no defense of ignorance of
the law and facts at any subsequent legal proceeding.
    You are entitled to refuse to answer any question if you
honestly feel a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you.
You are not entitled to invoke the privilege if you feel that
perjury might incriminate you. Before we can decide whether or
not you are entitled to the privilege of the Fifth Amendment,
we must know whether or not a truthful answer might tend to
incriminate you.
    For that reason you are ordered to answer as to whether or
not you know Edward Rothschild?
    Mr. Zucker. My reply is, Senator, again I refuse to answer
and invoke it.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer the question.
    Let the record show that the witness declines to answer
after he has been ordered to answer.
    It will take some time before we will get around to citing
you for contempt as it will take the full committee to do that.
That will be done, however. We will present it to the other
senators.
    Did you ever sit on a Communist board before which Edward
Rothschild appeared? I am referring to Edward Rothschild who
was working in the Government Printing Office, where he
appeared to answer charges by the Communist party that he was
guilty of ``white chauvinism.''
    Mr. Zucker. I invoke the privilege of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you refuse to answer on the grounds that a
truthful answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Zucker. I invoke the privilege and refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. Do you feel a truthful answer might tend to
incriminate you?
    Mr. Zucker. My answer is I invoke the Fifth Amendment and
refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. You refuse to answer the question of whether
or not a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Zucker. I again invoke the privilege of the Fifth
Amendment.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer that question.
    Mr. Zucker. I invoke the privilege of the Fifth Amendment
and refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. Were you a bondsman for the Philadelphia
Communist who recently----
    Mr. Zucker. Same privilege, same answer.
    The Chairman. You are again asked the question: Do you feel
that a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Zucker. Same privilege, same answer.
    The Chairman. You refuse to answer whether or not you feel
a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Zucker. I again invoke the privilege of the Fifth
Amendment and refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. Have the record show the witness was ordered
to answer and refused to answer the question. Are you at this
moment a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Zucker. I invoke the privilege of the Fifth Amendment
and refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that a truthful answer as to
whether or not you are a member of the Communist party today
would tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Zucker. Same answer, same privilege.
    The Chairman. Let the record show the witness was ordered
to answer the question and again refused. Are you engaged in
espionage as of today?
    Mr. Zucker. That is a very stupid and provocative question
and I demand that you withdraw the question.
    The Chairman. You will answer the question unless you feel
a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you.
    Mr. Zucker. My answer is that anyone who dares to say I
have worked against the interests of the American people and
the United States in any way is a contemptible liar.
    The Chairman. We are asking you the question. Are you
engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Zucker. The answer is ``no.''
    The Chairman. Did you ever engage in espionage?
    Mr. Zucker. The answer is ``no.''
    The Chairman. Have you ever engaged in sabotage?
    Mr. Zucker. The answer is ``no.''
    The Chairman. Have you ever contributed money to the
Communist party?
    Mr. Zucker. I invoke the privilege of the Fifth Amendment
and refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. Have you ever contributed money to any
organization which is dedicated to the overthrow of this
government by force and violence?
    Mr. Zucker. The answer is ``no.''
    The Chairman. Do you feel that the Communist party is
dedicated to the overthrow of this government by force and
violence?
    Mr. Zucker. Senator, you are going into a field which is
none of your business, but I will be glad to tell you my
opinion.
    The Chairman. I may say it is the business of the American
people, very much so, and being the business of the American
people, it is my business to bring it to their attention.
    Mr. Zucker. I don't think it is the business of this
committee.
    What was the question again?
    The Chairman. The question is: Is it your opinion that the
Communist party is dedicated to the overthrow of this
government by force and violence?
    Mr. Zucker. It is my opinion that the Communist party is
not dedicated to the overthrow of this government by force and
violence.
    The Chairman. Is it your opinion that the policy of the
Communist party is to secure the overthrow of this government,
if they cannot do it by peaceful means then to do it by force
and violence?
    Mr. Zucker. I don't believe that opinions are within the
purview of this committee and that you have any right to enter
into discussion with me on opinions. If you desire to have a
discussion with me on the question, I will be glad to discuss
it with you outside this hall.
    The Chairman. I am not interested in discussing matters
with any members of the Communist party.
    Mr. Zucker. Stick to your work, gentlemen, and ask
questions that are pertinent.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer unless you feel
a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you.
    Mr. Zucker. What is the question again?
    [The reporter read the question.]
    Mr. Zucker. No.
    The Chairman. Then you are ordered to answer the question
as to whether or not you are a member of the Communist party
today.
    For the benefit of counsel, the privilege according to the
Fifth Amendment, cannot be lightly taken. Under our present
laws it is not a crime to be a member of the Communist party
unless you know that that party is dedicated to or plans to
overthrow this government by force and violence. This witness
says that is not the situation. If he is telling the truth,
then the Fifth Amendment does not protect him from perjury. If
he is telling the truth, then he will be guilty of no crime in
being a member of the Communist party. Therefore, he would not
be entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment insofar as the
question of his being a Communist is concerned.
    I am merely citing this so counsel will know the position
of the chair.
    Mr. Zucker, you are ordered to answer the question of
whether or not you are a member of the Communist party as of
this moment.
    Mr. Zucker. I invoke the privilege of the Fifth Amendment
and refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. The record will show that the witness was
ordered to answer the question and refused to answer.
    Do you feel that the Communist system of government as
found in Russia today is superior to ours?
    Mr. Zucker. That is a question of opinion and I, therefore,
object to the question since you have no right to ask that
under the First Amendment.
    The Chairman. You may object but you will be ordered to
answer unless you feel the answer will tend to incriminate you.
    Mr. Zucker. I am in no position to give you an opinion of
the Russian system of government since I haven't been there.
    The Chairman. Well, let's take the Communist party, the
form of government advocated by the Communist party. You are in
position to answer that very well. Do you feel that is superior
to our form of government?
    Mr. Zucker. I am not prepared to discuss this question at
this time.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer, unless your
answer is that you don't know or that you feel the answer would
tend to incriminate you.
    Mr. Zucker. Senator, I don't quite understand the purpose
and the reason for the general inquiry that I have been
subpoenaed for. You are asking me some very complicated,
elaborate, philosophical, economic questions that I will need
time to prepare to discuss properly. I am, therefore, in no
position to answer your question in a manner that would be
suitable, in my opinion.
    The Chairman. In other words, your answer, as of today, is
that you would be unable to tell us whether you think the
system of government advocated by the Communist party is
superior to ours because you need additional time to think that
over. Is that correct?
    Mr. Zucker. I think my previous answer stands as it is.
    The Chairman. Do you want additional time to think that
over?
    Mr. Zucker. The previous answer covers this question.
    The Chairman. I am asking you: Do you want additional time
to think that over?
    Let the record show at this point that a majority of the
full committee itself has approved in writing this
investigation, both in executive session and public session.
    After consulting with your counsel, Mr. Zucker, what is
your answer?
    Mr. Zucker. I am not quite finished. I am still consulting.
    The Chairman. Let the record show that while the witness
says he is consulting with counsel, he is not consulting with
counsel but is merely sitting mute. You check the time he does
this, Mr. O'Melia.
    Mr. Zucker. The record will show that I am preparing
carefully an answer of what I want to say. The witness is aware
of the entrapping tactics of this committee and I am not going
to be entrapped by the chairman.
    The Chairman. The witness will have all the time he wants.
    Mr. Zucker. My answer, Senator, is----
    The Chairman. The question is: Do you want more time or do
you refuse to answer it?
    Mr. Zucker. My answer to this question is: I am not
prepared to discuss the relevancy of this question with you. I
have no desire to discuss this question in the future with you.
I see no reason why I should discuss this question with you,
since it is a matter of opinion.
    The Chairman. I am not concerned with your desires. Do I
understand your refusal to answer is on the grounds you do not
desire to answer and you are not invoking the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Zucker. I am not refusing to answer. I am not in a
position to answer and discuss it with you.
    The Chairman. Well, do you need additional time?
    Mr. Zucker. Well, my answer to the question is that I don't
care to discuss the question because I don't feel myself
properly capable of discussing this question.
    The Chairman. I wasn't asking you to discuss it. I asked
you whether or not you feel the system of government advocated
by the Communists is superior to our system? I shall insist you
either answer the question, refuse to answer the question
because a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you, or if
you need more time to think it over, we will undoubtedly give
you that time. Otherwise, you are ordered to answer.
    Mr. Zucker. What do you specifically mean when you talk
about the Communist system?
    The Chairman. The Communist system as you understand it.
    Mr. Zucker. Well, Senator, I have never seen the Communist
system so I really don't know what you mean ``as I understand
the Communist system.''
    The Chairman. I mean the system advocated by the
Communists.
    Mr. Zucker. My answer has to be that that question is of
such construction I find myself in no position to answer your
question. I find myself incapable of answering the question.
    The Chairman. You are incapable of answering whether you
think the system advocated by the Communists is superior to our
system of government? You are incapable of answering that?
    Mr. Zucker. That is my answer.
    The Chairman. You are going to get in bad with the
Communist party if you aren't careful.
    Do you consider Joe Stalin as a ruthless, bloody dictator?
    Mr. Zucker. I object to this question because I do not
consider it within the scope of this inquiry.
    The Chairman. Well, one of the reasons why we asked that,
we know that no loyal member of the Communist party--I am not
saying you are--would say anything derogatory about Joe Stalin.
We know you couldn't get a dispensation to say it if you were a
member of the party.
    We know the Communist party does give members permission to
make certain statements under certain conditions that are not
in line with Communist policy. We know they do not give any of
their members dispensation to make any vigorous criticism of
Joe Stalin, so I am asking you the question. Do you consider
Stalin a ruthless, bloody dictator?
    Mr. Zucker. I claim the privilege of the Fifth Amendment
and refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. You are entitled to that privilege.
    Do you think the war in Korea was the fault of the
Communists?
    Mr. Zucker. My answer to that, since this is a matter of
opinion, I reserve that right under the First Amendment and
also invoke my privilege under the Fifth.
    The Chairman. You would not have the right under the First
Amendment, but you have the right under the Fifth Amendment.
    Have you known Esther Rothschild?
    Mr. Zucker. My privilege--refusal to answer under the Fifth
Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you refuse to answer on the ground that a
truthful answer might tend to incriminate?
    Mr. Zucker. I invoke the privilege and refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. Do you feel a truthful answer might tend to
incriminate you?
    Mr. Zucker. My answer is, I invoke the privilege and refuse
to answer.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer.
    Mr. Zucker. My answer is I invoke the privilege.
    The Chairman. I believe you have already refused to answer
whether you knew Edward Rothschild. Do you know Edward
Rothschild? By Edward Rothschild I mean the Edward Rothschild
working in the Government Printing Office and formerly lived on
Dix Street?
    Mr. Zucker. I invoke the privilege of the Fifth Amendment
and refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. When have you last seen Esther or Edward
Rothschild?
    Mr. Zucker. Same privilege, same answer.
    The Chairman. Have you talked to Esther Rothschild or
Edward Rothschild within the last two weeks?
    Mr. Zucker. Same privilege, same answer.
    The Chairman. Do you feel if you tell us the truth as to
whether you saw Esther or Edward Rothschild in the last two
weeks, that answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Zucker. My answer is that I invoke the privilege of the
Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer.
    Mr. Zucker. My reply is I invoke the privilege and refuse
to answer.
    The Chairman. Do you know Frederick Sillers?
    Mr. Zucker. I invoke the privilege of the Fifth Amendment
and refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. Was Frederick Sillers a member of the
Communist party with you?
    Mr. Zucker. I invoke the privilege of the Fifth Amendment
and refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. Did you know Edward Rothschild as a member of
the Communist party?
    Mr. Zucker. Same privilege, same answer.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to consider yourself
under subpoena in order to return here Monday morning at ten
o'clock, room 318.
    Mr. Zucker. Senator, would it be possible to arrange for
another day?
    The Chairman. For what reason?
    Mr. Zucker. Well, I have some family problems I have to
resolve on Monday and Tuesday.
    The Chairman. Is your home here?
    Mr. Zucker. No, I live in Philadelphia.
    The Chairman. I would like to avoid unnecessarily
inconveniencing any witness. I tell you what we can do counsel,
we can do this. We won't need Mr. Zucker longer than Monday and
we will let him go with the understanding that if we can
possibly avoid having him back Tuesday, we will do so, but with
the understanding that if we call you, he will be here Tuesday
morning. We will have this understanding that we will call you
and not Mr. Zucker. We have a situation where some of you
fellows just aren't available.
    Mr. Zucker. When I say I will be available, I will be
available for you. I am asking for Wednesday. I find that much
more convenient. If it is possible, that is what I would like.
    [Off-the-record discussion.]
    The Chairman. We always try to accommodate a witness,
regardless of what we think of a witness. You will not have to
be here Monday. The understanding is if we need you Tuesday, we
will call your counsel's office.
 TESTIMONY OF HOWARD KOSS (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, JOSEPH
                            ROTWEIN)
    The Chairman. Mr. Koss, will you raise your right hand.
    In the matter now in hearing before this committee, do you
solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give shall
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
    Mr. Koss. I do.
    The Chairman. Would counsel identify himself?
    Mr. Rotwein. Rotwein, Joseph, 1025 Vermont Avenue,
Washington, D.C., Sterling 35764.
    Senator, I understand this is executive session. It is my
understanding that only members of the committee, senators and
counsel are present----
    The Chairman. It is your understanding I will have whoever
I want in this room. You may sit down.
    Mr. Koss, do you know Frederick Sillers?
    Mr. Koss. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of
the Fifth Amendment which gives me the privilege against self-
incrimination.
    The Chairman. Are you a member of the Communist party
today?
    Mr. Koss. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of
the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Have you ever worked for the United States
government?
    Mr. Koss. Yes, sir. I have.
    The Chairman. What jobs have you held with the government?
    Mr. Koss. It is a rather long history. I started as a clerk
for the Census Bureau and worked there for about a year--from
July of 1940 to approximately July of 1941--then I took a
typing examination to get Civil Service status and became a
clerk typist for about three or four months--from July until
about November.
    The Chairman. In what department?
    Mr. Koss. That was with the Coast Guard. I was there for
about three or four months.
    The Chairman. Were you handling any classified material?
    Mr. Koss. As far as I know, no classified material was
involved.
    The Chairman. Then from there where did you go?
    Mr. Koss. From there--I had taken some personnel courses
and obtained a position as personnel classification analyst,
Office of Emergency Management, in the Service Operations
Department.
    The Chairman. Who was your immediate supervisor?
    Mr. Koss. Mr. Cecil Goode.
    The Chairman. At that time were you a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Koss. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of
the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did Mr. Goode or anyone ever ask you whether
you were a Communist?
    Mr. Koss. May I consult counsel?
    The Chairman. Certainly anytime you want to.
    Mr. Koss. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of
the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you feel that a truthful answer to that
question might tend to incriminate you?
    Mr. Koss. Yes, I do.
    The Chairman. Then you are entitled to refuse.
    What is your home address?
    Mr. Koss. 3416 Highview Court, Wheaton, Maryland.
    The Chairman. Where do you work now?
    Mr. Koss. Well, I am sort of an independent salesman. I
sell for the Home Improvement Company and I sell oil, fuel oil,
when I can for another company.
    The Chairman. I think I interrupted you when you were
citing your government employment. After the Office of
Emergency Management, where did you go?
    Mr. Koss. From there I went to the army.
    The Chairman. How long were you in the army?
    Mr. Koss. I was there from September 1942 to February 1943.
    The Chairman. In what capacity?
    Mr. Koss. In the army, I went in as a private in the
Quartermaster Corps. I went through basic training and applied
for Officers Candidate School. I passed the various
examinations but then they came to physical examination they
discovered I had a heart murmur and I was irregular in my
electrocardiogram. After subsequent examinations they put me in
the hospital where I stayed about two months. The Medical Board
decided to discharge me.
    The Chairman. You were discharged on physical grounds?
    Mr. Koss. That is correct.
    The Chairman. From there where did you go?
    Mr. Koss. When I came back I applied for my old position as
classification analyst, Office of Emergency Management.
    The Chairman. Did you get that back?
    Mr. Koss. Yes, I did.
    The Chairman. How long did you continue to work in the
government?
    Mr. Koss. I worked in the government until May of 1952,
guess.
    The Chairman. And what department were you working in at
that time?
    Mr. Koss. The Veterans Administration.
    The Chairman. And what other departments of the government
did you work in?
    Mr. Koss. The War Manpower Commission, the Personnel
Office, Department of Labor, the U.S. Employment Service as
their classification analyst.
    The Chairman. Did you work anyplace else in the government?
    Mr. Koss. I don't believe so, sir.
    The Chairman. So that you worked in the government a total
of twelve years, excluding a short period of time when you were
in the army?
    Mr. Koss. I think so.
    The Chairman. During that time were you a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Koss. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of
the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Is it your thought that the Communist party
is dedicated to the overthrow of our form of government, if it
cannot be accomplished by peaceful means, then they should
resort to force and violence?
    Mr. Koss. I respectfully decline to answer that question on
the basis of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you know Edward Rothschild?
    Mr. Koss. As far as I know, I don't know the name or the
individual other than what I read in the papers in the last two
or three days.
    The Chairman. How about Esther Rothschild?
    Mr. Koss. Same answer.
    The Chairman. In other words, you don't recognize that
name?
    Mr. Koss. I do not.
    The Chairman. How about Mary Stalcup, now Mrs. Markward?
    Mr. Koss. My only knowledge is based on newspaper reports.
I do not know her nor have I ever seen her other than pictures
in the paper. I am not sure of that even.
    The Chairman. Then to the best of your knowledge, you never
attended any Communist meetings with the Rothschilds or Mary
Stalcup, but unless you saw them and looked them over you
couldn't say positively. Is that the answer?
    Mr. Koss. I previously stated that I never met or knew
those particular people.
    The Chairman. You say you never met them?
    Mr. Koss. As far as I know I never met them and I don't
believe I would recognize them.
    The Chairman. But unless we brought them in for you to see
personally, you couldn't tell us positively?
    Mr. Koss. As far as I know, I think I could positively say
I never met them.
    The Chairman. How about Frederick Sillers?
    Mr. Koss. I respectfully decline to answer----
    The Chairman. How about Charlotte Sillers?
    Mr. Koss. I respectfully decline to answer----
    The Chairman. Gertrude Evans?
    Mr. Koss. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of
the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist party
meetings with Charlotte Sillers or Gertrude Evans?
    Mr. Koss. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of
the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. I think I asked you if you ever attended any
Communist party meetings with Frederick Sillers?
    Mr. Koss. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of
the Fifth Amendment.
                 TESTIMONY OF ISADORE KORNFIELD
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand?
    In the matter now in hearing, do you solemnly swear that
the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Kornfield. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Kornfield, are you employed at the Government
Printing Office?
    Mr. Kornfield. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you worked
there?
    Mr. Kornfield. In October it will be twenty-four years.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you do?
    Mr. Kornfield. Proofreader.
    Mr. Cohn. And do you proofread documents printing over
there?
    Mr. Kornfield. Various things.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever proofread any restricted matter,
matter not public?
    Mr. Kornfield. I believe I proofread something marked
restricted.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever read anything confidential or
secret?
    You never read anything marked secret?
    Mr. Kornfield. I read something marked restricted.
    The Chairman. How about confidential?
    Mr. Kornfield. Perhaps I did.
    The Chairman. Before your loyalty hearing did you have
complete access to secret, top secret, confidential and
restricted?
    Mr. Kornfield. I don't think so.
    The Chairman. When you proofread, do you proofread the
galley proofs?
    Mr. Kornfield. Yes.
    The Chairman. Would you describe how that is done. Do you
proofread the entire document?
    Mr. Kornfield. We usually get one proof at the time and one
reads the copy to the proofreader.
    The Chairman. And when you had access to the restricted
material would you then read the entire document?
    Mr. Kornfield. Never, never more than one proof at a time.
    The Chairman. By one proof what do you mean?
    Mr. Kornfield. One page. It is handed out one at the time.
You go up to the desk and they hand you a proof. This is all
you get. When you return it, you get another. It may not be
connected.
    The Chairman. When you say galley, you mean one full page
of galley?
    Mr. Kornfield. It may consist of one page. Some are fairly
short and some are fairly long.
    The Chairman. There was no attempt to split it up so one
man could not get the continuity.
    Mr. Kornfield. I never got the continuity. They seem to
have a policy so you couldn't get the continuity.
    The Chairman. You would read a full page?
    Mr. Kornfield. Sometimes.
    The Chairman. Did you ever read a full document?
    Mr. Kornfield. Never.
    The Chairman. What if the documents were only one page
long?
    Mr. Kornfield. I suppose that would be possible.
    The Chairman. You have been proofreading twenty-four years.
Did you ever have any documents one page long?
    Mr. Kornfield. Frankly, I don't recall if I had full
documents one page long.
    The Chairman. You don't know of any attempt to keep you
from secret material?
    Mr. Kornfield. Well, they have not been giving me secret
material as far as I know.
    The Chairman. You are working in the plant where secret
material is handled?
    Mr. Kornfield. I really don't know.
    The Chairman. You don't know whether you handled secret
material?
    Mr. Kornfield. I have no idea at all. It would be guess
work.
    The Chairman. You mean you have worked there for twenty-
four years and don't know whether you have handled secret
material?
    Mr. Kornfield. It would be guess work. I have never seen
any proof.
    The Chairman. Can I tell you that the head of the plant
tells me that they produced roughly 250,000 pieces of secret
material last year and your testimony is that you never saw any
of it?
    Mr. Kornfield. I never saw any of it marked secret.
    The Chairman. Did you ever see any marked restricted?
    Mr. Kornfield. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you know how it was stamped? Did they
stamp it secret, top secret, confidential or merely stamp it
restricted?
    Mr. Kornfield. All I know was it was stamped on the copy.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been a member of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Kornfield. No, sir.
    The Chairman. May I tell you for your own protection so
there can be no claim of entrapment, we have the number of your
Communist party card. The bureau has that. We have that. Now,
just so you will have that information so you can't claim in
the future that you were entrapped, I now ask you again: Were
you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Kornfield. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You never were?
    Mr. Kornfield. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend Communist party meetings?
    Mr. Kornfield. No, sir.
    The Chairman. The answer is ``no''?
    Mr. Kornfield. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you ever solicited to join the Communist
party?
    Mr. Kornfield. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Was a card in the Communist party ever issued
to you?
    Mr. Kornfield. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever pay any money to the Communist
party or any branch of it?
    Mr. Kornfield. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you know any members of the Communist
party personally?
    Mr. Kornfield. I don't know any people who have admitted to
me they were members of the Communist party.
    The Chairman. Do you know anyone in the GPO whom you
suspect of being a Communist?
    Mr. Kornfield. Well, I don't think so.
    The Chairman. You don't think so? Either you do suspect of
them or you don't?
    Mr. Kornfield. I don't suspect anyone.
    The Chairman. Do you know anyone over there whom you have
reason to believe might be a Communist?
    Mr. Kornfield. Except what I read in the papers, I don't
know of any.
    The Chairman. Do you have any reason to believe anyone has
removed any classified material from the GPO; that is illegal
removal?
    Mr. Kornfield. I have no such knowledge.
    The Chairman. Did you ever remove any classified material
from GPO?
    Mr. Kornfield. No, never.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever belong to a Communist study group?
    Mr. Kornfield. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You never have?
    Mr. Kornfield. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend any meetings of a Communist
study group or Communist discussion group?
    Mr. Kornfield. No.
    The Chairman. I will have to ask you to speak louder, and
again for your information and so you cannot claim later you
were entrapped, we have the sworn testimony that you attended
Communist study groups. I am just telling you that in all
fairness and so you will know what the testimony is.
    Mr. Cohn. You know Edward Rothschild, don't you?
    Mr. Kornfield. I know him from----
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been to his home?
    Mr. Kornfield. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You have never been to his home on Dix Street?
    Mr. Kornfield. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Mrs. Rothschild?
    Mr. Kornfield. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Esther Rothschild?
    Mr. Kornfield. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You have never met Mrs. Rothschild?
    Mr. Kornfield. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Fred Sillers?
    Mr. Kornfield. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You never met him?
    Mr. Kornfield. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Charlotte Young who married Fred Sillers?
    Mr. Kornfield. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Jim Phillips?
    Mr. Kornfield. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Irving Studenberg?
    Mr. Kornfield. I remember Irving Studenberg when he was an
apprentice and detailed in the proof room.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend any meeting with Irving
Studenberg?
    Mr. Kornfield. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You never did?
    Mr. Kornfield. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. No meetings whatsoever of any kind?
    Mr. Kornfield. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Jimmy Branket?
    Mr. Kornfield. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Sadie Sokoloc?
    Mr. Kornfield. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever read the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Kornfield. I have never read it. I have seen it.
    Mr. Cohn. Where have you seen it?
    Mr. Kornfield. Newsstands.
    Mr. Cohn. But you never bought a copy?
    Mr, Kornfield. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Roy, I am going to have to adjourn now. You
are excused until Monday morning at ten o'clock unless you care
to come in in the meantime and give us the truth.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned at twelve o'clock noon.]
                  SECURITY--GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    [Editor's note.--Cleta Guess (1893-1974) did not testify in
public. At the public hearing on August 19, Senator McCarthy
announced that ``Her doctor said she has a heart condition
which might be such that appearance in a public session and the
excitement would do her considerable damage, and for that
reason we will read into the record her testimony taken at the
executive session.'' An edited version of this transcript was
included in the published hearings for that day.
    James E. Duggan of the Printing Security Section and
Adolphus Nichols Spence (1926-2000), director of the
Publications Division for the U.S. Navy, both testified in
public session on August 17, 1953.]
                              ----------
                       SATURDAY, AUGUST 15, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 1:30 p.m. in room 357, Senate
Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M.
Cohn, chief counsel; Richard O'Melia, general counsel,
Committee on Government Operations; Harold E. Rainville,
administrative assistant to Senator Dirksen; Robert L. Jones,
public relations for Senator Potter; Ruth Young Watt, chief
clerk.
                    TESTIMONY OF CLETA GUESS
    The Chairman. Miss Guess, will you stand and raise your
right hand, please? In the matter now in hearing do you
solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
    Miss Guess. I do.
    The Chairman. I think we will let Mr. Cohn do the
questioning. He knows more about the situation.
    Miss Guess. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your full name?
    Miss Guess. Cleta Guess.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you reside in New Orleans?
    Miss Guess. 6018 Constance Street, 14th Ward. Best ward in
the State of Louisiana.
    Mr. Cohn. In response to the request of the committee you
came to Washington from New Orleans?
    Miss Guess. I came from New Orleans, and freely.
    Mr. Cohn. Was there a time when you worked for the
Government Printing Office?
    Miss Guess. Yes. I worked from February 1941 until either
the later part of July or the first part of August 1943.
Exactly ten years ago I arrived in New Orleans.
    Mr. Cohn. And since you have been in New Orleans you have
been running and operating your own store?
    Miss Guess. Yes, I have.
    Mr. Cohn. Miss Guess, when you worked at the Government
Printing Office, did you know Eddie Rothschild?
    Miss Guess. I did and I love him dearly and still love him
dearly. He was a very intimate friend.
    Mr. Cohn. And you worked right along beside him?
    Miss Guess. I was his first assistant chosen to work with
him.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time?
    Miss Guess. I think a couple of months; maybe a little bit
longer.
    Mr. Cohn. Did there ever come a time when Mr. Rothschild
said anything to you which led you to believe he had Communist
sympathies?
    Miss Guess. Yes, sir. I had attended the Union of Women
Bookbinders the night before. The next day we went to work.
Knowing Eddie was a very good union worker, I think he was a
loyal union man, held office in his union, the men's union, I
said to him, ``Last night it was brought up at the meeting that
600 Communists belonged to the CIO. You know,'' I said, ``there
must be plenty of Communists in the CIO.'' He said, ``What is
wrong with Communists?'' He got angry. I said, ``They are
organized to overthrow this government.'' He pounded his fist
and said, ``If anybody says the Communists are organized to
overthrow the United States government, it is a damn lie.'' I
said, ``Well, our government says they are organized to
overthrow our government.'' He didn't say anything to that. He
said, ``If you don't like Communists, don't speak to me about
anything but our work.''
    It wasn't long, a few weeks after that, that Mr. Wright
came to me one night and put me over in the full room on the
other side of the building with a wall between us, and I
couldn't see Eddie. It finally wound up that he put me on the
third floor, although I belonged on the fourth.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever see Eddie with the Daily Worker?
    Miss Guess. Yes. I saw him two or three different times
waiting for the boys to get off on the second floor. He would
sit behind the big machine reading the Daily Worker. If he
would see Mr. Riley or anyone coming, he would fold it up and
put it in his left back pocket. What amused me one night, you
could see part of the name sticking out. I was laughing up my
sleeve.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this. Were you and Eddie
Rothschild working on any confidential work for the government?
    Miss Guess. Yes, we used to work on quite a bit
confidential and restricted matter but I don't remember the
word secret. If we did that, I don't remember.
    There was pocket manuals and some of it was reports from
our intelligence departments in regards to Russia, Germany,
Japan, and even some of them in regard to our own allies.
    Mr. Cohn. Was there any aircraft information?
    Miss Guess. Yes. There was one particular book that had a
diagram in it that Eddie was interested in. They had the speed
the airplane could make per hour. Eddie was very much
interested. That night he said----
    Mr. Cohn. Did he look at this?
    Miss Guess. He remarked about it, and then I don't know.
    I would like to say something.
    Mr. Cohn. Go ahead.
    Miss Guess. So this particular night he takes that book and
he shows those young colored boys and young boys. He said to
them and naturally they picked up the book and was looking at
them. He said, ``This is fairly interesting'' and he took this
book home. He told the boys they could have one too. He said,
``I am going to take it home and read it.'' Of course, I never
saw anybody go outside with any of this matter.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever see him take any of this matter
himself?
    Miss Guess. I saw him a few times put a book in his right-
pocket. He used to keep the Daily Worker in his left-pocket.
Most of the time he would put this book he wanted to take home
on the back table. I think the reason for it was so none of the
bosses would see the book in his pocket.
    Mr. Cohn. Were these confidential or restricted?
    Miss Guess. I couldn't say for sure, but I think so. You
know it was so many years ago I can't remember every detail.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you recall that some of this matter he put in
his pocket or put aside and said he was going to take with
him----
    Miss Guess. Well, it was pertaining to military stuff. I
mean like airplanes and different things pertaining to war.
Military things.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever see him in possession of any things
like that which he was not working on--which came from some
place else?
    Miss Guess. Yes. I saw him reading a long, thin book, which
I gave to Mr. Phillips of the FBI. I took one myself. I took
several things. About a month or two after I reported it to the
FBI. I took some things home to show the FBI. I could take it
out too. They never look in your purse, or you could carry it
down your bosom, or pin anything to your dress. They never look
in your purse. As long as you had identification, you could
take anything you wanted, you never take a piece of wrapping
paper, but you can take anything else out.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever see him with any documents which he
wasn't working on?
    Miss Guess. Oh, this secret code for the U.S. Merchant
Marines. At that time there was a convoy--I had a cousin in a
convoy. He was going to Russia with the provision and
coincidentally, I was thinking last night, his wife slept in
the Dodge Hotel while waiting for him to come visit her from
Baltimore when he was getting ready to leave with that convoy
to Russia, and I thought about my cousin, Johnny Blow. I said,
``Now, if the enemy would get that information''--it was a
secret code for the U.S. Merchant Marines--and I thought,
``Poor Johnny might be blown up himself on his way to Russia by
Eddie or someone by books getting into the wrong hands.''
    He wasn't working on it.
    Mr. Cohn. You think he must have gotten it some place else?
    Miss Guess. I know his machine wasn't working on it. I
would love to go to the GPO and show you how the machines are
placed.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you think he got this code?
    Miss Guess. He picked it up. I know what machine he picked
it up from. It was a time machine. I used to work on it.
    Mr. Cohn. Would he have the right to walk around?
    Miss Guess. Well, we wasn't allowed to go from department
to department, but Eddie seemed like he was very truest
employee and Eddie was very experienced on different machines
and there was one machine on the second floor that only a few
people could operate and that he could operate and other people
couldn't operate very well, so they would send Eddie up.
Sometimes they would send me with Eddie.
    Mr. Cohn. Could he walk around and pick up anything he
wanted?
    Miss Guess. I wouldn't say he did that very freely. He did
do it. Any of us could do it. No one searched our purses. No
one searched our person, as long as we had our badges. He
wasn't allowed to carry packages----
    Mr. Cohn. When you saw Rothschild taking these documents
and when you saw him reading the Daily Worker and said those
things about Communists, did you report this to anyone?
    Miss Guess. Yes, I went to Mr. Riley first one night. It
was a little while after Eddie and I had the argument.
    We were always friendly and always spoke, so Mr. Riley was
very busy and he looked at me and said, ``Cleta, what is it?''
I said, ``Mr. Riley, I want to see you before the night is
over.'' Mr. Riley and I were very chummy, very close, very
confidential. He used to tell me a lot of things he didn't tell
everybody, so Mr. Riley looked at me, an approving look, and I
said, ``Mr. Riley, before the night is over, please come to see
me. I want to talk to you.'' He had lots of young girls in
there, and I didn't want to talk in front of them. I was afraid
the girls would spread it. Mr. Riley never did come. I waited
two nights. I think it was morning. I worked from twelve
o'clock that night to eight o'clock the following morning. When
I got off at eight o'clock I was boiling hot. All night I was
hot enough to fight the president of the United States and
everybody else connected with the United States, so then I went
to the FBI and I reported it and they sent two young men to my
apartment. Mr. Phillips, a very lovely young man--then a young
man, Mr. Campbell, came to see me about the same thing in New
Orleans. He wrote out a written statement and I signed it.
    Mr. Cohn. We don't want to ask you what you told the FBI,
but you did give them the full truth?
    Miss Guess. No, my story is the same practically. Every
time I have repeated it to anyone of authority it has always
been the same to the best of my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Because it has been true?
    Miss Guess. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, there was this loyalty board hearing about
Rothschild in 1948. Did they ever ask you to come down?
    Miss Guess. No.
    Mr. Cohn. If they had asked you to come down----
    Miss Guess. I would have gladly come, even if I had to pay
the expenses myself, which I could not have, and I came
willingly this time, through my little friend, Mr. LaVenia.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you one other question. From working
with Eddie Rothschild, were you convinced that he was a
Communist?
    Miss Guess. I was pretty well convinced because it was kind
of common knowledge to a good many people that had been working
with him. Well, it was a very common news, just like I know
what you are doing. There is one person in particular who told
me--one lady told me after I was put in the full room to get
away from Eddie, I think was the reason. I think he had me
taken away. I told her because I knew she was a loyal
government employee, and I thought she was a loyal American. I
don't think the president of the United States could have taken
over her job. I think her husband was killed serving in a
government job. I said, ``Miss Nelly,'' and I told her what
happened between Eddie and I. She said, ``Well, that is all
right because everybody around here knows Eddie is a Communist.
That is why no girls would work with him. That is why he asked
you. You are older and friendly and full of wit and he thought
he could get along with you. When he found out you didn't
believe the way he did, he didn't want you either.'' That is
what they do in a lot of government agencies as I found out in
the Civil Service office of the government in Washington. If
you finally make a complaint they will transfer you or send you
around eventually and in a few years time get you out of the
government agency. They don't want you to find fault or report
people for things they shouldn't do. As God is my judge, it
goes on in the Civil Service Commission in Washington, D.C.,
and I have had friends in other government agencies who told me
the same thing.
    The Chairman. I may say that a number of other people have
reported Communist activities in agencies and they get
transferred to other jobs and finally kicked out. I may say we
agree with you wholeheartedly.
    Incidentally, is that Miss or Mrs.?
    Miss Guess. Miss. I am an old maid. That's what I am, an
old maid. Nobody is going to tell me what to do or make me do
something I don't think is right. I just don't do it.
    The Chairman. I want to thank you very much for coming down
here. I know it is a considerable sacrifice to you. We want you
to testify Monday. I think it might be better if you stay in
town.
    Miss Guess. I would like to because I could use a little
rest.
              TESTIMONY OF JAMES E. DUGGAN, HEAD,
        PRINTING SECURITY SECTION PUBLICATIONS DIVISION,
                  DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; AND
       ADOLPHUS NICHOLS SPENCE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS,
                     DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
    The Chairman. Would you gentlemen raise your right hand,
please?
    In the matter now in hearing before this committee, do you
solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give shall
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
    Mr. Duggan and Mr. Spence. I do.
    The Chairman. You are both with the Navy Department?
    Mr. Duggan. That is correct.
    The Chairman. May I say I dislike very much imposing on you
gentlemen, but we had to clear up a couple of things.
    Mr. Cohn. What we want to ask you gentlemen, you are
familiar with the work the Navy Department sends to Government
Printing Office?
    Mr. Spence. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Does some of that work include material dealing
with Atomic Energy?
    Mr. Spence. Well, it touched on it, yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Spence. Within the past fiscal year.
    Mr. Cohn. About how much?
    Mr. Spence. Well, four jobs in all.
    Mr. Cohn. How were they classified?
    Mr. Spence. May I refer to this?
    Confidential.
    The Chairman. May I say that conflicts somewhat with
information we got from the Government Printing Office.
    Mr. Spence. The first two were confidential and the second
two were secret.
    Mr. Cohn. Did other work contain anything dealing with
Atomic Energy?
    Mr. Spence. It touched on it.
    Mr. Cohn. Was the information touched on--was that
information obtained from the Atomic Energy Commission
originally?
    Mr. Spence. No, sir. That was obtained within the Navy
Department.
    Mr. Cohn. Concerning Atomic Energy. Is that right?
    Mr. Spence. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. The classification of secret would indicate
that if the enemy or any potential enemy got that information
it could do damage to this country?
    Mr. Spence. That is correct, sir.
    The Chairman. And that had to do with Atomic Energy rather
than the H-bomb? Is that right?
    Mr. Spence. Very definitely, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you sent anything over that had to do
with the H-bomb or H-energy?
    Mr. Spence. No, sir.
    The Chairman. If anything to do with the H-bomb was sent
over, that would be from the Atomic Energy Commission itself?
    Mr. Spence. Yes, sir. We would not send that material out.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this. There has been
considerable confusion in some of the customers of GPO, if you
can call them that, using a broad phrase. I get the impression
from talking to army, navy and air force that they have had the
impression that secret and top secret material sent to GPO, any
secret material was handled in the so-called State building.
From the officials of GPO I find, however, that the
classification had nothing to do with the assignment of the
material. As one of the officials said, ``If we had ten top
secret documents we would not assign them to the State building
or general office on the basis of secrecy. The assignment would
be based upon the type of job, the speed required to be gotten
out, machines required to get it out.''
    In other words, as I understand it, when you would send
material to GPO, you would have no way of knowing whether it
finally ended up in the so-called State building or the general
GPO office.
    Mr. Spence. Well, sir, in the case of top secret that
wouldn't apply to navy. We do not permit that to be printed
outside of the navy. In the case of secret we are assured only
by the public printer that it is produced properly, handled
properly and produced by the public printer, in accordance with
the navy's regulations for the handling of such matter,
confidential and restricted likewise.
    The Chairman. In other words, you have the assurance of GPO
when you send secret material to them that it will be properly
handled with safeguard security and you yourself do not take it
upon yourself to follow through the procedure of where it is
being printed.
    Mr. Spence. No, sir. There was an agreement reached by the
provost marshal of the navy and security officer of the public
printer.
    Mr. Cohn. Who is that security officer?
    Mr. Spence. He is the deputy public printer. I think it was
Mr. Underwood.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this. If a Communist were to
have gotten access to the secret material which the navy--if a
Communist were working in the GPO office, an undercover
Communist, someone not known to the security office as a
Communist, and if he had access to and were to have removed the
secret material the Navy Department sent over--by removing I
mean physically removing documents or memorizing the contents
and transmitting it to a potential enemy, that would constitute
an extremely dangerous situation, wouldn't it?
    Mr. Spence. You are correct, sir.
    The Chairman. Is it correct to say that secret material
would not be available to Congress or members of the Senate,
that the classification would be such that you couldn't give it
to a congressman except under subpoena with orders from the
president?
    Mr. Spence. If it were legitimate committee business, it
would be made available as a normal routine.
    The Chairman. But if a congressman only wanted it, he would
not be entitled to see it? I merely mentioned that to make the
record clear as to the importance of your security regulations.
    Mr. Spence. That is correct.
    The Chairman. On the basis of need to know rather than the
position of the individual concerned.
    Would you care to give us a rough picture as to the
differences between the classification of confidential, secret
and top secret, or could you gentlemen do that?
    Mr. Spence. Essentially, sir, we have the definition
spelled out in detail.
    Here it is, do you want to see it or would you want it
incorporated in the record?
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: There will be no
violation of security to have it in the public record?
    Mr. Spence. The publication as a whole is restricted; but
not that particular passage from it.
    The Chairman. That will be incorporated into the record.
    [Exhibit 1]
                  Chapter 3--Classification Categories
0301. Categories.
    The security classification categories in current use are
Top Secret, Secret, Confidential, and Restricted. They are
defined in this chapter. The examples, which appear under the
various security classification definitions, are for guidance
and do not cover all possible situations and items. The content
or merit of specific matter is the test for classification. For
purposes of this Manual, the words ``matter,'' ``material,''
and ``information'' as used in connection with classification
shall be considered as synonymous. In the interest of
preserving the integrity of the security classifications ``Top
Secret,'' ``Secret,'' ``Confidential'' and ``Restricted,''
these terms shall not be used for the purpose of safeguarding
information other than in the interest of national security.
When it has been determined that information requires
classification in the interest of national security, it will be
specifically identified at least once on each page or item so
classified by the words ``Security Information'' in addition to
the marking of the appropriate classification. (Refer to
Article 0420)
0302. Definition of Top Secret.
    1. Information and material (matter), the security aspect
of which is paramount, and the unauthorized disclosure of which
would cause exceptionally grave damage to the nation shall be
classified Top Secret.
    2. The Top Secret category is reserved for information
which in and of itself, if disclosed without authorization,
would reasonably be expected to lead ultimately to one or more
of the following results:
    a. Initiation of war against the United States by a foreign
government as a counter-measure against plans or intentions
disclosed.
    b. Defeat of planned operations of war of the United
States, if launched.
    c. Loss by the United States of a scientific or technical
advantage of sufficient military importance as to affect
materially the course or outcome of a war or major operation.
    3. Subject to the policy and conditions proscribed in 1 and
2 above, the following items of military information (matter)
will be graded Top Secret:
    a. War plans and plans or particulars of future major or
special operations of war and particulars of important
dispositions of our forces related directly thereto.
    b. Intelligence documents (and information therein) which
reveal a major intelligence effort on the part of the United
States and which would permit an evaluation by unauthorized
recipients of the success obtained by, or the capabilities of,
our intelligence services.
    c. Critical information of radically new and extremely
important equipment or other munitions of war.
    d. Information (matter) of the nature described in 1 above,
which, while primarily political and/or economic, contains
implications of a stature comparable to 3a, 3b, and 3c above.
0303. Definition of Secret.
    1. Information and material (matter), the unauthorized
disclosure of which would endanger national security, cause
serious injury to the interests or prestige of the nation, or
would be of great advantage to a foreign nation shall be
classified Secret.
    2. The following are some examples of matter which normally
shall be classified Secret:
    a. Particulars of operations in progress.
    b. Plans or particulars of operations, or war plans with
necessary enclosures thereto, not included under Top Secret.
    c. Instructions regarding the employment of important new
munitions of war, including scientific and technical
developments.
    d. Important improvements to existing munitions of war
until accepted for service use including scientific and
technical developments.
    e. Information relating to new material (matter) including
material (matter) of the type described in 1 above.
    f. Information of the type described in 1 above concerning
specific quantities of war reserves.
    g. Development projects of the type described in 1 above.
    h. Information of enemy or potential enemy material or
other material, procedure, dispositions and activities, the
value of which depends upon concealing the fact that we possess
it.
    i. Reports of operations containing information of vital
interest to the enemy.
    j. Vital military information on important defenses.
    k. Adverse reports on general morale affecting major
operations.
    l. Communication intelligence information and important
communication security devices and material of the type
described in 1 above.
    m. Certain new or specialized techniques or methods to be
used in future operations. The identity and composition of
units, wherever located, which are especially intended for
employment of such techniques or methods.
    n. Information indicating the strength of our troops, air
and naval forces, identity or composition of units or quantity
of specific items of equipment pertaining thereto in active
theaters of operation, except that mailing addresses will
include organizational designations.
    o. Photographs, negatives, photostats, diagrams, or models
of Secret matter.
    p. Certain compilations of data or items which individually
may be classified Confidential or lower when the aggregate of
the information warrants the higher classification.
0304. Definition of Confidential.
    1. Information and material (matter), the unauthorized
disclosure of which would be prejudicial to the interests or
prestige of the nation or be of advantage to a foreign nation
shall be classified Confidential.
    2. The following are some examples of matter which normally
shall be classified Confidential:
    a. Matters, investigations, and documents of a counter
intelligence nature, or the disclosure of which would adversely
affect morale.
    b. Routine operational and battle reports which contain
information of value to the enemy that are not of vital
interest to him.
    c. Routine intelligence reports.
    d. Military radio frequency allocations of special
significance, or those which are changed at frequent intervals
for security reasons.
    e. Military call sign assignments of special significance
which are changed at frequent intervals for security reasons.
    f. Information which indicates strength of our troops, air
and naval forces, identity or composition of units, or quantity
of specific items of equipment pertaining thereto in areas
adjacent to active theaters of operation.
    g. Technical documents and manuals of the type described in
1 above used for training, maintenance, and inspection of
important new munitions of war.
    h. General tactical lessons learned as a result of
operations which it is desirable to withhold from any foreign
nation.
    i. Information relating to the design and development of
new material or other material of the type described in 1
above.
    j. Communications intelligence information, security
publications and security devices and material of the type
described in l above.
    k. Technical information of the type described in 1 above,
such as of research or processes of manufacture which may be a
distinct military asset and not a matter of general knowledge.
    l. Information and records compiled at the request of any
agency of the Department of Defense for its use in the
assurance of adequate provision for the mobilization of
industrial organizations essential to wartime needs.
    m. Information of the type described in 1 above relative to
specific quantities of war reserves.
    n. Photographs, negatives, photostats, diagrams, or models
of Confidential matter.
    o. Certain compilations of data or items which may
individually be classified Restricted or be unclassified when
the aggregate of the information contained warrants the higher
classification.
0305. Definition of Restricted.
    1. Information and material (matter) which requires
security protection other than that determined to be Top
Secret, Secret, or Confidential, shall be classified
Restricted. The term ``Restricted'' as used herein is not to be
confused with the term ``Restricted Data'' as defined in the
Atomic Energy Act of 1946.
    2. The following are some examples of matter which normally
shall be classified Restricted.
    a. Information indicating the strength of our troops, air
and naval forces, identity or composition of units, or the
total quantity of specific items or equipment pertaining
thereto in areas remote from active theaters of operations.
    b. Training and technical documents which, because of their
contents, warrant security protection.
    c. Photographs, negatives, photostats, diagrams, or models
of Restricted matter.
    d. Parts of mobilization plans and regulations of the type
described in 1 above.
    e. Documents relating to the design and development of new
material or other material of the type described in 1 above.
    f. Procurement plans of the type described in 1 above.
    g. Communication security devices and material of the type
described in 1 above.
    h. Certain documents regarding engineering principles and
design, details, composition, method of processing or
assembling, which are vital to the functioning or use of an
article of material.
    i. Certain compilations of data on items which may
individually be unclassified when the aggregate of the
information contained warrants a classification.
    j. Matters, investigations, and documents of the type
described in the definition of ``Restricted'' and the
disclosure of which would adversely affect moral.
    k. Compilations of permanently assigned call signs or
allocations of frequencies that are individually unclassified.
0306. Definition of Restricted Data.
    1. The term ``Restricted Data'' as defined in Section 10 of
Public Law 585, 79th Congress, means all data concerning the
manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of
fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the
production of power, but shall not include any data which the
Commission from time to time determines may be published
without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
The phrase ``Restricted Data'' shall not be confused with the
security classification category ``Restricted.''
0307. Category Marking.
    1. Classification categories and Restricted Data markings
shall be shown in capital letters if used as a stamp or special
marking on matter. (Refer to Article 0422.)
    2. When the words Top Secret, Secret, Confidential, and
Restricted are used in the body of correspondence or
publications to denote a classification category, they shall be
written with initial letters in capitals.
    3. The words ``Restricted Data'' shall be written with
initial letters in capitals if used in the body of
correspondence to refer to Atomic Energy matter.
    [Whereupon, the hearing adjourned at 4:30 p.m.]
                  SECURITY--GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    [Editor's note.--Neither Roy Hudson Wells, Jr. (1907-1990),
nor Phillip Fisher testified in public.]
                              ----------
                        TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 11:15 a.m. in room 357, Senate
Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M.
Cohn, chief counsel; G. David Schine, chief consultant; Robert
L. Jones, public relations for Senator Potter; Herbert S.
Hawkins, investigator; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
               TESTIMONY OF ROY HUDSON WELLS, JR.
    The Chairman. In the matter now in hearing before this
committee, do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are
about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Wells. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Give us your full name?
    Mr. Wells. Roy Hudson Wells, Jr.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside Mr. Wells?
    Mr. Wells. 8219 Beltsville, Forestville, Maryland.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation?
    Mr. Wells. Painter. Contract painter.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever worked for the government?
    Mr. Wells. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. In what capacity?
    Mr. Wells. I was an enumerator for the Farm Security
Administration.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Wells. I think it was in 1939.
    Mr. Cohn. How long were you with the Farm Security
Administration?
    Mr. Wells. About a month.
    Mr. Cohn. Any other government employment?
    Mr. Wells. WPA.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long?
    Mr. Wells. Oh, about six weeks, I think. There was nothing
definite about that at all.
    Mr. Cohn. Anything else?
    Mr. Wells. No other government service.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party when you
were working for the Farm Security Administration or the WPA?
    Mr. Wells. I refuse to answer under the Fifth Amendment,
which gives me the right not to be a witness against myself.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party today?
    Mr. Wells. I refuse to answer for the same reason.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Edward Rothschild?
    Mr. Wells. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever live on Dix Street?
    Mr. Wells. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend Communist party meetings at
the Rothschild home on Dix Street?
    Mr. Wells. I don't know Mr. Rothschild and as far as I know
I never attended any meetings with him.
    Mr. Cohn. You never attended any meetings with him?
    Mr. Wells. I am not quite sure of that. Not that I
remember.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever know of a Mr. Rothschild in the
Communist party?
    Mr. Wells. I don't recall his name at all.
    Mr. Cohn. How about Fred Sillers?
    The Chairman. Let me ask first: Did you see Mr. Rothschild
in the hearing room so you would know whether or not you knew
him?
    Mr. Wells. I didn't go to the hearing and I didn't see him
in the building.
    Mr. Forer. Mr. Wells did see the picture of both Mr. and
Mrs. Rothschild, which I believe was in the Times Herald
yesterday.
    The Chairman. And from that picture you don't recall either
one?
    Mr. Wells. It didn't ring any bells at all.
    The Chairman. Would you show Mr. Wells the picture.
    Mr. Wells. [After looking at the picture of Edward
Rothschild.] The face isn't familiar.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know anybody presently working for the
U.S. government who is a Communist?
    Mr. Wells. I refuse to answer for the reason I gave before.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Gertrude Evans?
    Mr. Wells. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know her as a member of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Wells. I refuse to answer for the same reason.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Jack Zucker?
    Mr. Wells. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Jack Zucker as a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Wells. I refuse to answer for the same reason.
    Mr. Cohn. Isadore Kornfield?
    Mr. Wells. Not that I recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Irving Studenberg?
    Mr. Wells. No, I don't think so. I don't remember the name.
    Mr. Cohn. Robert Lee?
    Mr. Wells. Yes, I knew a Robert Lee.
    Mr. Cohn. As a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Wells. I refuse to answer on the same basis I gave
before.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Martin Chancey?
    Mr. Wells. I refuse to answer for the same reason I gave
before.
    Mr. Cohn. I have nothing more.
    The Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen.
 TESTIMONY OF PHILLIP FISHER (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, FRED
                            SOMKIN)
    The Chairman. In the matter now in hearing before this
committee, do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are
about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Fisher. I do.
    The Chairman. What is your counsel's name?
    Mr. Somkin. Fred Somkin, 1420 New York Avenue.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Fisher, have you ever been a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Fisher. I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Not in any way?
    Mr. Fisher. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You are the son-in-law of Charles Gift?
    Mr. Fisher. Misfortunately.
    Mr. Cohn. You know Mr. Gift?
    Mr. Fisher. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. The reason we asked you to come in, Mr. Gift
refused to answer whether or not you were a member of the
Communist party and whether you attended Communist party
meetings, so obviously we had to ask you to come in.
    Have you ever worked for the government?
    Mr. Fisher. I was purchasing agent, Naval Research
Laboratory, Atomic Instruments. The navy and the FBI gave me a
thorough check.
    Mr. Cohn. Did they ever bring up your relationship with Mr.
Gift?
    Mr. Fisher. I gave them the name of my wife, her father's
name and that is all.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that exactly?
    Mr. Fisher. 1950, I believe, because we went to Eniwetok in
1951.
    Mr. Cohn. And no issue was made at that time about the
act----
    Mr. Fisher. No, sir, they cleared me in about six weeks for
the atomic research project we were working on.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, do you know Charles Gift is a Communist?
    Mr. Fisher. Well, I couldn't say that he was directly, but
the only bearing I have, my wife, Betty, said that he was and
he refused to sign a loyalty paper that they put out in 1947 at
the Naval Gun Factory. He had to leave there on that account.
His wife was a telephone operator for the government. I believe
it was Agriculture or some other department. She had to leave
too because she wouldn't sign. That is as far as I knew.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever known that there were Communist
party meetings at Mr. Gift's home?
    Mr. Fisher. Not that I know of. I was there seldom. I used
to pick Betty up and take her home for about two weeks and they
never had meetings there.
    Mr. Cohn. Was there any evidence of Communist activities
there?
    Mr. Fisher. No, I wouldn't say there was except he had a
couple of papers which he kept secret. Betty told me I should
read some of the crap that was in them. I never saw them. He
got a weekly magazine.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Betty's sister, Gale?
    Mr. Fisher. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Is she a Communist?
    Mr. Fisher. Not to my knowledge. She was investigated by
the FBI because she worked for the FBI. I understand from Betty
she was cleared through that.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever seen the Daily Worker around Gift's
house?
    Mr. Fisher. I have never seen it. I have seen a paper but I
don't recall the name of it. Maybe a four-page sheet.
    Mr. Cohn. When was that?
    Mr. Fisher. Maybe 1948 or 1949. I don't recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, your sister-in-law, Mr. Gift's other
daughter, works for the Department of Justice?
    Mr. Fisher. She did the last I knew of her.
    Mr. Cohn. About when was that?
    Mr. Fisher. Well, I have only seen her Thanksgiving before
last. She was working there then.
    Mr. Cohn. When?
    Mr. Fisher. Thanksgiving before last.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't know whether or not she is a Communist?
    Mr. Fisher. Betty said she wasn't.
    Mr. Cohn. Did she ever express procommunist views?
    Mr. Fisher. The whole family was very quiet, including the
father. When I visited over at the house he would be lying on
the couch and he wouldn't bother to raise up and say ``Hi'' or
``Hello'' or anything else. He would just lie there.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist party
meetings yourself?
    Mr. Phillips. No, sir.
    The Chairman. I think that is all. Incidentally, unless you
tell the press you are here, they won't know you are here.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you very much.
    [Whereupon, the hearing adjourned at 11:45 a.m.]
                  SECURITY--GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    [Editor's note.--Joseph E. Francis (1907-1955), Samuel
Bernstein, and Roscoe Conkling Everhardt did not testify in
public session. On August 29, the Government Printing Office
informed the subcommittee that it had transferred all three men
to the Library of Congress, as part of a new policy to move any
employee under security investigation to jobs where they would
not have access to classified materials.]
                              ----------
                       WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 2:00 p.m. in room 357, Senate
Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M.
Cohn, chief counsel; Richard O'Melia, general counsel,
Committee on Government Operations; Ruth Young Watt, chief
clerk.
                 TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH E. FRANCIS
    The Chairman. In the matter now in hearing before this
committee, do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are
about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Francis. To the best of my ability.
    The Chairman. The answer is ``I do''?
    Mr. Francis. I said to the best of my ability.
    The Chairman. I will ask you to take the oath in the usual
fashion.
    The question is this: In the matter now in hearing before
this committee, do you solemnly swear that the testimony you
are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Francis. I do.
    The Chairman. Mr. Francis, you are presently working in the
Government Printing Office?
    Mr. Francis. Yeh.
    The Chairman. What type of work are you doing in the
Government Printing Office?
    Mr. Francis. I happen to be a printer. My definite job is a
linotype operator in the patent section.
    The Chairman. Do you have available to you or a chance to
see any classified material?
    Mr. Francis. No, I wouldn't say so because we handle
specifications for patents.
    The Chairman. Have you ever seen material which was labeled
``restricted,'' ``classified,'' ``secret'' or ``confidential''?
    Mr. Francis. When I first started working at the printing
office I was assigned to the linotype section which handled
documents and records and court work, and, I believe, in the
course of my work I have seen copy that has been marked
``confidential.''
    The Chairman. Well, in the last week have you seen any
material that was either marked restricted, confidential,
secret or top secret?
    Mr. Francis. No.
    The Chairman. How long since you have seen any classified
material?
    Mr. Francis. Oh, Senator, to my knowledge I would say I
don't know definitely whether I have seen any or not. In my
particular line of work we receive a copy in a folio, maybe two
or three folios at a time, and there is no way I can determine
whether it is confidential or what unless I receive the
beginning of a story--the cover.
    The Chairman. In other words, when you receive printing
material, you normally don't receive the jacket or cover sheet
and, therefore, you don't know whether it is marked secret, top
secret, confidential or restricted?
    Mr. Francis. Well, I wouldn't say--You see in handing out
the copy, naturally it comes in stacks and when you finish one
jacket or one particular job, you start another, and if you
happen to take the first part it may be that you have the cover
on there. I think it has the title of the particular job and if
it is a confidential job or whatever particular label they may
have on there. You may see something stamped on that particular
cover, but I don't recall seeing anything.
    The Chairman. You work in the so-called general printing
shop of GPO and not the State building. Is that correct?
    Mr. Francis. No. I work in--It has been termed the corner
of the print shop. I work in the patent section. We handle
nothing but specifications or patents.
    The Chairman. Is some of that material sent over by the
army?
    Mr. Francis. No, not that I know of. We have no way of
determining that. We get a patent just the same as you would go
to a bookstore and buy a specification for an automobile. That
is the nature of our work.
    The Chairman. Now, let me inform you at this time, Mr.
Francis, you are entitled to have an attorney if you care to
have one. Under the rules of the committee your attorney can
come into the executive session and you can advise with him.
    In view of the fact that you do not have an attorney, I am
going to take it upon myself to give you some advice. I am an
attorney and have been for quite sometime. I have worked on
these committees for quite a few years.
    We see witnesses coming into this room repeatedly who are
guilty of no crime under our present laws. They make the
mistake of assuming that we don't know what the situation is.
They leave the room guilty of perjury.
    As you know, it is no crime under our present laws to be a
member of the Communist party unless you know that the party is
dedicated to the overthrow of this government by force and
violence.
    I would like to advise you now, for your own benefit, that
you either tell the truth or that you refuse to answer on the
grounds that the answer might tend to incriminate you. I
strongly advise you not to try to deceive this committee
because we have made a thorough investigation of your
background. We know a great deal about your activities, so
don't try to play with this committee.
    Mr. Francis. Senator, I haven't a thing to hide.
    The Chairman. Good. Let me ask you this question.
    When you were working in the Government Printing Office,
were you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Francis. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You never have been a member?
    Mr. Francis. I never have been a member. No, I haven't.
    The Chairman. Were you ever a member of the 14th Ward of
the Communist party?
    Mr. Francis. No, Senator. May I make a statement at this
particular point.
    Maybe I shouldn't take it upon myself to try to clear this
situation up but this thing has been pressing on my mind
sometime. It seems as though someone has been misinformed
concerning my past activities. In all probability your record
will show that I formerly worked at the Afro American. It is a
newspaper in Baltimore.
    During my time at the Afro, I helped the guys to try to
form a union and, well, we had a little difficulty. I should
say because we were Negro printers. We tried to get in the ITU.
We went in here as a group and our membership was turned down.
I think it was something like ten printers and it was our hope
that if we were able to get into the ITU, we would have some
printers to back us and thereby give us better grounds to
negotiate with the company.
    The Chairman. The ITU----
    Mr. Francis. International Typograph Union. As I said
before, we were voted down. We were able to go into the CIO. We
went into the CIO as the, I think at that time they affiliated
us with a group called the CIO Organizing Committee, later on
changed to United Paper Workers.
    Later on I became president of that local. I acted as shop
steward for a time. I worked on the negotiating committee for
the union between the company.
    The Chairman. Why were you turned down when you tried to
get in the ITU?
    Mr. Francis. Well, Senator, it was a situation like this.
At that time--I guess it was somewheres around 1941, 1940 or
something like that--anyway we submitted our application into
the Baltimore Local and the applications were passed on to the
union to vote on the membership. At that time it seemed as
though they feared we were looking for their jobs, the
Baltimore newspapers and commercial shops. The only thing we
were interested in at that time was to have this union back it.
    The Chairman. At the time was it claimed by anyone that you
were not taken by the ITU because of Communist activities on
the part of any of your members?
    Mr. Francis. Oh, no. I doubt that seriously.
    The Chairman. Do you recall that that claim was made?
    Mr. Francis. Oh, I don't know. I don't think so. I wouldn't
go so far as to say a statement was made to that effect.
    The Chairman. Actually, weren't you informed that you
couldn't become a member of the ITU because your group was
Communist dominated?
    I am not asking you whether it is true. I am not asking you
whether they were Communist dominated. I am asking you whether
or not you were informed by officials of the ITU of that?
    Mr. Francis. No, it wasn't that at all.
    The Chairman. Did they ever bring that subject up?
    Mr. Francis. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend Communist party meetings?
    Mr. Francis. Senator, I would like to make this statement
to clear that particular question.
    The outcome, as far as I personally was concerned, was
after we were turned down as a group, my next move was trying
to get in as an individual. Going into the ITU as an individual
you would have to have two signatures of members in good
standing to be placed on your application blank and at that
time I was living in Baltimore at 1411 Division Street in an
apartment house named Carver Hall and my apartment was
apartment no. 50. Across the hall from me was a fellow by the
name of Taylor.
    The Chairman. What was his first name?
    Mr. Francis. William Taylor, and he knew that we use to
have our meetings in the recreation hall of that apartment
house, that is the union meetings, and of course, at that
particular time I didn't know too much about this fellow,
Taylor, other than the fact I knew he was an active man. He was
going and coming all the time.
    The Chairman. As a matter of fact, Taylor was a top
functionary of the Communist party, wasn't he?
    Mr. Francis. That was what it turned out to be.
    The Chairman. He succeeded Elizabeth Searle as head of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Francis. I believe you are correct.
    Somehow or other we became known to each other. He found
out that we were struggling at Afro trying to organize and at
that particular time, I think, he was working on a problem with
the carpenters or some particular group.
    The Chairman. May I interrupt. He didn't work on Afro
American newspaper?
    Mr. Francis. No, he didn't.
    The Chairman. Did you know at that time he was a Communist?
    Mr. Francis. Later on I found out he was.
    The Chairman. Did you know it at that time?
    Mr. Francis. Yes. Oh, when I first met him he was just a
neighbor. After a while I found that he was an official of the
Communist party.
    The Chairman. Did he ask you to go to Communist meetings?
    Mr. Francis. Well, I will bring that question up to this.
Out of the outcome of the previous story that I told concerning
my going into the ITU--my attempt to go into the ITU, he
suggested that I contact or try to see a fellow who worked at
the Baltimore Sun. That is a man I never did see.
    Mr. Cohn. Did Taylor tell you this?
    Mr. Francis. Yes. At that time they were organizing a
group, a neighborhood group, I believe. In fact it was on
Bluehill Avenue, which is a block behind or a block away from
where I was living.
    THE Chairman. Do you mean a neighborhood group of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Francis. As far as I know. That is the best definition
I can give you.
    The Chairman. Who is this man on the Baltimore Sun you were
to contact?
    Mr. Francis. That is what I am saying now. I never did meet
the character.
    The Chairman. Do you know what his name was?
    Mr. Francis. I didn't know anything about that.
    The Chairman. Taylor said you were to meet someone on the
Baltimore Sun?
    Mr. Francis. That is what I am trying to get up to. He
suggested that I go around to this--I don't know what they call
the club--go around to this club and I was to meet this fellow
from the Baltimore Sun.
    The Chairman. In other words, this fellow from the
Baltimore Sun was a Communist. Is that right?
    Mr. Francis. I don't know. I never met the guy. I assume
that he was.
    The Chairman. In other words, you were supposed to go to
this Communist club meeting and meet this man from the
Baltimore Sun?
    Mr. Francis. I went around there on three occasions. I
don't recall going around there more than that. From what I
understand they met quite frequently. Inasmuch as I worked at
night I had very little time to fool around with those guys.
    The Chairman. How were you supposed to have identified this
man from the Baltimore Sun?
    Mr. Francis. I imagine Taylor was going to introduce him to
me.
    The Chairman. Did you know whether he was a reporter, a
typesetter, or editorial writer?
    Mr. Francis. Oh, I don't know. I never bothered too much
about his background or anything like that because at that time
I was just fishing in the dark. I was trying to better my
situation on my job.
    The Chairman. What made you think the Communist party could
help you get in the ITU?
    Mr. Francis. Oh, let's see how I shall answer that
question.
    Well, I am going to tell you Senator. We had a pretty rough
time. We went to the National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People; we went to the Urban League and other major
groups that we tried to get them on our side to help us
organize and see our problems at Afro. They turned us down. Of
course, I didn't actually attend the meetings but one of our
members declared that the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People refused to have anything to do
with the case because we worked for one of their main outlets
for publicity, the Afro American. I just felt that inasmuch as
Taylor was organizing, I believe they actually succeeded in
getting the colored carpenters into the union. After he told me
the story about the carpenters--I tell you, Senator, it is a
little difficult for me to remember exactly but as I said
before, I am going to try to give it to you as straight as I
can.
    The Chairman. Let me see if I have the picture of it. You
wanted to get roughly ten people into the ITU. You found you
couldn't do that. For a period of time you thought perhaps the
Communist party might be able to help you get in the ITU,
having been informed that they had helped the colored workers--
carpenters get into the carpenters' union.
    Mr. Francis. The only thing about that statement, Senator,
you are placing emphasis on the Communist party and from my
point of view it was just a social gesture.
    The Chairman. Now, at the time you gave a statement to
Ernest Mellor, did he ask you who had requested you to join the
Communist party?
    Mr. Francis. Ernest Mellor?
    The Chairman. I have a statement here: ``I was solicited by
a member of the 14th Ward Club of the Communist party to
discuss the local's labor difficulties.'' You don't give
Taylor's name here. Did they ask for his name?
    Mr. Francis. I tell you, Senator. I have a copy of that
information in my pocket now. In reference to that particular
statement, he used the word ``solicit'' because that was the
only thing that would clear up my particular situation.
    The Chairman. I am curious, not about your activities, but
of the extent to which you were questioned by the people in
charge of loyalty.
    Did they ever ask you about Taylor?
    Mr. Francis. Oh, no. I am trying to clear the matter up as
quickly as I possibly can.
    The information I furnished to the loyalty board and the
group at the printing office was what I thought was direct
answers to the questions they asked.
    The Chairman. How long did you receive the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Francis. Oh, I don't know, Senator. It must have been
about, I would say, three or four months.
    The Chairman. Actually wasn't it two years?
    Mr. Francis. No, not two years, because I will tell you the
reason why. I don't even recall paying for the subscription. I
don't know whether I had to make a deposit on the thing or what
but it seemed like to me that would be the regular routine, but
the delivery of the Daily Worker stopped.
    The Chairman. Well, you received it in two different
calendar years, didn't you? What I mean by calendar years----
    Mr. Francis. I understand your question. I tell you,
Senator, that happened back somewhere around 1940, 1941 or
1942, something like that and I don't know exactly.
    The Chairman. Why did you subscribe to the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Francis. Oh, I tell you, the Daily Worker and most of
the major newspapers printed were printed by union printers,
they carried the union label, and at that particular time I
thought if there was a possibility of my going to work, I
wanted to be prepared to work anywhere that a job would turn
up.
    The Chairman. In what way would the Daily Worker help you?
    Mr. Francis. You study style, typographical style, style of
the newspaper, determine the type of work they do, the general
style, the method required of printers to produce.
    The Chairman. You don't consider the Daily Worker an
example of the type of work you would be expected to produce?
    Mr. Francis. I am speaking from a technical standpoint,
Senator. I am speaking as a printer. There are certain
newspapers, they look pretty bad to me. Some of them I don't
want to work on, speaking from a technical angle.
    The Chairman. I gather your testimony to be that you
subscribed to the Daily Worker because of the technical style
of it? Actually, isn't it true that the technical style of the
Daily Worker was extremely bad from the standpoint of any
competent style of work?
    Mr. Francis. I don't know what it is now.
    The Chairman. When you saw it?
    Mr. Francis. Union printers put out good work.
    The Chairman. The Daily Worker. Was that good work?
    Mr. Francis. I say, Senator, union printers put out good
work. I cannot classify good printing and Communistic printing.
    The Chairman. We are not talking about the policies of the
Daily Worker. You said you studied the style yourself for any
job that would come up. I am curious to know whether after you
studied it, it was gotten out so well from a technical
standpoint that you would again----
    Mr. Francis. That wasn't my particular point, Senator. I
just felt if I could get a job--I knew there were Negroes
working on the Times and other New York papers and I felt maybe
some day I probably would have to change my sitting and go to
New York and try to get in the ITU and thereby work on these
papers.
    The Chairman. Did you subscribe to the New York Times?
    Mr. Francis. I use to buy it occasionally. It is quite a
paper.
    The Chairman. What other papers did you subscribe to
besides the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Francis. I can't necessarily say papers. American
Printer and Inland Printer.
    The Chairman. May I say, Mr. Francis, you know I have never
seen you before today. I know nothing about you except your
record here. I can understand in some cities Negroes have
difficulty getting into unions. I can understand that you might
have used, what would seem, bad judgment in trying to get into
a union where you could make a better living for yourself and
family, but when you subscribe to the Daily Worker and say you
did that to improve yourself technically, that doesn't make
sense because the average printer will tell you that the Daily
Worker is very badly printed and not a model to follow.
    Let me ask you this: Is it a fact that Taylor or some other
person persuaded you that the Communist party could help you;
they persuaded you the thing to do was to read the Daily Worker
and perhaps go along with the Communist party; that they might
help you get the consideration you were entitled to in this
union?
    Mr. Francis. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You tell us that that was the only paper you
subscribed to?
    Mr. Francis. Senator, I worked, as I said before, for Afro.
I read the Baltimore Sun and the News Post and I don't have any
definite reason, other than what I have just stated, as to why
I bought this subscription to the Daily Worker.
    The Chairman. Do you know who sold it to you?
    Mr. Francis. I don't know. That is the thing I have been
trying to turn over in my mind for sometime. I don't know
definitely whether I got the subscription from Taylor or just
who I got it from. More than likely, that is who I got it from.
    The Chairman. Did you know any Communists on the Baltimore
Post or the News Post?
    Mr. Francis. No, I just got through saying I didn't know
any of those people.
    THE Chairman. You worked for the Baltimore Sun?
    Mr. Francis. I didn't work on the Baltimore Sun. I wish I
did.
    The Chairman. You didn't know anyone on the Baltimore Sun?
    Mr. Francis. No.
    The Chairman. News Post?
    Mr. Francis. No.
    The Chairman. Do you know William Taylor's address?
    Mr. Francis. Present address? No. I haven't seen that
fellow since the war.
    The Chairman. What was his address when you knew him?
    Mr. Francis. He lived at 1411 Division Street.
    The Chairman. That is in Baltimore?
    Mr. Francis. Yes. He has long since moved from there.
    The Chairman. Is it your testimony that you only attended
three Communist meetings?
    Mr. Francis. To my knowledge, I would say that is all.
    The Chairman. Did you ever pay dues to the Communist party?
    Mr. Francis. I don't see how I could pay dues to the
Communist party, Senator, and not belong to the organization.
    The Chairman. Didn't you contribute some money at any of
these meetings? Didn't they collect money.
    Before you answer may I make a suggestion. You are here
without counsel.
    Mr. Francis. I am not trying to confuse anybody, Senator,
and I don't want anybody to confuse me.
    The Chairman. I want to give you some advice. We have given
advice to individuals before. They refused to take it and are
in jail now for perjury. Don't make the mistake of trying to
fool us.
    Mr. Francis. Senator, I came here with an open heart and it
is up to you and your associates to take my statement. I said
before, I haven't a thing to hide. You are asking me something
that happened ten or twelve years ago. I am doing my best to
give you the exact information I can.
    The Chairman. Were you ever issued a card by the Communist
party?
    Mr. Francis. Not that I know of. If I had a card I should
have it today. I don't throw away anything.
    The Chairman. Did you ever contribute money to the
Communist party?
    Mr. Francis. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Are you sure?
    Mr. Francis. I am positive. I don't know what I paid for
the subscription.
    Mr. Cohn. You know you did pay something for it?
    Mr. Francis. It seems customary when you subscribe to
something you should pay something. I am telling you the honest
truth, I don't know what I paid.
    The Chairman. Are you married?
    Mr. Francis. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you have a family?
    Mr. Francis. Just my wife and I.
    The Chairman. How long have you been married?
    Mr. Francis. It will be ten years this next January.
    The Chairman. Is this your first wife?
    Mr. Francis. No, second wife.
    The Chairman. You are divorced from your first wife?
    Mr. Francis. Yes.
    The Chairman. Any children by your first wife?
    Mr. Francis. No.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been arrested for other than
traffic violations?
    Mr. Francis. Oh, no.
    The Chairman. And you say you haven't attended any
Communist party meetings in the last ten or twelve years?
    Mr. Francis. Now wait a minute, Senator. Let's catch up
with ourselves. This is 1953, and you ask me ten years and that
would be 1943. In 1943, let's see, where was I? Since you make
a broad statement, Senator, I want to take in the space which
would include these three meetings I said I attended. I don't
know if you could call them meetings because when I got there
there was about three people in the place.
    The Chairman. What year was that?
    Mr. Francis. I assume it must have been around--must have
been about 1942.
    The Chairman. Other than those three meetings you attended
in 1942 or around 1942, you have attended no other Communist
party meetings?
    Mr. Francis. Absolutely not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any meetings in Taylor's
home?
    Mr. Francis. Oh, I tell you Senator, sometimes I would go
in there and maybe we would have just a little conversation
about what we were doing or talking about the weather or
anything and he would probably have visitors come in. Inasmuch
as I didn't know them, politely left. I lived across the hall.
    The Chairman. Were you over in his apartment when other
people were there?
    Mr. Francis. Wait a minute. Let me explain. As I said
before, I have been in his apartment and we have had various
conversations and when his company would come in, with the
exception of one fellow I knew--I knew him from the Afro. He
was the personnel director and he is the man that I feel as
though he is responsible for me being right here today.
    The Chairman. What is his name?
    Mr. Francis. Ferman L. Templeton.
    The Chairman. Was he a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Francis. No, not that I know of.
    He was a fairly active member in the community and knew
just about everybody to be known. Of course, he recognized me
as an employee of the Afro American. He always assumed that
Taylor and I were great friends. It was not the fact that we
were such great friends, he was just a neighbor of mine.
    The Chairman. Now, outside of Templeton, was there anyone
else in Taylor's room when you were there?
    Mr. Francis. Oh, no. That is the only one I knew.
    The Chairman. Was there anyone else you didn't know?
    Mr. Francis. No, I never had a chance to see them, to tell
the truth. I would just see them coming and going.
    The Chairman. The question is: When you were there, who
else was there? You said Mr. Templeton----
    Mr. Francis. You asked who else and I said no one else I
knew.
    The Chairman. The question is: Was there anyone else there
whom you did not know?
    Mr. Francis. Well, Senator, I don't know how to answer that
question, for the simple reason when you are living across the
street or across the hall you may stand in the door and have a
conversation about just general things and people may be coming
and going. As I say, he was a busy man. Of course, the only
times I had a chance to hold a conversation would be weekends
or something like that. As I say, people would be coming and
going. I didn't know them. I wasn't interest in them myself.
    The Chairman. In other words, it was a pretty busy
apartment?
    Mr. Francis. It was.
    The Chairman. Actually, didn't you know he was a top
functionary of the Communist party and Communists were coming
and going, constantly?
    Mr. Francis. Senator, I tell you, I observe fairly well. I
assumed he had a little authority or power from somewhere
because anyone who was busy as he was, he had to be something,
but later I read in the paper where he was. I don't know what
he was--secretary or head of a district.
    The Chairman. You knew he was more than a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Francis. Yes, I would say that.
    The Chairman. Outside of Mr. Templeton, did you know of
anyone else who came and went to his apartment?
    Mr. Francis. No.
    The Chairman. You knew no one else?
    Mr. Francis. I don't remember knowing anybody.
    The Chairman. Do you know what Templeton is doing now?
    Mr. Francis. I don't know what his job is. To tell you the
truth, I don't know where he is. He either quit the job at Afro
or was fired or something. I don't know which.
    The Chairman. I understand that the GPO loyalty board in a
letter of charges accused you of being a Communist. Is that
correct?
    Mr. Francis. Would you mind repeating your statement?
    The Chairman. Is it correct that the loyalty board of the
GPO accused you of being a Communist?
    Mr. Francis. Let me see before I answer that question. Let
me see what it stated. If you don't mind I will read this first
sentence:
    It has been reported that in 1943 you were a member of the
14th Ward of the Communist Party in Baltimore, Maryland. If
this is correct
    (a) When did you join the Communist Party?
    (b) How did you join the Communist Party?
    (c) Why did you join the Communist Party? and so on.
    The Chairman. You were not put under oath by the loyalty
board were you?
    Mr. Francis. Well, the statement I submitted had to be
certified.
    The Chairman. But you were never brought in and sworn and
your testimony taken by a reporter?
    Mr. Francis. Oh, no.
    The Chairman. Is it your testimony now that you never have
any opportunity to get a hold of any confidential, secret, top
secret material in the printing office?
    Mr. Francis. No, sir. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be
interested myself.
    The Chairman. Do you know most of the people who work in
the printing office?
    Mr. Francis. No, all I know is the guys in my section. Half
of them I don't even know. Printers have a habit of changing
jobs rather quickly.
    The Chairman. What is your salary?
    Mr. Francis. $3.23 an hour.
    The Chairman. How many hours do you work?
    Mr. Francis. Forty hours.
    The Chairman. Do you know anyone in GPO who has access to
classified information?
    Mr. Francis. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You don't?
    Mr. Francis. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Roy, I have nothing further. Do you have
anything further?
    Mr. Cohn. No.
    The Chairman. That will be all. You will be ordered to
consider yourself under subpoena in case the committee wants
you. This is executive session. If you care to tell anyone you
were here you may do so. The committee does not give the names
of witnesses to the press or anything so that if you want to
talk to the newspaper men, you have a perfect right to do so.
You can tell them you were here.
    Mr. Francis. No, sir, Senator. I must say as far as my
record is concerned I have been pretty fortunate. I have no
complaint. I try to do my job well and try to be a decent
citizen. I see no point in going any further.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Francis. Thank you, Senator.
    The Chairman. In case the committee wants you again, Mr.
Cohn or Mr. Carr will get in touch with you.
    Mr. Francis. Okay.
                 TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL BERNSTEIN
    The Chairman. Will you stand and raise your right hand?
    In the matter now in hearing before this committee, do you
solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give shall
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
    Mr. Bernstein. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You work over at GPO?
    Mr. Bernstein. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. How long have you been there?
    Mr. Bernstein. Twelve and a half years, since November
1940.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have access to classified material?
    Mr. Bernstein. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had access to classified material--
ever seen any?
    Mr. Bernstein. Except handed to me by my superior to set
type from.
    Mr. Cohn. What classifications have been handed to you?
    Mr. Bernstein. Usually restricted.
    Mr. Cohn. Anything higher?
    Mr. Bernstein. Possibly, I wouldn't be sure.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever sign a Communist party petition?
    Mr. Bernstein. No, sir, not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you quite sure?
    Mr. Bernstein. I think so.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think so or are you sure?
    Mr. Bernstein. Possibly, without my knowledge. I am quite
sure I haven't.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have a brother named Jack?
    Mr. Bernstein. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Is he a Communist?
    Mr. Bernstein. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Has he ever been?
    Mr. Bernstein. I don't know, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know him well? Are you close to him?
    Mr. Bernstein. I left home in 1940 and my brother Jack was
thirteen when I came to work at the GPO. I guess he was
thirteen, fourteen or fifteen years old. I have never had any
contact with him since except to see him on occasions when I
went to see my mother.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't know whether or not he is a Communist?
    Mr. Bernstein. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever associated with members of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Bernstein. No, sir, not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever receive an interrogatory from the
GPO loyalty board?
    Mr. Bernstein. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. They never contacted you?
    Mr. Bernstein. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. And you were never asked to sign a Communist
party petition?
    Mr. Bernstein. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Anything along those lines?
    Mr. Bernstein. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Going back to the year September of 1940, did
you at that time sign a pledge to support the Communist party?
    Mr. Bernstein. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you remember signing any papers in
connection with the nomination, which you may not have read so
you may have signed?
    Mr. Bernstein. No, sir. I do not recall signing any such
oath. I certainly would not sign any such oath.
    The Chairman. Do you remember signing any nomination of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Bernstein. No, sir, not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Your address is 706 Decatur Place?
    Mr. Bernstein. I just bought that home.
    THE Chairman. Your job is known as what--operating a
monotype keyboard?
    Mr. Bernstein. That is right, sir.
    The Chairman. What is a monotype keyboard?
    Mr. Bernstein. In some ways it is similar to a typewriter
except you have six sets of keys. It is an automatic
typesetting machine.
    The Chairman. Are you married?
    Mr. Bernstein. Yes.
    The Chairman. Family?
    Mr. Bernstein. Two children. One six and one half and one
four and a half months old.
    The Chairman. I understand that your sworn testimony today
is that you never attended any Communist party meetings, never
joined the party, and never made contributions?
    Mr. Bernstein. No, sir. I am quite sure I haven't.
    The Chairman. I think that is all, Mr. Bernstein. May I say
our practice has been not to give out names of the witnesses
who have appeared before the committee. We do not bar witnesses
from giving out their names if they care to. The reason we
don't give out names, if we do that, the inference might be
that we think a man is a member of the Communist party. We
think it would be unfair to you.
    Mr. Bernstein. It certainly would, sir.
    The Chairman. Let me say we have no intention of calling
you in public session. If any information is given out about
your appearance, it will be through you.
    Mr. Bernstein. I don't intend to give out information and
hope I won't be involved.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
             TESTIMONY OF ROSCOE CONKLING EVERHARDT
    The Chairman. Mr. Everhardt, would you stand and raise your
right hand?
    In the matter now in hearing before this committee, do you
solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give shall
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
    Mr. Everhardt. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you work in the Government Printing Office,
Mr. Everhardt?
    Mr. Everhardt. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time?
    Mr. Everhardt. Twelve years.
    Mr. Cohn. And have you ever had access to any classified
material such as confidential stuff?
    Mr. Everhardt. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now? Up until the present time or what?
    Mr. Everhardt. No. This was during the war years, around
1948 or 1949, I think. We were running some confidential work.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Everhardt. No, I haven't.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever received Communist party
literature?
    Mr. Everhardt. No, I haven't.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever asked to join the Communist party?
    Mr. Everhardt. No, I haven't.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever express procommunist sympathies?
    Mr. Everhardt. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, were you ever contacted by the loyalty
board?
    Mr. Everhardt. Yes, I was.
    Mr. Cohn. What did they tell you?
    Mr. Everhardt. Well, they were asking me the same
questions.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you have a hearing?
    Mr. Everhardt. Well, not before the board, before the chief
clerk.
    Mr. Cohn. You mean you just filed a statement, is that
right?
    Mr. Everhardt. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You never did have a hearing of any kind?
    Mr. Everhardt. No.
    The Chairman. Mr. Everhardt, you were in the Agriculture
Department for a while?
    Mr. Everhardt. Yes, I was.
    The Chairman. What year?
    Mr. Everhardt. That was when I first come into the service,
around 1936.
    The Chairman. Who were your references when you got in the
Agriculture Department?
    Mr. Everhardt. I didn't have any references. I was sent
there from the Civil Service.
    The Chairman. Were you working in Civil Service?
    Mr. Everhard: I was working in Space Control temporarily. I
was doing building maintenance and work of that sort.
    The Chairman. Then you were sent over to the Agriculture
Department?
    Mr. Everhardt. Oh, yes.
    The Chairman. What kind of work did you do there?
    Mr. Everhardt. Cleaning work, maintenance.
    The Chairman. What kind of work are you doing in GPO?
    Mr. Everhardt. Press room, press work.
    The Chairman. What do you do?
    Mr. Everhardt. Handle the printing work, box it.
    The Chairman. Box it up after it has been stitched?
    Mr. Everhardt. No, after it comes off the press.
    The Chairman. You handle all types of material, whether it
is restricted, confidential or secret?
    Mr. Everhardt. That is right. They have a room for secret
work called the ``cage.'' They generally run secret work up
front.
    The Chairman. Do you do any boxing of the secret work?
    Mr. Everhardt. No.
    The Chairman. I am not saying you did, but if you wanted to
would you be able to take out any secret work out of the
building?
    Mr. Everhardt. No, sir because they put it in a truck and a
fellow is supposed to take it downstairs.
    The Chairman. If you wanted to, I am not asking you if you
did, would you be able to read secret material?
    Mr. Everhardt. It is running so fast you would hardly have
time to read it unless you looked in the waste basket.
    The Chairman. You could pick up material from the waste
basket?
    Mr. Everhardt. If I worked inside the cage.
    The Chairman. Would you be able to get hold of waste
material?
    Mr. Everhardt. Not unless I worked inside the cage.
    The Chairman. In your job doing what you are doing?
    Mr. Everhardt. No, I couldn't get in there.
    The Chairman. You couldn't get in there?
    Mr. Everhardt. No, because there is a fellow in the room
watching that secret work.
    The Chairman. Would anyone working in there have any
trouble putting a piece of that in their pocket?
    Mr. Everhardt. I don't think so.
    The Chairman. The reports on you from intelligence agencies
show that you were a member of the Communist party. They have
fourteen separate reports all dealing with alleged Communist
activities. In view of that, may I make a suggestion to you.
You have no lawyer. You are entitled to have a lawyer. Now, not
having one, I would strongly urge that you tell us the truth or
if you feel a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you,
refuse to answer. In view of the fourteen different reports, I
am going to ask you again. Did you ever join he Communist
party?
    Mr. Everhardt. Never. I don't belong to any organizations
at all.
    The Chairman. Were you ever solicited to join the party?
    Mr. Everhardt. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever pay money to the party?
    Mr. Everhardt. Never have.
    The Chairman. Can you think of any reason why government
intelligence agency would report that you were a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Everhardt. I told the people down there, when I first
came in service we had a foreman and because I took up for him.
That is the only thing I can see.
    The Chairman. Would you have any idea who might have
reported that you were a Communist?
    Mr. Everhardt. No. As I rode over to the building I was
trying to think. Some of those foremen maybe accused me of
being a Communist.
    The Chairman. The thing I have difficulty understanding is
the fourteen separate reports. That is what I can't understand.
    Mr. Everhardt. I don't belong to any organizations at all.
    The Chairman. Were you ever asked to join the Communist
party?
    Mr. Everhardt. No. I have never been asked to join it.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any meetings?
    Mr. Everhardt. I don't know any Communists. I have never
been to any meetings or anything.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend a Communist party meeting
without your knowing it was a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Everhardt. Not that I can say.
    The Chairman. Do you go to many meetings?
    Mr. Evereardt. I don't go to any meetings at all. We have a
union at the building which was just organized. I am a member
of that.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been arrested?
    Mr. Everhardt. I was picked up for investigation.
    The Chairman. And where was that?
    Mr. Everhardt. It was here.
    The Chairman. Here in Washington?
    Mr. Everhardt. Yes.
    The Chairman. How long ago was that?
    Mr. Everhardt. Oh, that was around 1943.
    The Chairman. Only once?
    Mr. Everhardt. No, I was coming in the back way of my
mother's house and was picked up.
    The Chairman. How many times were you picked up for
investigation?
    Mr. Everhardt. Twice.
    The Chairman. Did they charge you with any crime or let you
go?
    Mr. Everhardt. They let me go one time on one charge. On
the other charge they tried to say I committed house-breaking
but I was freed.
    The Chairman. They didn't find you guilty?
    Mr. Everhardt. No.
    The Chairman. Did you go before a court?
    Mr. Everhardt. I was freed by the jury.
    The Chairman. One time you were accused of house-breaking
and the jury freed you. What did they pick you up for the other
time?
    Mr. Everhardt. Investigation.
    The Chairman. And was that while you were working at GPO?
    Mr. Everhardt. Yes.
    The Chairman. Aside from the two times you were picked up
that you mentioned, forgetting about any traffic violations,
were you ever arrested or picked up for anything else?
    Mr. Everhardt. No.
    The Chairman. Just one final question. Is it your testimony
that you never joined the Communist party; you never were asked
to join he Communist party; you never contributed money to the
Communist party; you never went to any meeting which you
thought was a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Everhardt. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Is that right?
    Mr. Everhardt. That is right.
    The Chairman. And the only arrests were two cases. Case
one, you were picked up for investigation and they let you go.
No charge was filed. The other case you were charged with
house-breaking and the jury freed you?
    Mr. Everhardt. That is right.
    The Chairman. And you say your work is what?
    Mr. Everhardt. Press room, handling press work.
    The Chairman. You say you do not box secret or top secret
material?
    Mr. Everhardt. No.
    The Chairman. How about confidential?
    Mr. Everhardt. They run confidential and some restricted.
    The Chairman. If you wanted to, again I am not saying you
did, but if you wanted to, you could put the confidential
material in your pocket and leave the building?
    Mr. Everhardt. If I wanted to.
    The Chairman. Is there any particular count made when the
material comes into the room and when it leaves the room?
    Mr. Everhardt. No. You see it is one large room, the main
press room. They run it on a different press-confidential and
sometimes restricted.
    The Chairman. Assuming you are getting out confidential
material, who tells you how many pieces to pack in boxes?
    Mr. Everhardt. They have trucks you fill up and you put a
slip with it--confidential or restricted on it. The pressman
takes the count from the count press to see how many he runs
and sticks that in the truck.
    The Chairman. That runs through a counter, does it?
    Mr. Everhardt. That is right.
    The Chairman. How about material mutilated or spoiled?
    Mr. Everhardt. It is put in a waste truck with restricted
on it.
    The Chairman. Is that counted?
    Mr. Everhardt. It is not counted. I think it is taken
downstairs and burned up.
    The Chairman. Then if you have the count from the machine-
Let's say the machine counts 110 pieces. If there are four or
five or six mutilated in printing, you end up with six pieces
no good, then you have 104. If you wanted to you could take a
piece of the stuff that was torn or mutilated and put it in
your pocket and no one would know the difference?
    Mr. Everhardt. Yes.
    The Chairman. I think I have no further questions.
    Mr. Everhardt. I was surprised to be connected with the
Communist party. I don't belong to any organizations at all.
    The Chairman. I may say just for your benefit, we have
individuals much nearer to the top that we are bound to
investigate. I doubt very much if we will get down to the point
of calling you back here. I frankly can't reconcile your
testimony with reports from the FBI, but we do have people
handling a lot more secret material I think we will spend our
time on.
    Mr. Everhardt. I can't see what kind of reports. I don't go
anywhere except home.
    The Chairman. We won't have anymore time to waste in your
case.
    I might say we have a practice of not giving to the
newspapers anyone appearing in executive session. If you care
to give your name or discuss the case you may. That will be the
only way there will be any publicity.
    Mr. Everhardt. I don't belong to any organizations or go to
any meetings.
    [Whereupon, the hearing adjourned at 4:30 p.m.]
                  SECURITY--GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    [Editor's note.--Florence Fowler Lyons did not testify in
public session.]
                              ----------
                        FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                            Los Angeles, California
    The subcommittee met at 12:00 noon in chambers of Court
Room 9, Federal Building, Los Angeles, California, Senator
Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
               TESTIMONY OF FLORENCE FOWLER LYONS
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand?
    On the hearing before the committee, do you solemnly swear
to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
    Miss Lyons. I do.
    Mr. Schine. Will you state your name for the record?
    Miss Lyons. Florence Fowler Lyons.
    Mr. Schine. Your address?
    Miss Lyons. 621 South Burnside Avenue, Los Angeles 36.
    Mr. Schine. And your occupation or vocation?
    Miss Lyons. Freelance writer.
    Mr. Schine. You have been doing research for the last two
or three years on documents published by the Government
Printing Office?
    Miss Lyons. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Schine. You are thoroughly familiar with the contents
of many of these documents?
    Miss Lyons. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. Is it true that it came to your attention a
couple of years ago that the Government Printing Office was
publishing the Communist party line?
    Miss Lyons. Yes, it did.
    Mr. Schine. Would you elaborate on your findings and tell
us when you started doing this research and show us just what
you mean when you say the Government Printing Office has
published the Communist party line?
    Miss Lyons. The first interest became in preparing to do a
book against world government, and I was looking through the
library files under the United Nations, and came across a
course of study designed for-a course called the E and S
course.
    I had been in the fight in the legislature in 1947 to bar
the use of the State of California of a series called
``Building America.'' The Third Report of the Senate Committee
of the State of California covered that battle. The books were
declared unfit for use in the schools of California, because of
the long list of the Communist and pro-Communist writers.
    Mr. Schine. Will you give me the names of some of the
writers used?
    Miss Lyons. There were forty-eight, as I remember, in the
review. Stuart Chase--I can get that Third Report.
    Mr. Schine. Have you the list with you?
    Miss Lyons. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Are there documents printed by the Government
Printing Office?
    Miss Lyons. No. This is by the state printing office. I was
giving a bit of the background, how I got into the Government
Printing Office. This in the state printing office
[indicating].
    Mr. Cohn. Don't bother with that now.
    Mr. Schine. Just name some of the names.
    Miss Lyons. I want to get them off that right list. Stuart
Chase, Carl Wittke, the Lynds.
    The Chairman. That is enough. You can supply these names
later on.
    Miss Lyons. There were forty-eight names, as I remember.
    Mr. Schine. Will you supply those to us?
    Miss Lyons. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. Now, you have some pamphlets with you that were
printed by the Government Printing Office?
    Miss Lyons. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Schine. Would you produce them, please?
    Miss Lyons. Well, you see UNESCO is an operation of the
State Department. The propaganda is put out chiefly by the
UNESCO relations staff in the Department of State and all of
the----
    Mr. Cohn. Excuse me, I hate to interrupt. You mean the
Government Printing Office printed pamphlets?
    Miss Lyons. For UNESCO. This is the working kit. Believe
me, this is not the complete kit. That was printed by the
Government Printing Office for use at the Third National
Conference of UNESCO.
    The Chairman. Off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    The Chairman. On the record.
    Miss Lyons. These are working papers for the conference
[indicating].
    Mr. Schine. Just to deviate for a second, and to put into
the record some vital information which you told me about in
our interview yesterday, you are completely familiar with the
group that set up UNESCO, is that not right?
    Miss Lyons. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Schine. Would you give us the names of the people that
you have found, through your study, to be responsible for the
organization of UNESCO?
    Miss Lyons. You have to go back a long way, before 1946,
because----
    Mr. Schine. Just name the names.
    Miss Lyons. Milton Eisenhower, the man in charge of the
State Department. He was assistant to the Secretary of State
William Benton.
    Milton Eisenhower, Archibald Leach, Esther Brunauer,
William T. Stone, Irwin Canham, editor of the Christian Science
Monitor.
    There were a great many people sat in the preparatory
commission to form UNESCO.
    Mr. Schine. These gentlemen you just named were the heads
of the commission?
    Miss Lyons. Yes, Benton headed the commission.
    Mr. Schine. What did Luther Evans have to do with it?
    Miss Lyons. Luther Evans was one of the American delegates
to the original preparatory commission of the UNESCO group.
They went over to London around '44 and '45 as a preparatory
commission and met with people of other nations, such as Ellen
Wilkinson, a notorious Socialist of England, and Edward Foray
of France, who formed and wrote UNESCO's basic documents.
    As I understand it, this educational program of UNESCO was
done in cooperation with the State Department, which has some
of its documents printed by the Government Printing Office, and
has a program called ``Toward A Better World Understanding.''
The series is called ``Toward World Understanding.''
    Mr. Schine. In order to promote this program, they have
published many pamphlets called ``Toward A Better World
Understanding,'' and have disseminated these pamphlets to
schools throughout the United States?
    Miss Lyons. May I explain? There is a lot of confusion
about the ``Toward World Understanding'' series. That was a
series much denied by the people who are supporting UNESCO. It
is actually, when you study the subject, the international
blueprint which the entire UNESCO program has been based on.
    They say they were a series of international seminars. They
are not printed on United States Government printing presses.
Those are printed in Paris and are sold by the Columbia
University Press as the sales agency for the UNESCO group and
for the United Nations.
    There is hardly a word in the ``Toward World
Understanding'' series which were released around 'forty-eight.
It cannot be shown that they have implemented those plans.
However silly the plans seemed at first, you can just about
bring out a textbook or a map or some program of study based
solidly upon them.
    Mr. Schine. In other words, what you are telling us is that
the UNESCO, in cooperation with the State Department, and to a
large degree through using the Government Printing Office, has
disseminated the Communist party line?
    Miss Lyons. Very much so. They of course tell everyone to
buy the ``Toward World Understanding'' series. Those are the
ones that lead to the first general dismay over the UNESCO
program.
    Mr. Schine. Would you name the platform of this series?
This is very important, Mr. Chairman, because this is the
Communist party line as advocated by Lenin in the state of
evolution.
    I know you can't remember them offhand. Could you give me
the basic ideas they are trying to promote?
    Miss Lyons. The basic idea, of course, throughout all of
UNESCO is the teaching of the spirit of internationalism, which
was one of Lenin's major objectives; the distraction and
contempt for one's own country. You find throughout the UNESCO
the complete attack upon the family, the attack upon religion,
the attack upon national sovereignty beyond all belief. It is a
program to break down the child from an individual American
citizen well disciplined and equipped by the schools to make
his living as an individual, which is the Communist program.
    The Chairman. May I interrupt? Mr. Schine, could this
witness analyze those documents and extract the excerpts from
them which attack religion and attack the family, which could
be of considerable value.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Chairman, they are all right here, all
cross-referenced and all extracted. I think Miss Lyons will be
happy to turn over to the committee the entire research that
she has done.
    Miss Lyons. May I show the destruction of the parochial
schools in America? In volume--these are in volumes--2, it is
titled, ``The Education and Training of Teachers,'' and on
page----
    The Chairman. Could I interrupt there? That is a volume----
    Miss Lyons. Of ``Toward World Understanding.''
    The Chairman. Printed in the Government Printing Office?
    Miss Lyons. No. We pay for it.
    The Chairman. That is in UNESCO's documents, is it?
    Miss Lyons. Yes. As I say, it is the international
blueprint for UNESCO. Therefore, you find in this, implemented
by the members of the National Commission and by the State
Department of America, and they say these were not written for
American schools, but I have the absolute proof here they are.
    It says, among other things, ``The following conclusions
were reached about differences within educational systems,''
that children of different racial groups living in the same
locality should share the same schools. That it would seem
desirable for young people of different religions, living in
the same community, to attend the same schools. That where
private schools possess recognized educational advantages, that
such schools should be made available to all sections of the
community.
    Now, if you remember this was 1948, I believe when this was
put out. It takes a while for UNESCO to get around to
implementing some of these plans. But it came in the mouth of
Dr. James B. Conant the week of April 18, 1952. Dr. Conant
addressed the five thousand members of the American Association
of School Administrators. I will read this. This happens to be
from the Catholic paper in Los Angeles called The Tidings. It
is dated Boston.
    America's private schools, which pioneered education in
this nation from the days of the Pilgrims, last week were
labeled as harmful to ``democratic unity'' by spokesmen for a
public school superintendents' organization whose remarks left
no doubt that they want only one school system for America--one
controlled by the government.
    In a slashing, open attack on non-government schools, Dr.
James B. Conant, president of Harvard University, charged that
``the greater the proportion of our youth who attend
independent schools, the greater the threat to our democratic
unity.''
    Conant's keynote idea war echoed again and again before the
convention here of 5,000 members of the American Association of
School Administrators whose spokesmen charged all private and
parochial schools with being divisive, dangerous, undemocratic,
prejudiced, and un-American.
    The Chairman. I think this analysis of the workings of
UNESCO could be of tremendous importance especially in view of
the activities of Luther Evans, who is now the chief delegate.
    Mr. Cohn. He is the secretary.
    Miss Lyons. He's the director general of UNESCO now.
    The Chairman. Obviously, we wouldn't have time to
adequately and intelligently go through all this material
today, with all the other material.
    What is your suggestion now as to how this record can be
made? I am very serious. I think this is an important project.
    Mr. Schine. I think, Miss Lyons, if you could write a
report for the committee, boiling down all of your findings
into simple conclusions----
    The Chairman. That is quite a request to make of a witness.
    Miss Lyons. It is two years' solid day and night research.
    Mr. Schine. If you would like to show how the Government
Printing Office is working----
    Miss Lyons. Well, I can----
    The Chairman. Just a second. What do you make your living
at now?
    Miss Lyons. Just nothing, what I can make out of UNESCO,
which is very, very little, and speeches.
    The Chairman. In other words you are a freelance writer?
    Miss Lyons. I have been two years on this. It was so tragic
and such a terrible thing I had to do it.
    The Chairman. You have no income from this, do you?
    Miss Lyons. No.
    The Chairman. I am wondering how you make your living, what
you live on.
    Off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    The Chairman. On the record.
    Miss Lyons. Actually, this is so terribly serious I don't
think anyone knows how terribly serious and what a nest of
communism, stark, rank communism the children are sent to by
the Government Printing Office via the UNESCO.
    The Chairman. Obviously, this witness has done a tremendous
amount of research. If she wanted to give her testimony in a
written form, boiled down as much as possible, to analyze this,
the committee would have the authority to pay her witness fees
for the days she worked getting her testimony in writing. What
is that, $9.00 a day? That is no salary for a writer.
    Miss Lyons. That would be swell.
    The Chairman. That is the only fee we can pay. Why not let
this witness do the best job she can in the next ten days. That
is a short period of time.
    Mr. Schine. That will be fine.
    The Chairman. And she can send you a resume of the
material, and if you would like to go into it further you can
get in touch with her.
    Mr. Schine. I have one other idea.
    Mr. Cohn. I think, definitely, to put the emphasis on
documents printed in the Government Printing Office, the UNESCO
documents.
    The Chairman. I am interested in UNESCO, entirely separate
and apart from the Government Printing Office.
    Mr. Schine. So far as the State Department information
build-up, too.
    The Chairman. Off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    The Chairman. On the record.
    Mr. Schine. I have one idea. The names of many Communist
authors we haven't called yet, whose writings have been printed
by the Government Printing Office; if Miss Lyons could put that
in the record now, that would provide us with----
    The Chairman. Off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    The Chairman. On the record.
    Mr. Schine. Let me pose a question. Miss Lyons, is it true
that the Government Printing Office has printed documents and
bibliographies which recommend the reading of works by known
Communist authors?
    Miss Lyons. It is true, but, as you must allow, most of the
Communist subversion in the UNESCO material is done by cross
reference. I will show you how it is done.
    This is a United States National Commission for UNESCO
publication [indicating]. It is called the ``UNESCO Story.'' It
is called a ``Resource and Action Booklet for Organizations and
Communities.'' In the original form this was a large blue book
[indicating]. This is a reprint of a chapter. It is an over-all
coverage of what UNESCO is doing.
    In the chapter on human rights--it happens to be a State
Department publication 3931, which sold for 55 cents at the
Government Printing Office. In the chapter on human rights they
have a series of illustrations taken from a pamphlet. The
pamphlet is titled ``America's Stakes in Human Rights,''
published by the National Council for the Social Studies.
    When you got a hold of this 25-cent pamphlet put out by the
National Council for the Social Studies, which is an affiliate
of the National Education Association, you find that in that
one 25-cent pamphlet there are amazing number of people with
known and documented Communist front affiliations.
    Mr. Schine. Would you tell us what this is?
    Miss Lyons. This is the list of around--it is 50 authors,
who had very serious affiliations with Communist front
organizations, as listed by the California Senate Investigating
Committee on Education in 19forty-eight, and this is published
in the Third Report.
    Mr. Schine. What Third Report?
    Miss Lyons. Third Report of the Senate Investigating
Committee on Education, of California. They give you the list.
    Mr. Schine. Where are they listed? Will you state the name
of the publication?
    Miss Lyons. I just gave it to you. It is the Third Report
of the Senate Investigating Committee on Education, published
by the State of California.
    Mr. Schine. Miss Lyons, your attention was first directed
to the realization that the UNESCO, in cooperation with the
State Department and the Government Printing Office, was using
the works of Communist writers when you read the Third Report
of the Senate Investigating Committee on Education and
discovered a list of ``Building America Authors Affiliated With
Communist Front Organizations,'' which are as follows, and that
this same list of authors were individuals whose works were
very often used by the UNESCO in cooperation with the State
Department:
1. Adamic, Louis
2. Anderson, Sherwood
3. Beard, Prof. Charles A
4. Beard, Mary
5. Buck, Pearl S.
6. Burns, Eveline M.
7. Chaffee, Prof. Zechariah, Jr.
8. Chase, Stuart
9. Corsi, Edward
10. Crawford, Kenneth
11. Crow, Carl
12. Embree, Edwin
13. Epstein, Abraham
14. Ernst, Morris
15. Fisher, Dorothy Canfield
16. Flanagan, Hallie
17. Goodsell, Prof. Willystone
18. Hays, Arthur Garfield
19. Johnson, James Weldon
20. La Farge, Oliver
21. Lattimore, Owen
22. Lynd, Prof. Helen M.
23. Lynd, Prof. Robert S.
24. Macgowan, Prof. Kenneth
25. Mather, Prof. Kirtley F.
26. McWilliams, Carey
27. Mumford, Lewis
28. Nelson, Rose
29. Overstreet, Prof. H. A.
30. Radin, Prof. Paul
31. Roberts, Prof. Holland D.
32. Sandoz, Mari
33. Seabrook, William
34. Spaeth, Sigmund
35. Staley, Prof. Eugene
36. Steffens, Lincoln
37. Stern, Prof. Bernhard J.
38. Stowe, Leland
39. Strong, Anna Louise
40. Traube, Shepard
41. Wise, James Waterman
42. Wittke, Carl W.
43. Williams, Albert Rhys
44. Wright, Frank Lloyd
45. Yutang, Lin
46. Alexander, Dr. Will H.
47. Bourke-White, Margaret
48. Graham, Prof. Frank P.
49. Hicks, Grenville
50. Webb, Sidney and Beatrice
    Miss Lyons. That is correct.
    Mr. Schine. Miss Lyons, thank you for appearing here today
for preliminary questioning concerning your research work.
    In accordance with the chairman's suggestion, will you
kindly prepare a report, listing the salient points and
conclusions of your findings, which involve communism,
procommunism in the Government Printing Office through the
State Department and UNESCO?
    Miss Lyons. Yes.
    [Whereupon, at one o'clock p.m., Friday, August 21, 1953,
the hearing was recessed.]
                  SECURITY--GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    [Editor's note.--For refusing to answer certain questions
about illegal gambling, in the public hearing that followed
this executive session, Carl Lundmark (1897-1982) was suspended
from his job at the Government Printing Office. Alfred L.
Fleming, Earl Cragg (1906-1978), and Harry Falk (1891-1978) did
not testify in public session.]
                              ----------
                       SATURDAY, AUGUST 29, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953, at 9:45 a.m. in room 357, Senate
Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M.
Cohn, chief counsel; Thomas La Venia, assistant counsel;
Richard O'Melia, general counsel, Committee on Government
Operations; Robert Jones, public relations, Senator Potter;
Frances P. Mims, acting chief clerk.
                 TESTIMONY OF ALFRED L. FLEMING
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand, please?
    In the matter now in hearing before this committee, do you
solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give shall
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
    Mr. Fleming. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Give us your full name?
    Mr. Fleming. Alfred L. Fleming.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your position?
    Mr. Fleming. Night production manager.
    Mr. Cohn. Night production manager at GPO?
    Mr. Fleming. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Has it come to your attention that gambling has
existed and does exist at the Government Printing Office?
    Mr. Fleming. It has been reported that gambling was going
on. We investigated to the best of our ability and never found
any evidence.
    Mr. Cohn. You never found any evidence?
    Mr. Fleming. We have never found any evidence to my
knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Who made the reports to you?
    Mr. Fleming. Well, we had information--if a report came in
from an anonymous caller who reported gambling, we would
investigate through the formative section.
    Mr. Cohn. Weren't you officially advised by the police
department that gambling was going on and supplied with the
names of the people involved?
    Mr. Fleming. A report came in and was passed to me that
they had information that gambling was being carried on. We
investigated that and found no evidence.
    Mr. Cohn. You found no evidence at all?
    Mr. Fleming. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, you supplied to the staff of the committee a
copy of a memorandum from Lt. Blick of the police department
listing the names of those who, according to their information,
were accepting numbers and horse bets. This is the copy. We can
have that marked Exhibit 1.
    Mr. Fleming. That is right.
    The Chairman. I think that is all Mr. Fleming. The staff
will take up with your superiors the question of whether or not
a man who was not supposed to be working on Saturday should get
witness fees or a day off. We will take that up with your boss
over there.
    Mr. Fleming. Thank you very much.
                 TESTIMONY OF CARL J. LUNDMARK
    The Chairman. Mr. Lundmark, would you raise your right
hand?
    In the matter now in hearing before the committee, do you
solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give shall
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
    Mr. Lundmark. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Give us your full name?
    Mr. Lundmark. Carl John Lundmark.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you employed at the Government Printing
Office?
    Mr. Lundmark. I am.
    Mr. Cohn. And for how long a period of time have you been
employed there?
    Mr. Lundmark. 1941, March 13th. About twelve years.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you do?
    Mr. Lundmark. I am a hand compositor.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your salary?
    Mr. Lundmark. Well, I will tell you, I work by the hour.
$3.00 and some cents an hour.
    Mr. Cohn. What was your income last year?
    Mr. Lundmark. $5,200 or $5,300.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Lundmark, have you ever engaged in
illegal gambling activities?
    Mr. Lundmark. Well, I tell you, under the Fifth Amendment I
decline to answer that inasmuch as it may incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Lundmark, have you ever engaged in illegal
gambling at GPO or in cooperation with any persons employed
there?
    Mr. Lundmark. Under the Fifth Amendment, I decline to
answer.
    Mr. Cohn. I am going to read you the names of four persons
employed at GPO: Clinton E. Hicks; Chick Wiremaster; William A.
Dorsey; William S. Jasnowsky.
    I will ask if those four persons act as ``runners'' for you
at the Government Printing Office?
    Mr. Lundmark. Under the Fifth Amendment I decline to answer
as it might incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had access to any classified
material?
    Mr. Lundmark. Yes, I have. No, I mean as far as setting it
up. Can I explain it to you? During the Second World War, we
had that navy list that was confidential. The foreman, Mr.
Ackman, use to give it to me and another man, George Casey. I
would tell these boys, ``Don't read it. If you don't read it
you don't know anything.'' All I did was correct them.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Lundmark, what was your total income last
year?
    Mr. Lundmark. $5,200 to $5,300.
    Mr. Cohn. No, I mean all told?
    Mr. Lundmark. I decline to answer that question as it might
tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. It is a fact that you earned over $25,000 in
connection with illegal gambling activities?
    Mr. Lundmark. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you earn any money in connection with illegal
gambling activities?
    Mr. Lundmark. I decline to answer that question as it might
tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have any interest in race horses?
    Mr. Lundmark. I don't own them but my boy does.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you supply the money?
    Mr. Lundmark. No, my boy had his own money.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you did not earn in excess of $25,000 in
illegal gambling activities?
    Mr. Lundmark. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you earn in excess of $10,000?
    Mr. Lundmark. I did not.
    Mr. Cohn. $7,500?
    Mr. Lundmark. No.
    Mr. Cohn. $5,000?
    Mr. Lundmark. $5,200 or $5,300.
    Mr. Cohn. Forget your salary?
    Mr. Lundmark. I decline to answer that question.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you the question over again. I am
not sure which ones you answered ``no.''
    Did you make more than $10,000 in connection with
bookmaking or any other gambling activities?
    Mr. Lundmark. I decline to answer that question as it might
tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Did you make over $20,000 as a result of your
gambling activities?
    Mr. Lundmark. I decline to answer that question. It might
tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you own a thirty-five acre farm at Ardmore,
Maryland?
    Mr. Lundmark. I guess you could say I own it. I have a
mortgage for $6,500.
    Mr. Cohn. How much did you pay for it?
    Mr. Lundmark. $13,000.
    Mr. Cohn. How much cash?
    Mr. Lundmark. I will be honest with you. I think I paid--I
have got to make a payment now----
    The Chairman. May I make a suggestion. Number one, be sure
you hear the question. Number two, don't try to fool counsel
with any false answer. If you think an answer will incriminate
you, refuse to answer. Tell the truth or refuse to answer. Be
sure you hear the question.
    How many horses do you have on the farm?
    Mr. Lundmark. There are six at present.
    The Chairman. Race horses?
    Mr. Lundmark. Mares. They are not racing anymore. If you've
got a farm and want one, I will be glad to give it to you if
you will be sure you graze him and take care of them. That is
how much they are worth.
    The Chairman. I don't think I want one.
    Mr. Lundmark. There is six altogether. There is one little
colt, weaning.
    The Chairman. Has there ever been an investigation of you
since you have been working at the Government Printing Office
in connection with gambling or bookmaking?
    Mr. Lundmark. I decline to answer that question as it might
tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. How many horses do you or your son have
either racing now or have had racing this year or will have
racing this year?
    Mr. Lundmark. If you will put it this way, my son not me.
He has five.
    The Chairman. Do you own any of those horses?
    Mr. Lundmark. I do not.
    The Chairman. What does your son work as?
    Mr. Lundmark. Trainer.
    The Chairman. How old is he?
    Mr. Lundmark. Bob is twenty-nine. No, he is thirty right
now, August 19th.
    The Chairman. Where did he get the money to buy horses?
    Mr. Lundmark. He saved his money in the army. He don't
drink; don't smoke; don't think the kid ever spent a nickel in
his life.
    The Chairman. Did you ever make a gift of either horses or
money to your son?
    Mr. Lundmark. I have advanced the boy a couple of hundred
dollars at one time.
    The Chairman. Is that all?
    Mr. Lundmark. That is all.
    The Chairman. You never made a gift of horses?
    Mr. Lundmark. No.
    The Chairman. Now, you may want to decline to answer this
also but I will have to ask the question for the record. What
property do you own at this time besides this farm?
    Mr. Lundmark. None.
    The Chairman. Do you have a bank account?
    Mr. Lundmark. A small one--about $150 in it.
    The Chairman. Any cash?
    Mr. Lundmark. What I have in my pocket. My wife has hers.
    The Chairman. Do you have a safety deposit box?
    Mr. Lundmark. I do not.
    The Chairman. You understand we will not be concerned with
your private life and what you do except you are working in the
printing office where your workmen handle classified material.
In view of that it becomes important whether you are a
bookmaker.
    Mr. Lundmark. That work is important, especially when we
get a job like in World War II.
    The Chairman. Do you have access to classified material at
this time?
    Mr. Lundmark. No, I don't. I don't think anybody in our
department does.
    The Chairman. Do you set up classified material on the
machine?
    Mr. Lundmark. I am a hand compositor. You make a mistake,
set a mistake wrong, we have got to make corrections.
    The Chairman. If a mistake is made on secret work, you are
the man who corrects it?
    Mr. Lundmark. I could be.
    The Chairman. Do you?
    Mr. Lundmark. Anything the man gives me I will do.
    The Chairman. I would like to know whether in the past year
you have handled secret work?
    Mr. Lundmark. No, I don't think there has been any secret
work as far as I know.
    The Chairman. Any classified work of any kind?
    Mr. Lundmark. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Who in your same type of work handles the
classified work if you don't?
    Mr. Lundmark. I don't think there is anything that goes
through our office at night that is classified as secret
anymore. About the only secret thing--we get special orders or
AGOs and anybody can work on them.
    The Chairman. We have the testimony that your office, the
entire Government Printing Office handled about 250,000 pieces
of secret and top secret work, a vast amount of confidential
work and restricted work. If they produced those hundreds of
thousands of copies, who does the work on it if those in your
office do not?
    Mr. Lundmark. Our department really takes care of
congressional work at night, hearings now like we have here. We
work at night so you people will have a copy of it in the
morning. That is about the extent of our department.
    The Chairman. How about navy work?
    Mr. Lundmark. I haven't seen any navy work since the time
in World War II.
    The Chairman. How about work from the State Department?
    Mr. Lundmark. I can't say I have seen any. As I say, our
department is mostly Congressional Records and hearings. You
have a hearing today, we go to work tonight; we run it off;
correct it. That consists of our work at night, the majority of
it.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you one other question. As of the
present time are you operating a book?
    Mr. Lundmark. Under the Fifth Amendment I decline to answer
as it might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Are you associated with or do you have
information of any wire service handling racing information?
    Mr. Lundmark. I do not.
    The Chairman. I am going to ask you about four individuals,
which I believe Mr. Cohn asked you about all together and you
declined to answer. I am going to ask you about each one
individually to make the record complete.
    Did or does a Mr. Chick Wiremaster act as one of your
runners in connection with bookmaking?
    Mr. Lundmark. Under the Fifth Amendment I decline to answer
because it might incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Does Wiremaster work at the printing office
now?
    Mr. Lundmark. Truthfully speaking, I don't know Wiremaster.
I don't know that name. I think you people are misinformed as
far as names are concerned.
    The Chairman. Do you know a man called ``Chick''?
    Mr. Lundmark. I do.
    The Chairman. What is his last name?
    Mr. Lundmark. Winewriter. We come from the same town, two
miles apart.
    The Chairman. Does he work in the Government Printing
Office? How do you spell his last name?
    Mr. Lundmark. W-i-n-e-w-r-i-t-e-r.
    The Chairman. Has Mr. Winewriter ever been a runner for
you?
    Mr. Lundmark. I decline to answer that question because it
might incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Does William Dorsey work under you?
    Mr. Lundmark. I decline to answer that question as it might
incriminate me.
    The Chairman. The question was: Does Dorsey work under you
in the Government Printing Office?
    Mr. Lundmark. I don't think William Dorsey works in the
printing office any more. I think he has retired on disability.
    The Chairman. Does Dorsey now act as a runner for you?
    Mr. Lundmark. I decline to answer that question as it might
incriminate me.
    The Chairman. William Jasnowsky. Does he work in the
printing office?
    Mr. Lundmark. He does that.
    The Chairman. Does he work under you?
    Mr. Lundmark. I decline to answer that question as it might
incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Does Jasnowsky as of now act as a runner for
you in connection with bookmaking?
    Mr. Lundmark. I decline to answer that question because it
might incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
                    TESTIMONY OF EARL CRAGG
    The Chairman. Will you stand and raise your right hand,
please?
    In the matter now in hearing before this committee, do you
solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give shall
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
    Mr. Cragg. I do.
    Mr. La Venia. Mr. Cragg, what is your title?
    Mr. Cragg. Assistant printing cost technician.
    Mr. La Venia. In the last ten days have you been
supervising the removal of certain material in open shelves in
a file room near the computing section?
    Mr. Cragg. The men doing this work have been under my
supervision.
    Mr. La Venia. Who instructed that material to be removed?
    Mr. Cragg. I don't know who gave the original instruction.
When Mr. Humphrey left on leave--he was gone over all last
week, he told me those men would be engaged in removing this
material.
    Mr. La Venia. What was that material?
    Mr. Cragg. That was material that had been returned from
commercial contractors of samples of completed work they had
performed.
    Mr. La Venia. And some of it was lying on open shelves?
    Mr. Cragg. Practically all of it.
    Mr. La Venia. And some was classified as confidential and
restricted?
    Mr. Cragg. Some of it was. They only found five jobs
classified confidential. The majority of it was unclassified.
    The Chairman. Was there any secret or top secret work?
    Mr. Cragg. No, no secret work.
    Mr. La Venia. And those workers were handling material that
never came through your section?
    Mr. Cragg. That is right.
    The Chairman. The job was being done for another section?
    Mr. Cragg. That is right.
    Mr. La Venia. This other section had never cleaned out the
shelves?
    Mr. Cragg. That is correct.
    Mr. La Venia. This material had been lying there from three
months down to ten years?
    Mr. Cragg. I think they told me the earliest job found was
1944 and no classified work has been put on the shelves within
the last two years.
    The Chairman. So any classified material was more than two
years old?
    Mr. Cragg. That is correct.
    Mr. La Venia. But it has been lying around from 1944 to
date?
    Mr. Cragg. That is correct.
    Mr. La Venia. Who is responsible for that classified
material lying around on those shelves?
    Mr. Cragg. Do you mean under whose jurisdiction the file
section operated?
    Mr. La Venia. No, I mean who is responsible for the
security of that classified material?
    Mr. Cragg. Well, I am not quite sure. The file section
would come under the supervision of the comptroller. I suppose
when it comes to his section it is his responsibility.
    Mr. La Venia. Who has to give the order for the destruction
of that classified material?
    Mr. Cragg. Well, I naturally assume the comptroller or his
assistant but I suppose the security officer or the assistant
security officer could give that order.
    Mr. La Venia. Who was the security officer?
    Mr. Cragg. The deputy public printer, Mr. Cole.
    The Chairman. Was that material burned or what was done
with it?
    Mr. Cragg. The classified material was burned and the
unclassified material was baled.
    Mr. La Venia. Are those men still working on cleaning that
up?
    Mr. Cragg. No, sir. The job was finished yesterday.
    The Chairman. About how many pieces of classified material
would you say was removed? Just roughly?
    Mr. Cragg. There was twenty tons of material. I wouldn't
have a guess on the pieces. That includes unclassified.
    The Chairman. That may be an impossible question. Could you
guess how many tons of classified material was removed and
burned?
    Mr. Cragg. I asked these men that were engaged in the work
what percent they estimated was restricted matter and they said
10 percent.
    The Chairman. That would be about two tons maybe.
    Mr. Cragg. Of course, I am taking their word for their
estimate.
    The Chairman. Would anyone in the Government Printing
Office have access to that material if they wanted to go over
and take a piece of it?
    [The witness was not given time to answer this question.]
    Mr. La Venia. How long have you been working on that floor?
    Mr. Cragg. I have been working on that floor in that
particular section since 1931, I believe.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, this bay that they called the file room,
that has an open front. Is that correct?
    Mr. Cragg. Well, it is enclosed by a counter.
    Mr. La Venia. There is a gate there now?
    Mr. Cragg. Yes, a gate.
    Mr. La Venia. When was that gate put in?
    Mr. Cragg. I wouldn't want to say exactly but it has been
here about two years.
    Mr. La Venia. In other words, that gate has been there
since about 1951?
    Mr. Cragg. I couldn't be sure.
    Mr. La Venia. From 1944 to 1951, there was no gate?
    Mr. Cragg. That is correct.
    Mr. La Venia. And the material, therefore, was lying on
open shelves since 1944; was lying in an open room without a
gate. Is that correct?
    Mr. Cragg. Yes, I think so.
    The Chairman. That room in which that material was stored
was not guarded in any way and anybody could walk in?
    Mr. Cragg. The room, I believe, was locked at night. During
the day it was open.
    Mr. La Venia. This is a three walled room, is it not?
    Mr. Cragg. You mean the room we are including, the file
room?
    Mr. La Venia. I mean the so-called file room?
    Mr. Cragg. That is right.
    Mr. La Venia. And the fourth consists of a gate?
    Mr. Cragg. That is right.
    Mr. La Venia. And there was no gate there two years ago?
    Mr. Cragg. I can't be sure of the date but I know it has
been put up comparatively recently. It may be within the last
two years.
    Mr. La Venia. So it couldn't possibly have been locked,
could it?
    Mr. Cragg. You see this adjoins other work rooms and the
doors into the work room which the files are a part were locked
at night.
    The Chairman. In other words, if I have your testimony in
mind, it is this: The stuff might be stored in a room with
three walls only, but beyond that would be a room which had a
door and a lock on it. Would that be correct?
    Mr. Cragg. Yes. But I know that other people had access to
that room at night. Occasionally the Night Planning Division
needed to go to the files to get a jacket out.
    The Chairman. As far as you know, anyone in the Government
Printing Office was not forbidden the right to go into that
room?
    Mr. Cragg. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. So that if you wanted to go into it or anyone
else, they naturally could have gone into it?
    Mr. Cragg. There was a change made. Those files used to be
on the other side next to the window. Some years ago they were
moved back over to their present location.
    The Chairman. That will be all. I will ask you to go over
to room 318. We will want you over there in case we have to ask
you any questions on this.
    Mr. Cragg. You want me to wait around there?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Cragg. Will I be notified when I am excused?
    The Chairman. Yes. Thank you very much.
                    TESTIMONY OF HARRY FALK
    The Chairman. Would you stand and raise your right hand?
    In the matter now in hearing before this committee, do you
solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give shall
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
    Mr. Falk. I do.
    Mr. La Venia. Mr. Falk, you are the superintendent of the
library branch of the Government Printing Office?
    Mr. Falk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. At the library branch, do you have or come in
contact with any classified matter?
    Mr. Falk. No.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, on August 25th, Tuesday, were you called
to a meeting at the main Government Printing Office?
    Mr. Falk. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. Was that meeting held in Mr. Merold's office?
    Mr. Falk. Yes.
    Mr. La Venia. Were there other conferees there?
    Mr. Falk. Yes, about five or six.
    Mr. La Venia. And at that meeting were you advised that
certain employees employed at the main GPO were being
transferred to the Library of Congress branch?
    Mr. Falk. Yes, sir.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, who was the chairman of that meeting?
    Mr. Falk. Mr. Merold.
    Mr. La Venia. How much notice did you have of the meeting?
    Mr. Falk. About ten minutes.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, from the conversation in that room, what
was the reason understood by you for the transfer of these
people to the library branch?
    Mr. Falk. Well, they had been accused of being Communists.
I mean they were on that list of individuals that have been
marked as Communists.
    Mr. La Venia. Now, from Mr. Merold's remarks what were any
other reasons for doing it at this time?
    Mr. Falk. Well, my impression was they wanted to get those
men out of the main office where they had security work before
Mr. Cole testified this Saturday. They wanted to get all that
cleared out before.
    The Chairman. May I ask you this: Did you work in the
Government Printing Office for a while?
    Mr. Falk. Yes, I started out as assistant foreman of the
Patent Section; then foreman of the Patent Section; foreman of
the Linotype Section; then transferred over to the library.
Back in 1936 I went to the library.
    The Chairman. You are the supervisor over there now?
    Mr. Falk. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. These men won't have access to classified
material now, will they?
    Mr. Falk. No, sir.
    The Chairman. I think that was a very good move that was
made.
    From your experience in the printing office, would you say
anyone working there, if he wanted to, could have gotten hold
of and read secret and any other classified material?
    Mr. Falk. You mean any member of the organization?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Falk. Well, I don't think so. I think they had a select
few security men, as far as I know. That was 1936.
    The Chairman. I see you wouldn't be in any position to know
what happened?
    Mr. Falk. I couldn't say truthfully.
    The Chairman. I will read the names of the people
transferred to your department: Samuel Bernstein; Roscoe C.
Everhardt; Samuel C. Jones; Seymour Mintz; Joseph E. Francis;
M. B. Sayles; David W. Douglas; Francis L. Russo; Mrs. Nannie
B. Gray; Miss Fannie Louise Madella; Isadore Kornfield; Milton
S. Tooter; Arthur W. Bowerman; Genaro L. D'Antuono; Luciano
Rodriguez.
    Mr. Falk. That is right.
    The Chairman. Is that the complete list as far as you know?
    Mr. Falk. That is right.
    The Chairman. These were the people transferred to your
department so they would not have access to any classified
material?
    Mr. Falk. The reason given for the transfer, they were
accused of being Communists or had some Communist connections,
which works a hardship on the loyal employees. We have a very
small branch. The loyal man has to suffer for that type of
worker.
    The Chairman. This could mean some good loyal employee is
bumped out of a job?
    Mr. Falk. They are transferred to the main office and
whenever a vacancy occurs they would be given a chance to come
back.
    The Chairman. You transferred some of your good, trusted
employees to the Government Printing Office?
    Mr. Falk. It worked quite a hardship on me.
    The Chairman. I don't think we will need you any further.
If you care to come over to 318 and listen to the testimony of
any witnesses, you may do so.
    Mr. Falk. Thank you very much.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 10:30 a.m.]
                     STOCKPILING AND METAL PROGRAM
    [Editor's note.--In July 1953, the subcommittee suspended
its investigation of stockpiling of strategic materials after
the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs created a
special subcommittee on Minerals, Materials, and Fuels, chaired
by Senator George W. Malone, and authorized it to conduct a
full investigation into stockpiling of strategic materials.
Senator McCarthy agreed to transfer all of his subcommittee's
files relating to stockpiling to the Interior subcommittee.
Robert C. Miller testified publicly before the Interior
subcommittee on September 22, 1954.]
                              ----------
                        FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                            Los Angeles, California
    The subcommittee met at 11:30 a.m. in chambers of Court
Room 9, Federal Building, Los Angeles, California, Senator
Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
          STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. MILLER, SOUTHWESTERN
            ENGINEERING COMPANY, 4300 SOUTH SANTA FE
                   AVENUE, VERNON, CALIFORNIA
    The Chairman. We wanted an informal discussion. We have
been going into the question of the extent to which the foreign
buying of the stockpile has adversely affected the mining
interests in this country.
    Our committee has been studying this for about six months,
or George Malone's subcommittee, so we are not going to hold
any public hearings by our committee.
    Mr. Miller. I understood he was here.
    The Chairman. We told him we would try to pick up any
information we could for him.
    Mr. Miller. I don't know whether you know it or not, but we
are doing a research program for what was DMPA by Tom Lyon and
Howard Young for sampling all the major manganese deposits in
the country. Obviously, we are interested in the source of
manganese, at least during all-out war.
    The Chairman. Have you been concerning yourself solely with
manganese or have you been concerned with the situation so far
as lead and zinc are concerned?
    Mr. Miller. No, they are pretty well taken care of through
their own groups, on those things. We designed and built the
one manganese plant built in the country for the last many
years, up at the Three Kids Mine, just out of Henderson,
Nevada.
    I am going East on Tuesday to meet with the board of
directors of Chemetals Company in New York, to finish up the
last of the rigmarole so they will give a royalty agreement to
the government to build a plant for the production of manganese
in this country by chemical means.
    The Chairman. Would you be in any position to give this
committee or Senator Malone's committee any information as to
the amount of money we have spent abroad to develop manganese
sources?
    Mr. Miller. We know that--let me put it this way: It is
rumored, and it could be very easily developed from DMPA,
through their foreign divisions they provided some sixty-five
million dollars for the development of manganese in Brazil for
the Bethlehem Company. Other sources I cannot tell. There are
probably other locations where manganese has been provided for,
for foreign imports.
    The Chairman. I will tell you what has concerned us
greatly. I will give this to you so you will have in mind what
information we are looking for.
    We have gotten a great amount of information to the effect,
at least the old administration--what changes have been made in
the last few months I don't know--took the position if they
could purchase metals abroad they would then be conserving the
metals in the ground in this country, and apparently overlooked
the fact that a mine that is open and producing, if it is
closed because you are buying from abroad, floods, and, as you
of course know, it isn't reclaimable.
    Mr. Miller. A lot of work is entailed to get it going.
    The Chairman. It isn't as simple as some of our experts in
Washington told it was to conserve the ground.
    The other complaint we have had is on spending money to
develop mines. Take the manganese mines in this country, for
instance, we have spent money in the foreign countries to
develop the mines over there in areas that wouldn't be
accessible to us in case of all-out war with Russia.
    Mr. Miller. Assuming the effectiveness of the submarine
warfare.
    The Chairman. If the policy has been abandoned, as it would
appear on the surface, it is the feeling, I think, of Senator
Malone and myself, anyway, while nothing of any great benefit
will develop, and by showing up those past errors it could be
very beneficial in getting the new administration to change the
course of things.
    Mr. Miller. May we stick strictly to manganese then for a
little bit?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Miller. Because I am sort of a Don Quixote for
manganese. I fought the battle of manganese for over three
years.
    Jim Boyd said we would be drafted to put in a plant at
Denman for the production of manganese, and that is a bunch of
tripe. I don't know how far this record goes [indicating].
    The Chairman. Anything you want to say off the record we
will go off the record for it. Otherwise, this is strictly an
executive session. These records are not going to the press.
    Mr. Miller. I would like to say this off the record, and
then if you want to put it in the record, do so.
    The Chairman. All right. This is strictly an executive
session. Only a few people will get this record and they are
the members of George Malone's committee and his staff, for
their information.
    If after you cover this you want to take it off the record,
we will be glad to do it.
    Mr. Miller. Throughout this period I was conferring and I
would go down about every morning about eight o'clock and
review the situation, and then get Jim Boyd and Clair Engle and
Mittendorf on the carpet, and kept pounding on them until
finally it became so apparent that they were not doing
anything, that DMA was finally abandoned and DMPA was set up in
its stead; taken out of the Department of Interior and put into
the department of GSA.
    Then they brought in Howard Young and brought in Tom Lyon,
and some of the rest of them, all because manganese is the most
vital thing for our defense effort in the whole book. Without
manganese, no steel.
    Our stockpiling program has been set up on the basis that
we have approximately one year's supply of manganese on the
present demand of steel. An all-out war and the demand for
steel will go up instead of down. And we have no know-how to
produce and upgrade our local large sources of manganese.
    Secondly, I question the possibility of producing manganese
in this country except by a high subsidizing from domestic ores
by a price that will be competitive with high grade ores that
come from Brazil, Africa or India.
    To complain that our ores in Aroostook, Maine, will average
about 10 percent--we have a man we are sending up about the 5th
of September to resample the whole field. The largest deposit
in the country is at Artillery Peak in Arizona. Adjacent to
that we propose to build the little Chemetals (Chemical
Construction Company Process) plant. There is a deposit at
Cuyama. That lies under an overburden of roughly 150 feet of
nonproductive material. It is expensive to get into. It is low
grade, only about 5 percent manganese. We can take either
Cuyama or Aroostook by some simple means, and bring them from 5
percent to 30 percent or 25 percent.
    So you see the problem is to try to upgrade that to a point
where it will be plus 45 percent manganese, in competition with
ores which may come from Brazil or Africa, which are, as a
nugget from the ground, with cheap labor, running 45 to 55
percent manganese. All they have to do is dig it out and get it
to the seaboard coast and put it on the cars or boats and get
it over. It is a very difficult economic thing to do, to
produce that in this country.
    But still we should have the know-how. And my fight has
been to get the means. I went back and had a long session with
Mr. Mansure before Tom Lyon left, and Mansure has agreed he
will finance the deal.
    I don't know whether you have met John Morgan in ODM. He is
the financial boy that parses out the dollars. He has agreed
the money is available out of the money appropriated, three
million dollars still left, to go on with this program of
research. That is why I went back, will go back the next trip
to try to get something done on that.
    I will need your support. I will need the support of
everybody if they don't come through and do it, because
somewhere it must be done.
    The Chairman. It would seem a very urgent thing to be done.
    Mr. Miller. From the time we start until we have determined
what can be done sufficiently to build a plant will be at least
two years. To build plants, let's say, to supply our needs,
will take two years more. Therefore, we have four years from
now, if we start in now, before we can have manganese in
quantities in this country to supply our needs.
    The Chairman. How about Russia's source?
    Mr. Miller. It has been cut off entirely; that is the
information I have.
    The Chairman. In other words, they don't have any good
sources within Russia?
    Mr. Miller. Yes. If you will check back in the records, the
major part of our requirement came from Russia prior to this
condition.
    The Chairman. My question is: does Russia have sufficient
manganese?
    Mr. Miller. Yes, definitely.
    The Chairman. In case of an all-out war, Russia on her own
continent would have sufficient manganese?
    Mr. Miller. Yes.
    The Chairman. Rather a high grade, I understand.
    Mr. Miller. I have not gone into it specifically, so my
answers are based more on hearsay knowledge then actual fact.
But definitely a great quantity is coming from Russia, or was
coming from Russia before; it is the Siberian side of it.
    The Chairman. As long as we keep the sea lanes open to
Brazil we have no serious problem?
    Mr. Miller. We are all right.
    The Chairman. So far as other metals, lead and zinc, are
concerned, I understand you don't know too much about that
situation.
    Mr. Miller. I don't know enough to be able to offer any
considerable information. I would like to say one thing, if I
can, for the record, that I think it would warrant an impartial
committee--that is, non-government committee--who would get
into it and serve time in determining what the stockpile
objectives should be for all the strategic metals and minerals.
    That has been developed in the most haphazard manner in the
majority of instances.
    The Chairman. The Munitions Board is supposed to do that.
    Mr. Miller. The Munitions Board has had to depend on
information supplied them by the Bureau of Mines. I think the
Bureau of Mines isn't worth the powder to blow it up.
    I served on the Munitions Board Industrial Committee on
Graphite. My own son and another chap and I operate the only
graphite plant in the United States. And I had a chance, first-
hand chance to see this, and the only data we had on what they
required in this country was what the three importers told
them, until I got myself appointed on the committee.
    I sent out seventy letters to the trade, to get information
on lubricating graphite. Fifty-three or fifty-four replies were
received. They went directly to the Munitions Board and,
incidentally, I would like to speak very highly of Dr. Timothy
Mays who is in charge of that. He is a very conscientious and
capable person, if he is given rope enough.
    The replies we got absolutely made the report given by the
importers as plain, straight, unadulterated lies.
    I am glad to put it in the record. By God, I have told them
it to their faces. And if that happens in graphite, I think you
will find it will happen in many other things, since this
started in '47 for the stockpile objective in graphite, and the
demand is practically three times as much now as in 1947.
Therefore, there should be a new reviewing of it.
    If I could leave that thought with you, I have done a lot
of good for the cause. If that can be instigated as a part of
the reorganization plan----
    The Chairman. Let me say that many of us feel that the
stockpile, the entire program is very, very brainlessly
handled. For example, we had before us--I can't recall his name
now--a man who had to do with the stockpiling of feathers and
other things. I think he handles about two or three hundred
million dollars a year. A very nice follow.
    But I wouldn't trust him. I don't mean he was stealing, but
I wouldn't trust his judgment to go to the store and buy
groceries unless he had everything written out on a piece of
paper. And he is handling the stockpile of about 250 million
dollars worth of material a year.
    Unfortunately, everything is classified so top secret that
the incompetence and inefficiency is hidden sometimes.
    Mr. Miller. That is right. I have been able to pry into it
and under it by getting closely acquainted with them, to find
out what is going on in graphite.
    The Chairman. Off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    The Chairman. On the record.
    Mr. Miller. This again should come, from DMPA, but DMPA
doesn't exist anymore. It has been kicked out and it is all
GSA. Now, our report was--do you want me to go back and review
it?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Miller. In the first place, we were called in by the
Westmoreland Steel Company, they called it in the beginning.
That name was changed to Westmoreland Manganese Company. There
were some five or six promoters in the deal.
    They were represented by Knox, Lishman & Maxwell of
Washington.
    We, after having sampled the ore and taken our own
samples--we wouldn't trust anybody else's samples--came to the
conclusion that phosphorus, silica and aluminum and iron were
all too high to make it commercially; the quantity of ore was
very spotted and not adequate, and the project should not go
ahead.
    After so reporting, we were dropped like a hot potato. They
left owing us about $10,000.00, which they later paid when they
got the government money.
    Following that they sent samples to American Cyanamide, who
reported what could be done, based on those samples. We have
definite information, because their man, Mr. McBride, in a
moment of relaxation told James Wroth, a consultant for DMPA
and P. Jack Lowe, who was sampling ore there, that the sample
was ``salted.''
    I am putting these in because these are definite facts. I
do not love those guys.
    The Chairman. I think the record should show that also it
was against your interest to report adversely, because unless
they had gotten the government money you would have been out
your fees. In other words, it would have been to your interest
to have given them a favorable report.
    Mr. Miller. That is right. Secondly, if DMPA did it we
would have done the engineering and construction of the plant,
which was not done, which we do not do; others did it.
    When there was doubt about it as a part of our research
program, we were assigned the task of going back and resampling
the deposits and making a specific report stating what our
opinion was, so far as the whole project was concerned.
    That report was supplied about the 20th of July to DMPA and
copies were sent to all members of the Manganese Panel of
National Research Council, with our specific recommendation
that the project be abandoned, liquidated and sold off.
    The Chairman. I assume copies of those reports would be
available?
    Mr. Miller. Unquestionably. We run them through a multilith
at the request of the DMPA, and we sent twelve copies out of
our own place. That was done in about four days.
    The Chairman. I wonder if we could impose on you. This
sounds like an extremely bad situation, it sounds like we are
wasting a lot of money. Could you possibly go through your file
and give us a copy of the various reports and copies you had on
it?
    Mr. Miller. Wouldn't it be fairer to let you ask first and
to get it from GSA? They have ample of everything to give it to
you. I would rather have it come from them.
    We have no contractual relationship with you fellows; we
have with them. They are the government agency that should
supply it to you. I think we would be correct in not giving it
to you.
    The Chairman. If you prefer. You understand the committee
has whatever right it wants to subpoena any records of any
company.
    Mr. Miller. There is no question about that.
    The Chairman. We don't want to embarrass you by doing that,
if you object.
    Mr. Miller. We have further dealings with them and we have
got a year more of research to conduct under that program, and
I do not wish to put myself in the position of not having
played good ball with them.
    The Chairman. We will make it appear as if you were
reluctant as all hell.
    Mr. Miller. I am, except on the basis of absolute necessity
for some way of getting manganese, if we need it in all-out
war; that is vital.
    The Chairman. One of our big difficulties in getting to the
bottom of a vast amount of corruption, and what is just as
important, inefficiency, is that so many people are tied up
with various branches of the government and doing work for
them, and they hesitate giving us information because they fear
it may actually enter into their financial realm and cause them
to lose their contracts, and thus like.
    For that reason we appreciate very much that someone like
you will come in and give us the facts freely. I think it is
imperative we get the facts. Otherwise, we are going to have a
war and find out all our money has been thrown down a lot of
dry holes.
    Mr. Miller. I am not going to call names, but I am going to
talk in generalities. The responsibility throughout this whole
period with some representatives--I should say perhaps were,
but there still are in many cases a condition in which the
large companies, who are the importers and producers of
manganese have final decisions as to what should be done, on
domestic activities. Now, the two are not compatible.
    I think this: That that should be given very careful
consideration in the organization of the new government, to see
to it that the people in positions of responsibility,
formulating detailed policy, should not have an axe to grind on
the other side of the fence.
    The Chairman. I think you have laid your finger on it, on
these very bad spots in this whole picture, right there.
    Mr. Miller. Take the Manganese panel, five members of the
panel are members of either--well, members of the four large
producers of manganese, Novino Bros., Carbon & Carbide Company,
Bethlehem Corporation. I have nothing against them. We do
business with all of them. Their actions are only natural, but
if it is vital to our government we should not consider the
economic advantages of those companies in deciding what we
should do for our national defense.
    The Chairman. In other words, if I am an importer of a
certain product and I sit on the board and decide whether it
should be purchased from abroad or whether we should develop it
from domestic sources----
    Mr. Miller. That is right.
    The Chairman [continuing]. No matter how honest I might
think I could be, I just couldn't help but being unconsciously
swayed?
    Mr. Miller. That is pure human nature. I am not saying that
I would like to have this as part of the record as criticism.
They have freely loaned their people, but they have also
protected their interests.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: Do you have any
information of any political influence used on this
Westmoreland project?
    Mr. Miller. Yes. All you have to do is go back and look at
the record. I don't know whether it was in Mills' office or the
two congressmen's offices, that there was a meeting at which
Mr. Young, Mr. Lyon, George Holderer, who was head of the Ferro
Alloy Division, were all called up, and while they were not
told they should do something there was a definite heat,
psychological heat applied to quick action. Otherwise, I doubt
if the project would have gone ahead as abruptly and as quickly
as it did.
    The Chairman. It seems obvious, where you have a reliable
firm, such as yours, that would report the inadvisability of
building a plant there, doing that against your own interests,
where it would be to your own financial interest to recommend
the construction and then to suddenly turn around and build it,
that it indicates some pressure.
    Mr. Miller. Let me clarify that for the benefit of those
involved in it.
    Our negative report was directly to the owners of the
property and who were promoting the project; It was not to the
government. The government did not have the advantage of
knowing what our report was until after the thing had moved
into action and the money had been appropriated.
    Then I went directly to George Holderer and the others who
were active in it, and told them what I had found and that I
thought they should give careful consideration to it. By that
time I had become acquainted with them.
    Then they began to get scared and they got the Bureau of
Mines at Batesville to go over and study the thing over. The
Bureau of Mines backed us up completely.
    The Chairman. At any time did you report directly to the
government on that project?
    Mr. Miller. Only until we were officially authorized to
make a review of the whole situation and make our
recommendation, which was completed only in mid-July of this
year.
    The Chairman. What did you recommend, that it be abandoned?
    Mr. Miller. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you know what they are doing on it now?
    Mr. Miller. No, I do not. I know the last instructions were
given to Tom Lyon by Mansure to the effect that steps be taken
to proceed to do something about it. Last week we had a copy of
a report which they had--is it William Birch?
    Mr. Richard Miller. Bruce Williams.
    Mr. Miller. Bruce Williams, a copy of the report was sent
to us and I turned it over to our men who wired to Sherman of
GSA. He had asked us to analyze the differences between this
report and ours. The first thing we figured out, we figured out
that there was an arithmetical error in the copied report that
completely changed the picture of the whole thing. We sent that
back and said we didn't think there was any further review
necessary until they corrected the arithmetical error.
    The Chairman. I wonder why you weren't called upon to give
a report to the government before the money was spent.
    Mr. Miller. They had their own staff and had it lined up.
    The Chairman. In other words, the promoters themselves,
after they found out you would report adversely, hired a
different firm that give a favorable report?
    Mr. Miller. They reported on the samples supplied them, in
all honesty. That is American Cyanamide. They are considered
reliable on that. They reported favorably on the samples they
received.
    Mr. Richard Miller. They picked the nuggets up.
    Mr. Miller. They averaged 10 percent, and the run of the
mill only run about 3 or 4 percent.
    The Chairman. Would it be a bit unusual, if somebody hired
you to analyze a situation such or that, to rely upon samples
that someone gave you? Wouldn't you normally send a man out in
the field?
    Mr. Miller. No. In this particular case, being gun shy, we
insisted on doing our own sampling.
    Take for example Mr. Williston sitting in the other room,
he is head of the Cordero Mining Company, and he sends samples
to us every little while and asks us to report back.
    We sampled manganese down at Baja California for him and
ran tests on it and couldn't get results that were satisfactory
and told him so.
    Normally, Arthur Bunker of California Molybdenum Company,
or the Molybdenum Company of America, and people of that sorts
will simply send their samples in and we give them a run-of-
the-mill report on it.
    The Chairman. I think that will be all, Mr. Miller.
    [Whereupon, at twelve o'clock noon, Friday, August 21,
1953, an indefinite recess was taken.]
           COMMUNIST INFILTRATION AMONG ARMY CIVILIAN WORKERS
    [Editor's note.--Following this executive session, Senator
McCarthy told reporters that the subcommittee had uncovered two
civilian employees of the Army Quartermaster's Corps and a
civilian security guard with admitted Communist ties, whose
jobs enabled them to keep track of troop movements to Korea and
other troubled areas. ``If the picture continues to develop as
it started out today, it would appear to be a very serious
threat to military security,'' the chairman asserted. Although
he gave no names, he called one of them ``Miss Q.'' At the
public hearing on September 8, Senator McCarthy identified
``Miss Q'' as Doris Walters Powell. She had been a secretary
for the People's Voice prior to taking a clerical position with
the army. New York City Council Member Adam Clayton Powell,
Jr., (not related to Doris Powell) had started the People's
Voice in 1942, to further his political career. Doxey Wilkerson
took over much of the paper's management after Powell was
elected to Congress in 1944. Complaining that he had turned the
People's Voice into the ``Lenox Avenue edition of the Daily
Worker,'' Representative Powell fired Wilkerson and
disassociated himself from the paper in 1946.
    During her next testimony in executive session, on
September 1, Doris Walters Powell refused to answer questions
about membership in the Communist party and was suspended from
her job with the Quartermasters Corps. Her attorney, Joseph C.
Morris, denied that she had ever taken out membership in the
Communist party or considered herself a Communist, but the
subcommittee's annual report identified her as ``an important
figure in the Communist movement in New York, and . . . part-
time secretary to Doxey Wilkerson, a key Communist leader who
has served on the national committee of the Communist party.''
    Marvel Jackson Cooke (1903-2000), the assistant managing
editor of the People's Voice and a member of the Communist
party, testified before the subcommittee on September 1. In an
oral history to the Washington Press Club Foundation in 1989,
Cooke later elaborated: ``There was a young woman, who was a
red-baiter, who worked in the business office of the People's
Voice. Anytime we would have a union meeting and a progressive
motion came before the floor, you would hear this sibilant
whisper, `CP! CP! CP!' I hated that woman! Her name was Doris
Walters. . . . Not even a good trade unionist. . . . And
certainly not a Communist. She had been fired as a red aide
because she worked at the People's Voice, where Doxey
Wilkerson, a known Communist, was employed. She lost her job
because she had worked at the People's Voice! I mean, the army
job.''
    Doris Walters Powell, Franceso Palmiero (1908-1971), and
Albert E. Feldman did not testify in public.]
                              ----------
                        MONDAY, AUGUST 31, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                      New York, NY.
    The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m. pursuant to recess, in
room 126, Federal Court House, Foley Square, New York, New
York, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M.
Cohn, chief counsel; and David Schine, chief consultant.
    Senator McCarthy. The hearing will come to order.
    Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give to the
subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mrs. Powell. I do.
TESTIMONY OF DORIS WALTERS POWELL (ACCOMPANIED BY HER ATTORNEY,
                       JOSEPH C. MORRIS)
    The Chairman. Mr. Morris, I don't think you have ever
appeared before the committee. The rules are that your client
can discuss anything she cares to with you at any time. At any
time during the hearing if she is asked a question she may
consult with you. If you want a private conference with her we
will arrange a room so you can have it. The only difference
between this and the usual court room procedure is that we do
not allow counsel to take part in the proceedings. If he wants
anything put into the record, his client will have to put it
in.
    Let me say this, Mrs. Powell. I think in fairness to you we
should give you this information. I am telling you this before
you start to testify. One, we have information of Communist
party membership on your part. Keep that in mind when you are
asked a question. Number two, make sure you understand the
question. If there is any doubt in your mind about the
question, just don't answer until you are sure you understand
the question. While I do not normally advise a client when they
have lawyers here, I would like to give you this advice which
we normally give a witness appearing before the committee.
    We have no desire at all to put anyone in the position in
which they end up guilty of perjury. A number of people have
come into the committee guilty of no crime except membership of
the Communist party, which legally, you know, is not a crime
unless the party is using force or violence in the overthrowing
of the government. In the end, when they leave the committee
room they are guilty of perjury. If the answer tends to
incriminate you, don't answer. Tell the truth or don't answer.
    Mr. Cohn. May we have your full name?
    Mrs. Powell. Doris Walters Powell
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside?
    Mrs. Powell. 2541 100th Street, East Elmhurst, Long Island.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you work?
    Mrs. Powell. I am on maternal leave from the government.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you work? What was your regular
position?
    Mrs. Powell. U.S. War Department.
    Mr. Cohn. And where are you stationed?
    Mrs. Powell. New York Quartermaster, 111 East Sixteenth
Street, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time were you employed
in that particular branch of service?
    Mrs. Powell. I think from 1950.
    Mr. Cohn. You went to work in 1950?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever work for the government before that?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes, I have.
    Mr. Cohn. Where?
    Mrs. Powell. In U.S. New York War Production Board, I think
it was. 1942.
    Mr. Cohn. And for how long a period of time?
    Mrs. Powell. About eight months.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you do between then and the time you
went to work for the army?
    Mrs. Powell. I went to Columbia Broadcasting System.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you do there?
    Mrs. Powell. Secretary.
    Mr. Cohn. For whom?
    Mrs. Powell. Dr. Wibe.
    Mr. Cohn. How do you spell that?
    Mrs. Powell. W-i-b-e.
    Mr. Cohn. What department?
    Mrs. Powell. Research department.
    Mr. Cohn. And from there?
    Mrs. Powell. The People's Voice. Paul Buchanan Publishing
Company.
    Mr. Cohn. You said the People's Voice?
    Mrs. Powell. That's right.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you do between the time you were in the
People's Voice and the time you went to work for the army?
    Mrs. Powell. Before the People's Voice? I went from the
People's Voice to Columbia Broadcasting System; from Columbia
Broadcasting System to the War Department, Governor's Island.
From Governor's Island to the War Department at 111 East
Sixteenth Street.
    Mr. Cohn. You mean the Defense Department?
    Mrs. Powell. That's right.
    Mr. Cohn. At Governor's Island where were you assigned
exactly?
    Mrs. Powell. Post Engineers.
    Mr. Cohn. Who was your immediate supervisor?
    Mrs. Powell. Mr. Groshans.
    Mr. Cohn. What was the nature of your work there?
    Mrs. Powell. Clerk-typist-title.
    Mr. Cohn. When were you transferred to the army in New
York?
    Mrs. Powell. I think it was 1950, approximately 1950.
    Mr. Cohn. You were transferred to New York Quartermaster
and have been there ever since?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your salary?
    Mrs. Powell. $3,175.
    Mr. Cohn. What type work do you do there?
    Mrs. Powell. I am now a processor.
    Mr. Cohn. What is that?
    Mrs. Powell. I process accounts that come in to be paid by
the government dealing with army food.
    Mr. Cohn. And the amounts that had been purchased?
    Mrs. Powell. Through invoices.
    Mr. Cohn. You check invoices of purchases for procurement?
    Mrs. Powell. Procurement-clerk is my title.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you do just before that?
    Mrs. Powell. I----
    Mr. Cohn. What type work did you do before you worked on
processing of these invoices?
    Mrs. Powell. Secretarial.
    Mr. Cohn. For whom did you act as secretary?
    Mrs. Powell. Major Hunter.
    Mr. Cohn. What were his duties?
    Mrs. Powell. Well, I had to get myself together. Well, he
was a buyer--I am thinking of government terms.
    Mr. Cohn. That's all right. For whom else did you act as
secretary?
    The Chairman. What kind of stuff did he buy?
    Mrs. Powell. Foods. This is a market center for the
government.
    The Chairman. Do they buy anything besides food?
    Mrs. Powell. No.
    The Chairman. When you examined invoices you would know
whether the food was shipped to Alaska or Korea?
    Mrs. Powell. I wouldn't know the destination. I was only
buying from the various merchants in the city.
    The Chairman. Did you have any knowledge of where the food
was being shipped.
    Mrs. Powell. No.
    The Chairman. Are you ever in a position to know where--
were you ever in a position to know where the food was being
shipped?
    Mrs. Powell. To the various camps, yes, in the country.
    The Chairman. You would know how much was being shipped to
Camp McCoy, let us say, and how much to another camp?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes, I would.
    The Chairman. And if the food was being shipped to a camp
in Korea, you would know how much food was being shipped.
    Mrs. Powell. Excuse me. That was the property officer, his
title.
    The Chairman. You would know the amount of hams etcetera
going to Alaska, if the food was going to be shipped there?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes.
    The Chairman. You didn't have anything to do with
determining how much food was to be purchased?
    Mrs. Powell. No.
    The Chairman. You merely handled the invoices and knew how
many tons of food, or pieces were being shipped to a particular
camp?
    Mrs. Powell. That's right.
    The Chairman. And then you were in a position to have
rather a complete knowledge of the amounts of food being
purchased and the destination of the ship?
    Mrs. Powell. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. When you were on Governor's Island, what did you
do exactly?
    Mrs. Powell. Well, I handled lot cards to determine the
materials that are in stock. Stock record cards.
    Mr. Cohn. What kind of materials?
    Mrs. Powell. Well. Think regarding plumbing, utilities.
    Mr. Cohn. Where were they in stock; for what?
    Mrs. Powell. For repairs on the island.
    Mr. Cohn. Strictly on the island?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Was there anything else you did on Governor's
Island?
    Mrs. Powell. No, I didn't.
    Mr. Cohn. Anything else?
    Mrs. Powell. I worked in personnel, handled personnel
records.
    Mr. Cohn. For the First Army?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Exactly what did you do with the references to
the personnel records?
    Mrs. Powell. I am trying to be correct now. Just my
particular branch.
    Mr. Cohn. Did that cover military and civilians?
    Mr. Powell. I can't remember that. It was an administrative
office.
    Mr. Cohn. Did these personnel records cover military and
civilian personnel?
    Mrs. Powell. Just civilian personnel.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you do?
    Mrs. Powell. Handle the----
    Mr. Cohn. Handle the records or what?
    Mrs. Powell. No, I am not too sure. That is when I first
went there.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, let me ask you this: In the time you were
working with the Defense Department have you ever handled any
material which is not public material?
    Mrs. Powell. Always public.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think these personnel records are public
material?
    Mrs. Powell. No. Not at all. I wouldn't say public.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't want to say you handled public
material?
    Mrs. Powell. I see what you mean, I misunderstood.
    The Chairman. In regard to these personnel records, did you
type up the record, did you file the record, did you examine
the record?
    Mrs. Powell. No.
    The Chairman. What did you have to do with the personnel
records? Just tell it in your own language the best you can.
    Mrs. Powell. I didn't handle personnel work. Really
administrative work.
    The Chairman. What do you mean?
    Mrs. Powell. This is in 1950. I am trying to recall.
    The Chairman. Just describe a typical day's work. What did
you do all day long of a typical day?
    Mrs. Powell. It is so vague in my mind right now. Well, I
worked with statistics. There was various types of work and I
just can't----
    The Chairman. Would you give us--I don't want you to
testify to anything you can't remember. I realize some people's
memories are better than others. Did the major dictate to you?
Would you start filing? Who would give you your work? What
would you do?
    Mrs. Powell. My immediate supervisor, Mr. Groshans--I can't
recall what I really did do. It was in the line of
administrative work.
    The Chairman. That doesn't help me unless you give me some
idea of what kind of administrative work. Did you type?
    Mrs. Powell. I typed, filed--statistical work.
    The Chairman. Who would give you the statistical work?
Would someone dictate that to you?
    Mrs. Powell. I remember working with Mr. Pollack.
    The Chairman. With what did the statistics have to do?
    Mrs. Powell. I can't recall, really.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a----
    The Chairman. Do you handle anything that is marked either
restricted, confidential, or secret?
    Mrs. Powell. No, I didn't.
    The Chairman. How about the food orders, weren't they
classified confidential--shipments of food?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes, that is confidential.
    The Chairman. That is confidential?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes. I was confused because I thought you were
still referring to Governor's Island.
    The Chairman. Be sure you answer the question. For your own
information--while I have never met you before we do have
evidence here, strong evidence of activities on your part--of
Communist activities. You be sure you answer these questions.
We have no interest at all in having you guilty of perjury.
Don't answer unless you know what you are answering.
    You have answered you had confidential work. Let us put it
this way. The food orders and the destination are stamped as
confidential.
    Mrs. Powell. I imagine it is confidential.
    The Chairman. Actually it is stamped or marked secret or
confidential. Didn't you see the label secret or confidential?
    Mrs. Powell. I never saw that. It hasn't been on the work I
have ever handled.
    The Chairman. Did you ever see anything in your department
marked secret or confidential?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes, confidential, I have.
    The Chairman. How about secret?
    Mrs. Powell. No, I haven't. I never saw that.
    The Chairman. A lot of stuff was marked confidential?
    Mrs. Powell. The work I handled, I presume?
    The Chairman. Is there any restriction against your seeing
anything else that goes on in your office?
    Mrs. Powell. No.
    The Chairman. You have free access to the entire office?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend the Commercial High School?
    Mrs. Powell. I graduated Central Commercial High School.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you attend City College?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. What years?
    Mrs. Powell. I am not sure. Approximately 1943-1944.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, how many years did you attend City College?
    Mrs. Powell. I would say--I would have to check my records.
I don't have the exact dates.
    The Chairman. One or two years?
    Mrs. Powell. Then I went to Hunter College also.
    The Chairman. Do you know if it was more than one year?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes.
    The Chairman. More than two years?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes.
    The Chairman. More than three years?
    Mrs. Powell. No.
    The Chairman. Between two and three years?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes.
    The Chairman. Then you went to Hunter College?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes.
    The Chairman. How many years at Hunter?
    Mrs. Powell. One year.
    The Chairman. Did you graduate from Hunter?
    Mrs. Powell. No, I didn't.
    The Chairman. What courses did you take at City College? No
courses in memory.
    Mrs. Powell. Languages and business subjects.
    The Chairman. How about Hunter College?
    Mrs. Powell. Psychology.
    Mr. Cohn. What languages did you study at City College?
    Mrs. Powell. Spanish.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a member of the Communist
party?
    Mrs. Powell. I don't feel as though I have been--not to my
knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't feel----
    Mrs. Powell. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you think you might have been without your
knowing about it?
    The Chairman. Mr. Morris, I want to advise you that--so you
can properly advise your client--that we have the positive
evidence--that is correct, Roy, isn't it--of Communist
activities and Communist membership. I have no interest at all
in having this woman be a perjury case. I just want you to know
that so you can properly advise her what to do. She is an
intelligent girl. She went through high school with high
scholastic standings and had several years of college so she
should first intelligently advise you of her activities. If you
want to do that in some part of the room where we can't hear
you?
    Mrs. Powell, your lawyer can't advise you unless you tell
him the absolute truth. You may want to talk to him some place.
I would strongly advise you to tell your lawyer exactly what
your relationship is. According to client--lawyer relationship
he cannot disclose what you say. You can feel free to talk to
your lawyer. There is no way we can subpoena him, and make him
tell us what you said. Unless you tell him the truth, he will
give you bad advice. Do you want five minutes to talk to him?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes, I think so.
    The Chairman. We will take a five-minute recess.
    [Recess had.]
    The Chairman. We will proceed.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a member of the Communist
party?
    Mrs. Powell. I don't feel that I have been.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you mean by that? Is that something you
have feeling about?
    Mrs. Powell. Not to my knowledge at all, no.
    Mr. Cohn. If witnesses come in and tell that you went to
the Claudia Jones Leadership School----
    Mrs. Powell. I went to meetings in line with my work. At
the time I was secretary of the People's Voice.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Powell. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. You know that is not true. Let me explain that.
You are a graduate of high school. You went to college. We know
an awful lot about that. You are not before a loyalty board
now. We have other witnesses who are coming in here to testify.
If you don't tell the truth here, we will send the case to the
Department of Justice. You can be indicted for perjury. There
is a jail penalty attached to it.
    Mrs. Powell. I understand. I am not wasting my time. If I
can explain something. I worked for the People's Voice and
there was a lot of disturbance at the time when I did realize
everything was going on. I was told to go here and there for
the position I held. All the members were there.
    The Chairman. Who told you that?
    Mrs. Powell. Mr. Wilkerson.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you have trouble remembering that name?
    Mrs. Powell. Doxey Wilkerson.
    The Chairman. All these members were there?
    Mrs. Powell. At the office.
    The Chairman. Do you mean members of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Powell. I can tell now, after all is boiled down, just
what did happen.
    The Chairman. You went to this meeting, these Communist
meetings?
    Mrs. Powell. Now I realize, yes. Now I realize under all
observation, it was.
    The Chairman. Did you ever give the FBI the names of the
people who attended?
    Mrs. Powell. I was never asked.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you tell the loyalty board this information?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes, I think I did when they asked for these
different things. I think I did. I was asked if I was a student
at the Carver School.
    The Chairman. Did you have any doubt about the name?
    Mrs. Powell. I considered it as Carver Jones.
    Mr. Cohn. They are two entirely different things?
    Mrs. Powell. I understand it is the same one.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Claudia Jones?
    Mrs. Powell. No, I don't know her.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you see her?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you see her?
    Mrs. Powell. At the Carver School. I had asked; it was
pointed out, if I remember.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you attend the Carver School?
    Mrs. Powell. That is what I was asked. I didn't attend the
school. I attended several lectures that were given there.
    Mr. Cohn. Why?
    Mrs. Powell. I was in the People's Voice during the period
1945 to 1949, something like that.
    Mr. Cohn. When were these lectures, in what year?
    Mrs. Powell. I think during 1947-between 1946 and 1947 if I
recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you now realize that that was a Communistic
school?
    Mrs. Powell. Now I realize, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. But you say you weren't a Communist?
    Mrs. Powell. I don't feel I was.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't feel you were?
    Mrs. Powell. I was attending these different lectures and
meetings.
    Mr. Cohn. What was there about communism you disagreed
with?
    Mrs. Powell. That is my----
    Mr. Morris. I----
    Mr. Cohn. You can talk with your client all you want, but
not to me.
    [Discussion between Mr. Morris and Mrs. Powell.]
    Mrs. Powell. I was saying that the lectures I was told to
attend--I think it was on Negro history--but as far as
government procedure I was never--I have never attended any
lectures along those lines. As far as overthrowing the
government I have never attended any lectures along those
lines.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you disagree with in the Communist
party?
    Mrs. Powell. A lot of things.
    May I have that question again?
    Mr. Cohn. You say you weren't a Communist and you don't
feel you were a Communist?
    Mrs. Powell. That's right.
    Mr. Cohn. What things did the Communists stand for that you
disagreed with?
    Mrs. Powell. That is all in line with my work in getting
out the newspaper.
    Mr. Cohn. What is there in your line of work that made you
attend lectures?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes, I went according to my job.
    Mr. Cohn. Who told you?
    Mrs. Powell. My instructor, Mr. Wilkerson.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Mr. Wilkerson was a Communist party
official?
    Mrs. Powell. No, I didn't. While working I didn't know, and
many members in the office didn't know.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you find out?
    Mrs. Powell. We had a great disturbance in the office when
the whole thing came to light. I think it was 1948--I think it
was 1948, if I recall.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you do when you worked on the People's
Voice?
    Mrs. Powell. I was a secretary in the editorial department.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you write articles?
    Mrs. Powell. General manager, secretary.
    Mr. Cohn. Why was it essential to your work to go to a
Communist party school?
    Mrs. Powell. I am trying to see how I did get to go. I was
asked.
    The Chairman. Did you say you are on maternal leave?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes.
    The Chairman. Then, when did that leave commence?
    Mrs. Powell. It began September 9, 1952.
    The Chairman. Your maternal leave?
    Mrs. Powell. 1952, September.
    The Chairman. You have been on leave for a year?
    Mrs. Powell. Ten months. I had six months and I asked for
six more months which is up on September 28th.
    The Chairman. Then you anticipate going back on September
28th?
    Mrs. Powell. I had hoped to ask for an extension.
    The Chairman. How old is your child?
    Mrs. Powell. He is ten months.
    The Chairman. You plan to go to work on September 28th?
    Mrs. Powell. I don't think I am fit yet to go back.
    Mr. Cohn. When were you last in the office?
    Mrs. Powell. My office? Not since I left.
    The Chairman. I am going to make a suggestion. It is now
nearly twelve o'clock. I think you had better go home and think
this over and we will want you to come back tomorrow morning at
10:30.
    Mrs. Powell. I can't finish it now at all?
    The Chairman. I want you to have a chance to talk to your
lawyer. I know you are not as dumb as you are trying to make
out.
    Mrs. Powell. I am being very honest and sincere in this
whole thing.
    The Chairman. I want to say something for your protection.
You graduated from high school. You went to two different
colleges. You attended all these Communist meetings. We want to
know why you attended them, how you disagreed with the
Communist party. I want you to have a chance to talk to your
lawyer so he can intelligently advise you. And, I want you to
come back here tomorrow morning at 10:30. Don't make a mistake
in thinking that you are going to fool this committee because
you can't.
    Mrs. Powell. I don't want to.
    The Chairman. Did you ever pay any dues to the Communist
party?
    Mrs. Powell. I am thinking.
    The Chairman. You would remember if you paid them money, I
assume?
    Mrs. Powell. Like contributions. It is very clever the way
everything is done.
    The Chairman. After it is all boiled down.
    Mrs. Powell. Now I realize what was going on. At that
particular time I didn't know. I just gave to collections.
    The Chairman. Did you give collections to go to the Daily
Worker?
    Mrs. Powell. No, I didn't.
    The Chairman. Did you give collections where you knew the
money was going to the Communist party?
    Mrs. Powell. No, I didn't, no. Not to my knowledge that it
was going to the Communists.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you think the money was going?
    Mrs. Powell. To help the newspaper. I worked many times
without salary for the People's Voice--to get the paper out.
    The Chairman. Were you ever issued a membership card of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Cohn. Be very careful.
    Mrs. Powell. I received a card--something--I had to have
membership to get into a meeting where Doxey Wilkerson was
attending. I found out later. We had a lot of disturbance at
that time.
    Mr. Cohn. The card said right on it ``Communist Party''?
    Mrs. Powell. No, I never received a card.
    The Chairman. Isn't it correct that you said before you
attended this Communist meeting with Wilkerson and that you
were issued a card which showed in its face that you were being
given membership in the Communist party, and it had a number on
the card?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes.
    The Chairman. So you were issued a card in the Communist
party?
    Mrs. Powell. Not that I signed any particular card. This
time I got the card. That's when I started a whole lot of
disturbance--how did I get a card? And they said I--they said
it wasn't a card.
    The Chairman. You were issued a card which shows you were
given membership in the Communist party and there was a number
on the card? There is no question on that?
    Mrs. Powell. If that is the card. You said a number. Not
that I ever signed. I never signed it. I never applied. I never
signed anything.
    The Chairman. You were given a membership card in the
Communist party with your name on it?
    Mrs. Powell. This particularly card that I have received. I
remember to go to the Carver School to attend this lecture that
Doxey Wilkerson was going to be at--many lectures.
    Mr. Cohn. Who gave you the card?
    Mrs. Powell. Doxey Wilkerson's secretary. Mrs. Madeline
Laurence.
    The Chairman. Where did you find out--when did you find out
it was a Communist party card?
    Mrs. Powell. I think in 1948--because I had raised the
question myself. I got together with a whole lot of the
editorial staff trying to find out who was Communist. I got
very unpopular when I found out it was a Communist
organization. I wanted to get the paper for the benefit of the
Negro people, and I had gotten together with this group who
were found to be Communists--which was Doxey Wilkerson.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that when you found out?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes, at the time management changed.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, isn't it a fact that when you were in the
People's Voice you did a lot of work for the Communist party up
there?
    Mrs. Powell. No, not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know a man named Deton Brooks?
    Mrs. Powell. That was my boss. I didn't know at the time.
That was definitely my boss and I didn't know anything that was
going on at that time. Everything was cleverly done. Now that
everything is boiled down--everything in my knowledge was in
line with my duty as a worker for daily living.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever swipe any files from Mr. Brooks'
office?
    Mrs. Powell. No, I didn't.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever take any papers and give it to
anybody?
    Mrs. Powell. There was a Miss Laurence who did something
with it.
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't you have anything to do with it?
    Mrs. Powell. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you admit to Mr. Brooks you did?
    Mrs. Powell. No.
    The Chairman. Did you ever remove any of Mr. Brooks' files,
take them out of the office?
    Mrs. Powell. No, I didn't.
    The Chairman. Did you ever take any files, any documents
out of that office?
    Mrs. Powell. Never did.
    The Chairman. Did Mr. Brooks ever call you in and accuse
you of taking his files?
    Mrs. Powell. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever try to?
    Mrs. Powell. No, I never did.
    The Chairman. You say Miss Laurence did?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes, at the time there was something there.
They had accused her.
    The Chairman. He never accused you?
    Mrs. Powell. No.
    The Chairman. He didn't tell you that you had helped Miss
Laurence?
    Mrs. Powell. No. All this happened in the changing of hands
of the paper before Doxey Wilkerson came.
    The Chairman. How old is Miss Laurence?
    Mrs. Powell. I haven't any idea.
    The Chairman. Does she look like you?
    Mrs. Powell. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you think Mr. Brooks could be mistaken
between you and Miss Laurence?
    Mrs. Powell. No.
    The Chairman. If Mr. Brooks testified that you tried to
remove the files?
    Mrs. Powell. I don't think he could say that.
    The Chairman. Would he be mistaken--could he be mistaken
between you and Miss Laurence?
    Mrs. Powell. No, he couldn't be mistaken.
    The Chairman. We want you to come back tomorrow morning at
10:30.
    Mrs. Powell. All right.
    [The testimony was completed at 11:30 a.m.]
    The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will
give to the subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes.
                TESTIMONY OF FRANCESCO PALMIERO
    Mr. Cohn. Your full name.
    Mr. Palmiero. Franceso Palmiero.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you live?
    Mr. Palmiero. 4102-12th Street, Long Island City.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you work?
    Mr. Palmiero. In the U.S. Army Signal Corps.
    Mr. Cohn. A security officer?
    Mr. Palmiero. Security, intelligence, something like that.
And, my position is a guard.
    Mr. Cohn. And how long have you been working there?
    Mr. Palmiero. I have been working--let me see--start
January 1950.
    Mr. Cohn. Subpoena was served on you this morning, is that
right?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And that called for you to produce among other
things any Communist literature you had in your possession?
    Mr. Palmiero. I never had any Communist literature, sir, in
my possession. Whatever they ever sent me they put under the
door. A copy of the Daily Worker. This is past years ago. This
is 1940 or 1941, something like that.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you have up in your trunk in your place
now?
    Mr. Palmiero. It is a trunk of a person that is in a
hospital. An old person, and he told somebody else--somebody
else told me if I could give him a break for a few months while
he was in the hospital.
    Mr. Cohn. To whom does it belong to?
    Mr. Palmiero. I don't know his name--I know the person very
well.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that the only trunk?
    Mr. Palmiero. Two trunks.
    Mr. Cohn. One belongs to you?
    Mr. Palmiero. Both trunks belong to the sick man.
    Mr. Cohn. What is his name?
    Mr. Palmiero. I don't know. I know a friend of mine who
intercedes and asked me for a favor.
    Mr. Cohn. What is the friend's name?
    Mr. Palmiero. Paul Cavanna.
    Mr. Cohn. Paul Cavanna?
    Mr. Palmiero. That's right.
    Mr. Cohn. Is Mr. Cavanna a Communist?
    Mr. Palmiero. Well, that is a question. You asked me such a
relevant question. How am I supposed to know who is a Communist
and who isn't?
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Palmiero. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever sign a petition supporting the
Communist party?
    Mr. Palmiero. They remind me--the Communist letters remind
me. I answer them. I thought it was over. I remember I signed a
petition some time ago, and the government supplied me with a
date on this and I answered to the best of my ability. I
thought there was nothing wrong in signing any petitions as
long as I don't belong to the party. I think everybody has a
right to sign a ballot. I thought it was the American Liberal
party. They used to come to my house.
    The Chairman. You did sign the Communist party petition?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes, my name is here.
    The Chairman. Your position is that you have a right to
sign any petition and the Communist petition.
    Mr. Palmiero. I don't think there was anything wrong to
that. I don't think it was detrimental to the United States
government.
    The Chairman. It is now 12:15. We are going to adjourn to
1:30. We are going to order you to produce both those trunks.
The committee has information that they contain material
concerning the Communist party; material concerning subversion.
They are in your apartment. You can say you don't know who owns
them; that somebody in the hospital owns them--you don't know
his name. We will have an investigator go down--two
investigators go down to the apartment.
    Mr. Palmiero. May I say something? I haven't the slightest
idea what the two trunks contain. I merely thought to do a
favor to an old person since I had an empty room. Cavanna asked
me to give him a break. If I know a person I trust--what he
does I don't know. I am not going to investigate what he does.
    The Chairman. Did you ever put anything in the trunk?
    Mr. Palmiero. I have no keys. I never put anything there.
    The Chairman. Well, we will have two of the men go down
with you. Where do you live?
    Mr. Palmiero. At 12th Street, Long Island City.
    The Chairman. And you have to be at work at four o'clock?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes.
    The Chairman. How long does it take to get to your home?
    Mr. Palmiero. Three quarters of an hour, or fifty minutes,
something like that. From where I live to the job it is about
fifteen minutes.
    The Chairman. I am trying to work this out so you won't
miss work this afternoon. I assume you want to get there. If
you came back down here again and you had to try to get back to
work you would have difficulty getting there at 4:05.
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes.
    The Chairman. Well, would it be easier if we sent the men
out with you to look at the trunks and if they decide they want
to bring them back here--normally we would want you down here.
If you have no objections they will bring the trunks down
without you, and you can come in tomorrow morning.
    Mr. Palmiero. I can come down here any time. These trunks
don't belong to me--being I have no access to the keys. I
merely did a favor. If I can contact Mr. Cavanna, if I could
contact him--he gave me a card once. I had no chance to contact
him.
    The Chairman. You personally have no objection to the
investigators looking into the trunk?
    Mr. Palmiero. But I think it would be unfair to the person
whom the trunks belongs. Whom am I to allow any person to open
it?
    The Chairman. We are not asking you to allow that. We are
ordering you to produce them so that you are under order of the
committee. To make it easy for you to produce them we will have
two of the investigators go out with you. We will want you here
at 10:30 in the morning.
    Mr. Palmiero. That's all right.
    The Chairman. Just so there is no doubt in your mind why
you are here. You have been accused of being a Communist by
some witnesses. You were doing security work for the military--
a very important job. At this point the committee has made no
decision as to whether you are a Communist. Our duty is to
check into it and find out whether you are a Communist. If you
are, then you are in a dangerous position. If you are not,
good. I may say that this being a closed session your name will
not be given to the press, to any one in public. The only way
the public will learn you are here is if you will tell them
yourself. If you are quiet about it, they won't.
    Mr. Palmiero. I don't care if they put it in the press. I
am not interested at all.
    The Chairman. We are not telling the newspapers you are
here. If you want to tell your friends or any newspapermen you
are here, you have a perfect right to do it. I just want you to
know that your name will not be given out by the committee. If
it is given out it will be yourself who gives it out.
    Mr. Palmiero. Okay.
    [The testimony was completed at 12:20 p.m.]
    The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you give
to the subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Feldman. I do.
                  TESTIMONY OF ALBERT FELDMAN
    The Chairman. Where are you working now?
    Mr. Feldman. 111 East 16th Street, New York Procurement
Agency.
    The Chairman. The procurement agency?
    Mr. Feldman. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. That is the army procurement agency?
    Mr. Feldman. Correct.
    The Chairman. And just what are your duties over there?
    Mr. Feldman. I am a warehouseman.
    The Chairman. Just what do you do as a warehouseman?
    Mr. Feldman. Receive merchandise, check supplies, ship,
distinguished from salvage on serviceable property. Take trucks
off--supplies from trucks.
    The Chairman. Do you have information as to the destination
of materials shipped out?
    Mr. Feldman. Destination of materials shipped out? Yes. If
I ship the supplies I have.
    The Chairman. In other words, say we are shipping materials
to Alaska, would you know that?
    Mr. Feldman. I wouldn't know in reference to that--from the
depot to our agency mostly.
    The Chairman. I don't think I follow you at all. You were a
warehouseman?
    Mr. Feldman. Yes.
    The Chairman. And you do route supplies, or just what do
you do?
    Mr. Feldman. In case there is some supplies going for
inspection division, certain places, I pack the package, I
write down the address, and ship it out.
    The Chairman. To various camps?
    Mr. Feldman. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. In other words, if this material is to be
shipped to a certain town in the United States you have the
information as to where it is going and what is being shipped?
    Mr. Feldman. Sometimes, not always.
    The Chairman. How about points outside of the United
States?
    Mr. Feldman. I don't think I have anything to do with that.
    The Chairman. As far as you know your agency has shipments
within the United States?
    Mr. Feldman. I believe so.
    The Chairman. You believe so? Do you ever get information
about the material shipped out of the United States?
    Mr. Feldman. I wouldn't have any information on that--only
what concerns my immediate job.
    The Chairman. Did you ever get that information?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir, I don't.
    The Chairman. In other words, as long as you worked there
you never had information about material being shipped out of
the United States?
    Mr. Feldman. I don't think so.
    The Chairman. What kind of material--food, ammunition?
    Mr. Feldman. Not food. Just inspection material for
inspectors.
    The Chairman. By this inspection material what do you mean?
Just assume I don't know what you are doing at all.
    Mr. Feldman. I couldn't tell you offhand. I couldn't
specifically specify.
    The Chairman. Does it deal with ammunition?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Any guns?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. No food?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Clothing?
    Mr. Feldman. Yes, clothing we shipped out.
    The Chairman. How long have you worked there?
    Mr. Feldman. Five and a half years, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you deal with any paperwork at all?
     Mr. Feldman. Not except signing signature for receiving
stuff and issue slips to issue supplies within the building.
    The Chairman. How long have you worked there?
    Mr. Feldman. Five and a half years.
    The Chairman. Before that where did you work?
    Mr. Feldman. I didn't work for a year and a half and before
that I worked overseas for the government.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been a member of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Feldman. I have never been affiliated with any group in
form, shape or----
    The Chairman. Have you ever been a member of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir. I never have been.
    The Chairman. Did you ever pledge yourself to support the
Communist party?
    Mr. Feldman. Never.
    The Chairman. Make sure you understand these questions.
    Mr. Feldman. I understand perfectly well, and I am aware I
am under oath.
    The Chairman. Did you ever pledge yourself to support
Communist candidates?
    Mr. Feldman. The only thing I know I signed a petition at
one time. That is all I did, nothing else.
    The Chairman. That was a Communist party petition?
    Mr. Feldman. In 1941 signing the petition, I wasn't fully
aware whether it was Communist or otherwise. I just signed and
I walked out of the shop at five o'clock and I had no specific
reason for signing it. I had nothing in mind with reference to
the petition. I wasn't in the country long. I wasn't fully
aware of the petition, but I signed it.
    The Chairman. When did you come to this country?
    Mr. Feldman. I came here in 1932.
    The Chairman. Well, at that time is it your testimony that
you didn't quite know what the Communist party stood for? I
could understand if a man came to the country he might make a
mistake and sign the wrong petition.
    May I ask you this? In 1941 when you signed this, could you
speak and read English?
    Mr. Feldman. Yes, I could speak it, but not too well.
    The Chairman. Are you in the habit of signing papers that
you don't know about?
    Mr. Feldman. This one case I did.
    The Chairman. Let me read what you apparently signed. It is
entitled ``Independent Nominating Petition--Communist Party''
It continues as follows:
    I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a duly
qualified voter of the political unit for which the nomination
for public office is hereby made; that my place of residence is
truly stated opposite my signature hereto and that I intend to
support at the ensuing election, and I do hereby nominate the
following named persons as candidates for nomination for public
office to be voted for at the election to be held on the 4th
date of November, 1941, and that I select the name Communist
Party as the name of the independent body making the
nomination.
    At that time had you decided to become a member of the
Communist?
    Mr. Feldman. Neither did I decide to become a member;
neither was that the exact wording as far as I can recall
presently. I don't recall that heading, sir.
    The Chairman. Now you know that the men who you pledged
yourself to support--Israel Amber, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn--do
you know those people?
    Mr. Feldman. I don't know them, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you know then or now that Elizabeth
Gurley is a well rather well-known and famous Communist?
    Mr. Feldman. I never did.
    The Chairman. Do you know it now?
    Mr. Feldman. I didn't know it now.
    The Chairman. Answer--didn't you know she was a well-known
Communist?
    Mr. Feldman. I didn't know this.
    The Chairman. Can you tell us this--and I may say that I
can understand the man who comes to this country not knowing
our ways so well--he may make mistakes which he may regret. I
cannot understand the man who is here nine years who will say I
will support these well-known Communists.
    Mr. Feldman. I had no reason of any kind to support--to
sign. I love this country too much not to do any damage to it.
I signed the petition. I didn't realize. I walked out of the
shop and that is what I signed.
    The Chairman. You signed only one petition?
    Mr. Feldman. As far as I can remember I signed only one
petition.
    The Chairman. You signed more than one and for the
Communist party in each case.
    Mr. Feldman. Not to my knowledge, sir. I don't recall it.
    The Chairman. I will show you one entitled in large letters
``Communist Party.'' It says state of New York, city of New
York. Will you look at this and see if you recognize that one?
Keep in mind when we find two, that means you undoubtedly
signed much more than two.
    Mr. Feldman. No sir. I remember distinctly.
    The Chairman. You said one. Our investigator tells us, he
told you you had signed one. Now, we show you two. Can you
remember signing two?
    Mr. Feldman. I see my signature on two. I don't recall.
What year was that?
    The Chairman. Is that your signature?
    Mr. Feldman. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. I will show you another one.
    Mr. Feldman. That is the second one?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Feldman. That was--I lived there in 1941. I couldn't
possibly recall that.
    The Chairman. Is that your signature?
    Mr. Feldman. Whether it is my signature? Yes, that is my
signature.
    The Chairman. Do both those petitions contain your
signature?
    Mr. Feldman. Yes. That is correct.
    The Chairman. We can't help getting a bit disturbed when we
find a man handling military equipment who had pledged himself
as----
    Mr. Feldman. I haven't pledged myself. I am a good American
in every way. I love this country.
    The Chairman. You say on here I intend to support Communist
candidates. Why do you think you signed the Communist petition?
I know nothing about you. We checked. You are handling military
equipment and you pledged--you signed to support Communist
candidates. I assume that if you signed a pledge supporting
Senator McCarthy you wouldn't do that unless you were in favor
of McCarthy. If you sign a pledge to support President Truman
or Eisenhower, you normally wouldn't sign that unless you were
in favor of it.
    Mr. Feldman. If I remember correctly about 5:15 when I go
out of the shop on 345 7th Avenue a lady came over and asked me
to sign the petition. I didn't think, I just signed the
petition not realizing it is for the Communist party. I never
was a Communist of any kind.
    The Chairman. You do recall signing the petition?
    Mr. Feldman. I didn't recall, sir, but I had been
interrogated two years or more than that from the Civil Service
Commission. They brought it to my attention.
    The Chairman. Now you recall it was about 5:15 in the
afternoon, it was a lady who asked you to sign it?
    Mr. Feldman. Yes. I worked until five o'clock; when I
walked out of the building about 5:15----
    The Chairman. I will mark one of them number one--the other
number two. Tell us which one you are referring to.
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir, I do not know. I don't know.
    The Chairman. Do you know when you signed the other one?
    Mr. Feldman. I don't recall.
    The Chairman. Do you subscribe to the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir, I haven't read the Daily Worker
except when I was forced to get the Daily Worker where I was
working. I just looked at it.
    The Chairman. The chairman in the shop in which you were
working told you you would have to get the Daily Worker or lose
your job?
    Mr. Feldman. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Who was the chairman of the shop?
    Mr. Feldman. I couldn't recall. It has been a long time
ago.
    The Chairman. What shop?
    Mr. Feldman. Meltzer Freedman, 345-7th Avenue.
    The Chairman. And what kind of work were you doing?
    Mr. Feldman. Furrier.
    The Chairman. And the chairman said that you had to get the
Daily Worker and read that, or lose the job?
    Mr. Feldman. I never subscribed for it and never took it
home.
    The Chairman. Did you pay for it?
    Mr. Feldman. I couldn't recall, sir. It is too far.
    The Chairman. Were you a member of the Fur Leather Workers
Union?
    Mr. Feldman. Yes, I was.
    The Chairman. Ben Gold heads that?
    Mr. Feldman. Yes, sir. That's right.
    The Chairman. The same Ben Gold was indicted just a couple
of days ago?
    Mr. Feldman. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. How long did they force you to take the Daily
Worker and read it?
    Mr. Feldman. I only worked about six months and I went in
the army and I stayed until October 1945.
    The Chairman. How many Communist party meetings did you
attend?
    Mr. Feldman. None whatsoever.
    The Chairman. Are you sure?
    Mr. Feldman. I am positive.
    The Chairman. Let me say to you now. I will give you some
advice. You don't have a lawyer here. The witnesses come into
this room often. They are guilty of no criminal offense. They
may belong to the Communist party. That is not a crime--that is
not a criminal offense unless you know the Communist party
advocates the overthrow of the government by force and
violence. The witnesses come in and try to fool this committee.
We are not eager to have anyone indicted for perjury. If we
find a man perjures himself we are bound to have him indicted.
You are not called hit or miss. We didn't look in the telephone
book to pick your name out. You are in here because we have
witnesses and evidence that you have been active in the
Communist party.
    Mr. Feldman. Positively not.
    The Chairman. Let me finish.
    Mr. Feldman. If I have to go to the president of the United
States nobody can point to me and say that I was a member. It
is not the case, sir, I am sorry.
    The Chairman. Either tell us the truth, the complete truth,
or refuse to answer. That is for your own protection.
    Mr. Feldman. I will tell the truth, and nothing but the
truth, but I don't want to be accused of anything I never did.
    The Chairman. You say you never attended any Communist
party meetings?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you attend any meetings which you later
believed to be Communist meetings?
    At the time you may not have known they were Communist
meetings.
    Mr. Feldman. Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Do you know now of any meetings you attended
which you now think is Communist party meetings?
    Mr. Feldman. Do I recall any meetings I attended that might
have been Communist? Not to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Do you recall any?
    Mr. Feldman. None as I specified before.
    The Chairman. Were you a supporter of Ben Gold's?
    Mr. Feldman. I was purely working for a living. I needed a
union card in order to work in the shop.
    The Chairman. Were you ever issued a card in the Communist
party?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir, never. Positively not.
    The Chairman. Were you issued a card of membership in any
organization--do you think it is possible that a card was
issued in the Communist party and that you might not have known
what it was?
    Mr. Feldman. I really would know. They never issued any to
me of any kind or nature.
    The Chairman. In early 1948 were you not issued a
membership card in the Communist party?
    Mr. Feldman. In '47, '48, I was never issued.
    The Chairman. Where were you working in 1948?
    Mr. Feldman. I wasn't working. I wasn't working then at
all.
    The Chairman. And you say you attended no meetings which
you had any reason to believe were Communist party meetings
then or now?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir. And I say it fully to my knowledge.
    The Chairman. How long did you obtain the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Feldman. Just as long as I worked in that shop, which
was a period of six months.
    The Chairman. The only reason was because the chairman of
the shop said you would have to read it?
    Mr. Feldman. The chairman.
    The Chairman. Do you know his name?
    Mr. Feldman. I don't know. I don't recall his name.
    The Chairman. That was in what year?
    Mr. Feldman. 1941.
    The Chairman. You have no idea what his name was? Do you
have any idea of whether he is working for the government now?
    Mr. Feldman. I didn't see the man for twelve or thirteen
years.
    The Chairman. When did you see him last?
    Mr. Feldman. When I left the ship. That is when I last saw
him.
    The Chairman. I am not trying to make this difficult for
you, but a person of just ordinary intelligence. Here is Mr.
Feldman who knows he signed a petition exactly 5:15 in the
afternoon----
    Mr. Feldman. I am not saying.
    The Chairman. Don't interrupt me until I finish. 5:15 in
the afternoon that a woman came from across the street to bring
a petition to him. However, he worked under a chairman of a
shop for two months. Why is his memory good in some places and
not in another?
    Mr. Feldman. Do you remember every person you looked at?
    The Chairman. Can you remember what he looked like?
    Mr. Feldman. He was stubby. Specifically remembering a
man's name--it is an impossibility. I couldn't remember that
man's name.
    The Chairman. Do you know his first name?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you know his last name?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you know if he is married or single?
    Mr. Feldman. I could say yes, but I wouldn't be sure of it.
    The Chairman. Do you know if he was a Communist?
    Mr. Feldman. I take the presumption that he might have
been, but I am not sure.
    The Chairman. When he ordered you to subscribe to a
Communist paper you must have assumed he was a Communist?
    Mr. Feldman. I took the presumption.
    The Chairman. After you had gotten this order to subscribe
to the Communist paper you assumed he was a Communist and you
were given a Communist party petition----
    Mr. Feldman. That has nothing to do with the other. That
has nothing to do with the other.
    The Chairman. I am not sure you follow me. If you came into
me and said, ``McCarthy, I am your boss. You subscribe to a
Communist paper.'' And I say, ``All right, I will do it in
order to keep my job.'' When I get that Communist paper I am
put on my notice about the Communist party. Then when somebody
comes in and wants you to support some of the top Communists
you should know what they mean. If you do that to keep your job
that is one thing. You say that is not the case. You say some
woman asked you to sign it. It is rather difficult for an
ordinary person to say that you didn't know what you were
doing. Is it still your testimony that when you signed this
Communist party petition that you signed it not knowing what
you were signing?
    Mr. Feldman. Yes. I wouldn't have any reason to know
otherwise.
    The Chairman. Outside of these two Communist petitions did
you sign any other petitions that you know of?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir, I didn't.
    The Chairman. Now, do you know anything about the American
Labor party?
    Mr. Feldman. The American Labor party sent me a few
letters, that is all. That is all I know about the Labor party.
    The Chairman. Do you know that it has been recognized
generally as a Communist organization? You know that, don't
you?
    Mr. Feldman. Yes.
    The Chairman. Do you think a person who belongs to a
Communist organization should be handling army supplies?
    Mr. Feldman. I stated to you. I understood every question
that you asked me.
    The Chairman. Answer that one. Do you think if a person
belongs to a Communist organization--one well-known as a
Communist organization, he should be handling army supplies?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir, I don't believe that.
    The Chairman. You belong to the American Labor party?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Didn't you sign up as an American Labor party
member as late as 1949--after the American Labor party had
been--after the non-Communist element split away they formed
the liberal party?
    Mr. Feldman. I wasn't a member of that organization.
    The Chairman. In 1949 the records show you were registered.
    Mr. Feldman. I couldn't stop anybody having my name down. I
couldn't help it. It is not my fault.
    The Chairman. Just a minute. Didn't you sign up yourself?
Nobody registered for you as a member. Didn't you sign your
name?
    Mr. Feldman. I registered as a Democrat. In 1949. Also in
1950 and later in 1951 and '2.
    The Chairman. How about '48.
    Mr. Feldman. I don't recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever register as a member of the American
Labor party?
    Mr. Feldman. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Cohn. When?
    Mr. Feldman. Before they went Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. That was in 1944?
    Mr. Feldman. In 1944.
    Mr. Cohn. In 1944?
    Mr. Feldman. When was Wallace head of the Labor party?
    Mr. Cohn. He was never head of the Labor party. The anti-
Communists broke away in 1944 and joined a liberal labor party.
Wallace was in the year 1948. Isn't it true that you were a
registered member of the American Labor party after that?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You remember exactly what years you
registered as a Democrat. You named the years you registered.
Can't you recall the years you registered as a member of the
American Labor party?
    Mr. Feldman. I came back from working for the government
overseas in 1947. In 1948 I couldn't vote.
    The Chairman. What year did you register as a member of the
American Labor party, if you did?
    Mr. Feldman. I don't recall if I did. I couldn't answer
that question because I don't recall.
    The Chairman. You can't remember that?
    Mr. Feldman. No, I don't.
    The Chairman. Do you remember that you registered as a
member of any party?
    Mr. Feldman. I am a Democrat. I know I received the mail
from the Democratic party.
    The Chairman. You say you registered as a Democrat in 1950.
Before that did you register as a member of any other party?
    Mr. Feldman. I don't recall.
    The Chairman. You don't recall?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir. Besides that, it is my personal
right.
    The Chairman. You have a perfect right to register as you
wish. That is if you weren't working for the government we
wouldn't care how you registered. But when you are handling
military equipment we want to know how you registered.
    Mr. Feldman. I never registered as a Communist. That should
answer the question.
    The Chairman. You signed Communist pledges. Did you
register as a member of the ALP?
    Mr. Feldman. I don't recall.
    The Chairman. You thought you had registered at one time?
    Mr. Feldman. I don't recall.
    The Chairman. Do you recall registering as a member of any
party prior to 1950?
    Mr. Feldman. Any party? No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you vote before 1950?
    Mr. Feldman. Did I vote? Yes, I did.
    The Chairman. Before you voted, didn't you register?
    Mr. Feldman. But I don't recall.
    The Chairman. No idea?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Your memory is strangely bad when it comes to
any Communist connections. You are entitled to have a bad
memory. Mine is bad in some respects, too. Did you vote
Communist?
    Mr. Feldman. I never as long as I was in this country voted
Communist. I explained the reason for the petition. Is it
necessary to go into such details?
    The Chairman. Yes, sir. You said a woman walked across the
street at 5:15 twelve years ago and she handed you a Communist
petition and you signed it.
    Mr. Feldman. Yes.
    The Chairman. Did you do it because she was a nice looking
woman or because you----
    Mr. Feldman. Sir, if you put your signature ten, twelve
years ago, you remember.
    The Chairman. If I was so accurate it was 5:15--that it was
a lady across the street.
    Mr. Feldman. Well, I will tell you why I was so accurate.
If you work until five o'clock, and you walk out of the shop it
would be approximately 5:15.
    The Chairman. Was that the same year you got the Daily
Worker?
    Mr. Feldman. I didn't buy it; I just got it.
    The Chairman. Didn't you tell the loyalty board of the army
that you had signed a Communist party petition?
    Mr. Feldman. Two years ago.
    The Chairman. Wherever you appeared before them?
    Mr. Feldman. Yes, sir. I admitted. They showed me the
signature and I said, ``Yes, it is my signature.''
    Mr. Cohn. Did they ask you about subscribing to the Daily
Worker?
    Mr. Feldman. I told them the same thing I told you.
    Mr. Cohn. Did they ask you about registering in the
American Labor party?
    Mr. Feldman. I don't recall.
    The Chairman. Do you know that the American Labor party is
a Communist group?
    Mr. Feldman. It is affiliated.
    The Chairman. There is no doubt in your mind that the ALP
was a plainly Communist organization?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you know that in 1948?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you know that in 1949?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You used the Wallace year as the year that
you knew about it?
    Mr. Feldman. Yes.
    The Chairman. Are you married?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been married?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Ever been arrested?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You have never been arrested?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. How do you spell your name?
    Mr. Feldman. F-e-l-d-m-a-n.
    The Chairman. You are sure you have never been arrested?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Ever been picked up for anything?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. When were you admitted to citizenship?
    Mr. Feldman. I became a citizen under my father's papers.
Before I was the age of eighteen he became a citizen and I
became a citizen under his papers.
    The Chairman. You say you never attended a Communist
meeting?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir, positively not.
    The Chairman. You said you worked for the government
overseas?
    Mr. Feldman. In 1947, General Hospital in Frankfort.
    The Chairman. When was that?
    Mr. Feldman. In 1946.
    The Chairman. For how long?
    Mr. Feldman. Eight months.
    The Chairman. And where did you work after that?
    Mr. Feldman. I came back from Europe in the early--late
part of 1947 and I didn't work for two years.
    The Chairman. What did you live on for two years?
    Mr. Feldman. I saved my money that I made in the army and I
had enough to get along. I didn't find a job. Partly I worked
with my Dad as a plumber.
    The Chairman. Did you ever get money from the Communist
party?
    Mr. Feldman. I never got a cent from anybody except that I
made and worked for.
    The Chairman. You didn't get any money from any
organization other than an organization for which you were
working your six or eight hours a day?
    Mr. Feldman. Organization? Work myself, that is. Nobody
gave me anything.
    The Chairman. Do you understand the question? I know you
received a salary from various shops in which you worked. The
question is: Did you ever receive any money from any other
organization other than an organization in which you were
physically laboring?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever receive money for distributing
literature?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Weren't you picked up at one time in
connection with some picketing or labor dispute or distributing
literature?
    Mr. Feldman. I never picketed and I was never picked up.
    The Chairman. Never picked up by the Police Department?
    Mr. Feldman. No, sir, never.
    The Chairman. I think that is all. You are excused, Mr.
Feldman. Thank you. You will consider yourself under subpoena
in case we want you. We will let you know.
    The committee has a ruling that we don't give the name of
the witness that appears. Your name will not be given to
anybody outside of this room unless you give it to them. Unless
you do it yourself it will not be done.
    [Testimony was completed at 3:00 p.m.]
           COMMUNIST INFILTRATION AMONG ARMY CIVILIAN WORKERS
    [Editor's note.--On September 1, Senator McCarthy demanded
that the U.S. Army produce personnel files and the names of
those individuals responsible for the clearance of the civilian
employees he was investigating.
    Following their testimony in executive session, both Doris
Walters Powell and Francesco Palmiero (1908-1971) were
suspended from their jobs with the army. Neither Powell nor
Palmiero testified in public session; nor did Deton Brooks
(1909-1975), Paul Cavanna (1892-1978), Col. Ralph M. Bauknight
(1905-1991), Captain Donald Joseph Kotch (1931-1980), Stanley
Gerber, or Jacob W. Allen. Marvel Jackson Cooke (1903-2000),
the assistant managing editor of the People's Voice from 1943
to 1947, testified in public on September 8, 1953.]
                              ----------
                       TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                      New York, NY.
    The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m. pursuant to recess, in
room 128, Federal Court House, Foley Square, New York, New
York, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M.
Cohn, chief counsel; and David Schine, chief consultant.
    The Chairman. Will you gentlemen raise your right hands,
and I will swear you together.
    Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give to the
subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
    Capt. Kotch. I do.
    Mr. Garber. I do.
    Mr. Allen. I do.
      TESTIMONY OF CAPTAIN DONALD JOSEPH KOTCH, ASSISTANT
  ADJUTANT; STANLEY GERBER, CLERK-TYPIST; AND JACOB W. ALLEN,
              CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER, QUARTERMASTERS
                   INSPECTION SERVICE COMMAND
    Mr. Cohn. Let's get the names for the record.
    Capt. Kotch. Donald Joseph Kotch.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your position?
    Capt. Kotch. I am assistant adjutant of the Quartermasters
Inspection Service Command.
    Mr. Cohn. And next?
    Mr. Gerber. Stanley Gerber, clerk-typist, Quartermasters
Command.
    Mr. Allen. Jacob W. Allen, chief legal officer at the Head
Quartermasters Inspection Service Command.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Captain, I believe Mr. Schine talked to you
yesterday.
    Capt. Kotch. Yes, he did.
    Mr. Cohn. And you were asked to produce the personnel files
and the loyalty files pertaining to Doris Walters Powell and
Albert Eli Feldman, is that correct?
    Capt. Kotch. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you produced those files?
    Capt. Kotch. We have not produced the files inasmuch as
there exists an army directive that prohibits my doing so
without prior approval of the Department of the Army.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you attempted to obtain such approval?
    Mr. Allen. Yes, I have. I spoke with Mr. Schine last
evening, and he suggested that I attempt to secure the
clearance under the DA memo, and I spoke with my Washington
office, and they in turn spoke with the Department of Army
acting counselor, Mr. Joseph Bishop, and the information that
was furnished was that the procedure was for the committee to
make a request in writing for the papers or files, whatever
would be desired.
    The Chairman. Do I understand if another request is made in
writing that you will furnish the files?
    Mr. Allen. We will forward the request to the department
counselor.
    The Chairman. We wouldn't have time for it to go through
the mails. I want you to call up and find out if you can get
the files.
    Mr. Allen. I can do that.
    Mr. Schine. To whom do we address the request?
    Mr. Allen. Well, I would suggest the secretary of the army.
There is a Department of Army memo, 345-5-10, which is dated 1
September 1950, which sets forth the regulations that we are
required to comply with.
    The Chairman. Who has jurisdiction over the files in New
York?
    Mr. Allen. That would be kept in counsel's possession.
    The Chairman. We will have Captain Kotch get it.
    Mr. Allen. Is your request for the loyalty files as well as
the personnel files?
    The Chairman. One will be for the personnel files, the
other will be for the loyalty hearings, and the third will be
for the loyalty files.
    How do we address that?
    Capt. Kotch. New York Quartermaster Inspection, 2-M,
Inspection Service Command.
    Mr. Schine. Mr. Chairman, we are going to add a third name
to the list.
    The Chairman. All right.
    Will you question, Mr. Cohn?
    Mr. Cohn. You know Mrs. Powell personally?
    Capt. Kotch. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You know she work----
    Capt. Kotch. I know she worked there prior to my taking
over.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, does she have access to any classified
material?
    Capt. Kotch. No.
    Mr. Cohn. She testified she is a procurement officer, that
as such she has to do with the purchase of material and
something to do with the shipments to various bases.
    Mr. Allen. I think, Mr. Cohn, that would be all included in
the personnel files as distinguished from the loyalty files.
    Mr. Cohn. We are not talking about what is in the files. We
are not worried now about what is in the file. What we are
concerned with is your general setup down there. In other
words, she works down there in a room, or whatever it is. Now,
this work that she does if she is procurement officer, is it on
things that are public information or not public information?
Can anybody walk in----
    Mr. Allen. No, it is not public information. I wouldn't say
that any of the office is not open to the public. I don't know
the young lady, and I don't know what work she does.
    The Chairman. Let me review her testimony. She said, among
other things, she examined the invoices covering shipments of
food to all parts of the world. Now, answer this question: Is
the information concerning the shipment of food to the various
bases classified or not classified?
    Mr. Allen. It is not classified.
    The Chairman. That information is open to the general
public?
    Mr. Allen. No, sir, it is not. It would be restricted to
the knowledge of the people working in the office.
    The Chairman. Well, is it marked ``confidential,''
``secret,'' or ``restricted''?
    Mr. Allen. No, sir.
    The Chairman. It isn't?
    Mr. Allen. No.
    The Chairman. Can they give this information out freely?
    Mr. Allen. Well, they are not supposed to, in accordance
with prescribed regulations of the office.
    The Chairman. What does it say? That they can't give out
unclassified information?
    Mr. Allen. No, I don't believe it says anything that
specific. Just a general code of ethics the office has.
    The Chairman. I don't understand that. Is it your testimony
that the shipment of food, the information on the shipment of
food is not classified information? Is that the fact?
    Mr. Allen. Generally, I would say it is not.
    The Chairman. Well, not generally. You work over there----
    Mr. Allen. No. Mr. Gerber is assistant to Captain Kotch.
    Capt. Kotch. To answer that question, it requires having
someone in from the activities that conduct that business.
There was a Market Center, and I am not familiar with
integral----
    Mr. Allen. If I may interrupt, it was my understanding that
the testimony that you wanted from Captain Kotch was related to
the agency procedures on intelligence, and the methods under
which our office processes that type of information in
accordance with the army regulations. We are not prepared to
give any information on the procurement of perishables.
    The Chairman. Who can come in here and tell us the extent
of the classification of the purchase and shipment of food to
the various bases?
    Mr. Allen. Well, food in our office is procured by the New
York Market Center office physically located in our building.
    The Chairman. Is there any army regulation, if any of you
know, to the effect that that information is classified or not
classified? I understand you gentlemen are not in that work,
but you should be able to tell us who would know. It is very
important for us to know that.
    Mr. Allen. Well, the person in charge of the Market Center
office is Colonel Bauknight.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you, Captain Kotch, if an enemy,
or a potential enemy, had complete information of the advance
shipments of food to the various bases, that would be of great
value to him, wouldn't it?
    Capt. Kotch. It certainly would.
    The Chairman. It would indicate the troop movements, or the
potential troop movements, wouldn't it?
    Capt. Kotch. Yes.
    The Chairman. Sent to our units in those areas. That is why
I can't understand Mr. Allen's statement that this information
is not classified.
    Mr. Allen. Well, I think the goods are normally shipped on
army shipping documents, the same as all other shipments, and
those documents in and of themselves are not stamped
``confidential,'' but they only are processed through channels
and would not normally be available.
    The Chairman. Let's say as of tomorrow the army decides to
ship a vast amount of food to Alaska and other material, in
preparation for a sizeable movement of troops to that area. Do
I understand the invoices, the orders would not be stamped
``secret,'' or ``confidential''?
    Mr. Allen. I don't believe so, but the shipping documents
themselves would only have markings, and markings would be in
effect a code, which, when deciphered, would show where the
goods are to be shipped.
    The Chairman. Certainly if you have anything in code, that
would be confidential, wouldn't it? You don't leave codes
around unclassified, do you?
    Mr. Allen. No, sir. I am----
    The Chairman. I am not trying to cross-examine you.
    Mr. Allen. I really don't know the----
    Capt. Kotch. Colonel Bauknight would be the man. Extension
444, Spring 7-4200.
    The Chairman. Would you call him and ask him when he could
come down at the least inconvenience, either this forenoon or
this afternoon, or if not, he can come tomorrow morning.
    Captain, I wonder if you could tell us anything about the
work of Mr. Palmiero.
    Mr. Cohn. He works out in Queens.
    Capt. Kotch. No, I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this: Are you familiar with the
fact of whether or not they have had loyalty hearings?
    Capt. Kotch. I don't think I can answer that. I am not sure
of my grounds.
    Mr. Allen. I think from the information we have been given
from the department counselor that that would be included in
the files when produced.
    The Chairman. In other words, you feel you can't answer
that until you get clearance?
    Capt. Kotch. Yes, sir. I am bound by the regulations.
    Mr. Allen. We have nothing to hide, I assure you, but it is
just that we are required to comply with the army regulations.
    The Chairman. We don't want any of you to violate any
regulations that might submit you to court martial or anything
else. So, under the circumstances, we accept your refusal to
answer at this time.
    Now, if we give you this written request, how soon could
you bring in the files, or come in and tell us that the
military refuses it?
    Mr. Allen. We will get on the telephone with it
immediately, and if necessary, we are prepared to send the
files down to Washington by plane or train. It was my
understanding from what I was told that the loyalty files would
probably require White House clearance. I am really not
familiar with it.
    The Chairman. I consider the three requests in a different
category. Roy, is there any information you wish to ask for?
    Mr. Cohn. Well, there is a lot I want.
    The Chairman. This morning you feel you are not in a
position to discuss whether or not there have been any loyalty
hearings. Will you describe the procedure that you follow when
you hire civilian personnel?
    Capt. Kotch. When a person is hired, the Civil Service
Commission conducts a pre-employment investigation. If the
employee is to be put on a sensitive position, the operating
official who is to be chief of the activity where the employee
would work requests a clearance to ``confidential,''
``secret,'' or ``top secret.'' We in turn, our office, types up
a request to First Army for the clearance, and with the request
we send a personnel history statement of the employee to First
Army G-2. Upon receipt of the request by First Army they cause
an investigation to be conducted.
    The Chairman. By whom?
    Capt. Kotch. By the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    Mr. Cohn. Is G-2 out at Governor's Island?
    Capt. Kotch. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Who has charge of Governor's Island?
    Capt. Kotch. I send all my requests to Colonel Wynne.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know that phone number out there?
    Capt. Kotch. Extension 2272. The phone number is Whitehall
4-7700.
    When the investigation is returned from the FBI to army,
they decide whether the employee should be cleared if
derogatory information is disclosed in the investigation.
    The Chairman. Who makes the decision?
    Capt. Kotch. G-2 of First Army.
    Mr. Cohn. Colonel Wynne?
    Capt. Kotch. No. It would be a chief, and they have a new
chief.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you don't know the name of the present
chief. Who was the one before?
    Capt. Kotch. Colonel Young, I believe. I worked directly
with the service branch.
    Mr. Cohn. Suppose they want to consult--suppose it becomes
necessary for us to be in touch with a person who makes this
decision, who would we contact?
    Capt. Kotch. Ask for G-2 of First Army.
    Mr. Cohn. G-2 of First Army and that is out at Governor's
Island?
    Capt. Kotch. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And whoever is in command there would be the one
technically who makes an evaluation of the files?
    Capt. Kotch. Or his authorized representative, I imagine.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this, Captain: How long have
you been in intelligence?
    Capt. Kotch. A little less than one year.
    The Chairman. We had testimony here yesterday from a
security guard. Just what he does, I don't know. I gather he is
a guard, a physical security guard rather than personnel
security. He admitted that he signed petitions in which he
pledged to support Communist candidates, one of which, I
believe, was Thompson. Would you, as an intelligence officer,
think that that would disqualify him as a security guard?
    Capt. Kotch. Yes.
    The Chairman. I agree with you heartily.
    I am afraid we may be asking you something which is not in
your line. Probably Colonel Bauknight should answer this
question. We had testimony yesterday from a witness to the
effect that she attended Communist party meetings, attended a
Communist leadership school, was secretary and member of the
National Committee of the Communist party, that she received a
membership card in the Communist party, and she said she didn't
quite know what the card meant, that she didn't consider
herself exactly--she didn't feel as if she was exactly a
Communist, and she has been handling invoices for food, I
gather almost exclusively, and she said that she would have the
knowledge of shipments to Alaska, Korea, or any place in the
world. I assume you and I would assume that could be an
extremely dangerous situation.
    Capt. Kotch. It could.
    The Chairman. That is Colonel Bauknight's responsibility?
    Capt. Kotch. Yes.
    The Chairman. Colonel Bauknight is in charge of that
department. Would he have any authority or responsibility in
the clearance or non-clearance of that employee? Would that be
G-2 of First Army?
    Capt. Kotch. He has no authority for clearance, nor do I.
It comes from the First Army.
    Mr. Schine. Do you know the name?
    The Chairman. We don't need it. G-2. First Army.
    Mr. Allen. Colonel Wynne, I think.
    Capt. Kotch. Colonel Wynne was the man I worked for.
    The Chairman. I will tell you what we want. We want the
individual who was responsible for the clearance of those three
people, and if he is tied up today, tell him if he can't come
today, this afternoon, he can come tomorrow morning or tomorrow
afternoon.
    Capt. Kotch. I wonder if I might answer a few of your
questions by continuing with the procedure.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Capt. Kotch. If derogatory information is disclosed in the
investigation, we are informed by G-2 First Army to submit a
summary of the investigation with recommendation for retention
or removal. We expedite this action and forward the case back
to First Army for processing through the Department of Army and
a loyalty board on that level.
    The Chairman. Do you have any authority, Captain Kotch, and
I am speaking of you personally, insofar as recommending for or
against the clearance of any individual?
    Capt. Kotch. Yes.
    The Chairman. What is it?
    Capt. Kotch. I make my recommendation after surveying the
investigation to the commanding officer prior to forwarding to
First Army.
    Mr. Cohn. To whom?
    Capt. Kotch. Colonel Howard.
    The Chairman. Just what is your jurisdiction? How many
civilian employee cases, for example, would come to you for
recommendation or for survey?
    Capt. Kotch. I couldn't answer that without telling how
many cases I have up there. It is not--it is very few.
    The Chairman. How about the people working in the
Quartermaster Corps? Do you have any jurisdiction over there
insofar as recommending for clearance or non-clearance?
    Capt. Kotch. The only time I would make any recommendation
would be in the case of an individual who had derogatory
information against him.
    The Chairman. Let's assume I am working at the
Quartermaster Corps and there is what you consider derogatory
information against me. Are you the man who would pick up my
case first and either recommend a hearing or action on it, or
would somebody else do that?
    Capt. Kotch. I would pick it up, recommend that the
individual be removed and it would be forwarded to army, and
with that action I would notify the officer in charge of the
individual, in writing--the information is hand-carried--to
restrict that employee from any classified material.
    The Chairman. I don't think I got your title.
    Capt. Kotch. Assistant adjutant of the First Army,
Quartermaster Inspection Service Command.
    The Chairman. So then you would be the one who would
examine the recall file, we will say, and the personnel file,
both of them being in the Quartermaster Corps?
    Capt. Kotch. I would.
    The Chairman. So it would not be G-2 over at Governor's
Island? It would be yourself?
    Capt. Kotch. Well, they review. I only recommend action.
    The Chairman. Who was your predecessor?
    Capt. Kotch. Captain Dickson.
    The Chairman. Is he in New York now?
    Capt. Kotch. He is. However, he is there about three
months. Prior to Captain Dickson, it was Captain Kenneth Slater
who had been intelligence officer for two years.
    Mr. Cohn. Where is Captain Slater?
    Capt. Kotch. He is in Hawaii at the present time.
    The Chairman. Captain Slater would most likely be the man
who gave the original clearance for Mrs. Powell, I presume.
    Capt. Kotch. I suppose so.
    The Chairman. Do you ever pick up the cases for review?
Let's say that you are intelligence officer, or assume Captain
Jones is in your position. Does he have the obligation to
reexamine the cases from the loyalty standpoint, or do they lie
dormant unless and until additional information comes in?
    Capt. Kotch. No. We assume the responsibility when we take
over. For example, when I took over any case that I felt there
wasn't prompt enough action on, I sent a tracer through the
army to notify me as to what action was taken.
    The Chairman. How about your rules and regulations? Have
they been at all changed under the new Eisenhower loyalty
program, or do you interpret that as a plan principally to the
civilian agents?
    Capt. Kotch. There are changes coming out. I was informed
Friday by G-2 army that there was a regulation, a new security
regulation coming out that I would receive probably in the next
thirty days that would run many changes through on the
procedure.
    The Chairman. Have you had any reevaluation of any cases
since the new administration took over? I ask that because we
have heard a lot, especially in the newspapers, about the new
loyalty program, the new rules and regulations, and I wondered
whether or not you had taken a look-see at any of your cases.
    Off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: Can you supply the
committee with the security regulations now in effect?
    Capt. Kotch. Army regulations, yes.
    The Chairman. In other words, you can do that without any
written, request?
    Capt. Kotch. Yes.
    The Chairman. I wonder if you would do that. I would like
to see them. We have been running into some rather unusual
regulations.
    Mr. Allen. If you have them here, there is no objection to
furnishing them.
    Capt. Kotch. I have my file here.
    Mr. Allen. Did you want to retain them?
    The Chairman. Yes, I would like to have them for other
members of the committee.
    Capt. Kotch. Well, can I endeavor to obtain copies for you?
    The Chairman. Let me look at them. Maybe we won't need
them. It looks as though you have been using it quite a bit.
    Capt. Kotch. This is the Bible.
    The Chairman. Incidentally, so far as the civilian
employees of the army are concerned, how much authority for
firing do you have? Are there any road blocks in your way if
you want to fire somebody you think is a bad security risk?
What rights do they have? In other words, do they have an
appeal?
    Mr. Allen. I think it is covered by those security
regulations.
    Capt. Kotch. That is on army level. They do have an appeal
to the screening board.
    Mr. Cohn. Let's see if I understand. The Civil Service
Commission makes the first investigation.
    Capt. Kotch. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Then you send that out to Governor's Island, to
Colonel Wynne's office, who requests information by the FBI?
    Mr. Allen. May I interrupt that. I am not sure whether the
FBI or the CID do it in all cases.
    Mr. Cohn. They submit their report to G-2. G-2 sends the
file on to you. They make an evaluation out there. Is that
right?
    Capt. Kotch. Right.
    Mr. Cohn. And then, if it is desired to retain the person,
they send the file on to you?
    Capt. Kotch. No. We don't get the file if there is no
derogatory information.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, if there is derogatory information?
    Capt. Kotch. They keep a file and send a copy to us on a
loan basis to write our summary and make a recommendation.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, they don't make the final
recommendation. When they have derogatory information, they
don't say he is in or out? They keep on sending it to you for
recommendation, so it comes to you and you make a
recommendation for removal or retention?
    Capt. Kotch. They in turn look over the case and check my
theory. They also make a recommendation.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, you are both looking at the thing
at the same time, and then they get your recommendation?
    Capt. Kotch. First they check mine. It is more or less a
view.
    Mr. Cohn. And then they either confirm your recommendation
or reject it. Now, if you recommend removal and they confirm
it, what then happens?
    Capt. Kotch. Well, they do not confirm. They make a
recommendation. If I recommend removal and I don't have enough
evidence and they felt that the man should not be removed they
would just endorse the case forward, recommend retention.
However----
    Mr. Cohn. I see.
    Capt. Kotch. However, my recommendation would go forward
with their recommendation.
    Mr. Cohn. All right. Now, if they recommend retention, that
settles it? There is no loyalty hearing?
    Capt. Kotch. No. It goes on to G-2 of army.
    Mr. Cohn. In Washington?
    Capt. Kotch. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And if it is approved all the way down, there is
no loyalty hearing?
    Capt. Kotch. No.
    Mr. Cohn. And if the final word is that he should be
removed, then there is a loyalty hearing, is that correct?
    Capt. Kotch. Correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Where does the loyalty hearing take place?
    Capt. Kotch. Over in Governor's Island.
    Mr. Cohn. What is the composition of the loyalty board? Are
there different panels, or who would know about that?
    Capt. Kotch. It its under revision at the present time, as
I mentioned before.
    Mr. Cohn. But who would have passed on these cases, say,
before the revision?
    Capt. Kotch. His name?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes, his name or----
    Capt. Kotch. A Mister----
    Mr. Cohn. Was it a civilian?
    Capt. Kotch. That is right. Mr. Kopp.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he sort of secretary of the loyalty board?
    Capt. Kotch. He is the chairman of it.
    Mr. Cohn. Does the loyalty board consist of all civilian,
or some military?
    Capt. Kotch. Some military, some civilian.
    Mr. Cohn. Who is the top military, do you know?
    Capt. Kotch. No.
    Mr. Cohn. How many people are on the loyalty board, do you
know--three, or five?
    Capt. Kotch. They are a large panel. The number that sits
on each case I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, the whole loyalty program is
handled out in Governor's Island?
    Capt. Kotch. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. If the recommendation is removal, they will send
out interrogatories and get an answer, and if there is a
hearing, make a judgment, and if there is a judgment, it is
appealable, I assume, to the commanding general and then the
secretary of the army. Is that it substantially?
    Capt. Kotch. Substantially.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Kopp out on Governor's Island is the one who
would be familiar with the loyalty board procedures out there?
    Capt. Kotch. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you specifically who did pass on the
Powell and the Feldman cases, without going into the contents
of the file?
    Mr. Allen. Well, it is still part of the file. It will all
be in there, and I think we ought to restrict it.
    The Chairman. Well, I may say that the witness will be
ordered to answer that question. However, if he feels that he
must contact his superior first to get his superior officer's
position on it, he will be given that time. The order will
stand, however. I feel, regardless of what the rules and
regulations in the department are, that Congress has a right to
find out who cleared someone like Mrs. Powell, who has been a
member of the Communist party, who held a membership card, who
went to Communist leadership schools. We want to find out why
she was cleared, who cleared her, what knowledge the man had,
and that order will stand regardless of what the secretary or
anybody tells you to do, and if the material is not
forthcoming, we will proceed against any witness who refuses.
But we are not going to order you to do that today.
    Mr. Allen. Could we have the specific question? As I
understand, it was who reviewed and cleared Mrs. Powell.
    The Chairman. We will order the production of this
information: Number one, we want to know who cleared Mrs.
Powell so we can bring him before us and find out the reason
for the clearance with all the derogatory information which is
in the file. Number two, we will want to know what information
was before him when he cleared her. In other words, we will
need all the information in the files. Unless we know what
information was available to him, it will be rather difficult
to even remotely follow his reasoning in the case.
    As I say, we will order you to produce that information,
but we will give you time to contact your superior officer.
    Just so you will understand the position of us here, I take
it that that is information which Congress must have, that
there is no rule or regulation that anyone can make that can
deny that information to the Congress. I feel the army would be
making a great mistake if they tried to.
    Mr. Allen. I appreciate that. I don't even know she was
cleared.
    Mr. Cohn. She is working there?
    Mr. Allen. That doesn't mean----
    Mr. Cohn. People who aren't cleared work there?
    Mr. Allen. I think, as I explained originally, when it is
indicated whether or not they have access to classified
material, then the process starts.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, you are explaining there is a
distinction between someone who has access to classified
material?
    Mr. Allen. That is what I understood from the testimony.
    The Chairman. In other words, if someone is shoveling dirt,
you don't worry about security clearance too greatly, but if he
is handling classified material, it is an entirely different
situation.
    Capt. Kotch. However, if that person were known to be as a
Communist subversive, he would not be in that command.
    The Chairman. Well, I don't think there is anything further
at this time.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this: Is Mrs. Powell currently on
the rolls?
    Capt. Kotch. She is on maternity leave.
    Mr. Cohn. On maternity leave?
    Capt. Kotch. Has been for the past year.
    Mr. Allen. I think that we could say this, that there is
some procedure, as I understand it, that some action has been
indicated to be taken prior to her return to duty, so that----
    Capt. Kotch. She would never return to duty. I mean, never
be permitted to.
    Mr. Cohn. Has she been notified she won't be permitted to
return?
    Mr. Allen. I don't think so.
    The Chairman. You mean after this information developed
here, she won't be allowed to return?
    Capt. Kotch. No, it is not part of this at all.
    Mr. Allen. This has been in effect for about a year, I
think.
    The Chairman. I gather from your position that you can't
discuss it clearly.
    Capt. Kotch. I would like to, but I can't.
    Mr. Allen. I feel myself--and I would like this to be off
the record.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    The Chairman. I think that is all.
    Capt. Kotch. I feel awful about not being able to produce
those files.
    The Chairman. Do you have the written request?
    Mr. Schine. It is being drafted right now. It will be ready
very shortly.
    The Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, very much, for coming
in.
    [Witnesses excused.]
    The Chairman. Mr. Brooks, will you raise your right hand?
In the matter now before the subcommittee, do you solemnly
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Brooks. I do.
TESTIMONY OF DETON J. BROOKS, JR., FIELD SECRETARY, WELFARE AND
                HEALTH COUNCIL OF NEW YORK CITY
    The Chairman. Incidentally, I want to thank you very much
for inconveniencing yourself and coming down here this morning.
    Mr. Brooks. I am glad to do so.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Brooks, what is your occupation?
    Mr. Brooks. My occupation is field secretary for the
Welfare and Health Council of New York City.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you held that
position?
    Mr. Brooks. Only for six months at this time. I went in
under Mr. Raymond Higgins. This is the Welfare and Health
Council, a private agency. Prior to that time, I was in the
administration department of the Department of Welfare.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Brooks, where were you before you went
with Commissioner Higgins in the welfare department?
    Mr. Brooks. Just prior to that time, I was first acting
executive director of the Temporary City Housing Rent
Commission under Charles G. Coster, who was the chairman of the
commission, and I went in there as the personnel director, and
I have been promoted from that position.
    Mr. Cohn. Prior to that time you were editor of the
People's Voice?
    Mr. Brooks. Editor and general manager of the People's
Voice. I went in there first as business manager, in January
1947. Six months later, when the publisher, Dr. Jergen, was
finally able to kick out Doxey Wilkerson as editor and general
manager, I took over as editor and general manager.
    Mr. Cohn. But you had been business manager?
    Mr. Brooks. That is right. From January '47 until July '47.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you aware of the fact that Doxey Wilkerson
was a prominent member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Brooks. I certainly was. I went there with Dr. Jergen
for the purpose of reorganizing that paper.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, Doxey Wilkerson had been general
manager and is it fair to say he brought about the infiltration
of Communists?
    Mr. Brooks. On leaving Howard University in Washington I
remember distinctly when he said he was leaving Howard
University as a professor to become an active member of the
national party.
    Mr. Cohn. You mean the national committee?
    Mr. Brooks. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. There was no secret about that?
    Mr. Brooks. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Had he brought some Communists into the People's
Voice?
    Mr. Brooks. When I got there, they were there.
    Mr. Cohn. And your job was to----
    Mr. Brooks. To clear them out.
    Mr. Cohn. To get them out of there.
    The Chairman. As part of the record may I point out that in
the testimony of J. Edger Hoover--it is on page forty-seven of
May 1947, it is about halfway on the page, and in that he
points out that Doxey Wilkerson publicly announced that he was
an organizer for the Communist party and that he became a
member of the national committee. I point out that in order to
qualify for membership he had to have been a member of the
party in good standing for four years. We will put that in the
record at this point.
    Mr. Carr. Mr. Brooks, during this period when you were
attempting to take over the paper from the Communists who were
already there, did Doxey Wilkerson give you a secretary, or
direct that you use a secretary?
    Mr. Brooks. Yes, he did. As a matter of fact, I arrived in
New York City--do you mind holding this for a minute?
    The Chairman. Off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Brooks. Doxey Wilkerson said to me in front of my wife
that he would like for me to take Doris Walters as my
secretary. I said to him that it was rather unusual for anyone
to select another executive's secretary. He said, ``Well, I
want you to try her out. If she doesn't work out, then we can
get rid of her.''
    About two and a half or three weeks later I went to him and
told him I felt she was unsatisfactory as a secretary. He just
grinned and did nothing about it. I found out subsequently from
her that he had come and warned her that I had made a report on
her and she had better watch her step.
    Mr. Carr. Now, is this the Doris Walters [handing
photograph to Mr. Brooks]?
    Mr. Brooks. That is she.
    The Chairman. For the record, explain who Doris Walters is.
    Mr. Carr. Doris Walters is now Mrs. James Nathan Powell.
    Now, this Doris Walters, did there come a time when you
learned that she was either a Communist or the tool of the
Communists within your organization?
    Mr. Brooks. All along, from January until July----
    Mr. Carr. What year?
    Mr. Brooks. 1947. By a number of things that she did--I
mean overt things she did, I naturally suspected that she was
working hand in hand with some people. For instance there was
one, Marvel Cooke, who had the title when I went there of
managing editor of the paper. They were frequently at lunch
together. But overtly, this is the type of thing that would be
done. I would give her work under my direction to do, and I
would come back to the office after a conference at other
places, and that work would not be done. She would just be
sitting there doing nothing but reading the newspaper or
talking to somebody over the telephone. Up until--I can't give
you the exact date, because things moved so fast, but up until
sometime around June or July when Max Jergen gave me a formal
letter and directed me to take over the complete management of
the newspaper, I had reason to believe that Doris was certainly
disloyal and uncooperative.
    Mr. Carr. Now, in this respect, Mr. Brooks, did you have
any knowledge that Marvel Cooke, this person you say was very
friendly with Doris Walters, did you have any knowledge that
she was in any way a Communist?
    Mr. Brooks. I want to be accurate. I never saw a party
card, but it was general knowledge up in the Harlem area that--
I mean other newspaper people would laugh about it, and she was
Mrs. Commissar at the newspaper.
    Mr. Carr. She was a member of the Communist party when she
was on your paper?
    Mr. Brooks. She apparently was, and I have reason, as I can
point out, that more or less corroborates that. At the time
when I talked to Doris Walters, because my first feeling was to
fire her at the time we got rid of Doxey Wilkerson, there were
several reasons I didn't. One of them was she immediately
became pale, as pale as she could be, when she got this
information, you see, and she told me she would like to go to
lunch with me. I took her to lunch at a place called--well, it
was a place where we frequently ate--and she admitted at that
time that she had gone into my files, along with Madeline
Lawrence. Madeline Lawrence was Doxey Wilkerson's secretary.
    Mr. Carr. This is Doris Walters now that admitted?
    Mr. Brooks. Doris Walters admitted she had gone to my files
with Madeline Lawrence at the direction of Marvel Cooke. That
first in my files they had tried to find anything that was
incriminating, either where I had mismanaged the funds of the
newspaper, or anything in my personal life that could--that
they could use to----
    Mr. Carr. She was doing this for the Communists?
    Mr. Brooks. She said she did this under the direction of
Marvel Cooke. Certainly she did it along with Madeline
Lawrence. She said they came into the office on Sunday, and
this occurred----
    Mr. Carr. That Marvel Cooke directed that she go through
your files? She was connected in some way with Ben Davis. Do
you have some information to that effect?
    Mr. Brooks. Well, as I found out subsequently--maybe I was
a little naive, too. When I first came, I knew there were
Communists in the newspaper, but I felt with management that
what you could do was to give directives and they would be
carried out. I found subsequently from a number of different
things that the Communists considered the People's Voice a key
paper in their whole apparatus for the Harlem area, and for the
Negro throughout the country. For instance, they took this kind
of interest in the paper. I wrote once, after I did get control
of the paper, an editorial on the Catholic Bishop in St. Louis,
I wrote an editorial that pointed out that it was good, that I
felt the church hadn't moved fast enough, but that in this
instance they moved in a direction even in advance of the
public attitude of the people in the community, and that for
that reason, I felt that the Bishop of St. Louis should be
commended. Then this big burst came that I was an enemy of my
people. That, and Ben Davis and others called and wrote letters
to that effect. I mean, it was really a bombardment.
    Secondly, I did have information that Marvel Cooke was
reporting--I got it informally, and it was hearsay. They had an
office at 135th Street, and that she frequented that office.
    Mr. Cohn. You mean the Communist party?
    Mr. Brooks. Yes. Ben Davis was downtown, but he was also
uptown.
    Mr. Carr. He had office space in Harlem?
    Mr. Brooks. That is right. He was city councilman, too, and
it was there that people--I mean they would come in and say she
was frequently there. In 1948 he called me on the phone and he
said to me, he said, ``Brooks, how is the paper going to go in
this election?'' It was a presidential election coming up. I
said, ``I think it is too early for us to determine that.'' He
said, ``Well, we have a lot of differences, but if you know
what is good, you had better support Wallace.'' And I told him
over the phone, with another girl listening in, a conservative
girl, I told him, ``You run the Communist party. I am trying to
run this newspaper.''
    Mr. Carr. And you had information that Marvel Cooke was
reporting activities at the newspaper back to Ben Davis?
    Mr. Brooks. That is right. She was--well, from what Doris
said, and from every other indication, she was really the party
wheel of the paper. Frankly, Doxey was more the front man, but
she was the one apparently that gave the directives.
    Mr. Carr. There is no question in your mind that Doris knew
she was working for the Communists in working for Marvel Cooke
and Doxey Wilkerson?
    Mr. Brooks. She certainly knew what Doxey Wilkerson was.
She knew that Marvel Cooke was opposing every policy we were
trying to establish. They made no bones about it, and they both
openly boasted that they were going to get me kicked out of
there. And she knew that. And by her own statement to me, she
did say that they had told her that I wouldn't be there too
long.
    The Chairman. You said they told you?
    Mr. Brooks. That Doxey Wilkerson had told her that I
wouldn't be there too long.
    Mr. Carr. In your opinion, now, she was your employee? You
had a supervisory position in relation to her?
    Mr. Brooks. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. In your opinion, do you think that she--let me
put it this way: Do you think she was or is a good security
risk at this time to work for the United States government?
    Mr. Brooks. Well, I have to go back to the period in which
I knew her. I knew her from 1947 through '48, and there was
nothing, even after she told us her business and then worked
with us to try to clear out the Communists, there is nothing in
there which would make me feel she would be a good security
risk.
    Mr. Carr. When you say she worked with you to try to clear
out the Communists, now, she worked for the Communists, then
when she thought she was to lose her job, then she did what you
told her?
    Mr. Brooks. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. So it is your belief she would do whatever
anybody told her?
    Mr. Brooks. That had influence over her at that period. You
might ask the question why I didn't get rid of her. We had the
Guild contract, and it is a tough one. It was the Guild
contract that had been put together by the left wing members of
the Newspaper Guild. To get rid of these people, with a little
newspaper, it was a question of two or three thousand dollars
per person. So I had to concentrate on getting rid of them or
letting them get rid of themselves. And that was one of the
reasons, when she would at least--at least gave me information
which would help, and then voted the way we directed her to
vote in the Newspaper Guild, that we didn't get rid of her.
    Mr. Carr. You furnished information in essence the same as
you have furnished us here to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation?
    Mr. Brooks. Certainly. I remember distinctly saying to the
FBI I could not determine whether she was a member of the
Communist party, but that I did feel she would not be a good
security risk.
    Mr. Cohn. She was certainly doing the bidding of the
Communists when she went into your files and all that.
    Mr. Brooks. That is definite, yes.
    Mr. Carr. But did the loyalty board call you to appear and
give testimony?
    Mr. Brooks. Me, no. No one but the FBI.
    Mr. Cohn. If they had asked you to come down, you would
have been glad to?
    Mr. Brooks. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. Would you say she was under Communist party
discipline and knew she was?
    Mr. Brooks. That is hard to determine, whether she was
under the Communist party. All I can determine is that during
the period from January 1947 to this period of June '47, that
she was part of an apparatus which was opposing our
reorientation of the newspapers, and that was the Communist
persons that were doing it at that time.
    The Chairman. One final question. Do you have any reason to
believe that while she was working for you that she ever in her
own mind broke with the Communist party?
    Mr. Brooks. Senator, frankly, she was the type that I don't
believe--I have to answer that in one way by saying no, but at
the same time I don't want to be unfair. I just don't think she
was the type of person who was capable of having any real
intense ideological feeling one way or another, you know. She
worked with them because she was under their control at that
time.
    The Chairman. I think that is all. Again I want to thank
you very much for coming up.
    [Witness excused.]
    The Chairman. Will both of you gentlemen raise your right
hands?
    Do you solemnly swear in the matter now pending before the
committee that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth?
    Col. Bauknight. Yes.
    Lt. Col. Todd. Yes.
TESTIMONY OF COLONEL RALPH M. BAUKNIGHT, AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL
                         WALTER J. TODD
    The Chairman. I hate to drag you gentlemen away from your
work over there, but the principal thing we want to get from
you is--first, let me review the testimony we have had.
    First, you might state your names.
    Col. Bauknight. Ralph M. Bauknight.
    Lt. Col. Todd. Walter J. Todd.
    The Chairman. I will quickly review the testimony we have
had so you will understand what we want to get from you. We had
one witness before, Mrs. Powell, who worked over in the
Quartermaster Corps, now on maternity leave. Her testimony is
that she had been handling the invoices, principally of food
stuffs, shipped to United States bases, to Korea to Alaska, to
any place in the world. She said she thought the stuff she was
handling was classified ``confidential,'' but she was very
vague and didn't give us much information. The picture of Mrs.
Powell is that she attended Communist meetings, attended
Communist leadership school, that she received a membership
card in the Communist party but she didn't quite know what she
was receiving at the time. Testimony this morning from her
former boss was that she was working hand in glove with the
Communists, searching files and turning over information to the
Communist party.
    And there is the other man, Feldman, who signed a number of
Communist petitions to support the Communist party. This was
back in 1947 or '48. He pledged to support, among other things,
Walter Thompson. Under cross-examination he admitted he
subscribed to the Daily Worker, or rather he said he did that
only to keep his job. His boss told him he had to do that. That
was before he went with the army. His testimony here was, and
again he was very vague, that he was handling something to do
with the shipments of food and material but only inside the
United States.
    With that background, I would like to get, if I could, from
you a picture of the type of work those two people were doing.
    Col. Bauknight. We didn't come prepared.
    Lt. Col. Todd. These people were before both of our times.
We have checked on Mrs. Powell. We didn't check on Feldman.
    Col. Bauknight. I thought he was in some other activity. We
could follow through on that individual.
    The Chairman. Let's take Mrs. Powell for the time being.
Let's put it this way. Let's assume, without saying she was,
let's assume that she was an enemy agent who had access to the
information which she had access to in regard to shipments of
principally food. Would that be of considerable value to an
enemy?
    Col. Bauknight. The records show that this employee was a
receiving report clerk?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Col. Bauknight. In order for you to understand what a
receiving report clerk does in our office I will have to
explain by saying that we maintain from sixty to ninety days'
supply of food for twenty-one overseas commands, and forty-two
domestic installations. This level is replenished by reorders,
and based upon warehouse receipts, this receiving report clerk
sits down and types the report herself.
    I can't believe that this employee, one of several in a
pool, could possibly apply the ration factor and determine
strength, because you understand what she was doing, she was
merely throwing her finger on the pulse of the flow into any
storage.
    The Chairman. Her testimony was that she also knew what was
being shipped out to the various bases.
    Col. Bauknight. No.
    Mr. Schine. Colonel, she testified she had full access to
anything in the office. She could pull it out and see whatever
was there.
    Col. Bauknight. I can't speak for my predecessor, but
certainly that sort of situation does not obtain today.
    The Chairman. How long have you been there?
    Col. Bauknight. May 8th in the second command. I went there
May 11, 1952.
    The Chairman. I think she went on maternity leave.
    Lt. Col. Todd. About a year ago, I have been told.
    The Chairman. Yes. She said she was due to go back
September 28th of this year. Her testimony was that anyone in
the office had complete freedom to move around the department.
    Col. Bauknight. All classified material in the office is
under lock and key, and I am quite sure that process was
observed by my predecessor.
    The Chairman. Your thought is she did not have access to
shipments to Alaska or Korea?
    Col. Bauknight. It is verging on the impossible, not only
the improbability.
    The Chairman. She said she examined invoices.
    Col. Bauknight. To the ports overseas? She was in no way
associated with that activity.
    Lt. Col. Todd. We also ship out of the New York Port of
Embarkation, and at that time possibly we were shipping out of
Virginia, but I can't believe to Korea or Alaska, because that
would be to minimize transportation cost. So where she could
get into Korea or Alaska is vague to me.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: Do you have a higher
security scrutiny who handles the invoices of shipments out of
the country?
    Lt. Col. Todd. Actually, Senator, it is not practical,
because there is no possibility of anyone sitting down there
and through merely receiving reports establishing troop
strength. I myself, who am thoroughly familiar with this, I
don't think I could do it with receiving reports alone.
    Col. Bauknight. May I interject this? We are essentially a
procurement agency, and the overseas supplier division in the
New York Port is concerned with the regulation of shipments
overseas. We merely supply the overseas division, and they
board it on----
    The Chairman. Actually, you are in a position of shipping
so many tons of food for this base, and to come to this base.
You procure, and is another agency----
    Col. Bauknight. The overseas supplies division.
    Lt. Col. Todd. One thing we do, we receive these
requisitions by the particular command involved, and we mark
our product by that command and ship it to the port. Now, they
in turn lift that on to the ship to the place where it is
going.
    The Chairman. I am sorry, I missed part of what you said.
    Lt. Col. Todd. What I said was this, that we received the
extracts of the overall requisitions from the command that the
overseas division gives us. The part we receive deals only with
perishables and subsistence. Now, the notice to ship to the
port is marked with a code marking. Now, I don't imagine that
code marking is too difficult to get a hold of any place, but
when it reaches the port, of course, then they lift it onto the
ship which takes it to the destination.
    The Chairman. I don't imagine that code is any more secret
than the code during World War II.
    Lt. Col. Todd. Like ``Clay.'' Everybody knows who ``Clay'''
is, there is no question about that but the receiving reports
section, just to amplify a little bit, we have the various
levels, and depending on our stock position we requisition to
replenish those shipments. That is only the receipt. The
shipping of it is done in a different section altogether, and
was done at that time, I believe, with five clerks which were
handling these things, none of which handle the complete code.
So it would be difficult for me, in handling it, to decide what
the troop strength of any command was.
    The Chairman. So, if I were over in your department, let's
assume that I had access to everything in that department, I
still wouldn't know where the stuff was being shipped out to,
is that correct?
    Col. Bauknight. It would require considerable research and
liaison with other people.
    Lt. Col. Todd. Because you have to get all the
requisitions. You wouldn't know what was shipped to them or the
overall requirements for that particular period, which might be
a month or more. And even if you had those you wouldn't have it
tied down.
    Mr. Schine. Colonel, suppose the Senator and I and two
others are Communists working for the party, and we work at
different parts in the office. Could we be of value in turning
over information to the party that would aid the party?
    Col. Bauknight. At large. I would say that you might pick
up certain information of a statistical nature concerning
procurement.
    The Chairman. Do you know how many tons of food are shipped
to the various bases?
    Col. Bauknight. Only after some research, and it is true I
have liaison with the port, and when I get with him we can
develop the information together.
    Lt. Col. Todd. I don't know myself, sir, and I run that
division where this is run. I know the total pounds we ship,
but as far as the total command is concerned, I don't know.
    The Chairman. Let's say you are going to ship a vast amount
of food material to a port in California, there to be
transshipped on to points in the Philippines or the Pacific. Is
that material shipped directly from your command, or rather, do
invoices originate in your command showing the quantity at
destination?
    Col. Bauknight. May I explain this. New York is concerned
only with the procurement and distribution to twenty-one
overseas commands in the Atlantic district. We never ship to,
say, the Pacific or Alaska. And forty-two domestic
installations within Pennsylvania and Maine. That is all. Now,
some other----
    The Chairman. Let's say then that there were to be shipped
one hundred tons of food to some point in France, or somewhere
in Europe. Would the invoice showing the point of destination
pass through your office?
    Lt. Col. Todd. Yes, sir, but it wouldn't work that way,
Senator, because it would not be one procurement for a big
amount like that. In other words, we would go out on a
nationwide procurement. That stuff might come from all over the
country, and either be delivered directly to the ship or it
would go in my warehouse as replenishment requisition which we
then supply from stock. We have thirty-two commercial
warehouses under contract of which we utilize twenty-one, and
often we ship out of ten at one time for one shipment.
    The Chairman. Let's assume the army in Europe needs a
million bushels of corn. Let's take that figure. After you
procure that do you invoice it directly to the point in Europe
where they want it?
    Lt. Col. Todd. No.
    Col. Bauknight. There might be separate awards, and
separate instruments, separate army shipping documents
employed, and this one employee would never be able to
implement all of those instruments into the one purchase you
mention.
    Mr. Schine. Actually the bases abroad requisition their
supplies, don't they?
    Col. Bauknight. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. Do those requisitions come to your First Army?
    Lt. Col. Todd. An extract of it.
    Mr. Schine. The requisition would indicate the need?
    Lt. Col. Todd. The entire requisition in the case of
overall needs--steel----
    Mr. Schine. If somebody had access to the requisition they
might be able to determine strength from that?
    Lt. Col. Todd. Again, that calls----
    Col. Bauknight. I think I know what he is after. The non-
perishables would be extracted from the Schenectady depot,
something separate from the perishables, and the reconciliation
would only be effected here at the office.
    Mr. Schine. Let's say we have two Communists working in the
Schenectady depot and two in your office, and they had access
to the information in the requisitions as well as the invoices
being made out. Could they gather material which would indicate
troop strength abroad?
    Lt. Col. Todd. Let me say this. The invoices are not
important, because the only charge is for the commodities which
we purchase either for stock purchases, and which again the
level is different on all your commodities, or for general.
    Mr. Schine. Wouldn't your invoice indicate your response to
the requisition?
    Lt. Col. Todd. No, because most of it is taken out of
stock. I would say 80 percent of it. We try to move stock
items. So we try to stock all the items for which there is a
constant demand. The exceptional commodities maybe twice a
year.
    Mr. Schine. Getting back to the requisition then, if the
army abroad requisitioned so many bushels of some item, that
would indicate their strength, wouldn't it?
    Col. Bauknight. No, it wouldn't.
    Lt. Col. Todd. Colonel, maybe I can explain it this way.
The overseas bases again has certain levels that they maintain
as stock levels, based on the commodities. Frozen beef stands
up longer than frozen pork, and vegetables longer than fruit.
So, based on that, their stock items depend on other factors,
endurance of the product, plus the menus established. You don't
eat corn every day, or peas. And depending if they are on
maneuvers, they are on K or C or maybe a B ration. So all those
factors have to be evaluated before there is anything concrete.
    Col. Bauknight. Plus this. The overseas bases are engaged
in seasonal procurement themselves, and that makes the
requisitions to us go up and down.
    The Chairman. In other words, is this a fair analysis? Even
if I were in your department, and let's assume I am a Communist
agent, so that I could get information of some value, but I
would not be able to make an accurate estimate of troop
strength solely from the information received?
    Col. Bauknight. That is right.
    The Chairman. But as part of the pattern it would be of
considerable help.
    Lt. Col. Todd. I would like to throw this out. We have gone
into the stocking of the items of beef liver, and beef
tenderloin based on requirements in the past. All of a sudden
the biggest users come in with no requirements for beef liver.
That gives you an indication. I try to base my replenishing on
past experience, plus everything else I can get.
    The Chairman. One other question. Are the invoices and
requisitions classified?
    Lt. Col. Todd. No, sir, they are not.
    The Chairman. How about the ordinary paper work over there
as to procurement shipments?
    Lt. Col. Todd. No, sir, because we have to ship by common
carrier. We have to use commercial warehouses, so we couldn't
classify it.
    The Chairman. Do you gentlemen have anything to do with
passing upon the security of----
    Col. Bauknight. They are screened by the personnel office.
I take it that is what you have reference to.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Col. Bauknight. Part of the Inspection Service Command. We
merely accept what they give us. It is based on the reports of
personnel.
    The Chairman. You depend upon G-2?
    Col. Bauknight. That is right.
    The Chairman. So in so far as the woman, Mrs. Powell, is
concerned, and as far as Mr. Feldman is concerned, neither of
you have the function of determining whether or not they are
loyal or disloyal?
    Lt. Col. Todd. No, sir.
    The Chairman. So if it is brought to your attention I
assume you would contact----
    Col. Bauknight. My records do reflect, however, that some
of it initiated in our own office. Action has been taken to
separate her.
    The Chairman. Her testimony was she passed the loyalty
board hearing and was only on leave by her own request.
    Col. Bauknight. The director told me before I left she was
leaving, from the record.
    The Chairman. I thought the loyalty board cleared her?
    Lt. Col. Todd. Maybe she is being discharged for other
reasons.
    Col. Bauknight. I think it was performance more than
anything else.
    Mr. Schine. If you knew you had a Communist working in your
department, in view of the fact that this Communist couldn't
turn over anything of value to the party, would it concern you
at all that the Communist was still working there?
    Col. Bauknight. We would separate that person. We would
call in the FBI if the party was circumspect.
    Mr. Schine. You think a Communist could be of value to the
party in the procurement end?
    Col. Bauknight. I don't understand what contribution a
Communist could render by knowing procurement information
there. Does that answer your question?
    Mr. Schine. Yes.
    The Chairman. Again I want to thank you gentlemen very
much. We don't like to disrupt your office by calling you down
for the hearing.
    Col. Bauknight. We came without preparation and I am afraid
we muddied the water a little.
    The Chairman. We don't usually call you on such short
notice. We had some men from G-2 that we thought could give us
the information in regard to the classification of your work in
your department.
    [Witness excused.]
TESTIMONY OF DORIS WALTERS POWELL (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL,
                  JOSEPH C. MORRIS) (RESUMED)
    [The witness was represented by Joseph C. Morris, Esq., 209
West 125th Street, New York City.]
    The Chairman. We will have the record show the witness is
reminded she is still under oath.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mrs. Powell, during the years 1947--and you
may confer with your counsel any time you want to. During the
years 1947 and 1948, were you a member of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Powell. I decline to answer on the ground of the Fifth
Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you today a member of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Powell. No, I am not.
    Mr. Cohn. In 1949, were you a member of the Communist
party?
    Mrs. Powell. No, I was not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever work for the Daily Worker?
    Mrs. Powell. No, I never have.
    The Chairman. Did you know Louis Budenz?
    Mrs. Powell. What did you say?
    The Chairman. Did you know a man, editor of the Daily
Worker, whose name was Louis Budenz?
    Mrs. Powell. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever at the office of the Daily Worker?
    Mrs. Powell. No. I went down to a printing office in my
line of duty. I don't know whether the Daily Worker was there
or not. It was a printing office.
    Mr. Cohn. That will be all, I think.
    Counsel, that will be all. I don't know that we will need
this witness again. If we do we will let you know, and if we do
it will be for a very short time.
    Mr. Morris. May I be permitted to make a statement with
respect to one of the statements that appeared in the press
this morning in connection with the examination of this witness
yesterday?
    The Chairman. I may say many things appear in the papers
that I don't like. I assume that there are things in the paper
you don't like. It won't do either one of us any good to make a
record here about what we think about the reporting about
either the activities of the committee or anyone else. If I
were to spend my time here complaining about the type of
coverage we got of our committee hearings nothing would be
gained by it and nothing will be gained by an expression of
your views of the press either.
    You can make a statement if you want to.
    Mr. Morris. It wasn't really so much an expression of my
views, but just to correct, if I may so put it, some of the
factual, alleged factual observations made in the papers,
various papers of today's issue.
    One is that this witness has for three years had access on
the job to classified information. The fact is that she has
worked in her job as procurement clerk only from May 1952 to
September 1952, when she obtained maternity leave to give birth
to a boy who was born, I think, in October 1952. Ever since
September 1952, she has not worked on this job. She had first
six months' leave of absence, maternity leave. It expires
September 1953.
    Another point made in the papers was that she is a card-
carrying Communist. At this moment we will not go into her
activities----
    The Chairman. May I say this, Counsel?
    If the papers called her a card-carrying Communist, there
is no control that we have over that. We told the papers the
other day that we had a witness who admitted she received a
membership card, she said she didn't know what that meant, but
I don't think we want to fill up the record with what you and I
think is the record.
    Mr. Morris. I will take just two minutes. Whatever
activities she may have been engaged in on which various
constructions may have been put, during the time she worked for
the paper, and especially the last year she worked for the
People's Voice, certainly she has not engaged in any of those
activities, or met with or consorted with any of those people
since that time, and since then she has held other jobs and
been entirely out of that category of relations or contacts.
    Now. It also said that during that period she attended a
Communist school. That, too, was that at the direction of
certain others under whom she worked at that time? She has not
attended that school, or any school of that nature, since. She
was told to do that, to discuss, to listen, to lecture on Negro
problems. Those activities lasted and were limited only to that
period.
    The witness also is still at this moment on maternity
leave, but the witness is uncertain whether her usefulness on
her job has not been destroyed by those allegations in the
newspapers which undoubtedly will be brought to the attention
of her superiors where she works, and as a worker in her line
of work, which is typist and secretary and stenographer, I have
been privileged to see some very high commendations for her
work which she has had, and I am expressing her view that some
of the allegations made in the newspapers are not putting her
in a factual light as far as her activities, and certainly her
activities since she left this paper, because there is nothing
that can be said of her activities prior to, or since, or even
for the first three years she was on this paper, or since she
left this paper, on which there is the remotest possibility of
any unfavorable construction being put.
    And that is all.
    The Chairman. You will be excused. If we want you again we
will notify your attorney.
    [Witness excused.]
    [Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., a recess was taken until 2:00
p.m. of the same day.]
                           Afternoon Session
    [2:10 p.m.]
           TESTIMONY OF FRANCESCO PALMIERO (RESUMED)
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Palmiero, what exactly do you do as security
officer?
    Mr. Palmiero. I check passing GIs, and watch if they have
approval. If approval, it has to be accompanied by a pass. That
is just the job. I watch the GIs.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have keys to the various rooms in the
building?
    Mr. Palmiero. No, I have no keys at all. You see, they put
me in a spot down there. Actually, I don't belong down there,
but it is feasible to put me in that spot down there.
    Mr. Cohn. How long have you been in that spot?
    Mr. Palmiero. I have been in that spot three years. Before
that I was all over.
    Mr. Cohn. Before that, did you have keys?
    Mr. Palmiero. I didn't have the keys, but I was all around
the building.
    Mr. Cohn. Do they have any secret things going on in the
building?
    Mr. Palmiero. I wouldn't know. I was doing a good job.
Whatever I did, I was doing a good job, and I was surprised
they put me in that spot where I am now.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, it is your responsibility to see that they
don't take out files or things that they shouldn't take out?
    Mr. Palmiero. Right.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Palmiero, have you ever been a
Communist?
    Mr. Palmiero. No, I have never been a Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. You signed the petition, did you not?
    Mr. Palmiero. Well, I signed a petition that had been shown
to me. The army also showed me that. But I actually thought it
was the American Labor party because----
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever a member of the American Labor
party?
    Mr. Palmiero. No, I never was, but I had a friend who used
to tell me all the time.
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't you know that the American Labor party was
Communist-controlled?
    Mr. Palmiero. Never. Never had any idea.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you read the newspapers?
    Mr. Palmiero. I don't read much. I read once in a while on
Saturday, my day off. On the job there, when I have a few
moments, I glance at the newspapers.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you think of Stalin?
    Mr. Palmiero. I wouldn't know. I wouldn't think any person
I wouldn't know. I have no----
    Mr. Cohn. You don't have any opinion?
    Mr. Palmiero. I wouldn't say yes or no, because I wouldn't
know. I know that the man is premier there.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you think of communism?
    Mr. Palmiero. Well, communism to me is an idea for those
who like the idea. Personally speaking, I have no use for the
party or the idea, because I lived in Fascism for many years. I
thought I was here for probably----
    Mr. Cohn. How about communism?
    Mr. Palmiero. Communism, I would have no idea. I don't know
the merits or demerits of it.
    The Chairman. Do you think Fascism is pretty bad?
    Mr. Palmiero. Fascism, I get along pretty well. Nobody
bothered me, and I had a responsible job in the army, and I got
out pretty well there. That is just speaking as an individual
now.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you ever read the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Palmiero. No. Sometime about '46 or '47 I found a copy
of the Daily Worker pushed under my door, and then next week
they come around and said, ``How do you like it? We pushed
under your door that copy of the Daily Worker. See if you like
it.'' I told them I didn't bother with reading it. I bothered
with my own problems, I couldn't be bothered with the Daily
Worker.
    Mr. Cohn. Did they keep putting it under your door?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes, they kept on putting pamphlets, more
pamphlets.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever make any speeches down at Union
Square?
    Mr. Palmiero. No. First of all, I am not able to make a
speech. That is the honest truth.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever make a speech for the American Labor
party?
    Mr. Palmiero. No, I listened to----
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever go to any Communist meetings?
    Mr. Palmiero. No, I never did.
    Mr. Cohn. You never went to any Communist meeting?
    Mr. Palmiero. No, but they were meeting on the street in
the project where I live. He was saying about the workers
should be together and fight for price control.
    Mr. Cohn. Were they Communist meetings?
    Mr. Palmiero. What?
    Mr. Cohn. Were they Communist party meetings?
    Mr. Palmiero. According to the sign they had down there, I
assume they must have been Communists, for they had a big
sign--this big [indicating]--so I assume----
    Mr. Cohn. How many of those meetings did you go to?
    Mr. Palmiero. Well, I saw twice, just passing by. I didn't
go purposely. I passed the project and I saw they were talking
on the microphone. So I listened across the street.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever tell anybody that you believed in
communism?
    Mr. Palmiero. That is impossible. That is something out of
this world. I never told anybody, my friends, or other people,
whoever I met.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you tell them about communism?
    Mr. Palmiero. People talk to me because they want me to
grow toward their ideas, but I told them I can't be bothered.
First of all, I said I come from the army in better shape.
Secondly, I must work for the government here or elsewhere. No
matter what country, I work for the government. I have to look
for myself, my own individual living, and I don't want to be
bothered with them. But I must admit the American Labor party
was more forcible to try to make me in the party. They came
around so many times. Actually, I told them to get out, because
they find on the registration my name was down there.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you signed the Communist party petition
saying you intended to support the candidates for the Communist
party in the election?
    Mr. Palmiero. They told me when they come to me--you showed
me yesterday--they told me this is a minority party, they want
the men on the ballot, this man is a good workingman down
there, and they want me to vote for the party, simply to get
signatures that we need, so that doesn't make you a Communist.
I told them I don't want to sign anything like that. But this
was not specific about the Communists.
    Mr. Cohn. You can read this, can't you [referring to
photostatic copy of Communist party petition]?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, that is pretty specific.
    Mr. Palmiero. Well, it appears specific to me, but I
thought it was the American Labor party.
    Mr. Cohn. You thought what?
    Mr. Palmiero. I thought it was the American Labor party.
    Mr. Cohn. Does it say ``American Labor Party''?
    Mr. Palmiero. No, it doesn't say that.
    Mr. Cohn. It says, ``Communist Party,'' doesn't it?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. You said here that you promised to support the
candidates of the Communist party.
    Mr. Palmiero. I never read it. Honest. I never read that.
Not only that, I never read the other petitions I signed.
    Mr. Cohn. What is that?
    Mr. Palmiero. I didn't even read the other petitions I
signed.
    Mr. Cohn. You didn't read it?
    Mr. Palmiero. No, sir, I never read.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you married at the present time?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes, I am married.
    Mr. Cohn. When were you married?
    Mr. Palmiero. I was married 1948.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you living with your wife?
    Mr. Palmiero. No, I am not living with my wife.
    Mr. Cohn. How long have you been separated?
    Mr. Palmiero. I have been separated--legally separated,
about three years.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you ever read any books on communism?
    Mr. Palmiero. No, I never read any books. Whatever I know
about communism I know about communism through Italian sources.
In school they mention about what they call Bolshevism out
there. They never mention communism at all. Every time they are
talking about it, they say Bolshevism.
    Mr. Cohn. You never had time?
    Mr. Palmiero. No, I never had the time, because I have been
with the Italian writer, and he was what you call--not this
way, that way, just to give description--he called it
``bread.'' I can't translate it from the Italian. But it was
too annoying, too much of a thinking about, so I just discarded
it.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you come to this country?
    Mr. Palmiero. I came to this country in 1929, in June
sometime. In June 1929.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, when you were at these meetings, these
Communist meetings, out near the project that you told us
about, did you sign any petitions when you were at those
meetings?
    Mr. Palmiero. No, I never signed anything at the meetings.
When they came, they came in the house.
    Mr. Cohn. How many times did you sign Communist petitions?
    Mr. Palmiero. I don't know. I have no idea. I know I signed
a couple of times. I signed twice.
    Mr. Cohn. You signed two Communist petitions?
    Mr. Palmiero. I did not, no. I signed about----
    Mr. Cohn. How many Communist petitions? This is one, isn't
it?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever sign any others like this?
    Mr. Palmiero. I have no idea, because I never read.
    Mr. Cohn. You can read this--``Communist Party''?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. You know what that means--``Communist Party.'' It
believes in Communist teaching, and doesn't believe in our
government. That is serious, isn't it?
    Mr. Palmiero. If you are supposed to belong to the party,
you support that, but----
    Mr. Cohn. You belonged to--you registered in the American
Labor party?
    Mr. Palmiero. I registered because they told me there was
no way to vote for Wallace. They said there was no way out. If
you want to vote for Wallace, you have to register. So I
registered. I could register and vote for Wallace anyhow. I
mean, I just was simple, and went off to register.
    Mr. Cohn. So the reason you registered in the American
Labor party is because it was the only way to vote for Wallace?
    Mr. Palmiero. That is right. That is what they told me.
They told me it was a vote for Wallace.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, did you ever belong to the New York Tenants
Council?
    Mr. Palmiero. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever go to Washington?
    Mr. Palmiero. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You have never been to Washington, D.C. in your
life?
    Mr. Palmiero. No, I have been to Washington, D.C. with the
American Veterans Committee. They sent me down there because
somebody counting to be down there wasn't going that day, so I
went to Washington for the trip.
    Mr. Cohn. You went for the trip?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes. I was not a spokesman anyhow, and I had
never been there.
    Mr. Cohn. Did they pay your expenses?
    Mr. Palmiero. I don't remember. No, I don't remember. They
paid my ticket, I know that much, but I don't know about my
expenses for food.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever pay money for the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Palmiero. No, I never paid money for the Daily Worker.
    Mr. Cohn. You never gave anybody money for the Daily
Worker?
    Mr. Palmiero. I never gave anybody any money for the Daily
Worker.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever give any money to support the
Communist cause?
    Mr. Palmiero. No, I never supported any cause.
    Mr. Cohn. Did anybody ask you to join the Communist party?
    Mr. Palmiero. Several persons asked me--not to join it--the
American Labor party asked me.
    Mr. Cohn. Did anybody ask you to join the Communist party?
    Mr. Palmiero. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Who asked you to join the American Labor party?
    Mr. Palmiero. The project down there. But I don't see them
no more around here. No one I used to know is living down there
from the American Labor party. They used to come around there.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you registered now in any party?
    Mr. Palmiero. I don't remember what party I registered.
Last time I think I voted for the Democrats.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, what we have is that you were
registered in the American Labor party because you wanted to
vote for Wallace?
    Mr. Palmiero. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. You signed the Communist party nominating
petition so the Communist party could get on the ballot, and
they stuck the Daily Worker under your door?
    Mr. Palmiero. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. And as far as communism is concerned, you haven't
had time to go into the merits or demerits?
    Mr. Palmiero. That is right.
    The Chairman. In other words, you are neither for nor
against communism at this time? You are neither for nor against
communism?
    Mr. Palmiero. Well, before I am against any political
party, I have to know what they are selling me. I have to know
the idea. I don't know what it is. If you ask me, I don't know.
They told me liberalism.
    The Chairman. How about Fascism? Have you any quarrel
against Fascists?
    Mr. Palmiero. Well, the Fascists, I couldn't say that, I
don't know. I don't know.
    The Chairman. How about the Naziists? Are you for or
against them?
    Mr. Palmiero. They didn't do anything to me. I don't know
what they did. They claim they were a criminal bunch of
cutthroats, but I don't find this in Italy. I don't find
anything of the sort. They told me over here they were knocking
people over----
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever know any Communists?
    Mr. Palmiero. I never knew any Communists. They don't come
around and tell you.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have any Communist teachers when you
went to school?
    Mr. Palmiero. What school?
    Mr. Cohn. Any school, here or in Italy.
    Mr. Palmiero. Well, in Italy, while I go to high school
there was a professor of history there. He give you in a
superficial way more or less what Bolshevism was. This was 1924
when I was third year high school. But they gave him six months
pay and he laid off. I met him on the street one time and he
told me Fascism was bad, and I said, ``Well, I am too young to
worry about what is bad.'' I went out with the girls here and
there, and I was always military minded. I was military minded.
    The Chairman. Do you know who Robert Thompson was?
    Mr. Palmiero. No. I read that in the papers.
    The Chairman. Do you know if Thompson was one of the
topmost members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Palmiero. I don't know about that.
    The Chairman. Do you know it now?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes. Well, you are telling me now.
    The Chairman. Well, you read in the papers. What did you
read in the papers?
    Mr. Palmiero. I read he was caught somewhere in California.
    Mr. Cohn. What paper did you read that in?
    Mr. Palmiero. I read that in the news.
    The Chairman. And what was he caught for? Do you know?
    Mr. Palmiero. Let me see. The paper said he was a fugitive
from justice.
    The Chairman. Yes, what for? Was it for bank robbery?
    Mr. Palmiero. I really don't know. I don't know why he was
running away. I really don't know. I don't recollect anything
about his running away. I noticed he was a fugitive from
justice.
    The Chairman. In other words, you recall the name Robert
Thompson, but you don't know why he was running away?
    Mr. Palmiero. No. I saw he was running away, and running
away from justice. He was running from justice. That is what I
read.
    The Chairman. You don't know whether it was because he was
convicted as a Communist, do you?
    Mr. Palmiero. Well, there was a trial years ago. I didn't
hear nothing about the trial. It was too monotonous. I didn't
look at the papers. As a matter of fact, I don't read the paper
now. I buy the Times on Saturday, and during the days I read
all the papers that come along.
    The Chairman. You do a lot of reading?
    Mr. Palmiero. No, I am a very poor reader. I stopped
reading since I was the age about twenty, to be exact, in the
army.
    The Chairman. Can you tell us this? We are trying to get at
the truth. Sometimes it is difficult. Can you tell us why the
name Robert Thompson sticks in your mind?
    Mr. Palmiero. It don't stick to my mind at all. Officially
I saw it in the paper. I don't bought the paper to know what
went on. The paper came in my hand, and I read about the story,
somebody in California was caught with some other people down
there, and a girl who was down there--something like that. A
girl was involved. But the rest I can't tell you.
    The Chairman. Mr. Palmiero, you tell us you read a story
about Robert Thompson. You tell us you read very little, but
strangely enough you didn't know he was picked up for being a
Communist.
    Mr. Palmiero. I----
    The Chairman. Wait a minute. You know he was picked up. You
know where he was picked up. You remember the name, but you
miss the all-important thing. You seem to have forgotten he was
picked up because he was a convicted leader of the Communist
party. Now, I may say that maybe you are telling the truth. I
don't believe that. When you come here and say, ``I know all
about Robert Thompson,'' the minute I ask you, ``I know he was
arrested, I know he was arrested out in California,'' but you
say, ``I don't know what he was arrested for,'' especially
after you signed a petition saying you will support him. It
seems unusual to me that you have no idea what he was picked up
for.
    Mr. Palmiero. I have never been interested. I started to
say before I don't make myself enough explicit. I never passed
individually here and there. What are individuals to me? I have
my own problems. I am not going to get involved with persons
here and there. Am I supposed to know who was in jail?
    The Chairman. Did you ever pledge yourself to support
Robert Thompson in the election?
    Mr. Palmiero. Very seldom I heard the name.
    The Chairman. You heard my question. Did you ever pledge to
support Robert Thompson?
    Mr. Palmiero. No. No, I never did.
    The Chairman. Well, did you ever sign a pledge that you
would support him?
    Mr. Palmiero. No. No, I never signed any pledge.
    The Chairman. Well, let me show you the pledge.
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes.
    The Chairman. Entitled ``Communist Party,'' and under that
is the name, ``Robert Thompson,'' and a lot of known
Communists. Is that your signature?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes, but as I said before, I didn't read. To
be honest, I didn't read the petitions at all. I didn't read
it. If you asked me what it stand for, I signed school
petitions. I am not going to look at the petition. They were
looking for the school and I signed also.
    The Chairman. Do you mean to say when you signed that
petition with the large headline, ``Communist Party''----
    Mr. Palmiero. Probably I thought----
    The Chairman. Let me finish the question. Do you mean to
say you signed this petition with the words, ``Communist
Party'' in huge letters, that you didn't know you were signing
a Communist party petition?
    Mr. Palmiero. I don't think, because I don't remember the
name--they have names here I never heard in my life, except
this man here that I see in the paper.
    The Chairman. This is not a very large piece of paper, and
you signed it only six inches below the large heading,
``Communist Party.'' Do you mean to tell us you signed this and
didn't have any idea what you were signing?
    Mr. Palmiero. No. I thought it was the American Labor
party. They always come around and bothered me too much.
    The Chairman. Who came around?
    Mr. Palmiero. Two ladies. They was talking to me and
talking to me and said they want to get all the building. They
told me.
    The Chairman. You say two ladies?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes, ladies. I don't know who was----
    The Chairman. Are you sure the man handling that petition
wasn't Reuben--that it wasn't a lady, but Reuben?
    Mr. Palmiero. No man. It was a lady. Maybe--I don't know,
two or one, but it was a lady. That I am sure.
    The Chairman. You tell us under oath that you didn't see
the words ``Communist Party'' in large letters? You had no idea
it was a Communist party petition? You thought it was the
American Labor party?
    Mr. Palmiero. That is right.
    The Chairman. Did you know the American Labor party was a
Communist party at that time?
    Mr. Palmiero. No. I have not the slightest idea at that
time. I thought----
    The Chairman. When did you get your job as a security
guard?
    Mr. Palmiero. I got the job in 1949.
    The Chairman. 1949?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes. Let's see. February 1949.
    The Chairman. Did you work for the government before that?
    Mr. Palmiero. No. I was in the army before that.
    The Chairman. What kind of work did you do in the army?
    Mr. Palmiero. Well, I was infantry, foot soldier.
    The Chairman. A foot soldier?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes.
    The Chairman. Before you were in the army, did you work for
the government?
    Mr. Palmiero. If the WPA was the government. I have no idea
about that.
    The Chairman. You worked for the WPA?
    Mr. Palmiero. That is right.
    The Chairman. Didn't you belong to a Communist group in the
WPA?
    Mr. Palmiero. Never did.
    The Chairman. Were you ever asked to join?
    Mr. Palmiero. Let me see. Yes. On the job they was trying
to get me the worst way there. They was trying to get me in the
Work Alliance, but I say I don't need it, whatever I need, I
can talk for myself. They wanted me to go here and there, and
so I never participated in any of their meetings at all.
    The Chairman. Were you ever asked to join the Communist
party when you belonged to the WPA?
    Mr. Palmiero. No, never.
    The Chairman. You mean to say when you were in the WPA you
were never even asked to join the Communist party?
    Mr. Palmiero. No, never.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist meetings?
    Mr. Palmiero. No, never did.
    The Chairman. Now, as security guard, you have a uniform, I
suppose.
    Mr. Palmiero. That is right.
    The Chairman. And a badge?
    Mr. Palmiero. And a badge.
    The Chairman. Did you carry a gun?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes, I carry a gun.
    The Chairman. And you started that work in 1949?
    Mr. Palmiero. 1949, yes.
    The Chairman. Who were your references?
    Mr. Palmiero. Well, the references--but I don't know who
was my reference.
    The Chairman. Don't you have any idea who you gave as
references?
    Mr. Palmiero. Well, I will tell you one man. This one I
remember because he is still in the project, I know. Paul
Cavanna. He was one of my references.
    The Chairman. Do you know Paul Cavanna as a Communist?
    Mr. Palmiero. No, he has never been a Communist.
    The Chairman. Do you know he signed Communist pledges?
    Mr. Palmiero. I don't know about signing the Communist
pledges, but I know he is not a Communist.
    The Chairman. How do you know he is not a Communist?
    Mr. Palmiero. Because he talked to me. He talked to me
several times, and I know he is not a Communist.
    The Chairman. Did he ever tell you he was not a Communist?
    Mr. Palmiero. He never talked to me about it. All he talked
about was the Liberal party. We were talking about the Liberal
party, when O'Dwyer was a candidate.
    The Chairman. Did your wife accuse you of being a
Communist?
    Mr. Palmiero. My wife?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Palmiero. My wife told me I was a Communist? My wife
never made any statement of the sort.
    The Chairman. Did you ever tell your wife whether or not
you were joining the Communist party?
    Mr. Palmiero. Never. We never discussed politics in
general.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss the Communist party with
your former wife?
    Mr. Palmiero. Which wife are you talking about?
    The Chairman. Your present wife, the one who is separated
from you.
    Mr. Palmiero. I never talked politics with her, first of
all.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss the Communist party with
her? That is not politics, that is a conspiracy.
    Mr. Palmiero. Well, I never talked with her anything about
communism in general or any other politics.
    The Chairman. Well, you say ``in general.'' Did you ever
discuss anything about the Communist party with her?
    Mr. Palmiero. No. All I remember discussing with her was
about Wallace.
    The Chairman. I don't care about Wallace. The question is
did you discuss the Communist party, and your answer is ``no''?
    Mr. Palmiero. No, I didn't.
    The Chairman. Let me tell you, you can refuse to answer any
questions about your wife if you care to. You have a right to
know that. I want you to know that, because there is a
privilege between husband and wife. If you want to refuse to
answer you can do so, and I shall inform you that the evidence
we have is completely contrary to what you have told us. So I
advise you to listen carefully and either tell us the truth of
refuse to answer. Did you ever tell your wife that you believed
in communism, that you were for it?
    Mr. Palmiero. Never did.
    The Chairman. Did you ever tell her that you were not
joining the party because if you joined it the FBI or the
government might find out and you might lose your job, and that
was the reason you did not join it?
    Mr. Palmiero. Well, Senator, I said ``no'' to the question.
    The Chairman. All right. Now, in this job as a security
guard you stand inside a gate, do you?
    Mr. Palmiero. Well, inside and outside. I have to look
around what is going on outside.
    The Chairman. Your job is to make sure that nobody takes
anything out of that place which they are not entitled to take
out?
    Mr. Palmiero. That is right.
    The Chairman. What is inside of the gate?
    Mr. Palmiero. Inside the gate is trucks. There are trucks.
All the trucks are parked down there.
    The Chairman. What goes on inside the entire enclosure?
    Mr. Palmiero. Well, in the place where I am working now,
the troops sleep in barracks, and the rest of the quadrangle is
occupied by various trucks.
    The Chairman. Is there a photographic department there?
    Mr. Palmiero. There is, but it is the next building right
next to where I am.
    The Chairman. And one of your tasks is to make sure that no
one takes out of that place secret, confidential pictures?
    Mr. Palmiero. My task actually is cameras, lamps of any
sort, or any packages, any parcel. Any parcel they open up or
they have a pass for it. If I am suspicious, I tell them to
open up. If I am suspicious that it probably is something they
are not supposed to take. That is my own discretion.
    The Chairman. What kind of pictures are developed in there?
    Mr. Palmiero. Senator, I know that there is color, and
black and white, but I never----
    The Chairman. Pictures of what? Why do they have a guard to
make sure the pictures are not taken out?
    Mr. Palmiero. They don't tell us. They told us strictly
watch the film, but they don't tell us at all. I am not
informed. Even when I am working all around the post.
    The Chairman. You have no idea what kind of pictures are
developed?
    Mr. Palmiero. I have no idea. I knew color film, and black
and white, but personally I have no idea what they actually are
producing down there.
    The Chairman. How big a building is it?
    Mr. Palmiero. Well, a pretty large building. I think it is
about half a block where I am working.
    The Chairman. This half a block building, is that used for
the film pictures?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes, they have a large room where they make a
film down there, and then they have a laboratory some other
place, the next building on 37th Street they have a laboratory.
    The Chairman. Who is in charge of the photographic
building?
    Mr. Palmiero. The photographic building would be Colonel
Lindsay.
    The Chairman. Colonel Lindsay?
    Mr. Palmiero. That is right.
    The Chairman. And how many men work on the film process?
    Mr. Palmiero. I wouldn't know.
    The Chairman. Well, would it be more than twenty-five,
fifty, seventy-five?
    Mr. Palmiero. Oh, I would assume more than that. I would
say about a hundred or so more.
    The Chairman. And they are army films they produce?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes, army films.
    The Chairman. And whether those are labeled secret or not,
you don't know?
    Mr. Palmiero. They are supposed to be classified, and I
hold the fellow there if he has no pass for it. Unless he has a
pass I refer it to my chief guard. So everything was taken care
of.
    The Chairman. You don't know whether those films are of
secret weapons, or whether they are training films or----
    Mr. Palmiero. On my own assumption. It is merely my
assumption. I don't know what films they are.
    The Chairman. Have you ever had any of those films in your
possession?
    Mr. Palmiero, Sure, when I was a tour man, where I worked
about a year and a half, when I was all over, if anybody left
the vaults open and left the lights on, and without looking at
it there I saw films in there, and I shut it up, that is all.
    The Chairman. In other words, as a guard you would go in
and check and make sure the vaults were closed and the lights
off?
    Mr. Palmiero. That is right, and no lights on.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Let's see if I get the picture. As
well as guarding the gates, you were charged with going in,
looking through the plant, making sure that the films were
locked up, that the vaults were locked----
    Mr. Palmiero. Excuse me. When I was a tour man, if I am on
the post I stay on the post, but at the beginning they put me
as a tour man, and they saw I was capable then to do a job
conscientiously and they put me mostly steady on this. My
surprise was when they shifted me. I was asking what it was all
about. They never tell me nothing.
    The Chairman. You haven't answered my question yet.
    Mr. Palmiero. Will you repeat it?
    The Chairman. The question is, was it part of your job to
go into this building where the films were developed, check,
make sure the films were locked up in the safe, that the vaults
were locked, and occasionally you found the vaults open?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes.
    The Chairman. You could have stolen the films?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes, if I saw the lights on I turned them
off.
    The Chairman. I say, if you had wanted to, you could have
stolen those films, couldn't you?
    Mr. Palmiero. I don't dare do that because, after all, the
government trusts me, and I wanted them to trust me. I trusted
them. Otherwise, I give up the job.
    The Chairman. My question is, if I were in your position,
if I wanted to steal those films, if I were not loyal to the
government, I could have stolen them easily, couldn't I?
    Mr. Palmiero. I don't think so, because how would I get out
of the gate?
    The Chairman. Weren't you guarding the gate?
    Mr. Palmiero. No. As a tour man. At that time I was a tour
man. When I am in the post I am in the post. But I was
scheduled as a tour man.
    The Chairman. Let's start all over. You are now a guard?
    Mr. Palmiero. That is right.
    The Chairman. Is one of your jobs to go into the building,
the film building, and check to make sure the films are
properly locked up?
    Mr. Palmiero. Senator, I answer in my own way.
    The Chairman. Do you as a guard have duties other than to
stand inside the gate?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes, when I am scheduled as a tour man. As
the tour man in the building. We have guards, and there is a
tour man.
    The Chairman. He is a guard, too?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes. He is a tour man. At that time I
happened to be a tour man. I was a tour man, sir. At the
beginning I did this about a year and a half, something like
that.
    The Chairman. Since you have been a guard at the gate, do
you have the duty of going in and checking inside the building?
    Mr. Palmiero. No.
    The Chairman. Now, when you were a guard checking inside
the building, when you left the place did the guard at the gate
stop you--did the other guards stop you and ask you if you had
any films on you?
    Mr. Palmiero. No. He saw. Naturally, he can see. I mean, we
trusted one another. He see I don't carry anything with me.
    The Chairman. He trusted you?
    Mr. Palmiero. He trusted me because I have nothing with me.
    The Chairman. If you have a small roll of films you could
put it in your shirt pocket, couldn't you?
    Mr. Palmiero. They are not small. They are big. The ones I
saw. If they was some place else I don't know. But I know there
was a big disk like that [indicating] that I saw.
    The Chairman. Did you ever take any films off the property?
    Mr. Palmiero. Never did. Never did. I stop other people
taking films out, but I never did. I wouldn't do that.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know a man named Augustus Arrigo?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes, I do. This is one that gave me a
reference.
    Mr. Carr. He lives out on Vernon Boulevard?
    Mr. Palmiero. He used to live there.
    Mr. Carr. How do you spell that name?
    Mr. Palmiero. I have got to be back to work soon. I can be
in tomorrow if you want me to come back again.
    Mr. Carr. How do you spell his last name?
    Mr. Palmiero. A-r-r-i-g-o.
    Mr. Carr. Did you ever attend any meetings of the American
Slav Congress with him?
    Mr. Palmiero. Never did.
    Mr. Carr. You never did?
    Mr. Palmiero. Never at all.
    Mr. Carr. Did you ever attend any IWO meetings with this
man?
    Mr. Palmiero. No.
    Mr. Carr. The International Workers Order?
    Mr. Palmiero. Oh, this man once upon a time decide to but--
--
    Mr. Carr. This man Arrigo?
    Mr. Palmiero. He used to approach me, but I don't know if
he was an IWO. He said to me what chances IWO had. I said I
don't want any IWO. I have got the army. I don't have insurance
at all.
    Mr. Carr. This man, Augustus Arrigo, is one of your
references?
    Mr. Palmiero. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. Now, Paul Cavanna is another reference?
    Mr. Palmiero. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. They are both friends of yours?
    Mr. Palmiero. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. And you didn't know Augustus Arrigo had anything
to do with the American Slav Congress?
    Mr. Palmiero. No. That I am sure of.
    Mr. Carr. But he did approach you to join the IWO?
    Mr. Palmiero. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. And you didn't join?
    Mr. Palmiero. I didn't join.
    Mr. Carr. Did you ever go to any meetings of the IWO?
    Mr. Palmiero. I don't know where they were meeting. I
wasn't interested. I was interested in my marriage--I was in my
marriage problems.
    The Chairman. You consider yourself under subpoena in case
we need you again. We will let you know.
    Mr. Palmiero. Any time you want to appear I will appear.
    Mr. Carr. Do you have a phone at your house?
    Mr. Palmiero. No. Good day.
    [Witness excused.]
    The Chairman. Miss Cooke, will you raise your right hand
and be sworn?
    In the matter before the subcommittee, do you swear to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
    Miss Cooke. I do.
 TESTIMONY OF MARVEL COOKE (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL, VICTOR
                          RABINOWITZ )
    [The witness was represented by Victor Rabinowitz, Esq., 76
Beaver Street, New York City.]
    Mr. Cohn. Will you state your name for the record?
    Miss Cooke. Marvel Cooke.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside?
    Miss Cooke. 409 Edgecomb Avenue.
    Mr. Cohn. Is it Mrs. Cooke, or Miss Cooke?
    Miss Cooke. Miss Cooke.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Miss Cooke. I refuse to answer. I invoke my privilege of
the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. On the ground your answer might tend to
incriminate you?
    Miss Cooke. I do.
    The Chairman. Incidentally, what do you have under your
hand?
    Miss Cooke. The New York Post. I am through with it. You
may have it if you would like it.
    The Chairman. I don't care for it, thank you.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Miss Cooke, were you a member of the
Communist party in 1947?
    Miss Cooke. I refuse to answer. I invoke my privilege under
the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever work for the People's Voice?
    Miss Cooke. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period?
    Miss Cooke. Four years.
    Mr. Cohn. What were those years?
    Miss Cooke. 1943 to 1947.
    Mr. Cohn. What was the nature of your duties?
    Miss Cooke. Assistant managing director.
    Mr. Cohn. Who was the managing director?
    Miss Cooke. Adam Powell.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know a woman named Doris Walters at the
People's Voice?
    Miss Cooke. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Was she a member of the Communist party?
    Miss Cooke. I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. You refuse to answer as to whether or not she was
a member of the Communist party?
    Miss Cooke. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. I assume you refuse on the ground it might tend
to incriminate you?
    Miss Cooke. That's right.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you the Communist party representative at
the People's Voice?
    Miss Cooke. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to
incriminate me, under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did Doris Walters accept instructions from you as
to duties to perform for the Communist party at the People's
Voice?
    Miss Cooke. I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you instruct Doris Walters to go through the
files of the managing director of the People's Voice when the
managing director was Mr. Brooks?
    Miss Cooke. I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. I think you should state the grounds.
    Miss Cooke. Yes. I will invoke my privilege under the Fifth
Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a woman named Madeline Lawrence?
    Miss Cooke. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Is she a member of the Communist party?
    Miss Cooke. I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Where does Madeline Lawrence live today?
    Miss Cooke. I wouldn't know that.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you last see her?
    Miss Cooke. I haven't seen her since the People's Voice
days.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Doxey Wilkerson?
    Miss Cooke. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Is Doxey Wilkerson a member of the Communist
party?
    Miss Cooke. I refuse to answer on the ground that it may
tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. And Ben Davis?
    Miss Cooke. I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. And Claudia Jones?
    Miss Cooke. I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. May I ask one question? I think you refused
to answer whether Doris Walters, now Mrs. Powell, was a member
of the Communist party when you knew her.
    Miss Cooke. I didn't understand. I didn't hear you.
    The Chairman. I believe you have already refused to answer
whether or not Doris Walters, now Mrs. Powell, was a member of
the Communist party when you knew her on the People's Voice. Is
that correct?
    Miss Cooke. The People's Voice?
    The Chairman. You refused to answer on the grounds that
your answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Miss Cooke. That is right.
    The Chairman. You understand you can only refuse to answer
if you feel your answer might tend to incriminate you?
    Miss Cooke. I understand that.
    The Chairman. You understand, of course, that when you
refuse to state whether or not Doris Walters was a Communist on
the ground a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you, you
are in effect, so far as the committee is concerned, saying she
is a Communist, and I assume she is a friend of yours. So,
unless you know she is a Communist, you should answer that.
    Miss Cooke. I still refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation today?
    Miss Cooke. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to
incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you receive any money from the Communist party
at the present time?
    Miss Cooke. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to
incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever worked for the government?
    Miss Cooke. In 1926, I believe.
    Mr. Cohn. In what capacity?
    Miss Cooke. Clerk.
    Mr. Cohn. Where?
    Miss Cooke. In Washington.
    Mr. Cohn. What department?
    Miss Cooke. The War Department.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a time?
    Miss Cooke. About a year. I wouldn't remember exactly. It
was about a year.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party at that
time?
    Miss Cooke. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to
incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever worked for the government since
that time?
    Miss Cooke. No, I haven't.
    The Chairman. Have you worked for any government agency?
    Miss Cooke. I have not.
    The Chairman. Have you ever worked for the government
directly or indirectly?
    Miss Cooke. I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended any Communist meetings
with Doris Walters?
    Miss Cooke. I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. When did you last see Doris Walters?
    Miss Cooke. Not since 1947. Possibly before that. 1946,
possibly.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this. Would you have any way
of knowing whether she is or has been a member of the Communist
party since you last saw her?
    Miss Cooke. I refuse to answer, Senator, on the ground that
it may tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended any Communist meetings
with Doxey Wilkerson?
    Miss Cooke. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to
incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Have you ever engaged in espionage?
    Miss Cooke. Just a minute.
    The Chairman. Sure, you may confer with your attorney any
time you want to.
    Miss Cooke. No, I have not.
    The Chairman. Have you ever received from anyone written
material of any government agency which was classified under
``secret,'' ``top secret,'' ``confidential,'' or
``restricted''?
    Miss Cooke. No.
    The Chairman. In other words, you have never received any
classified material from any government agency?
    Miss Cooke. No.
    The Chairman. The answer is no?
    Miss Cooke. That is right.
    The Chairman. Do you know of anyone who has obtained
classified material from any government agency?
    Miss Cooke. No.
    The Chairman. You don't know?
    Miss Cooke. No.
    The Chairman. You never engaged in any sabotage?
    Miss Cooke. No.
    The Chairman. I don't think there is anything further. You
will consider yourself under subpoena. I don't think we will
need you again, but in case we do I will contact your attorney.
    Miss Cooke. Yes.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Miss Cooke. You are welcome.
    [Witness excused.]
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand?
    Do you solemnly swear that in the matter before the
subcommittee you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Cavanna. I do.
                   TESTIMONY OF PAUL CAVANNA
    Mr. Cohn. Will you state your name for the record?
    Mr. Cavanna. Paul Cavanna.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you live?
    Mr. Cavanna. 40-11 Twelfth Street, Long Island City.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Francesco Palmiero?
    Mr. Cavanna. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period have you known him?
    Mr. Cavanna. Oh, I guess about fifteen years.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you one of his references for employment
with the United States government?
    Mr. Cavanna. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. You gave him a very good recommendation as to
loyalty?
    Mr. Cavanna. Absolutely.
    Mr. Cohn. You have no doubt about that?
    Mr. Cavanna. Oh, I have no doubt about it.
    Mr. Cohn. None at all?
    Mr. Cavanna. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Would it surprise you to know he had signed a
Communist party nominating petition?
    Mr. Cavanna. Well, I guess in a way it would, but he is one
of those fellows that--he is pretty liberal, and he is probably
apt to do anything. He is very outspoken.
    The Chairman. Do you give it as an excuse that he was very
liberal?
    Do you consider the Communist party a liberal party?
    Mr. Cavanna. Hell, no.
    Mr. Cohn. Don't you think that it is past the days of
liberalism?
    Mr. Cavanna. Well, today I guess it is.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, would you say back in 1946?
    Mr. Cavanna. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. If you had known he had signed a Communist party
nominating petition, would that change your opinion as to
whether he should work in a government position?
    Mr. Cavanna. If I had known he had signed a petition?
    Mr. Cohn. That is right.
    Mr. Cavanna. Well, I guess it would to some degree.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever sign a Communist party nominating
petition yourself?
    Mr. Cavanna. No, not that I remember.
    Mr. Cohn. Wouldn't you remember that?
    Mr. Cavanna. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you did not?
    Mr. Cavanna. No.
    The Chairman. You say you did not?
    Mr. Cavanna. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a registered member of the
American Labor party?
    Mr. Cavanna. I think so, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you today?
    Mr. Cavanna. No.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you register as a member of the American
Labor party?
    Mr. Cavanna. Some years ago. I can't remember.
    Mr. Cohn. Will you give us the best approximation you can?
    Mr. Cavanna. I think it was when Henry Wallace was a
candidate, if I remember right.
    Mr. Cohn. That would be 1948?
    Mr. Cavanna. Yes, I think that was the year.
    Mr. Cohn. Did the fact that Mr. Palmiero being a Communist
ever come to your attention in any way?
    Mr. Cavanna. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever discuss communism with him?
    Mr. Cavanna. No, I wouldn't say. Probably, you know,
generally speaking at the time when the different parties were
in the field, but not----
    Mr. Cohn. You have no recollection of how he felt about it?
    Mr. Cavanna. No, I would not say.
    The Chairman. You say you registered as a member of the
American Labor party in 1948. Isn't it a fact that you also
registered in 1951?
    Mr. Cavanna. I doubt very much that I did.
    The Chairman. Do you consider the American Labor party as a
Communist-dominated party?
    Mr. Cavanna. Today?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Cavanna. Oh, sure.
    The Chairman. When do you think it could be first correctly
described as a completely Communist-dominated party? 1946? '47?
'50?
    Mr. Cavanna. I would say right after the Wallace
nomination. Probably 1949.
    The Chairman. We have information, whether it is correct or
not, because we don't have it under oath at this time, to the
effect that you signed a petition for the Communist party. I
will show you the type of petition. I might say I don't have
the petition that you are alleged to have signed, but this is
the type of petition, not necessarily the same candidates on
it, you understand, but that type of petition. And again I
repeat that we don't have the information under oath, so I
can't vouch for it at this time. We intend to get it under
oath. But I would like to ask you again, are you sure you
didn't sign any Communist petitions?
    Mr. Cavanna. Me?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Cavanna. I never seen anything like this. This is the
first time I have ever seen anything like this. This is a
photostated copy of the petition?
    The Chairman. Not the one you signed. I might say that is a
photostated copy of the one which Mr. Palmiero signed.
    Mr. Cavanna. No.
    The Chairman. Is it your testimony that you never signed a
Communist petition?
    Mr. Cavanna. Not to my knowledge, sir.
    The Chairman. Well, do you think there is any possibility
you signed one and didn't know you were signing it?
    Mr. Cavanna. I would say no to that.
    The Chairman. Mr. Palmiero said that you had had someone's
trunks put over into your room, or your apartment?
    Mr. Cavanna. Yes.
    The Chairman. Who was the owner of that?
    Mr. Cavanna. My old friend Morris Weisman. He is not in
there for a year and a half now. First he was in Bellevue. And
having an empty apartment, Frank said, ``How about putting the
trunks in there because it to so handy?''
    I said, ``Sure, go ahead,'' and they have been there ever
since.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever worked for the government?
    Mr. Cavanna. No.
    The Chairman. Where do you work?
    Mr. Cavanna. I am a real estate broker.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know a man named Augustus Arrigo?
    Mr. Cavanna. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Where does he live now?
    Mr. Cavanna. I don't know where he lives, but it is not
very far from where he used to live. I know the street, but I
don't know the number. It is near Broadway, in Astoria.
    Mr. Carr. What does he do?
    Mr. Cavanna. Oh, he is right over here in the municipal
department.
    Mr. Carr. What department is that?
    Mr. Cavanna. The radio department. He is clerk there.
    Mr. Carr. In New York City?
    Mr. Cavanna. Yes, right across the street. He is a clerk
there. He takes all the mail out and all that kind of stuff.
    Mr. Carr. You mean the Municipal Building in New York City?
    Mr. Cavanna. Yes, on the top floor.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever live at 40-11 Twelfth Street?
    Mr. Cavanna. That is where I live now.
    Mr. Cohn. How long have you been living there?
    Mr. Cavanna. Ever since the project opened up.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever live there in 1946?
    Mr. Cavanna. Sure, ever since it has been there. Ever since
1938. Since 1938.
    The Chairman. You would recognize your signature, if you
saw it?
    Mr. Cavanna. Sure.
    The Chairman. Again, Mr. Cavanna, you understand I never
saw you before today, so I know nothing about you. You don't
have a lawyer with you, and just for your own protection,
counsel informs me that there is a copy of a petition bearing
what purports to be your signature, signed in 1946, for the
Communist party. Now, it is no crime to sign a Communist party
petition, understand. It is very important to you, however,
that you not be involved in any summons of a perjury case. You
have told us you didn't sign one. I think you should search
your memory again and make sure that that is your testimony,
for your own protection.
    Mr. Cavanna. Well, of course, I agree with you, Senator. I
would like to see what you call the petition, because it
appears--to my recollection I can't for the moment think that I
ever signed anything. I would like to see----
    The Chairman. If I signed a Communist petition, if I signed
a petition for Paul Cavanna, or John Jones for any office, I
would normally remember that especially.
    Mr. Cavanna. Oh, sure.
    The Chairman. Especially Communist party petitions, and it
seems to me if you signed one as late as 1946 you definitely
would remember that, wouldn't you?
    Mr. Cavanna. For an office, I would think so, yes.
    The Chairman. In other words, signing a Communist petition
wouldn't be a routine thing that you would do without giving a
lot of thought to it, I assume?
    Mr. Cavanna. Well, I have signed petitions for teachers'
increases, and things like that, and I am trying to think now.
For the life of me, if you gave me a million dollars I couldn't
say one thing or the other, whether I did or didn't. 1946, you
say?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Cavanna. This is 1953--seven years ago. I will be
hanged if I remember.
    The Chairman. Well, whether you did or didn't is not overly
important, but the staff has the petition bearing what purports
to be your signature. Either someone forged it or you signed it
yourself, for the petition is there.
    I think you will be released. Thank you very much.
    [Witness excused.]
    [Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., a recess was taken until 10:30
a.m., Wednesday, September 2, 1953.]
           COMMUNIST INFILTRATION AMONG ARMY CIVILIAN WORKERS
    [Editor's note.--Just before Franceso Palmiero reported for
work as a security guard on the afternoon of September 2, 1953,
the army suspended him without pay. Without naming Palmiero,
Senator McCarthy told the press that the guard had been
``rabidly in favor of Stalin, and looked forward to the day
when Communists would take over the country.'' McCarthy also
revealed that a witness whom he described as a ``very close
associate'' of the guard had received verbal death threats and
had been placed under the protection of the New York City
Police Department. Mary Colombo Palmiero (1924-1989) was not
called to testify in public session, nor were either Augustin
Arrigo (1925-1970) or Muriel Silverberg (1920-1992). Louis
Budenz (1891-1972), a frequent witness on Communist issues,
testified in public on September 28, 1953.
    At 4 p.m. that afternoon, Col. Wallace W. Lindsay notified
G. David Schine that the army had suspended the guard, and that
it would provide the requested personnel files for Palmiero and
Doris Walters Powell. However, in a letter to Senator McCarthy,
Col. Wendell Johnson wrote: ``It should be made as clear as
possible to the committee that the names of individuals
responsible for the granting or withholding of loyalty or
security clearances will not be made available to the
committee. This is in accordance with Presidential directive of
13 March 1948.'' Col. Johnson explained that he had taken this
stand after consultation with Maj. Gen. Miles Reber, the army's
chief of legislative liaison in Washington. Senator McCarthy
denounced this decision and stated publicly that his
subcommittee was ``having more difficulty with the army than
any other department.'' He threatened to call Secretary of
Defense Charles E. Wilson and Army Secretary Robert T. Stevens
to testify, and suggested that the case might need to be
resolved by President Eisenhower.]
                              ----------
                      WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                      New York, NY.
    The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m. pursuant to recess, in
room 128, Federal Court House, Foley Square, New York, New
York, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M.
Cohn, chief counsel; David Schine, chief consultant; and Harold
Rainville, administrative assistant to Senator Dirksen.
    The Chairman. The hearing will come to order.
    In the matter now in hearing, do you solemnly swear the
testimony you will give to the subcommittee will be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mrs. Palmiero. I do.
               TESTIMONY OF MARY COLOMBO PALMIERO
    The Chairman. I understand you would much prefer not
appearing in public.
    Mrs. Palmiero. No, I don't want to appear in public, and I
don't want my name to be known.
    The Chairman. All right, we will give you that assurance.
    Mrs. Palmiero. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The reporter is instructed that no one will
get a copy of this testimony except this committee.
    Mr. Carr. Mrs. Palmiero, are you legally separated from
your husband at this time?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. When did you marry Frank Palmiero?
    Mrs. Palmiero. About--that was in 1948, on November the
21st.
    Mr. Carr. Now, prior to your marriage, did you make an
agreement with him concerning any matters connected with his
previous activity in communism?
    Mrs. Palmiero. What I told you; it was that I had an idea
that he liked Russia, you know, he liked Stalin. He used to
praise him any chance he had. So I didn't like that, and at
time I agree to marry him I told him I didn't like politicians,
so he promised me he wouldn't be interested in politics
anymore. So under that promise, I marry him.
    Mr. Carr. Now, you say that you had learned that he liked
Russia and talked in favor of Russia. Now, was this learned
while you and he were attending school?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. What school was that?
    Mrs. Palmiero. It was in Long Island City.
    Mr. Carr. Evening school?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Evening school, yes.
    Mr. Carr. Is it true that during this course at the school,
which was primarily in English, English language----
    Mrs. Palmiero. Yes.
    Mr. Carr [continuing]. That he would make speeches favoring
Russia and communism?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Yes. There were discussions about things
were happening, and he always was on the side of Russia, you
know.
    Mr. Carr. Did the fellow students at the school side with
him, or what was their attitude?
    Mrs. Palmiero. No, they were against him, they were against
him.
    Mr. Carr. Is it true that some of them told him that he
should go back to Russia?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. After you married him, did he do as he promised,
that is, discontinue his Communistic activities?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Well, before he married me, I think that
sometime he used to deliver literature in the project for the
Labor party.
    Mr. Carr. For the American Labor party, was that?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Yes, was for the American Labor party. I
don't like it, so he promised me he won't do it any more. And I
remember that I was to his house once and somebody came to
bring some literature to bring it to the project and he refused
to take it around because he had promised me that he wouldn't
do it anymore.
    Mr. Carr. But----
    Mrs. Palmiero. After I was married, I know that somebody
else came and he was reluctant to do it, but then he delivered
some literature in the project.
    Mr. Carr. Now, did he continue to make speeches for the
American Labor party at rallies and at Union Square?
    Mrs. Palmiero. No, no, he didn't make any public speeches,
no. He didn't go anyplace. When he was with me married, he
already had a job.
    Mr. Carr. He had a job?
    Mrs. Palmiero. He wasn't making any speeches. No place.
    Mr. Carr. At that time?
    Mrs. Palmiero. That's right.
    Mr. Carr. In his home, did he have any literature which you
would consider Communist? Did he have any books written by
Stalin, Lenin, or, I think you said, Molotov, concerning
Molotov?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Well, there were books, but I don't know, I
don't think they were written by Stalin. They were talking
about Stalin.
    Mr. Carr. They were talking about Stalin?
    Mrs. Palmiero. But I don't think they were written by him.
They just were talking about their lives.
    Mr. Carr. They were books about Stalin?
    Mrs. Palmiero. About him, that's right.
    Mr. Carr. Now, is it true that Palmiero was a great admirer
of Stalin?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Now, there is no question but what he know who
Stalin was?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Oh, he knows it very well.
    Mr. Carr. Very well. He know that Stalin was the premier of
Soviet Union?
    Mrs. Palmiero. That's right.
    Mr. Carr. Is it true that in discussing Stalin he would at
times become emotionally upset?
    Mrs. Palmiero. He did once have tears in his eyes because
he used to idolize him. It was something great for him.
    Mr. Carr. Did you ever know him to read the Daily Worker?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Did he receive the Daily Worker at his apartment
or did he bring it in himself?
    Mrs. Palmiero. No, he was bringing it in himself.
    Mr. Carr. He was bringing it in himself?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Would he actually read the thing? Would he read
the paper?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Oh, yes.
    Mr. Carr. Now, although you say that he was a Communist,
did he ever tell you that he was a member of the Communist
party of the United States?
    Mrs. Palmiero. No. I say that he was an admirer of Russia.
He said once that he was a Socialist, he liked Russia, and he
liked the Communist government. I say I didn't know much about
politics, but about being a member, he told me once that he was
asked to be a member and he refused, for the purpose that if he
did accept, he would not be eligible for a government job, and
he cared to have a government job, so he refused.
    Mr. Carr. Then you think the only reason he did not
actually join the Communist party when he was asked to join was
because he feared that it might interfere with his keeping a
government job?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Yes. At the time he didn't have the
government job, but he intended to apply for it.
    Mr. Carr. Now, do you believe that he was connected with
any Communist front organizations or organizations connected
with the Communist party during the period that you were
married? He took a trip to Washington one time, did he not?
    Mrs. Palmiero. When he took a trip to Washington, I was not
married yet, and I didn't know why he went to Washington. I
know he went there, but I don't know why he went there.
    Mr. Carr. You later learned, though, that at the same time
that he was in Washington, there was a meeting or a pilgrimage
of the New York Tenants Welfare Council group; is that right?
    Mrs. Palmiero. When was that?
    Mr. Carr. In 1947, I think that was.
    Mrs. Palmiero. Well, I don't know, in 1947--I knew him at
the end of the year. I don't know that.
    Mr. Carr. Well, you received a postcard from him in
Washington?
    Mrs. Palmiero. That was 1948.
    Mr. Carr. Oh, that was 1948?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Do you have any information that he went to
Washington with this group?
    Mrs. Palmiero. I didn't know he went there with a group at
that time. I didn't know nothing at all. I thought he was there
for private purpose. I don't know anything at all.
    Mr. Carr. Did you later learn anything about that?
    Mrs. Palmiero. I don't remember, but the young man that was
here remind me they went there for political purpose, but I
don't remember if I ever learned anything about that. I don't
remember.
    Mr. Carr. All right. Now, is it true that he has made
statements that some day we would be a Communist government in
this country?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. And is it true that he has also said that life is
better in Russia than in the United States?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Well, I think so. It is a long time now, and
I cannot just remember, but I think so.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know a man named Paul Cavanna?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Is he a friend of Palmiero's?
    Mrs. Palmiero. That's right.
    Mr. Carr. How closely are they associated, or were they, to
your knowledge?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Well, once he came to my house, once or
twice. They used to meet outside. I don't know--I know he
didn't believe in God, because I heard him saying that he never
prays, he doesn't believe in praying. But I don't know nothing
about him.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know a man named Augustin Arrigo?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Yes. He was over there, and he is going to
tell my husband now that he saw me here.
    Mr. Carr. Is he a friend of your husband's?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know whether or not he is a Communist?
    Mrs. Palmiero. No, I don't know.
    Mr. Carr. You have no knowledge of it?
    Mrs. Palmiero. No.
    Mr. Carr. But he is associated with your husband?
    Mrs. Palmiero. He is a friend with him, but I don't know
what----
    Mr. Carr. How close is he?
    Mrs. Palmiero [continuing]. What his political ideas are.
    Mr. Carr. All right. Mrs. Palmiero, you mentioned that Mr.
Arrigo would undoubtedly tell your husband that you were here.
Do you have fear of physical harm from your husband?
    Mrs. Palmiero. That's right--not only for me, but for my
family, too.
    Mr. Carr. Has he ever threatened you?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. That was prior to this occasion?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Prior to this time?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. He has threatened you with physical harm?
    Mrs. Palmiero. That's right.
    Mr. Carr. Do you have fear that if he should learn of your
presence here, that he might cause you physical harm?
    Mrs. Palmiero. If he should lose his job, I have reason to
believe that.
    Mr. Carr. You have reason to believe that he might cause
you physical harm?
    The Chairman. Did he threaten to kill you, or----
    Mrs. Palmiero. Yes.
    The Chairman. Or to beat you up?
    Mrs. Palmiero. To kill me.
    The Chairman. He threatened to kill you?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Yes.
    The Chairman. In other words, he had threatened to kill you
before, has he?
    Mrs. Palmiero. Yes, you see, the time when I took him in
court for the separation, and I cause him to spend money;
naturally, he didn't like it, and he had trouble. He said if I
should ever get sick, he would kill me, and the brother that I
have. So just if he would got sick, imagine, but if he knew
that I am giving information against him, that would make
things bad for me.
    The Chairman. Well, now, if anything occurs, if he
threatens you again, anything of the kind----
    Mrs. Palmiero. See, he cannot come near me now, because I
took him in court and the judge warned him he should not come
to bother me anymore. Two times I took him in court. He was not
arrested, but he was warned not to annoy me anymore, next time
he might be put in jail. But if he should come again, he would
not come to warn me, he would come with a gun. That's what I
expect, if he should come.
    The Chairman. I see. Well, I think that there isn't a great
deal the committee can do in that respect, but all we can
advise you to do, if there are any more threats or anything,
why, let this committee know and he will be in contempt of the
committee for threatening to physically hurt a witness who
appeared to give testimony before it.
    We will not give the newspapers your name. If any of his
friends ask you about it, you tell them you were subpoenaed
here and you had to come.
    Mrs. Palmiero. See, this one asked me, he asked me if I
have been here before, and he recognized me.
    Mr. Carr. Well, the senator means, concerning your
appearance here, if you are asked about it, say that you were
called here, and you don't have to tell them that you said
anything at all.
    Mrs. Palmiero. Yes, I know that.
    The Chairman. Roy says he can get policemen to guard your
house there, if you would like to have that done.
    Mrs. Palmiero. If I would what?
    Mr. Carr. If you would like to have a policeman guard your
home.
    Mrs. Palmiero. To watch around there? If you want to. I
hope there should be no need for that.
    The Chairman. You don't think that is necessary at all?
    Mrs. Palmiero. I don't know. I cannot tell you. If he keeps
on working there, if he keeps the job, there won't be any
trouble for me.
    Mr. Carr. We could have the policeman on the regular cruise
pay special attention to her residence.
    The Chairman. Yes. All right, that's all.
    [witness excused.]
            TESTIMONY OF COLONEL WALLACE W. LINDSAY
    The Chairman. In the matter now in hearing, do you solemnly
swear that the testimony you will give to the committee will be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
    Col. Lindsay. Yes, I do.
    The Chairman. The thing we are principally interested in so
far as you are concerned is to get some idea of the type of
material that this guard, who was in yesterday, Palmiero, what
type of material he is guarding.
    He testified that he was a guard at the Signal Corps
Photographic Center. Can you give us any idea of what type of
material he is guarding?
    Col. Lindsay. Yes. He is guarding motor vehicles in the
back yard.
    The Chairman. How about the films?
    Col. Lindsay. He has no access to classified material. I
assume that in the----
    The Chairman. How about the films that he had access to? He
testified under oath that he used to be on tour duty; his task
was to go through the film plant, check on the films and make
sure the vaults were closed. What type of films were those?
    Col. Lindsay. To the best of my knowledge, he has never
been on that type of duty.
    The Chairman. What type of films are they? Are they
classified?
    Col. Lindsay. We have classified films in the place, yes.
    The Chairman. Are they training films?
    Col. Lindsay. Yes.
    The Chairman. Would you describe the type of films,
Colonel? See, we don't have any knowledge of them at all. I
don't want you to--we are not asking you for any classified
information. I just want to get a general picture of the type
of films.
    Col. Lindsay. Well, they would be training films on the
classified material, equipment, something on that line.
    The Chairman. Would the material be classified, as secret,
top secret, confidential?
    Col. Lindsay. Yes.
    The Chairman. It would?
    Col. Lindsay. Yes.
    The Chairman. In other words, it might be any one of the
three classifications?
    Col. Lindsay. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Depending on the type of equipment, and so forth?
    The Chairman. Then if an agent of an enemy, or potential
enemy, had access to those films, it would be rather a
dangerous situation, wouldn't it?
    Col. Lindsay. Yes, I would think so.
    The Chairman. Well, this man, Palmiero, as I understand,
testified under oath that he did have access to the films. He
said that he acted as a tour guard, that as a tour guard his
job was to go through the plant, check on the security of the
films, that on occasion he found the vault open and saw the
films in there. One of his other jobs is to guard the gate; as
of yesterday, that is his testimony. His job was to guard the
gate, make sure that no one would walk away with any films, any
classified material.
    Is it your thought that he was not telling the truth in
that he was merely guarding trucks?
    Col. Lindsay. His job is classified as non-sensitive. I
assume you know what we mean by non-sensitive. In other words,
he is not classified, or is not cleared for access to
classified material, and pending such clearance he is placed on
jobs like guarding the gates. Part of his job is to see that
nobody carries films out of the plant, yes, but that does not
give him the authority to examine the film, or anything of the
sort.
    The Chairman. But isn't one of his jobs to see that no one
takes away any secret material?
    Col. Lindsay. One of his jobs may be to see that no one
takes away material, period.
    The Chairman. Well, secret material; is that one of his
jobs?
    Col. Lindsay. Not as such, no, sir.
    The Chairman. Well, is that his job at the gate? If
somebody tries to take away secret films, is it his job to stop
them?
    Col. Lindsay. His job is to stop anyone taking a package or
any material from the plant unless they have a pass authorizing
them to remove it from the plant.
    The Chairman. That would include all types of material
including the secret and top secret films?
    Col. Lindsay. Yes, except that the gate he is guarding is
not used for that purpose. It is a gate going to the parking
lot in the back yard.
    The Chairman. Yes. You say it is not used for that purpose.
Now, if I were a Communist agent and I wanted to steal some of
your secret material, I wouldn't notify you what gate I was
going to use, would I?
    Col. Lindsay. No, but you would probably not have too much
trouble getting it out, if it was a small piece of film. You
could conceal it on your person. We don't search everyone going
through the gate every time. It is hardly practical.
    The Chairman. If I were trying to get away secret material,
I would naturally go to the gate guarded by a Communist; if I
were a Communist agent I would go to the gate guarded by a
Communist, wouldn't I?
    Col. Lindsay. I would think so, yes.
    The Chairman. You said he hasn't been cleared for secret
work. He testified under oath that he did have access to the
films, that he was a tour guard for a while. Is it your
position that he was lying when he told us that?
    Col. Lindsay. I am not in a position to say that the man
was lying. I can tell you that the man came to us by transfer
from another federal job of the same type on 3 January 1950.
    The Chairman. What was the other federal job he came from?
    Col. Lindsay. He worked at Fort Hamilton, for the post
engineer--that is according to these records. I have no
personal knowledge of this.
    The Chairman. Do you know the kind of work he was doing
there?
    Col. Lindsay. No, I do not, without consulting the records.
My understanding was, or I was told, they were having a
reduction in force, or some sort of thing, that sort of thing,
over at Fort Hamilton----
    The Chairman. Just a second. Pardon me.
    Col. Lindsay. He came to us on 3 January 1950, by transfer.
He was employed by us as a guard. The normal procedure is to
ask for a background investigation of the person who may be
placed in a position where he might have access to classified
material. I would not go so far as to say that for the first
day or two he might not have been placed on tour. I don't know;
I have no personal knowledge of it, of course, as I have a
large number of employees and I don't personally check each
one. But the----
    The Chairman. Whose job is it to check this man Palmiero?
Who would have passed upon his case?
    Col. Lindsay. Passed upon it in what way, though?
    The Chairman. From the standpoint of security.
    Col. Lindsay. It is the responsibility of the commanding
officer.
    The Chairman. And you are the commanding officer?
    Col. Lindsay. I am.
    The Chairman. How long have you been the commanding
officer?
    Col. Lindsay. Since 1949, sir.
    The Chairman. I have been in the military a while myself
and I know how service duties are handled by the commanding
officer; I know you have individuals to whom you delegate
duties.
    Col. Lindsay. That's right.
    The Chairman. Who do you delegate to check on the security
and loyalty of the guards?
    Col. Lindsay. I have a security officer.
    The Chairman. What is his name?
    Col. Lindsay. The one who is there now is new. The one who
was there during the time in question has just been transferred
to overseas about a month ago.
    The Chairman. What is the name of the fellow who is there
now?
    Col. Lindsay. Major Burnham.
    The Chairman. Burnham?
    Col. Lindsay. Yes.
    The Chairman. And the man who was there when Palmiero came
in, what is his name?
    Col. Lindsay. Major Yates.
    Senator McCarthy. Where is he now?
    Col. Lindsay. I am not sure. I think he was transferred to
the Far East, sir.
    The Chairman. Since you have heard of this case of
Palmiero, did you take the trouble to check his file?
    Col. Lindsay. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Are you satisfied that he should be doing the
job of guarding the gate now?
    Col. Lindsay. Yes. I don't think that the job is at all
sensitive.
    The Chairman. Well, would you say it is not sensitive to
guard a gate through which secret stuff might be stolen? You
produce top secret material; the definition of top secret--I
can't quote it verbatim--as I recall, it is material which
could in fact cause us to lose a war. Secret material--Well, I
am sure you know the classifications as well as I do.
    You say that it isn't sensitive to have a guard at the gate
when one of his jobs is to see that the material is not stolen?
    Col. Lindsay. This gate is the gate to a back yard where we
store vehicles. It is a motor pool. His job is actually closer
to being a fire watcher and generally physical security guard
rather than----
    The Chairman. But it is one of the gates going out of the
plant, isn't it?
    Col. Lindsay. Yes, sir, but the employees don't use it. It
is used--it is a vehicle gate, a big gate. It is open to
vehicles moving in and out.
    The Chairman. The witness testified, yesterday, that they
used it. You say they don't use it. If I were an espionage
agent and I knew there was a Communist at that gate and I
wanted to take out some secret material, wouldn't it be the
logical thing for me to go out that gate?
    Col. Lindsay. I would think so, yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Doesn't that make it a sensitive job?
    Col. Lindsay. I don't think it does, because there are so
much easier ways to get small objects out of the building. When
you are speaking of film here, it could be cut up into single
frames, which can be concealed under the stamp on a letter. If
I were a Communist agent I certainly wouldn't try to take it
out past the guard at the gate, no matter whether it could be
detected, and as I said before, we don't search our employees
going in and out of the building. We examine packages, but this
is as much to prevent pilferage as it is to prevent stealing
classified material.
    Everybody handling classified material is charged with its
safe keeping and its checking every night before closing, and
to see that it is properly locked up and safeguarded.
    We have security spheres in every division, in every place
where any classified material is handled. We don't depend on
the gate guards to prevent the pilferage of classified
materials, sir.
    The Chairman. Well, do you depend upon the tour guard?
    Col. Lindsay. Not to prevent pilferage. His only duty is to
see that safes are locked, that the vault doors are closed, and
that sort of thing.
    The Chairman. Isn't the purpose of locking the safes to
keep the stuff from disappearing?
    Col. Lindsay. Obviously, yes, sir.
    The Chairman. So that you do depend upon the tour guard?
    Col. Lindsay. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. The tour guard would have access to that
material, wouldn't he?
    Col. Lindsay. He would, if he found a safe open where it
was stored.
    The Chairman. Would you consider that a sensitive post?
    Col. Lindsay. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Would you consider this man Palmiero
qualified to hold such a job?
    Col. Lindsay. I would think not, no, sir.
    The Chairman. Can you tell us why he does hold that job,
then?
    Col. Lindsay. I don't know that he does.
    The Chairman. Can you get on the phone and find out for us?
We assumed that you would know that when you came in here. It
is very important to us. We are checking on a man who testified
before the committee yesterday that be signed a pledge--will
you hand that pledge to the Colonel?--a pledge in which he
pledges his support of a Communist candidate for governor; he
selects the Communist party.
    I believe this is not the governorship pledge, is it?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes, it is.
    The Chairman. He pledges support of a Communist candidate
for governor; selects the Communist party as his party; says
under cross-examination he can't tell us whether he thinks
communism is good or bad; he doesn't know.
    As to Joe Stalin, he said he couldn't tell us whether he
thought he was a great man or not.
    Do you still think he is qualified to hold a job in your
department, any job?
    Col. Lindsay. No, sir, I do not.
    The Chairman. Have you seen a copy of this petition in the
file, Colonel?
    Col. Lindsay. No, sir. I should like to point out that what
my personal feelings in the matter are is a little bit beside
the point, because these people are all civil service people
and they are protected by civil service procedures of which I
am sure you are well aware as we all are.
    I can only repeat again, I can't divulge classified
information, which I actually don't have at the moment anyway,
until the man is found unsuitable by the procedures which have
been set up in the executive branch. I cannot discharge him; I
can't discharge anybody. All I can do is make recommendations.
The man is protected by civil service procedures, up to a
certain point.
    The Chairman. Colonel, do you mean that if you find a
Communist working out there, that you must keep him on until
the machinery of government has ordered him discharged? Can't
you suspend him?
    Col. Lindsay. Not until I know he is a Communist. The fact
that----
    The Chairman. If you think he is one, can you suspend him?
    Col. Lindsay. I can suspend him, yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Well, how about a man who signs a pledge,
pledging himself to support a Communist candidate, who selects
the Communist party as his party, who refuses to tell whether
he thinks communism is good or bad? Do you think that that
gives you sufficient information so we should suspend him?
    Col. Lindsay. Yes, sir, I do.
    The Chairman. Well, do you plan on suspending this man?
    Col. Lindsay. I do, as soon as I have this information
officially, yes.
    The Chairman. Well, we can give it to you now as officially
as we can give it to you. I can give you a copy of the
affidavit--I will read it to you so you have an idea of exactly
what he signed.
    On top you will find, in large letters ``Communist
Party''--and this is cut down in size, you understand, so the
actual petition would have been of larger size; is that
correct?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Now, I will read this:
    I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a duly
qualified voter of the political unit for which the nomination
for public office is hereby made; that my place of residence is
duly stated opposite my signature hereto, that I intend to
support at the ensuing election--
    I call your attention to that--
    intend to support at the ensuing election and I do hereby
nominate the following named persons as candidates for
nomination for public office to be voted for at the election to
be held on the 5th day of November, 1946, and I select the name
``Communist Party'' as the name of the body making the
nominations.
    Then the people he had pledged himself to support: Robert
Thompson, governor of New York State. It is the same Robert
Thompson that has been convicted as one of the eleven second-
string Communists.
    Mr. Cohn. First-string.
    The Chairman. First-string, I beg your pardon. He was
picked up in the Sierras last week, a fugitive; Israel Amter,
lieutenant governor of--also a well-known Communist; Ben
Davis--he was convicted also, wasn't he?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes, one of the first-stringers, sir. Amter was a
second-stringer.
    The Chairman. Benjamin Davis, for United States senator. He
was one of the first-string Communists convicted, well known
then to everyone as a Communist.
    Col. Lindsay. What year was this, sir?
    The Chairman. This was 1946--and others down the line. And
we showed this to Palmiero, and asked him about it, and he
admitted it was his signature, admitted signing it. At that
time he was subscribing to the Daily Worker, getting it
regularly.
    His wife is here this morning. What will her testimony be?
    Mr. Cohn. He was a Communist.
    The Chairman. Her testimony will be that he was a
Communist. We don't ordinarily invite anyone from the outside
to attend an executive session of the committee. You may stay
here and listen to her testimony, if you care to.
    Col. Lindsay. I would like to.
    The Chairman. His testimony, just to give it to you
briefly----
    Col. Lindsay. Does he admit being a Communist, sir?
    The Chairman. No, he doesn't admit being a Communist. He
says he doesn't know whether communism is good or bad, he can't
decide.
    Her testimony will be that he never formally joined the
party, that he was a Communist, advocated communism, and told
her the reason he didn't join, and become an enrolled member of
the party, was because he was afraid it would affect his
government job. His wife quit him because he was a Communist.
    I might say that his references also were Communists. The
references were----
    Mr. Cohn. Paul Cavanna, and I don't remember the other
fellow's name.
    The Chairman. Cavanna also signed a pledge to support the
Communist party, according to the information from the election
commissioner. Cavanna said he couldn't remember whether he had
signed one or not.
    The other man belonged to two of the most active Communist
fronts both named by the attorney general. Those were his
references.
    Mr. Cohn. One man signed a Communist party petition. The
other man was an officer of the American-Slav Congress, which
is listed by the attorney general as a subversive organization.
    The Chairman. May I say, Colonel, while we are not trying
to tell you what to do, we had hearings down in Washington last
week, and the minute it was developed that people either
refused to answer that they were Communists, or where the
evidence became clear that they were in Communist activities,
they were immediately suspended from the Government Printing
Office.
    I think that it creates a healthy picture, insofar as the
army is concerned, if they move rapidly when they find a
Communist, especially if he is a security guard. I hope that
after you hear this testimony of the wife, now that you have
this testimony of the husband which we have given you, I hope
that we can tell the press that you are suspending this man.
That, however, is up to you. I am not in a position to tell you
what to do.
    Colonel, if you don't mind, you can sit here and wait for
the other two army men first.
    [Witness excused.]
  TESTIMONY OF COLONEL WENDELL G. JOHNSON AND MAJOR HAROLD N.
                              KRAU
    The Chairman. Gentlemen, will you please stand and raise
your right hands?
    In the matter now on hearing before the committee, do you
solemnly swear the testimony you shall give shall be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Col. Johnson. I do.
    Maj. Krau. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Colonel, have you identified yourself for
the record?
    Col. Johnson. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. You are G-2 First Army out at Governor's Island?
    Col. Johnson. I am the assistant chief of staff, G-2,
headquarters First Army.
    Mr. Cohn. Who is the chief of staff?
    Col. Johnson. The chief of staff is Major General Murphy.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, let me ask you this, Colonel: Are you
familiar with the case of Doris Walters Powell and Albert
Feldman?
    Col. Johnson. I am not familiar with the cases, no, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you learned anything about them since we
asked you to come down here?
    Col. Johnson. I do not have the files of those cases, so
that I do not have the information that it contained in the
cases.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, can you tell us who is responsible for
having cleared these people for government employment?
    Col. Johnson. No, sir, I cannot, because the information as
to the clearance is contained in the case. The clearance for
government employment, I might say comes from the Civil Service
initially. They, you might say, approve a person for employment
and then that information is furnished to the commanding
officer concerned, who, based on the recommendations received
from the Civil Service, employs the individual, based on Civil
Service regulations, of course.
    Mr. Cohn. If the Civil Service recommendation is made, is
that made prior to the FBI investigation or after it? Isn't
that just a preliminary?
    Col. Johnson. That is a preliminary investigation, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. After that happens, then you have the field
investigation by the FBI; is that right?
    Col. Johnson. There may or may not be a field
investigation.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, you have some kind of investigation by the
FBI?
    Col. Johnson. Not necessarily.
    Mr. Cohn. Not necessarily?
    Maj. Krau. Sir, the way that works is that the Civil
Service Commission conducts the pre-employment check, which is
consisting of the national agency check down in--federal agency
check. After that has been accomplished, the individual is
eligible for employment. Now, if that individual is to receive
access to top secret material, then full field investigation is
completed.
    Mr. Cohn. That is only in the case of access to top secret
material?
    Maj. Krau. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. How about secret, confidential and restricted?
    Maj. Krau. In that case, sir, the army regulations require
a national agency check to be conducted on those people for
secret information. Now, the pre-appointment loyalty check is
just about the equivalent of a national agency conducted on
Department of the Army civilians; it is about the same
equivalent. In other words, the pre-appointment loyalty check
is, as I said, a check of these agencies in Washington for
clearance granted under special regulation 3816-1. The national
agency check is conducted on these people.
    Mr. Cohn. The Civil Service Commission?
    Maj. Krau. No, sir, by----
    Col. Johnson. The pre-appointment is by the Civil Service
Commission.
    Mr. Cohn. The pre-appointment check is by the Civil Service
Commission?
    Col. Johnson. Going to the different agencies, of course.
    Mr. Cohn. Do they check with the various agencies--FBI,
CIA, G-2, and so forth?
    Col. Johnson. That's right.
    Maj. Krau. That's right.
    Mr. Cohn. Then after they have made that check, they send
some kind of report through to you people?
    Maj. Krau. Yes, sir, that is right.
    Col. Johnson. Right--through us to the installation
concerned, who is going to do the hiring.
    Mr. Cohn. Then what happens? Suppose there is derogatory
information in those reports?
    Col. Johnson. You are speaking now of the pre-employment?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes, the pre-employment.
    Maj. Krau. Well, that would be a matter for civilian
personnel.
    Col. Johnson. It would be the decision there of the
commander concerned. It would depend upon the nature of the
derogatory information.
    The Chairman. In other words, it is up to the commanding
officer to decide whether the information is of such a nature
that you don't want to employ? He can decide?
    Col. Johnson. That is right, sir. The commander concerned
is the one who can make the final decision there.
    The Chairman. Does G-2 make a recommendation?
    Let us take, for example--here is Colonel Lindsay, who is
head of the pictorial center. Now, let us assume that I am
applying for a job and the Civil Service Commission finds I am
qualified to do the type of work for which Colonel Lindsay
needs a man. Does your department have anything to do with my
case before I am assigned to Colonel Lindsay's pictorial
section?
    Col. Johnson. Yes. The processing--that information is
processed through headquarters First Army--in other words, it
goes through the channel of command to the installation
commander concerned, so that if there was a disagreement with
the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission on the
individual, that could be inserted in there, recommending, in
the best interests of the service, that the individual should
or should not be hired, as the case may be.
    The Chairman. Colonel, how about this Powell case?
    Have you had a chance to check into the facts in that?
    Col. Johnson. Which case, sir?
    Mr. Cohn. Powell, Doris Walters Powell.
    Col. Johnson. As I say, I don't know the circumstances of
the case, Senator. The file is not in my hands. And
furthermore, I am constrained by the regulations, sir, to not
reveal anything that is in that case, if I do know what they
are.
    The Chairman. Do you feel you are restrained from giving us
the name of the army officer who gave her clearance--officer or
officers?
    Col. Johnson. No, sir, I feel that that would be a part of
the file. I can tell you what the procedure is----
    The Chairman. I only want to know the name of the
individuals that cleared her. You see, the case is such a
flagrant one that whoever cleared her either was incompetent
beyond words, abysmally incompetent, or he was of the same
stripe that she is.
    Therefore, we will order you to produce the names of the
individuals who cleared her. That is information which Congress
must have.
    Just for your information, so you know, the case we are
dealing with, Mrs. Powell was a secretary to one of the members
of the National Committee of the Communist party. She attended
a Communist Leadership School. She admitted having received a
membership card in the Communist party. She attended Communist
meetings while she was working on a newspaper. She admitted to
her boss that she was stealing material from the files and
turning it over to the Communist party, a representative of the
party. She refuses to answer on the grounds of self-
incrimination as to whether or not she was a member of the
party as late as 1948 or 1949.
    This is a case of about the most clear-cut membership in
the Communist party you can find. She was hired; someone in
your department cleared her. She is on leave now, on maternity
leave. We have just been notified that the army is going to do
nothing about her case until her leave is up. You are therefore
ordered to produce the names of the people.
    I am getting awfully sick of the stalling around I have had
in the last few days. All of you men know about this case; you
read about it in the paper. You know why we called you over
here. Yet you got here, and I find you know nothing about the
case, apparently, the case of a Communist working on and
handling secret material, and that order will be that you
produce that material; and I don't care what anyone else tells
you to do, those are the orders of the committee.
    I might tell you, for your own benefit, we have another
case here, a man working under Colonel Lindsay, a man who
signed this Communist petition, a petition in which he pledged
to support Robert Thompson, one of the first-string Communists
who was convicted, who was picked up in the Sierras last week
by the FBI. He selects the Communist party as his party. He
comes before the committee and says, ``I can't tell you whether
I think the Communist party is good or bad.'' He is now
guarding secret and top secret films. His job, according to his
sworn testimony, is to stand at the gate and, among other
things, make sure that no one removes those films. Part of his
job has been as a tour guard to go through Mr. Lindsay's plant
and check the safes and the vaults. His testimony has been that
he has found them open, has a free access to all of those
secret films.
    Now, if the army wants to take the position that the
Congress is not entitled to know who has cleared these people,
who have said they are Communists, over in your department, you
can go right ahead and take that position. Now, it may take us
a while to get the information, but I assure you we will get
it.
    Col. Johnson. May I respectfully request to make a
statement, sir?
    The Chairman. Certainly. I may say, any witness who is here
can make any statement he cares to.
    Col. Johnson. I would like first, if I may, sir, to
indicate the procedure in a case where there is any information
reflecting on a Civil Service employee that comes to the
attention of the installation commander, the procedure in
handling that, and I believe that will indicate, sir, to you
and members of the committee, the reason why I have made the
statement that I have, sir.
    When the installation commander receives information
reflecting on a Civil Service employee, as to his loyalty or
security--that is, whether he is a security risk or not--that
commanding officer must refuse that information and prepare a
letter, to process that case as prescribed in the regulations.
That is what we call Special Regulations 620-220-1. He submits
his recommendations together with the file of any information
which he has on that individual, the information that has come
to him--he submits that, the recommendations and conclusions,
with the file through channels to the commanding general of the
major command--in this case in the First Army area, if it is an
individual in the First Army area which embraces the New
England states, New York and New Jersey. Upon receipt of that
at headquarters First Army, the recommendations of the
installation commander, together with the file, are carefully
reviewed in that headquarters, and the commanding general then
forwards that to the Department of Army, indicating his
concurrence or non-concurrence with the recommendations of the
installation commander.
    In practice, naturally, the commanding general cannot
personally see each one of these cases, so it is the function
of his G-2 to review those cases and to prepare the
recommendations. If there is any question on them, of course,
the case is taken up with the chief of staff or with the
commanding general himself, to insure that the concurrence or
non-concurrence is completely in accord with the views of the
general himself.
    Those are then forwarded to Department of Army for final
adjudication. In Department of Army, there is a security
screening board in the office of the secretary of army, which
makes the decision in the matter. If that security screening
board finds that the circumstances indicate the individual
should be separated, or that a finding of that sort is probably
indicated, the board may take any one of three actions: It may
ask that an interrogatory be accomplished by the individual
concerned; it may request further information through
investigative agencies, or it may just flatly outright indicate
that the individual should be separated and send a statement of
charges down through channels, again through the army command
to the installation commander.
    He advises the individual concerned of these charges, and
he has, then, thirty days in which to appeal his case--I
believe it is thirty days, isn't that right?
    Maj. Krau. That is right.
    Col. Johnson. Thirty days. If he does desire to appeal his
case, then he has a hearing before an army area security
hearing board, and their decision goes to the secretary of the
army, whose decision in the matter is final.
    He can, of course, take other action if he desires, but
normally that decision of the appeals board there would be
final. Those are the individuals who may have acted on these
cases. It would be a concurrent, or non-concurrent, as the case
might be, with the recommendations of the installation
commander, but that would be only one stop in the final chain,
and it would go on up to the secretary of the army department
office for final adjudication.
    The Chairman. Well, we want the entire chain. This is the
most unusual picture I have seen, you have got a top Communist,
known to be a Communist--all the information says that she is a
Communist--and nothing done, nothing done as of today, even
though we have transmitted that information to the commanding
officer of the Quartermaster Corps. It is completely contrary
to what some of the other departments of the government do.
    For instance, in the Government Printing Office, within
half an hour after we expose a Communist, he was suspended.
    Let me ask you this, sir: Do you think a man who has signed
a pledge to support a Communist candidate for governor and a
well-known Communist, Robert Thompson; a candidate for
lieutenant governor, Israel Amter, who has since been convicted
as one of the second-string Communists; who has pledged his
support in writing to Ben Davis for United States senator, one
of the first-string Communists, who has since been convicted;
who says, he doesn't know whether communism is good or bad--do
you think he should be a civilian employee of the army in any
capacity?
    Col. Johnson. I could only answer that, sir, in the same
expression that is given in the executive order of the
president, 10-450. It would appear that such an individual, his
employment in government service, is not clearly in the
interest of national security.
    The Chairman. Not clearly in the interest?
    Col. Johnson. Yes, sir, that is the wording, I believe, of
the executive order, and I certainly think that is indicated in
such a case.
    The Chairman. Well, you are G-2, Colonel?
    Col. Johnson. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. You do your own thinking, and you appear to
know what your line of thinking is. Do you think there is any
reason to keep a man like that on?
    Col. Johnson. To keep a man like that on?
    The Chairman. Yes, on the army payroll.
    Col. Johnson. I can give you my personal opinion.
    The Chairman. I think your personal opinion is important.
    Col. Johnson. I certainly do not, sir. That is my personal
opinion, of course.
    The Chairman. You don't have any authority to suspend
anyone, you merely recommend that to the commanding officer; is
that right?
    Col. Johnson. Yes, sir. That, of course, is another factor
that comes into these cases very much. The Civil Service laws
protect any individual to such a degree that this chain of
action is required before it is possible to separate an
individual. Now, he can be suspended----
    The Chairman. He can be suspended instantly, can't he?
    Col. Johnson. Provided the security of the installation or
the security of classified information at that installation
make it seem very appropriate and very necessary to the
installation commander. But the installation commander, of
course, in so doing is taking a rather grave risk, unless he
has an awful lot of evidence that there is risk to the
installation or risk to the classified information available to
him.
    The Chairman. If a man pledges himself to support the
Communist party, yes--the Communist party, we all know, is a
conspiracy dedicated to the overthrow of this government--do
you need more than that? Do you need more than being a
Communist?
    Col. Johnson. Well, sir----
    The Chairman. Do you need more than being a Communist to
suspend a man?
    Col. Johnson. An investigation, of course, has to be
completed.
    The Chairman. Before the investigation is completed. Let us
say that you know as of tonight at four o'clock a man is going
to go guarding a gate, to guard against the stealing of top
secret material, material which, according to the definition of
top secret, could result in the loss of a war if it is
disclosed to the enemy; if you knew that man is going to be at
four o'clock this afternoon at that gate; if you know that he
had pledged to support the Communist party; if you know he
reads the Daily Worker, the official organ of the Communist
party, which has been described as a telegraph agency of the
Communist party; if when called before a committee he says, ``I
don't say whether I think communism is good or bad''--would you
have that man at that gate, or would you suspend him?
    Col. Johnson. It would depend a great deal, sir, on whether
his position there at the gate was of importance or not.
    The Chairman. Well, let us say one of his jobs is to see
that secret films are not removed from the place. Would you
consider that important enough?
    Col. Johnson. If he actually had such a function, yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Well, that is his sworn testimony in this
case. Would you leave him on that job? In other words, he is at
a gate--it is so important when you have got guards at a gate.
It is a photographic center; there is secret and top secret
confidential material produced there. One of his functions is
to see that that material is not removed from the premises.
Would you say that is a job that is important enough so that
you would suspend him, or would you leave him on until you had
taken a number of months to conduct a further investigation?
    Col. Johnson. It is very difficult for me to answer a
question like that, sir. The circumstances in each case, and
the circumstances surrounding the installation, of course,
would be the determining factor in any such case.
    The Chairman. You mean as of today you could not answer as
to whether you would suspend that man or not, if he is pledged
to support the Communist party and he is guarding a gate, and
one of his functions is to prevent the removal of secret
material? You say that that is too difficult a question, you
couldn't answer that?
    Col. Johnson. Well, I wouldn't say it is too difficult a
question, no, sir. I would certainly, if it were my position to
make such a decision, weighing all the evidence in the case, I
would make the decision one way or the other.
    The Chairman. But you couldn't tell me----
    Col. Johnson. And if I knew all the facts as outlined here,
sir.
    The Chairman. Let us assume those facts are true; let us
assume that I am not lying to you.
    Col. Johnson. No, sir, I am not assuming that.
    The Chairman. Let us assume those facts are true; do you
find it difficult, as head of intelligence over there to tell
us whether or not you would let that man on the job or take him
off?
    I am trying to think, Colonel, what kind of reasoning we
have over in that department.
    Col. Johnson. I can assure you, sir, that we take these
cases with the utmost seriousness and give them the best
thinking we can, but the only thing, Senator McCarthy, is that
you sometimes have allegations in these reports, and the
allegation may or may not be true, and we recognize that if
they are found not to be true, then there, of course, may be an
injustice done. That is why there is Civil Service----
    The Chairman. I am not talking about allegations. I am
talking about a man who appeared before this committee, who was
shown that particular pledge and was asked, ``Is this your
signature? Did you sign it?''
    He says, ``Yes, that is my signature. I signed it;'' a man
who was asked, ``Did you receive the Daily Worker?'' ``Yes, I
did.'' ``Question: Do you think communism is good or bad?''
``Answer: I can't answer that, under oath; I can't tell you
whether it is good or bad.''
    I am not talking about an allegation. Take those facts
alone; would you give the American people the benefit of the
doubt and remove him, or would you leave him on where he has
access to top secret stuff?
    Col. Johnson. I would certainly take steps to remove him,
to keep him from having access to top secret material, sir.
    The Chairman. If you gentlemen care to stay here, you may.
We have the wife of this man coming in now. I haven't heard her
testimony yet. I understand she will testify that he was a
Communist. If you care to sit here, and listen to that, you may
do it.
    Mr. Rainville. Senator, may I just say one thing before
these gentlemen here?
    The Chairman. Certainly, Mr. Rainville.
    Mr. Rainville. I find it utterly amazing that to get a
person employed by the government in a non-sensitive job,
totally disassociated with the military, you cannot possibly
get him through under three or four months, if they even
intimate that the man doesn't have the guts for the job; and
yet a situation such as this, and you don't even question it.
    The mere fact that he's got any kind of stain, when it is a
civilian occupation, he is removed from consideration
immediately. I myself have removed two men and a woman from
consideration for jobs in the federal government that had no
connection with the security of the government. And yet these
people, with testimony, sworn testimony, and the hackles of the
back of your neck don't even rise a little bit?
    Col. Johnson. Yes, they do.
    Mr. Rainville. Well, I haven't seen any evidence of that.
Col. Lindsay just sat down here and took the attitude that this
was something of a joke, and I don't regard it as a joke.
    Col. Johnson. May I say, sir, that the Civil Service
regulations and the previous security regulations under
executive order were such that it was most difficult to obtain
the removal of a security risk. Loyalty came into it--remember,
the previous executive order was ``loyalty and security.'' Now,
the new executive order, No. 20450, is quite different, and the
process of cases may have been modified by the new procedures
that have been adopted by the secretary of defense.
    Mr. Rainville. This case goes back to 1946, when you were
operating under a different order. Loyalty was a factor then.
    Col. Johnson. What I am saying, sir, is that under the new
regulations there is a better opportunity to remove security
risks.
    Mr. Rainville. But you are still not doing it, sir. You are
still hesitant to do so.
    Col. Johnson. No, sir, I am not hesitant to do so.
    Mr. Rainville. Here is a committee that is functioning
outside of the strict bounds of the rules which the army must
operate under, and instead of cooperating with them and saying,
``Yes, this man is guilty,'' Colonel Lindsay says, ``The man is
on a gate guarding trucks. He is not in a sensitive spot.'' But
he is in a spot where he is supposed to stop anybody that comes
out with the films. He says, ``Well, they can hide any little
bitty pieces.''
    We are not looking for excuses to protect a man and keep
him in. We are looking to see if there is any possible way for
him to do something, that he should be removed, and Colonel
Lindsay takes the other attitude, ``Well, they could get away
with so much in so many easier ways.''
    That is not the question. Could this man, in any way,
facilitate the removal of things, and if he could, should he be
kept?
    Col. Johnson. And there are two courses of action open to
an installation commander under the circumstances of that sort.
He could put him in a non-sensitive position and I understand
the guard has been--or he can suspend him.
    Mr. Rainville. There is no non-sensitive position where a
man is working for the army, where there is any kind of secret
material.
    If I understood the major correctly, you don't even ask for
a security test unless it is top secret?
    Col. Johnson. I beg your pardon, sir?
    Mr. Rainville. You don't even ask for a security test
unless it is top secret.
    Maj. Krau. Oh, no.
    Mr. Rainville. Then I better be corrected in my impression
of what you said, Major, because the question was ``'What
happens?'' Does he get an FBI test before the Civil Service
approves him and then a field test afterwards.
    And you said, ``Only in the case of top secret.'' Was I
utterly incorrect in hearing what you said?
    The Chairman. I think you are correct, Harold, but I
believe the major corrected that later and said if you are
going to handle other classified material you asked that the
national agency check him, or something like that. I had
difficulty in following him myself.
    First I understood you to say they only had clearance if
they handled top secret material, but didn't you qualify that
later, Major?
    Maj. Krau. Yes, I did.
    Col. Johnson. The regulations require what we call a
complete background investigation in case of top secret
clearance, clearance for access to top secret information.
    Mr. Rainville. They do have an FBI report on these two
people?
    The Chairman. They have got all the material, Harold.
    Mr. Rainville. And somebody has to make a decision on that,
and if that man threw him out it would never have gone to the
secretary of the army.
    Col. Johnson. Yes, sir, it has to, regardless of what
happens, the installation commander cannot separate him
himself. He can suspend him.
    Mr. Rainville. Wait. He hasn't been hired yet. You have had
an FBI test; you have asked for a man and they send this man
in, and here is the FBI report.
    Col. Johnson. It might well be that this information was
not made known or did not come to light until after the man was
already an employee.
    The Chairman. What difference would it make? Let us take
this woman's case, and unless I am badly misinformed, you had
all the information which we have had. I couldn't think of a
stronger case of potential espionage--a woman who is a
secretary for a member of the National Committee of the
Communist party, a woman who attends a Communist leadership
school, a woman who has her card in the Communist party, who
attends Communist meetings, and admits it. You have all that
information, and even as of today--I just got word from Dave,
here, that the commanding officer of the QM says, ``We are
going to do nothing about the case until her maternity leave
expires. Then we will decide what we are going to do.''
    That is so diametrically opposed to what Mr. Blattenberg of
the GPO did when we exposed a Communist down there. I can't
conceive it, Colonel. It is something the American people won't
either.
    We have ordered the colonel to produce certain material.
The thought occurs that he may be caught between two fires, of
either finding himself in contempt of the committee if he
refuses to obey the order, or up for a court martial if he
obeys it for having violated army regulations.
    For that reason, Roy, if the production of that is in
violation of an army regulation, the colonel is caught between
the two fires of either threatened court martial or contempt by
the committee. I think what we should do is have somebody call
Charlie Wilson, the under-secretary of the army, and tell him
that we ran into a situation up here which is, to my way of
thinking, fantastic beyond words. We can't find out who cleared
Communists. Somebody did, we know. We know they knew they were
Communists at the time they cleared them, and I want to know
whether action is being taken against them. I want Wilson and
the secretary of the army to come in--tell them I don't want to
disrupt their activities there--number one, I would like them
to do it at a time that is convenient to them; and number two,
I think the senators would want to find out if they intend to
protect the people in the military who have cleared Communists.
    As I have said, anyone who clears a woman like Mrs. Powell
is either abysmally incompetent, incompetent without words, or
is in sympathy with the Communist party.
    Mr. Rainville. It can't be anything else.
    The Chairman. You know, that just can't be kept secret. We
are not going to hide these people in the military.
    Colonel, you can, if you like--we are going to call the
wife of this guard in. As I say, I haven't heard her testify
yet. I am sure that Colonel Lindsay will want to hear it.
    Col. Lindsay. Could I go on record, for one moment here,
before this gets away from me?
    This gentleman said that I consider this matter a joke. I
resent that. I don't consider it a joke, and I don't think I--
at least I had no intention of presenting such an attitude.
    The Chairman. Mr. Cohn tells me that this woman is
extremely high-strung and nervous, so I think what we will do
is call her in without you gentlemen, and we will give you a
copy of the transcript.
    Colonel, they tell me she is extremely high-strung, and if
she sees a uniform she will get scared in here. She thinks she
is causing her husband to lose his job, and all that sort of
thing. So that we will be glad, as I say, to call you up and
give you a resume of the testimony--incidentally, you can have
a transcript of any testimony concerning any employee working
under you, and that is true of you gentlemen also. That is a
violation of our normal rules in executive hearings, and I
think this is important that you should have any testimony you
want made available to you immediately.
    I think Mr. Cohn has made a good suggestion here, and that
is that we have already made a formal request for the names of
the people who cleared these two individuals, the information
available to them at the time they were cleared, and what, if
anything, is to be done, and I think, Colonel, you are in a
position to let us know this afternoon what is to be done in
these two cases. I think you will be able to tell us, also,
Colonel--you can also check with Washington and see if they
object to your giving us the names of these people who cleared
these individuals. There should be no reason why we couldn't
got that information.
    You understand, I am not ordering you to produce the
information as to what is in the file. I want to know this
afternoon, however, whether or not it is to be the attitude of
your department that we cannot have this information, and there
is no reason why we should wait for weeks for that. We should
have that right away. Do you understand that, Colonel?
    Col. Johnson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Two things: Number one, what action is the army
going to take against Mrs. Powell, who, you have been advised,
has claimed the Fifth Amendment, refusing to answer on the
grounds of self-incrimination whether or not she was a member
of the Communist party up through 1948, plus all the other
evidence against her which the senator has outlined, which has
been available to you.
    The Chairman. We want to know whether she is to be
suspended or not.
    Mr. Cohn. Yes. Number two, with reference to Palmiero,
Francesco Palmiero, the security guard out at the Signal Corps
Photographic Center, whether or not he is going to be kept on
duty and allowed to go to his job this afternoon and every
other afternoon until someone does something, in spite of the
fact that he has admitted to the committee that he knowingly
signed a Communist party nominating petition, a copy of which
we have shown you; has been a registered member of the American
Labor party, named as a Communist party front through 1949;
doesn't know whether communism is good or bad, and so on and so
forth.
    We want to know what action is going to be taken at once,
if any, against these two people, number one.
    And number two, we want to know whether or not we are going
to be given the information as to what people at every level
are responsible for hiring and for retaining these people, and
Albert Feldman, Albert Eli Feldman, who we have advised you has
also admitted having signed two Communist party petitions, who
was a subscriber to the Daily Worker, a member of Ben Gold's
100 percent Communist Fur and Leather Workers Union. We want to
know what actions can be taken with reference to those three
people and who is responsible at every level for having, A,
hired them, and B, retained them following receipt of this
investigation.
    We made the original request for this information on
Monday, three days ago, just as soon as we had the first
testimony here, and it is now Wednesday, and as the senator
said, in the case of the Government Printing Office, within a
half-hour after this arose, action was taken and there was just
nothing to it. I think we are entitled to know, as the senator
has outlined----
    Col. Johnson. May I ask to whom you made the request for
these names?
    Mr. Cohn. Captain Kotch, security officer. Written request
was made yesterday; Monday a telephonic request was made of
Captain Kotch, who is the security officer at the Quartermaster
depot.
    Col. Johnson. Yes, I know where he is located.
    The Chairman. Also, Colonel Lindsay, you are the man,
rather than the other colonel, to give us the information as to
what, if anything, is to be done about the guard. I would like
to know, for example, if he is going back to work at four
o'clock this afternoon to guard the gate. It must have some
importance, or you wouldn't have a guard there.
    Colonel, you seem to have something you want to say.
    Col. Johnson. Yes, sir. I would like to--in fact, I wish to
bring this up. It is the president's directive of 13 March
1948, which has not been superseded and which is now part of
our army regulations 380-10, of 23 November 1951, and changes
No. 1 to army regulations 380-10 of 28 May 1952.
    Fifty-five of that regulation contains a presidential
directive of 13 March 1948. These state:
    The efficient and just administration of the Employee Loyalty
Program, under Executive Order No. 9835 of March 21, 1947, requires
that reports, records, and files relative to the program be preserved
in strict confidence. This is necessary in the interest of our national
security and welfare, to preserve the confidential character and
sources of information furnished, and to protect government personnel
against the dissemination of unfounded or disproved allegations. It is
necessary also in order to insure the fair and just disposition of
loyalty cases.
    For these reasons, and in accordance with the long-established
policy that reports rendered by the Federal Bureau of Investigations
and other investigative agencies of the executive branch are to be
regarded as confidential, all reports, records, and files relative to
the loyalty of employees or prospective employees (including reports of
such investigative agencies), shall be maintained in confidence, and,
shall not be transmitted or disclosed except as required in the
efficient conduct of business.
    Any subpoena or demand or requests for information, reports, or
files of the nature described, received from sources other than those
persons in the executive branch of the government who are entitled
thereto by reason of their official duties, shall be respectfully
declined, on the basis of this directive, and the subpoena or demand or
other requirement shall be referred to the Office of the President for
such response as the President may determine to be in the public
interest in the particular case. There shall be no relaxation of the
provisions of this directive except with my express authority.
    This directive shall be published in the Federal Register.
                                                   Harry S. Truman.
                                 ______
    Changes No. 1, 29 May 1952, AR 380-10, Military Security--Laws,
Executive Orders, etc. Pertaining to Safeguarding Military Information.
    55. Presidential Directive of 13 March 1948.
    (Added) This Presidential directive has been relaxed as follows:
    Hereafter, no information regarding individual loyalty or security
cases shall be provided in response to inquiries from outside the
Executive Branch unless such inquiries are made in writing. Where
proper inquiries are made in writing, replies will be confined to two
categories of information as follows: (1) If an employee has been
separated on loyalty grounds, advice to that effect may be given in
response to a specific request for information concerning the
particular individual; and (2) if an employee has been separated as a
security risk, replies to specific requests for information about that
individual may state only that he was separated for reasons relating to
suitability for employment in the particular agency. No information
shall be supplied as to any specific intermediate steps, proceedings,
transcripts of hearings, or actions taken in processing an individual
under loyalty or security programs.
    There is no objection to making available the names of all members
of an agency loyalty board, but it is entirely improper to divulge the
members who sat on particular cases.
    No exception shall be made to the above stated policy unless the
agency head determines that it would be clearly in the public interest
to make specified information available, as in instances where the
employee involved asks that such action be taken for his own
protection. In all such cases, the requested information shall be
released only after obtaining the approval of my office.
    Extracts from President's letter to Secretary of State, dated April
1952 (AG 380.01 (19 May '52) (G2-SMI)
            By order of the Secretary of the Army.
                                         J. Lawton Collins,
                                         Chief of Staff, U.S. Army.
    Of course, that is part of our army regulations under which
we are governed.
    The Chairman. I understand you can't violate those
regulations, but all we are asking you to do is to get in touch
with your superiors and find out whether or not they are going
to withhold this information from us.
    Col. Johnson. Our headquarters would get in touch with
Washington on that and inform you of the results. That can be
done by telephone. Will that be satisfactory?
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    Mr. Schine. Just so that you know where to get us, if we
are not here you can reach me at my office. You have the number
Colonel Johnson.
    Col. Johnson. Yes, sir, all right, sir. As indicated, that
information of the various levels is in the files. The action,
sir, taken of course, is that of the commander concerned.
    Major Krau makes one suggestion that I indicate that it has
always been the policy of our headquarters--and this goes back
to the time that I came here two years ago as G-2--that we
consider that the government's interests are paramount in any
recommendation we make, that that has to be the criterion. In
other words, the security of the government must come before
everything else.
    [Witness excused.]
               TESTIMONY OF LOUIS FRANCIS BUDENZ
    The Chairman. Will you stand and raise your right hand,
please?
    In the matter now on hearing before the committee, do you
solemnly swear that the testimony you will give will be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
    Mr. Budenz. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. For the record, Professor, you are assistant
professor of economics at Fordham University?
    Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir, and also at Seton Hall University.
    Mr. Cohn. And prior to that time you taught at Notre Dame?
    Mr. Budenz. That's correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Prior to that time, from 1935 to 1945, were you a
member of the Communist party holding various offices,
including membership on the national committee, including the
managing editorship of the Daily Worker, and the presidency of
the Four Freedoms Corporation?
    Mr. Budenz. Freedom of the Press----
    Mr. Cohn. Freedom of the Press Corporation, which published
the Daily Worker, as well as memberships on many other
commissions and important bodies in the Communist party; is
that correct?
    Mr. Budenz. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. And since the time you have left the Communist
party, you have responded to subpoenas from various legislative
and executive agencies and have given complete and full
cooperation to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in exposing
the Communist conspiracy; is that correct?
    Mr. Budenz. I have done the best that I could, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And you have testified, under oath, in this
building at the trial of both the first and second-string
Communists, who were all convicted by juries in this building;
is that correct?
    Mr. Budenz. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Professor Budenz, I will show you a
picture--we will ask to be deemed marked Exhibit 1--which is a
picture of Doris Walters Powell.
    Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you recall that picture, Professor?
    Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you recall having seen Doris Walters at any
time when you were a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir, I know her as Doris Walters.
    Mr. Cohn. Will you tell us the circumstances, as you recall
them?
    Mr. Budenz. First of all, I have met Miss Walters in the
office of the Daily Worker when she was in the company of Doxie
Wilkerson.
    Mr. Cohn. Will you tell us who Doxie Wilkerson was?
    Mr. Budenz. Doxie Wilkerson was one of the most important
Communists in this country, particularly in the attempt to
infiltrate organizations of the Negro people. He was considered
to be the theoretician of the party on the Negro problem in
particular, and wrote columns for the Daily Worker. It was, as
I remember it, in connection with these columns that I met Miss
Walters. It may have been in connection with some other matter
because Wilkerson was very frequently in the Daily Worker.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, would it be possible for Doris Walters to
have been in the Daily Worker in company with Wilkerson if she
were not a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Budenz. No, particularly because of the problems we
discussed. We discussed them as Communists, and Wilkerson let
me know that she was a comrade.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, you felt perfectly free in
discussing the business of the Communist party with Wilkerson,
who was, you say, one of the top Communists in the country, and
with Doris Walters, who is now Mrs. Powell, and you considered
her completely trustworthy, from the Communist standpoint.
    Mr. Budenz. Yes, I did, on Wilkerson's say-so. That is the
method used, by the Communists, personal approval.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Professor, I want to advise you of this too:
We have had this Doris Walters in here; she is currently
employed by the army here in New York. She yesterday claimed a
Fifth Amendment privilege as to membership in the Communist
party through 1948. We have had so many claims of the Fifth
Amendment before this committee in recent months. I wonder if
you would just take a second to tell us whether or not, when
you were in the Communist party, you gained any knowledge as to
the use of the Fifth Amendment by the Communists?
    Mr. Budenz. Not that specifically, but I do know that they
discussed various legal methods of this character in order to
defeat technically the government, that this was a constant
subject of discussion. I could give you many instances of that;
in the case of an alien who resigns from the party--which they
never did actually--technically, to say they were not
Communists; then in addition, withdrawing from the Communist
International, where there was no such withdrawal.
    Much of the Communist discussion was preoccupied with
technically defeating the government.
    Now, in this matter here of the Fifth Amendment, you will
observe that J. Peters, the notorious espionage agent and
representative of the Communist International here, was the
first to make this plea--at least the first outstanding
Communist to make this plea--before the House Committee on Un-
American Activities in the Hiss proceedings. Knowing Communist
methods, I can tell you just as though I knew of my own
knowledge that this was a signal to the Communists to follow
that procedure. They watch their leaders, and what the leader
does they imitate.
    Mr. Cohn. That is helpful, Professor. One other thing, I
wanted to ask you this: We had sworn testimony in here
yesterday by a man named Denton Brooks, who is a very strong
anti-Communist, who became editor of the People's Voice, after
Doxie Wilkerson was ousted. Brooks described a situation as to
when he got up to the People's Voice, Wilkerson was editor and
in control and had brought in a woman named Marvel Cook, who
was the Communist party representative up at that paper, and
that Wilkerson had as his secretary this Doris Walters, whom
you have testified you had seen in the company of Wilkerson at
the Daily Worker. Mr. Brooks testified that this Doris Walters
admitted to him finally that she had been coming into his
office on Sundays, in company with Marvel Cook, and going
through his files in an attempt to obtain information
derogatory to Brooks, because of the way he was running the
paper, and trying to rid it of Communists.
    I wanted to ask you this: Is that a typical Communist
method, when an anti-Communist comes into an organization and
tries to oust them? Is that a typical Communist method?
    Mr. Budenz. That is the regular Communist method.
    Mr. Cohn. To place their people in there and try to get the
goods on the anti-Communist who is trying to oust them?
    Mr. Budenz. That is the regular Communist method. It is not
just a casual thing; it is the regular procedure--whispering
campaigns, reflections on their integrity, reflections on their
ability, to get them out.
    May I add here, Mr. Cohn----
    Mr. Cohn. Surely.
    Mr. Budenz [continuing]. That I know Doris Walters beyond
meeting her with Doxie Wilkerson. I have met her at either the
National Convention of 1944, or an extraordinary national
committee meeting in that year, or about that time, with
Claudia Jones.
    Mr. Cohn. Who is Claudia Jones?
    Mr. Budenz. Claudia Jones is another very outstanding
leader in the Communist party.
    Mr. Cohn. Is she one of the second-string Communist leaders
who was convicted by a jury in this building a few months ago?
    Mr. Budenz. That's right, and she has written for Political
Affairs, as has Doxie Wilkerson, which makes them have a
particularly outstanding position. Anyone who writes in
Political Affairs is a Communist authority.
    Mr. Cohn. Would you say that this Doris Walters is a good
person to have working for the United States Army?
    Mr. Budenz. I think on the views both of loyalty and of
security, she should be removed at once.
    Mr. Cohn. I have nothing further, Senator.
    The Chairman. That is all, Louie.
    [Witness excused.]
                           Afternoon Session
                  TESTIMONY OF AUGUSTIN ARRIGO
    The Chairman. Will you stand up and raise your right hand,
please?
    In the matter now on hearing before the committee, do you
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing,
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Arrigo. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Arrigo, where do you live now?
    Mr. Arrigo. I live at 30-11 35th Avenue, Long Island City.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you work?
    Mr. Arrigo. I work at Municipal Broadcasting System.
    Mr. Cohn. What do you do there?
    Mr. Arrigo. I am a laborer.
    Mr. Cohn. How long have you been working there?
    Mr. Arrigo. That's thirteen years.
    Mr. Cohn. Thirteen years?
    Mr. Arrigo. Fourteen years, since 1939--August 16, 1939.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever work for the United States
government?
    Mr. Arrigo. Never.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Arrigo. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever belonged to the American Slav
Congress?
    Mr. Arrigo. No.
    The Chairman. What is the answer?
    Mr. Arrigo. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You have never belonged to the American Congress?
    Mr. Arrigo. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever belonged to the International
Workers Order?
    Mr. Arrigo. Yes, I was in, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. You were?
    Mr. Arrigo. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you belong to that?
    Mr. Arrigo. It was in 1944.
    Mr. Cohn. How long?
    Mr. Arrigo. Oh, I think I drop out 1949, something like
that.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know that it was a Communist
organization?
    Mr. Arrigo. Well, this I don't know. The only thing I know,
I read in the paper was in a black list and I stop, I don't
want to belong in such organization.
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't you know when you were in there it was a
Communist organization?
    Mr. Arrigo. What you say, Mister?
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't you know when you were in there that it
was a Communist organization?
    Mr. Arrigo. No, I never heard that. The only thing they
talk about to sell insurance. I was buy insurance, because it
was a little cheaper over there, because I can't afford it. The
other things I can't tell you.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have anything to do with the
Fraternal Society of Canicatta?
    Mr. Arrigo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. What?
    Mr. Arrigo. I am a member there.
    Mr. Cohn. I see. Did you ever know that that was a
Communist organization?
    Mr. Arrigo. Oh, no.
    Mr. Cohn. Did that have any connection with the American
Slav Congress?
    Mr. Arrigo. No, no such organization.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever hear of the American Slav Congress?
    Mr. Arrigo. Well, the paper talking, and even in the radio,
I don't even know whose this kind organization, the people was.
I never played ball with this kind people.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever go to any meeting of the American
Slav Congress?
    Mr. Arrigo. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know anybody----
    Mr. Arrigo. I tell you, I don't even know this kind
organization. You know, when I find out, when I read in the
newspaper and I find out was included, I say yes, so I drop
right away. That's why I know these things here. Otherwise I
never know.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a reference to Francesco Palmiero for
government employment?
    Mr. Arrigo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know him pretty well?
    Mr. Arrigo. Well, I know him since '40, '41, something like
that. We live in a project together, you know. That's the time
I meet him.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you last see him'?
    Mr. Arrigo. Last time? When was that? Well, I move from
project 1950, February 25th. I think I saw him couple of times,
because he get a bus near where I live at the present time, you
know, in 35th Avenue. I say, ``Hello, Frank.'' That's the only
time I saw him, because he works near there.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know he was a Communist?
    Mr. Arrigo. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever talk communism with him?
    Mr. Arrigo. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Didn't he ever talk to you about his beliefs in
communism?
    Mr. Arrigo. This I don't know, because he never talked to
me.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, he must have talked to you one time.
    Mr. Arrigo. He never talks, because I don't believe either
myself.
    Mr. Cohn. What?
    Mr. Arrigo. I don't believe myself. I'm not interested to
hear such things.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he ever talk about Russia to you?
    Mr. Arrigo. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You didn't know whether he was or was not a
Communist?
    Mr. Arrigo. No, I never know he was a Communist.
    The Chairman. Can you say that he was not or he was, or is
it your testimony you don't know?
    Mr. Arrigo. I don't know. I can't prove. What's the use to
say yes, when I don't know? I never heard from nobody he was
Communist. And if he is Communist, what I know? I no sleep with
him, anyway. You know, some people look nice in the face and
then the stomach is bad. I can't prove he's a Communist. I'm a
liar, I say that.
    Mr. Cohn. How long have you known him?
    Mr. Arrigo. I told you I meet him in the project where I
was living before. Was '40 or '41. I can't tell exactly. It was
something like that.
    Mr. Cohn. I think you have already answered this question:
When did you see him last?
    Mr. Arrigo. Well, exactly I don't know the date.
    The Chairman. About how many years ago?
    Mr. Arrigo. I told you, I move in 1950 from project. He
works near there--no very near, he works 35th Street, I think,
in army building. Usually he get bus on corner Second Avenue,
see, not too far from my house. He works in afternoon, I think,
because eleven or twelve o'clock I see him, I say, ``Hello,
Fred.'' But he's in rush to get a bus and go home. That's the
time I saw him.
    Mr. Cohn. When is the last time? Yesterday, the day before?
    Mr. Arrigo. Well, I can't tell. I can't remember.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, did you see him last week?
    Mr. Arrigo. Well, no.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you see him this last month?
    Mr. Arrigo. I don't think so.
    The Chairman. Did you talk to him today?
    Mr. Arrigo. Today? No.
    The Chairman. You didn't talk to him today?
    Mr. Arrigo. I didn't see him today. I go to work; from job
I come here. Ask permission from my boss to come here.
    The Chairman. So you haven't seen him for at least a month?
    Mr. Arrigo. Really, I can't tell true, because I saw him, I
told you before, from downstairs, he was on top of bus. If it
was a month, or three months ago, I say a lie. I tell the
truth.
    The Chairman. Did he tell you that he was here to testify?
    Mr. Arrigo. No.
    The Chairman. He didn't?
    Mr. Arrigo. I no see him yet.
    The Chairman. In other words, he has never told you that he
had to come here and testify?
    Mr. Arrigo. No, no.
    The Chairman. Now, did the FBI or anyone come to see you
after Francesco had applied for a job?
    Mr. Arrigo. Yes, one man was saw me in my job.
    The Chairman. What did he ask you?
    Mr. Arrigo. Well, he asked me all these things what you ask
me now.
    The Chairman. Do I understand that your testimony is that
you couldn't tell us whether Francesco is or is not a
Communist, you just don't know?
    Mr. Arrigo. Well, I can't prove it, because I don't know
nothing about it.
    The Chairman. That's all. You are released from the
subpoena.
    Mr. Arrigo. Thanks very much.
  TESTIMONY OF MURIEL SILVERBERG (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL,
                      MILTON H. FRIEDMAN)
    The Chairman. Will you stand up, please. And raise your
right hand?
    In the matter now in hearing before the committee, do you
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mrs. Silverberg. I do.
    Mr. Carr. Miss Silberberg, where do you presently reside?
    Mrs. Silverberg. 590 Parkside Avenue, in Brooklyn, New
York.
    Mr. Carr. Do you work at the Our World Publishing Company?
    Mrs. Silverberg. That's right.
    Mr. Carr. 35 West 33rd Street.
    Mrs. Silverberg. That's right.
    Mr. Carr. Are you also known, or have you been known as
Muriel Patterson?
    Mrs. Silverberg. That's right.
    Mr. Carr. And also Muriel Jackson?
    Mrs. Silverberg. That's right. Do you wish me to explain
that?
    Mr. Carr. No, not at this point----
    Mrs. Silverberg. Well, Muriel Patterson is my maiden name,
and Muriel Jackson--I was previously married, and I was married
to Jackson.
    Mr. Carr. You are presently married?
    Mrs. Silverberg. That's right.
    Mr. Carr. And your husband's name is John Edmund
Silberberg?
    Mrs. Silverberg. That's right.
    Mr. Carr. What is his occupation?
    Mrs. Silverberg. He is unemployed.
    Mr. Carr. Unemployed at the present time. Did you ever work
at the People's Voice?
    Mrs. Silverberg. I would like to decline to answer that
question on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me, and
I base my rights on the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of
the United States.
    Mr. Carr. Did you ever know or did you now know a girl by
the name of Doris Walters?
    Mrs. Silverberg. I would like to consult with counsel.
    [Whereupon, Mrs. Silverberg consulted with Mr. Friedman.]
    Mrs. Silverberg. I would like to decline to answer that
question, sir, for the same reason that I gave before.
    Mr. Carr. Just to make the record clear, do you know Doris
Walters Powell? Her maiden name was Walters; her name now is
Powell, Mrs. James Nathan Powell. I am not trying to confuse
you; it is the same girl. I just wanted to be sure you didn't
know her and her married name.
    Mrs. Silverberg. I would like to decline that question for
the same reason that I stated previously.
    Mr. Carr. Did you ever attend any Communist party meetings
with this girl, Doris Walters?
    Mrs. Silverberg. I would like to decline answering that
question, for the same reason that I stated previously.
    Mr. Carr. Did you work with her in connection with the
Communist infiltration and attempt to control the People's
Voice?
    Mrs. Silverberg. I would like to decline that question
also, for the same reason that I stated previously.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know a woman named Marvel Cook?
    The Chairman. May I say, you needn't state the grounds each
time. We will assume it is on the Fifth Amendment.
    Mrs. Silverberg. Thank you.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know a Marvel Cook, a woman named Marvel
Cook?
    Mrs. Silverberg. I decline to answer that question.
    Mr. Carr. Are you the same Muriel Patterson, or Muriel
Silberberg, who was the bookkeeper for the Civil Rights
Congress Bail Fund?
    Mrs. Silverberg. I would like to decline to answer that
question.
    Mr. Carr. On the same grounds?
    Mrs. Silverberg. The same grounds.
    Mr. Carr. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the
Communist party yourself'?
    Mrs. Silverberg. I would like to decline answering that
question for the same reason as I stated previously.
    Mr. Carr. Have you ever been a member of the organization
known as the American Youth for Democracy?
    Mrs. Silverberg. I would like to decline answering that
question, for the same reasons as I stated previously.
    Mr. Carr. Have you ever been employed by the Civil Rights
Congress?
    Mrs. Silverberg. I decline to answer that question, on the
same grounds.
    Mr. Carr. Have you ever been or are you now an official in
the Harlem section of the Communist party, or a club in the
Harlem section of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Silverberg. I would like to decline answering that
question for the same reasons.
    Mr. Carr. Were you connected with any member of the
Communist party in Harlem in the years 1947 and 1948?
    Mrs. Silverberg. I would like to decline answering that
question.
    Mr. Carr. Were you ever in attendance at a school for
Communist organizers in 1947 or 1948 held at the Carver School
on West 125th Street?
    Mrs. Silverberg. I would like to decline answering that
question, for the same reasons.
    Mr. Carr. Did you attend the same Communist Party Training
School for Leadership attended by Doris Walters?
    Mrs. Silverberg. I would like to consult with counsel.
    [Whereupon, Mrs. Silverberg consulted with Mr. Friedman.]
    Mrs. Silverberg. I would like to decline answering that
question also, for the same reasons.
    The Chairman. I think that is all. Thank you.
    [Witness excused.]
    [Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the hearings were adjourned to
10:30 a.m., September 3, 1953, at the same place.]
           COMMUNIST INFILTRATION AMONG ARMY CIVILIAN WORKERS
    [Editor's note.--John Stewart Service (1909-1999) had been
a Foreign Service officer in China from 1935 to 1945. On six
occasions, State Department loyalty boards cleared him of
disloyalty, stemming from charges that he had provided still-
classified reports to the magazine Amerasia. In 1950 Senator
McCarthy had cited him as a ``known associate and collaborator
with Communists.'' Secretary of State Dean Acheson fired
Service in 1951 after the loyalty review board found
``reasonable doubt as to his loyalty.'' In the case of Service
v. Dulles, et al., in 1957, the Supreme Court unanimously
overturned his dismissal as a violation of rules established to
protect employees from unfounded accusations of disloyalty. He
then returned to the State Department where he held a minor
post until his retirement in 1962. Service did not testify in
public session.]
                              ----------
                      THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                      New York, NY.
    The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m. pursuant to recess, in
room 128, Federal Court House, Foley Square, New York, New
York, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; G. David Schine,
chief consultant; and Harold Rainville, administrative
assistant to Senator Dirksen.
       TESTIMONY OF JOHN STEWART SERVICE (ACCOMPANIED BY
         HIS COUNSEL, GERALD REILLY, AND BY LEO ROSEN,
                REPRESENTING THE SARCO COMPANY)
    The Chairman. Will you stand up and raise your right hand?
    In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Service. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. We have your name for the record. What is your
address, Mr. Service?
    Mr. Service. My address, residential address?
    Mr. Cohn. Residential address.
    Mr. Service. My address is 123-35 82nd Road, Kew Gardens,
Long Island.
    Mr. Cohn. And what is your occupation?
    Mr. Service. I would like the record to show that I am
appearing voluntarily.
    Mr. Cohn. I don't understand that.
    Mr. Service. I say I would like the record to show that I
am appearing voluntarily.
    Mr. Cohn. I don't get that.
    Mr. Service. I think that is a plain statement.
    Mr. Reilly. Not pursuant to any subpoena.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, you know the rules of the Senate; subpoena
is not necessary. Any kind of a direction, just so long as it
is received, be it telephonic, or verbal, is sufficient.
    The Chairman. I don't think it makes any difference as long
as Mr. service is here. I may say for your benefit, just in
case you are called in the future, the position of this
committee, and I believe of the legal staff of all the
committees, is that if you are notified to be present that
constitutes a subpoena. But if you want the record to show you
appeared voluntarily, there will be no objection to that at
all.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Service, what is your occupation at the
present time?
    Mr. Service. Businessman.
    Mr. Cohn. You are a businessman. What type of business?
    Mr. Service. Steam specialties.
    Mr. Cohn. Pardon me?
    Mr. Service. Steam specialties.
    Mr. Cohn. Steam specialties?
    Mr. Service. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, on what date did you leave the State
Department?
    Mr. Service. The record shows, I believe, it was the 13th
of December, 1951.
    Mr. Cohn. December 13, 1951. Now, from that time to the
present day, have you ever done any work, directly or
indirectly, or in any manner, shape or form, for any other
agency of the government?
    The Chairman. Strike the ``other''; any other agency of the
government.
    Mr. Cohn. Or any agency of government?
    Mr. Service. As an employee?
    Mr. Cohn. As anything.
    Mr. Service. I don't understand your question. I am sorry.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, the question is: Have you ever done any
work for any agency of government since you left the State
Department?
    Mr. Service. At the request of such--of an agency?
    The Chairman. Either at their request or otherwise.
    Mr. Service. Well, I have not worked for any government
agency; I have not been an employee of any government agency.
    Mr. Cohn. The question was: Have you ever done since the
date you left the State Department, have you rendered any
Service whatsoever to any agency of government?
    Mr. Service. Certainly not.
    Mr. Cohn. You have not. Have you had any connection with
any agency of government?
    Mr. Service. The company for which I am employed has made
sales to the United States government--but that----
    Mr. Cohn. You mean in connection with steam equipment, or
something like that?
    Mr. Service. Certainly.
    Mr. Cohn. Outside of that, have you personally, apart from
your employment with the company for which you work, done any
work at all--you can interpret that very broadly--for any
agency of government?
    Mr. Service. Well, I can't think of what you mean. I don't
know of having done anything that could be interpreted in any
broad way as service for a government agency.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me be specific. Have you ever done any work
for army intelligence in any way?
    Mr. Service. Army intelligence?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Service. Since I left the government?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    The Chairman. Since you left the State Department. There is
a question whether or not you left the government; since you
left the State Department, since December 13, 1951.
    Mr. Service. I can't think of anything that could be so
described.
    The Chairman. Hare you drawn any pay from any branch of the
government since December 13, 1951?
    Mr. Service. Well, after December 13th, I received some
payments from the Department of State for----
    The Chairman. Terminal pay?
    Mr. Service. Yes, payments that were due me. But otherwise
I have not received anything.
    The Chairman. In other words, since December 1951, you
received no money from any branch of the government other than
your pay from the State Department which was a result of your
previous work with the State Department?
    Mr. Service. That is correct.
    The Chairman. Have you had any connection of any kind with
the Central Intelligence Agency?
    Mr. Service. No.
    The Chairman. You are sure of that?
    Mr. Service. Well, I mean, if you could define no
connection, perhaps--I mean, it is such a broad term.
    The Chairman. Well, use it as broadly as you can. I just
want to know if you had any connection with them at all.
    Mr. Service. I can't think of anything.
    Mr. Cohn. You can consult with counsel.
    The Chairman. You can consult as freely as you want to. I
may say to counsel, if at any time you want to have a private
room to consult with your client, you may. And may I say--just
off the record--better leave it on the record--I may say, we
didn't just pick Mr. Service's name out of a hat and ask him to
come down here. We did it because we have had what we
considered reliable information that he has been working for a
government agency. I think you should have that information, so
that he will have that when he answers the questions.
    Now, if you care to go back in the back room and consult
with him, or have a private room and consult with him, you have
a perfect right to do it at any time.
    Mr. Reilly. We might just consult at the table.
    [Whereupon, Mr. Reilly consulted with Mr. Service.]
    Mr. Service. The answer is no, I have not been employed by
either army intelligence or any other government agency. I have
received no pay from them, have done no jobs for them, have not
been approached by them to do any.
    The Chairman. Do you know of anyone in your firm who might
be receiving pay from the CIA, which could have been
interpreted as an employment of you?
    Mr. Service. No, I do not.
    The Chairman. Have you had occasion to consult with anyone
in CIA since December of 1951?
    Mr. Service. No.
    The Chairman. Then you can say that as far as you are
concerned you have drawn no pay from the CIA, you have not
furnished information to the CIA, and you have drawn no pay
from any other branch of the government except money which you
had coming as a result of your previous employment with the
State Department?
    Mr. Service. That is correct. Your statement is correct.
    The Chairman. Did you work for the CIA prior to December
1951? I suppose that is rather difficult to answer.
    Mr. Service. Well, the question is the definition of the
term ``work.'' I was not employed by them; never received any
payments from them. The only thing that I ever--I am not sure
whether now this was actually--when I came back from New
Zealand in 1949, January 1949, simply because I had been in
that area for some time, the State Department was requested by
the CIA, I think, to allow me to go over and be interrogated by
some of their people working on affairs in that area. However,
I did that merely as a State Department officer under the State
Department's instructions and received no pay or compensation
for it. That was in 1949. That was the only connection I can
think of having had with the CIA.
    The Chairman. In other words, the only connection you have
had with CIA was that which a State Department employee who was
in some other section of the world might normally have when he
came back?
    Mr. Service. That's right.
    The Chairman. And you have never drawn any money from CIA?
    Mr. Service. No.
    The Chairman. As far as you know, your firm does not draw
any money from CIA?
    Mr. Service. As far as I know, they do not.
    The Chairman. Do you know of anyone in your firm who works
for CIA?
    Mr. Service. I do not.
    The Chairman. Incidentally, how large a firm is that?
    Mr. Service. Including the manufacturing branch, about five
hundred employees roughly, I suppose--less than five hundred.
    The Chairman. Are you an officer of that firm?
    Mr. Service. Well, there are several firms related
through--well, it is a joint ownership. I am an officer, a
vice-president of a small export firm, which is Sarco
International.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this: Do you currently know
anybody who is with CIA?
    Mr. Service. Yes. When I was in the government, I knew the
various people who were working with CIA. I don't have any
continuing contact with those people.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you had any contact with any of them since
December of 1951?
    Mr. Reilly. Including social contacts, I take it?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Service. I was going to say, only very passing social
contacts.
    Mr. Cohn. With whom have you had these passing social
contacts?
    I just want to get to the bottom of this thing.
    Mr. Service. Well, you have got one problem. It is very
difficult to know who is in the CIA.
    The Chairman. I might say, normally we would not be
concerned with your social contacts, but in view of these
reports, and from what we have considered reliable sources,
that you had been working for the CIA, I think these are
questions that have some bearing. I am curious to know how the
reports, repeated reports, could arise that you are working for
CIA or the army intelligence.
    Mr. Service. Well, bearing in mind that they are purely
social contacts and we never discussed CIA affairs, I think
that I may have met a man named George Greene, and a man named
Wilbur, who I believe are with CIA, although I really couldn't
say for sure.
    Mr. Cohn. In these social contacts, has there been any
discussion of CIA business?
    Mr. Service. None whatever.
    Mr. Cohn. They have never asked your opinion or advice, or
spoken to you about any problems with which they might have
been concerned, outside of, I assume, social matters?
    Mr. Service. That is right.
    The Chairman. And this export firm for which you work, of
which you are an officer, you don't know that they have
received any money from any branch of the government other than
payment for the items which you export?
    Mr. Service. I don't know of any such payments, no.
    The Chairman. Mr. Rosen, could you do this for us? I assume
that Mr. Service has no objection. Would you check the books
and find out whether or not there have been any payments either
by army intelligence or by CIA to this firm, and then have John
here submit that. We will consider that it is submitted under
oath-or from any other branch of the government. I am not
concerned with payments made when you sell some articles which
are purchased by some branch of the government. I am not
concerned with that at all. I am only concerned with payments
outside of the cost of products which you sell. You have no
objection to that being furnished, have you?
    Mr. Service. No.
    Mr. Rosen. I don't think so, Senator. I will have to check
with our client. I don't think I can see any objection to it. I
will certainly ascertain it.
    The Chairman. That will be submitted by Mr. Service, not by
you, because you are not under oath. We don't put attorneys
under oath--unless they appear as witnesses.
    Mr. Rosen. These would be any payments from any government
agency, as I understand it, Senator, other than for products?
    The Chairman. Other than for products.
    Mr. Rosen. Other than for products sold to the government
by the company.
    The Chairman. You would have no occasion to sell any
products either to army intelligence or CIA, would you?
    Mr. Service. No, as far as I know, there have been no such
sales.
    The Chairman. Would you also then check for any products
that have been sold to the CIA or to army intelligence? Give us
a list of the products and what was received for those, and
then we will consider, Mr. Service, that that is being
submitted by you and under oath, so you won't have to come back
here.
    Mr. Service. All right.
    The Chairman. Anything further?
    Mr. Cohn. No, I don't think I have anything further.
    The Chairman. I think that is all. And may I say, I am
sorry we had to occasion you the cost of a lawyer to come down
here. That is why we told Roy to call you yesterday and tell
you to come down--as I said, to tell you to come down and
answer these questions without a lawyer, and after you got here
if you wanted to adjourn and to get a lawyer, you could--I am
trying to save you the cost of getting a lawyer.
    I think that is all.
    [Witness excused.]
    The Chairman. Mr. Rainville, you have been listening to the
testimony here for several days. You are, in my opinion,
somewhat of an expert on this subject of subversion in
government. You have been deeply concerned with it for some
time. I just would like to ask you, if I may do it, in the
nature of an order, to tell us what your attitude in this is. I
think that it is important, in view of the fact you are here as
a spectator, that the committee have the benefit of your
thoughts on this matter, that especially the letter which we
showed you this morning, which we just received from the
headquarters of the First Army.
    If you would care to either make a statement or insert one
into the record at this point--I will ask you this way: whether
you care to or not, I would like to ask you to give us your
statement, and you can either make it orally or if you would
care to put it in the record in writing, that will be all
right.
    Mr. Rainville. Mr. Chairman, in view of the paragraph in
the First Army's communication this morning where it says, ``It
should be made as clear as possible to the committee. that the
names of individuals responsible for the granting or
withholding of loyalty or security clearances will not be made
available to the committee. This is in accordance with
Presidential directive of 13 March 1948,'' I should like to
make this statement:
    It should be abundantly clear to the American people if not
to the officers of the United States Army that even more
important, if that is possible, than the uncovering of
Communists in the military branches of the United States
Government, employed at highly sensitive centers handling top
secret information, is to find out who are the men that are so
naive or involved in the Communist conspiracy, that they have
approved these Communists as loyalty risks. It is a mockery of
the very purpose of the Defense Department when traitors are
employed and continued in such employment when their membership
in subversive organizations including the Communist Party
itself have been fully proved.
    Yesterday evidence of such party membership was given to
the Army in two cases. The Signal Corps, after death threats to
a witness, finally suspended a guard at the installation where
top secret films are handled. The Quartermaster Corps has
failed to act on a woman who handled classified information for
them. Now, in view of this blunt refusal to reveal the persons
who approved employment of Communists in sensitive positions,
the conclusion is inescapable that they are trying to cover up
those people who are incompetent beyond comprehension or are
directly involved.
TESTIMONY OF DONALD JOSEPH KOTCH, MICHAEL J. LYNCH AND JACOB W.
                             ALLEN
    The Chairman. The witnesses are reminded that they are
still under oath.
    Capt. Kotch. Mr. Lynch wasn't sworn, sir.
    The Chairman. Mr. Lynch, would you stand and raise your
right hand?
    In the matter now in hearing before the committee, do you
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Lynch. Yes.
    The Chairman. The other witnesses are reminded that they
are still under oath.
    Mr. Cohn. I understand, gentlemen, you have produced here
the personnel files on Mrs. Powell and on Mr. Feldman, is that
correct?
    Mr. Lynch. That's correct.
    Mr. Cohn. And your position is, as far as anything bearing
on loyalty, that that has been submitted to Washington to see
whether or not a release can be secured under the old Truman
secrecy order; is that correct?
    Capt. Kotch. Yes.
    Mr. Allen. That is correct, based on the Department of Army
directives.
    Mr. Cohn. Any reply been received from Washington yet?
    Mr. Allen. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Has any action been taken to suspend Mrs. Powell,
Captain?
    Capt. Kotch. No----
    Mr. Allen. Well, I told Mr. Schine last evening that the
only action or statement that we could make in connection with
it was that since the girl is on leave and that the security of
the office is not being compromised or endangered, that action
will be taken to assure that she does not return to duty until
such time as information before the committee. has been
evaluated, together with all other pertinent data.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, let us see, Mr. Allen. Let me ask you this,
Captain: Is Mrs. Powell still on the rolls of the government as
an employee?
    Capt. Kotch. She is carried on the rolls.
    Mr. Cohn. Does she still have her identification, as far as
you know?
    Mr. Lynch. I would say yes.
    Mr. Cohn. She still has her identification. Do you think
that somebody who comes before this committee. and refuses to
answer under the amendment on the ground of self-incrimination
whether or not she was a member of the Communist conspiracy up
through 1948, should be continued on the rolls of the United
States government, permitted to carry identification as a
United States government employee?
    Mr. Allen. Is that a--are you asking for a personal
opinion?
    Mr. Cohn. Well, that is asking for an official opinion, or
any kind of an opinion.
    The Chairman. You are the gentleman in charge, and we would
like to get your opinion.
    Mr. Allen. I believe that Captain Kotch answered the
question yesterday.
    Capt. Kotch I would say no.
    The Chairman. Would her ID card allow her to enter the
office now?
    Mr. Allen. Actually we do not require the production of
identification, I don't believe, in order to enter the
building.
    The Chairman. Well, she has got the identification card,
and has got an ID card showing she is a government employee?
    Mr. Lynch. I assume so. The only time they give up their ID
is when there is a complete separation from the government,
which is not so in her case.
    The Chairman. So that as of today she would have the same
access to the material in the office that she had before her
maternity leave?
    Mr. Allen. Well, no. She is not in a position to return to
duty.
    The Chairman. Well, I am not talking about returning to
duty. If this employee--who is still an employee--comes back,
she's got her card showing she is still a full-fledged worker
except for her maternity leave. There has been no order put out
to show that she shall be denied to any material in the office?
    Mr. Allen. I believe, Senator, that the files disclose that
the employee has been notified to inform the office at least
fifteen days prior to any intended return to duty.
    The Chairman. You mean to start to work?
    Mr. Allen. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. You said you have to evaluate the material
before you decided whether or not she will be separated. I am
curious to know what more we must produce. We produced Louis
Budenz, who has testified that she was a Communist; she was in
the Daily Worker office in the presence of a member of the
national committee. Your officer sat here and listened to that
the other day. They discussed the business of the Communist
party in the presence of her, considered her completely
trustworthy as a member of the party. Her fellow members of the
party were called in, top members; without exception, they made
selective answers, answered certain questions, but when
questioned about Mrs. Powell, their answer was always the same,
they refused to answer on the ground the answer might tend to
incriminate them. We had her sworn testimony that she had a
card in the Communist party, she attended a Communist party
leadership school; her refusal on the grounds of self-
incrimination that in the late '40s, she was a member of the
party.
    You say you will have to evaluate all of that. I am just
wondering what more you need.
    Mr. Allen. I don't believe we had that type of testimony up
until this time, Senator. The only information we had given was
that she had refused to answer as to whether or not she had
been a member of the party, on the grounds of self-
incrimination.
    The Chairman. The head of G-2 then sat here and listened to
the testimony of Budenz. He had a complete resume of it. Now,
we can't run over, you understand, and follow everyone around
and give them a resume. We gave the head of your G-2 the resume
and asked him what steps are going to be taken. He sat here and
listened to the witness. We can't give you much more
    I may say, as far as we are concerned, this committee is
going to keep on at this case until you get rid of this woman.
She is not going to come back and handle that material if we
can help it, and I think we can. It is a question of how long
you fellows are going to resist that. You can suspend her
today, or tomorrow, or the next day, but if it is within my
power--and I think it is within the power of the committee--she
will not come back.
    As I said before, I have no interest in discrediting the
United States Army. I think it is unfortunate that we have to.
We must show that they are resisting the removal of Communists,
we all end up hurt, not only the army but every American who
must depend upon the army. But I have no choice in the matter
at all. The only way I can apparently force the army to take
action in a case like this is to do it through the public. That
means through the press. In that connection, I have the most
fantastic letter I think I have ever received under any
administration, signed by Wendell G. Johnson, Colonel, G-2,
United States Army, and in which he says he is transmitting
information which he received from the Department of the Army
in answer to our request for the names of those who ordered the
people identified as Communists. He says, ``It should be made
as clear as possible to the committee. that the names of
individuals responsible for the granting or withholding of
loyalty or security clearance will not be made available to the
committee.''
    His grounds for that are that the information should not be
supplied without the approval of the secretary of the army.
This is from the secretary, saying, ``You can't have the
names.''
    Well, I would say the army can go ahead and try to get away
with this; they may even be able to do it--I don't know--but
they won't very easily do it.
    Now, you gentlemen have a woman over there who has been
completely and thoroughly identified as a Communist, who takes
the Fifth Amendment, and you say you won't take any action to
separate her because ``we haven't had a chance to evaluate the
testimony.'' You have it all.
    In comparison to the attitude of your commanding officer
over in QM, we have the commanding officer of the Signal Corps,
who promptly suspended a man upon whom the evidence wasn't
nearly as strong as it is upon your Mrs. Powell. In that case,
the only evidence was--it was strong, sure, but not nearly as
strong as the case of your woman. I think you are aware of the
evidence--signed pledges to support Communist candidates; he
said he wouldn't say whether he thought communism was good or
bad; identified as having been a preacher of the Communist
doctrines and loyal to them, but he never actually joined the
party. I just give you that so the record will be absolutely
clear, so that no one over there can say that you were denied
this information, that you were asked to operate in the dark.
    Let me ask one final question. I understand that as of
today you are taking no steps to suspend this woman, to revoke
her government ID card and have her return that; there is
nothing being done despite all this information which I have;
is that correct?
    Mr. Allen. Well, yes, I would say that is correct, except
that we have taken definite action in response to the request
of the committee, first to request a clearance for the
production of the files. We have also made available to the
Department of the Army officials the exact situation as we have
been further advised by the committee, and we have every
assurance that, as we told the committee, that she will not
return to duty until such time as all of this evidence has been
evaluated.
    The Chairman. Why isn't she suspended, the same as the man
over in the Signal Corps was suspended? Why does she continue
as an army employee?
    Mr. Allen. Well, primarily, I think, so far as our office
is concerned, it is because we are bound by the regulations and
we have to wait until we get a decision from the higher
authority on it.
    The Chairman. Well, if I am on the rolls, the army rolls,
if I hold an identification card, as she does, I can walk into
any of your army offices and show my identification card, and
talk to other employees, can't I?
    I can get through any of the gates?
    Capt. Kotch. You could get into the building.
    The Chairman. In fact, I can get into almost any army
enclosure, get through the gate, by showing my identification,
identifying myself as that person, couldn't I?
    Capt. Kotch. That identification card that we issue is for
our building only, for 111 East 16th Street.
    The Chairman. That would be of some value to her in getting
into any other government department, would it not be, if she
can go over to the individual and say, ``Here, I work for the
army, here is my identification card''?
    The guard at the gate would have a lot more confidence in
her, wouldn't he?
    Mr. Allen. They would normally inquire the nature of her
business, in consultation with whoever she wanted to see, which
would be normal practice.
    The Chairman. Then just so that this is clear, as of today
you have no intention of suspending her until you get further
information?
    Mr. Allen. We are awaiting further information from----
    The Chairman. You need further information?
    Mr. Allen. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Well, I might tell you there is no further
information that we can give you than the fact that she is a
Communist.
    Mr. Allen. I didn't mean from the committee; I meant from
Washington, or from G-2, First Army.
    The Chairman. Who has the authority to suspend her?
    Capt. Kotch. The commanding officer.
    The Chairman. What is his name?
    Capt. Kotch. Colonel Robert A. Howard, Jr.
    Mr. Allen. I called Colonel Howard, at Mr. Schine's
request, and asked him to be available at 2:30, and he said
that was all right.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ According to notes taken by the secretary to Joseph W. Bishop,
Jr., the acting chief legal officer of the Department of the Army, G.
David Schine called Bishop on September 3 to report that ``The Chairman
of the Committee, Senator McCarthy, asked me to find out whether you
had advised Colonel Howard not to state his opinion whether a Communist
should or should not be suspended. Is that true?'' Bishop said that he
had ``called his attention to the provisions of the Presidential
directive of 3 April 1952.'' ``I know that directive,'' Schine
interrupted. ``Did you tell him that he should not say whether he felt
that this person should be suspended?'' ``Not if his personal opinion
is the same thing as his official opinion,'' said Bishop. ``You know
for the past couple of days we have been trying to get information,''
Schine continued, ``. . . and we can't seem to get any action from the
Army in this matter, and we don't quite understand. We think this is
bad public relations on the Army's part.'' Bishop responded, ``As you
know, Mr. Schine, we are bound--.'' But Schine interrupted again. ``I
don't care if you are bound or not. The fact is you are doing a great
disservice to the Army.'' Bishop concluded the conversation by stating
that ``we will be glad to cooperate in making available to the
committee any information which is authorized by directives from higher
authority.'' Quoted in William Bragg Ewald, Jr., Who Killed Joe
McCarthy? (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984), 74-75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Chairman. Let me ask you, Captain, is it your job to
recommend the suspension of an individual--is it your job to
recommend for or against the suspension of an individual
suspected of being a loyalty or a security risk?
    Capt. Kotch. Yes, sir, make a recommendation.
    The Chairman. Have you recommended in this case that this
woman be suspended, that her card be revoked?
    Capt. Kotch. The case came about before my taking over as
security officer.
    The Chairman. No, I mean as of yesterday; you have been in
here two days, so you know all about her case. Your job is to
recommend, I assume, either for or against the suspension. Have
you made any recommendation to your commanding officer?
    Capt. Kotch. I discussed the case with the commanding
officer.
    The Chairman. It is rather important. You are an
intelligence officer; you are charged with a very important
responsibility. I am curious to know whether you recommended
that her identification card as a government worker be picked
up, that she be suspended, or do you think she should be
continued until you get further information?
    Capt. Kotch. I did not make an official recommendation to
the commanding officer. However, I did discuss the case with
him.
    The Chairman. Well, do you think she should be suspended
immediately, or you should wait?
    Mr. Allen. Of course, this is all tied up with our
restrictions, sir, against discussing these loyalty files,
unfortunately.
    The Chairman. I am not asking about any loyalty file. I am
asking for the judgment of the man who is in charge of
intelligence about a Communist. I ask whether he thinks she
should be suspended. One of our tasks is to get some picture of
the people who are in charge of these things.
    We are curious to know why Communists remain on. I am
curious to know why a person now known to you as a Communist--
there is no doubt in any of your minds that she is a
Communist--I am curious to know why she is kept on, and the
type of thinking. I am not asking for the content of the file;
I am asking for the content of your thinking in this. The
question is: Do you think she should be suspended, now that you
know she is a Communist?
    Capt. Kotch. In my personal opinion, a person that is known
to be a Communist should be suspended.
    The Chairman. Do you think this woman should be suspended?
You know all of the evidence on her. I just recited it to you.
Do you think she should be suspended.
    Mr. Allen. I think I could say this----
    The Chairman. I am asking the captain. He is the
intelligence officer.
    Mr. Allen. I am sorry.
    The Chairman. It is a very simple question. The evidence
has been recited to you now showing that she is a Communist by
her own admission, her refusal to answer, the testimony of
Budenz. Now, do you think with that picture she should be
suspended.
    Capt. Kotch. I feel that the person should be suspended.
    The Chairman. I can't conceive of any other answer.
    Mr. Allen, as legal officer, you have to do also with the
drafting, I assume, of any of the documents in connection with
the suspension. I assume that your advice is considered over
there--at least I know when I was a legal officer at one time
in the Marine Corps, the commanding officer would ask the
advice of the legal officer. I assume he does the same with
you. Do you think this woman should be suspended, now that you
have all the information on her?
    Mr. Allen. Yes, sir, I do.
    The Chairman. Let us see those files you brought over this
morning, Mr. Lynch.
    [Whereupon, Mr. Lynch produced the files.]
    Mr. Allen. That one is on Powell, I think [indicating]. The
other one is on Feldman.
    Mr. Lynch. Right file, I might explain--the right side
contains the permanent records, and the left side contains the
temporary records, which are substantiated by a document on the
right.
    Mr. Allen. They start at the bottom and come up. The latest
action would be on top.
    The Chairman. I imagine you want to stay with the records.
Why don't we have either Dave, or Roy, or someone go over
these, Mr. Lynch, and we can go out to lunch, and when we come
back we can decide which, if any, we need to make a record of?
    I notice in her application she doesn't list all of her
education background; she doesn't list the Claudia Jones School
that she attended. Do they swear to this?
    Mr. Allen. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. It would be a false statement in a matter pending
before----
    Mr. Allen. I think there is an affidavit in there, a
loyalty affidavit.
    The Chairman. What does this mean, when it says it refers
to ``coded specifications''? Does that refer to code in the
military sense?
    Mr. Allen. Is that a job description?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Allen. I don't know.
    The Chairman. What are ``coded specifications in connection
with buyers''?
    Mr. Allen. Coded?
    The Chairman. Coded.
    Mr. Allen. They seem to think it just means some numbering
for a certain series of specifications.
    The Chairman. I see.
    This is interesting in here. We note she was working for
the Navy Department and the Ordnance Department while she was
working for Doxie Wilkerson, member of the national committee
of the Communist party, at the same time.
    Mr. Cohn. The Third Naval District is New York, isn't it?
    Capt. Kotch. Yes.
    The Chairman. You want to take this back with you, do you?
    Mr. Lynch. Yes, Senator. The documents are numbered. Any
one you want, we will supply photostats of if you just give us
the number.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Lynch, maybe you could help us here. I am
looking for the names of the references, sir, that she gave.
You might have more familiarity with these forms.
    Mr. Allen. It will be on Form 57.
    Mr. Schine. Where is the Form 57?
    Mr. Lynch. Here [indicating].
    Mr. Cohn. How about her references for employment with the
Navy Department?
    Mr. Allen. I think she came to our office on transfer from
First Army at Governor's Island.
    Mr. Cohn. That's right.
    Now, how about the First Army 57?
    Mr. Lynch. First Army 57?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Lynch. We don't seem to have that, Mr. Allen.
    Mr. Allen. I thought I saw a 57 when I was going through
that file.
    Mr. Lynch. That is the old personal history statement.
    We are talking about the green one. I didn't notice any
this morning when I went through it.
    Mr. Cohn. How about her 57 when she went to First Army? How
can we get that?
    The Chairman. You wouldn't have a copy of her form 57?
    Mr. Lynch. If it is not in the file, sir, I don't have it.
    The Chairman. You wouldn't have the 57 when she applied for
a job with the Ordnance Department, or the Department of the
Navy, would you?
    Mr. Allen. Not unless it was in this file.
    Mr. Cohn. We would really want to see that.
    Could you show me the same thing on this file, Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Surely. Is this Feldman?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    The Chairman. Apparently he doesn't have a very important
job.
    Mr. Lynch. He has been on non-sensitive duty ever since his
time with us.
    Mr. Cohn. We get a copy of the form 57 on each of these two
people photostated and sent to us?
    Mr. Allen. Surely.
    Mr. Lynch. On Feldman we will get the S.F. 60.
    Mr. Cohn. Oh, sure.
    Mr. Allen. The job sheet.
    The Chairman. Yes, the job description, showing what her
work is.
    Mr. Cohn. And any form showing her employment with any
other government agency besides you people?
    The Chairman. If possible, I would like to get the
references she gave when she got a job with army Ordnance at
the Frankfort Arsenal and with the Navy Department, if you have
it available. You perhaps wouldn't be able to get it.
    Mr. Cohn. You wouldn't have the navy, would you?
    Mr. Allen. We would only have from them what is in that
file.
    The Chairman. Wouldn't you get a copy of her 57 that she
filed with the navy when you hired her?
    Mr. Lynch. We should have. When we requested her 201,
anything she had would have been sent over.
    The Chairman. I notice you have the correspondence with her
and the navy. I wonder if you would do this, Mr. Lynch, if you
would glance through that and see if you could find the Navy
Department's Form 57. We would like to have photostats of that;
also her job description, and anything else that would show who
she used as references.
    On Feldman, Roy, I want----
    Mr. Cohn. The same thing.
    The Chairman. Form 57. I don't think his job sheet is
important.
    Apparently, from the job sheet he was a common laborer,
loading and unloading trucks.
    Mr. Lynch. Just one copy?
    The Chairman. One copy.
    Mr. Allen. The job description also of Feldman?
    The Chairman. Yes, I think we should have that also.
    We will make this letter a part of the record.
        Headquarters First Army, Governor's Island,
                    Office of Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2
                                 New York 4, NY, September 3, 1951.
    To: Mr. G. David Schine, Senate Investigating Committee, U.S. Court
House (First Floor), Foley Square, New York, NY.
    Dear Mr. Schine: After receiving a reply from the Department of
Army to the requests which the Committee gave me orally yesterday
morning, I telephoned your number, Murray hill 8-0110, about 6 p.m.,
and was informed you were not there; and that I might try Plaza 5-7468,
which I did with no success. I also phoned the U.S. Court House
(Cortlandt 7-7110), but was informed by the guard that the switchboard
was closed. For that reason, I phoned your hotel again and left my home
telephone number at which you reached me at midnight. In accordance
with your request at that time that I send you a memorandum of the oral
reply that I received from the Department of Army, the following is
furnished, but being a transcription of a telephone message it should
not be construed as a written reply of Department of Army.
                               question 1
    What action is the Army going to take on the three individuals
named by the Committee in the light of the information unavailable?
    Answer. Security considerations affecting the named individuals,
like any other employees of Department of Army, will be dealt with
under the applicable directives and regulations, particularly Executive
Order 10450 dated 27-8 1953 (change 2 to AR380-10) and special
regulation 620-220-1, Department of Army. In this connection the
responsible security authorities of Department of Army are glad to
consider any pertinent information that the Committee may care to make
available.
                               question 2
    The Committee desires that the Army furnish the names of the
individuals responsible at each level for the hiring of these persons
and the names of the persons responsible at each level for retaining
them on government rolls.
    Answer. There is no objection to furnishing to the Committee ``all
unclassified routine papers.'' (Such as Civil Service Form 57, records
of promotion, efficiency ratings, letters of recommendation, etcetera,)
based on Department of Army memo AGAM-PM-313.5, 10 August 1949; CSUSA,
subject: Release of Personnel Records and Information dated 11 August
1948. Similarly, there appears to be no objection under the regulations
to furnishing to the Committee the names of persons actually
responsible for hiring the employees named by the Committee. The
Committee may also be furnished the names of individuals personally
having authority to discharge such employees, since it may be
considered that such individuals are responsible for retaining the
named employees. It should, however, be made as clear as possible to
the Committee that the names of individuals responsible for the
granting or withholding of loyalty or security clearances will not be
made available to the Committee. This is in accordance with
Presidential Directive of 13 March 1948 (contained in paragraph 55 of
Army Regulations 380-10, changes to that directive.) Change 1 to AR
380-10, provides that without the consent of the Secretary, no
information shall be supplied as to any specific intermediate steps,
proceedings, transcripts of hearings, or actions taken in processing an
individual in loyalty or security programs. There is no objection to
making available the names of all members of an Agency Loyalty Board,
but it is entirely improper to divulge the members who sat on
particular cases.
    I should like to reiterate that any information relative to any
individuals that the Committee would be willing to make available to me
or to other authorized Department of Army representatives will be
appreciated and will be utilized in accordance with applicable
regulations.
            Very truly yours,
                                           Wendell Johnson,
                                          Colonel, G.S., U.S. Army.
    [Whereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.]
           COMMUNIST INFILTRATION AMONG ARMY CIVILIAN WORKERS
    [Editor's Note.--After the executive session on September
8, 1953, Senator McCarthy told the press that the subcommittee
had obtained the sworn admission of a former employee of the
War Munitions Board that he had given secret information
concerning production and types of tanks, planes, ammunition
and arms to Frederick G. Blumenthal, an associate of the
newspaper columnist Drew Pearson. On September 9, the New York
Times reported: ``Mr. McCarthy said he had not asked for
prosecution of the witness because he appeared to have been
caught . . . through wire-tapping and other devices and had
given out the classified material to protect his superior
officers from adverse comments in the Pearson column.'' Drew
Pearson then issued a public statement in response: ``At no
time have I or any member of my staff engaged in blackmail,
intimidation or threats in connection with a news story.''
Privately, Pearson believed that the Justice Department was
preparing to take action against him. He had long been
convinced that the government had tapped his phone, but assumed
that since electronic eavesdropping was not admissible in court
it would need to corroborate the charges against him. In his
diary, Pearson noted: ``I looked up the columns McCarthy has
been yelling about and which have to do with MacArthur's poor
intelligence during the Korean retreat in 1950; also the column
on Tank Turrets which came from Don Murray, Jack Small's
assistant in the Munitions Board. Frankly, I don't think a jury
would take action on that.'' The Justice Department took no
legal action against Pearson, and Donald Murray did not testify
in public session.]
                              ----------
                       TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met (pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953), at 10:05 a.m., in room 357, Senate
Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M.
Cohn, chief counsel; Donald A. Surine, assistant counsel; Ruth
Young Watt, chief clerk; and Robert Jones, administrative
assistant to Senator Potter.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\ Robert L. Jones was press secretary, not administrative
assistant, to Senator Charles Potter, Republican of Michigan. A native
of Maine, he previously had served on the staff of Senator Ralph Owen
Brewster, Republican of Maine, and had worked on Brewster's
unsuccessful campaign for renomination in 1952. Senator Potter
delegated Jones to represent him at the subcommittee's meetings in New
York, but later expressed surprise that Jones had joined in questioning
witnesses. Senator Potter fired Jones on February 19, 1954, when he
learned that his press secretary had issued an unauthorized statement
approving of Senator McCarthy's charges against the army. Three days
later, Jones announced his intention to challenge Senator Margaret
Chase Smith in the Maine Republican primary. Insisting that he had
resigned rather than been fired, Jones issued a statement asserting:
``It is obvious that very powerful sources were determined that I
should not oppose Mrs. Smith in the Maine Republican primaries. I am
thoroughly convinced that this is the handiwork of devious Left Wing
elements who are fearful of a bitter political showdown in Maine
between the forces of Americanism and international Liberalism.'' In
the June primary, Senator Smith beat Jones by a 5 to 1 margin.
Afterwards, Smith declined to support--and thereby effectively
blocked--Senator McCarthy's effort to appoint Jones to the staff of the
Government Operations Committee. See Charles E. Potter, Days of Shame
(New York: Coward-McCann, 1965), 152-159; and Margaret Chase Smith,
Declaration of Conscience (Garden City: Doubleday, 1972), 52-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Chairman. The hearing will be in order.
    In this matter now in hearing before this subcommittee, do
you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Murray. I do.
  TESTIMONY OF H. DONALD MURRAY (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS ATTORNEY,
                        BYRON N. SCOTT)
    The Chairman. Your counsel is Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Murray. Byron N. Scott, 814 Wyatt Building.
    The Chairman. Mr. Murray, in the course of our checking
into the army security, we came across the story of your having
given classified material to a news man or columnist here in
Washington. I wonder if you would care to give us your version
of that, if you will.
    Mr. Murray. Well, I don't know that I understand your
question.
    The Chairman. You were a civilian employee of the army?
    Mr. Murray. Well, no; I was a civilian employee of the
Munitions Board of the office of the secretary of defense.
    The Chairman. And you are no longer working with the office
of the secretary of defense?
    Mr. Murray. That is correct.
    The Chairman. What was the occasion of your being
separated?
    Mr. Murray. I resigned, Senator, on the fourth day of
August, last year.
    The Chairman. Will you tell us the circumstances
surrounding your resignation?
    Mr. Murray. Well, there is not too much to tell you, sir,
other than the fact that it appeared that the Munitions Board
was going to be depleted. It appeared that there was little or
no opportunity to stay on there and I began approximately
ninety days, or 120 days before that, looking for something
else to do and I served notice on my superior, Mr. Small, that
I was contemplating resigning and on the fourth day of August I
went in and submitted a letter of resignation.
    The Chairman. Were you asked to resign?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir; I was not asked to resign.
    The Chairman. Were you aware of the fact that the army
intelligence had to try to find out who was giving out
classified material?
    Mr. Murray. At that time I was not.
    The Chairman. You learned subsequently that your phone had
been tapped?
    Mr. Murray. I learned by having received a letter of
suspension after I resigned that they were unhappy about
something; yes, sir.
    The Chairman. At the time you resigned you didn't know
anything about this?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you know also that they had microphones
in your room and you gave out classified material?
    Mr. Murray. I did not know that, sir.
    The Chairman. I can inform you of that now, for your own
protection when you answer the subsequent questions.
    Did you on any occasion give classified material to anyone
outside of the Defense Department?
    Mr. Murray. Well, what do you mean, sir, when you say did I
give it to people?
    The Chairman. Well, I think the phrase is very simple. Did
you give anyone classified material?
    Mr. Murray. You mean did I hand them something classified?
    The Chairman. Did you give it in any fashion? Did you call
and give them information that was classified? Did you read
classified material to them? Did you hand it to them?
    In other words, did you transmit, using ``give'' in its
broadest sense, classified material to anyone outside of the
Defense Department?
    Mr. Murray. Senator, I did discuss classified information.
    The Chairman. With whom did you discuss it?
    Mr. Murray. With Fred Blumenthal.
    The Chairman. With Fred Blumenthal?
    Mr. Murray. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. On how many occasions did you discuss
classified material with Mr. Blumenthal?
    Mr. Murray. I couldn't possibly give you an intelligent
answer to that, Senator. I would say several times.
    The Chairman. It was a sizable number of times, was it?
    Mr. Murray. No, it was not, sir.
    The Chairman. Would you say more than one dozen times? I am
referring now to your telephone conversations as well as any
other conversations.
    Mr. Murray. I daresay I discussed it more than a dozen
times.
    The Chairman. Yes. And the material was classified. What
was the classification of the material? Did it range from
restricted to top secret?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir; it did not.
    The Chairman. What was the classification?
    Mr. Murray. It ranged from restricted to some secret.
    The Chairman. And among other things you gave him
production figures on our weapons?
    Mr. Murray. I did not give him production figures to the
best of my recollection. I did give him percentages.
    The Chairman. By percentages, what do you mean?
    Mr. Murray. How Mr. Blumenthal got the basic information
that he brought into the office, I am not aware, but he did on
several instances come in with figures indicating that this
program or that program, be it tanks or rockets, or what not,
was bogging down and that there was something indicated in the
way of a news story that either he or this Mr. Pearson wanted
to run and did I have any information on that. I think that at
this point I should attempt to clarify to you how this all came
about, if that would be permissible.
    The Chairman. I wish you would, yes.
    Mr. Murray. Early in 1952--strike that. It was in December
of 1951, I volunteered to return to the Navy Department--no, I
am wrong on that date, too. It was in June of 1951, I
volunteered shortly after Korea to return to the navy, and in
December I was detached from the navy and was transferred to
the office of the chairman of the Munitions Board as a
civilian.
    The following year, which would be early '52, there
appeared in Mr. Pearson's column an article saying that Mr.
Small's work had bogged down, that the White House was very
unhappy with Mr. Small; that the programs that Mr. Small had
supposedly agreed to put into being were not progressing as
well; that the White House was very unhappy and that he was
doomed to be a short timer.
    At that point Mr. Small called me in the office one
morning.
    The Chairman. Will you identify Mr. Small?
    Mr. Murray. Mr. John D. Small.
    Senator Dirksen. John D. Small?
    Mr. Murray. That is right, Senator.
    Senator Dirksen. He was on the Security Council at the
time?
    Mr. Murray. No, he was chairman of the Munitions Board for
whom I worked.
    The Chairman. I think for the record we should describe
briefly what the function of the Munitions Board was at that
time.
    Mr. Murray. Well, the Munitions Board was designated as a
sort of claimant to represent the military services. I have
heard Mr. Small describe it that way; that the Munitions Board
which was made up of the chairman, the three under secretaries
of the services acted more or less as a board in a corporation.
    The Chairman. In any event, the Munitions Board had
complete knowledge of the production of all of our weapons,
atomic weapons, launches, that sort of thing.
    Mr. Murray. I don't know if that is true, or not. If so, I
have never seen those figures.
    The Chairman. Is not that the type of material you
discussed with Mr. Blumenthal?
    Mr. Murray. No, that isn't the kind of information I
discussed with Mr. Blumenthal.
    The Chairman. Pardon me, I interrupted. You were going
through a chronological story.
    Mr. Murray. When the article appeared in the papers Mr.
Small asked me to go to Mr. Pearson and tell him for heaven
sakes to get off his neck instead of putting up trial balloons
to get peoples' reaction.
    I counseled with Mr. Small against going to Mr. Pearson and
rather than do that I arranged to have one of Mr. Pearson's
staff to come to see me, at which time I asked him to please
stop publishing half truths.
    The Chairman. Their man was Fred Blumenthal?
    Mr. Murray. That man was Fred Blumenthal.
    It was at that point that he came to see me at the
Pentagon. It was with the complete approval of Mr. Small that
he came over. It was with Mr. Small's complete knowledge that
he continued to come over.
    The Chairman. Did Mr. Small ever authorize you to give him
secret material?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Will you describe the nature of the secret
material given?
    Mr. Murray. Well, Senator, it is almost impossible to go
back two years and give specifics, but I will attempt it. I
have no idea of trying to hold anything from you at all, sir,
and I will try to attempt as best I can to describe the type of
meetings that we had and the type of information that we
discussed.
    Mr. Blumenthal, I will say, if there is any defense for Mr.
Blumenthal and his tactics, was not particularly interested in
classified material. He was more interested as experience
proved to me in stories having to do with people or in stories
having to do with poor management, or in stories having to do
with disagreements, areas of disagreements indicating that
unification was not working; that the Munitions Board was at
loggerheads with the Department of the Army, or with the
Department of the Air Force or the like, and as the result of
that came in many, many times with bits and pieces of
information.
    I have seen Mr. Blumenthal with information in his hand
marked confidential and the arrangement I made with Mr.
Blumenthal----
    The Chairman. That is military information?
    Mr. Murray. I expect you would call it military
information, Senator, yes.
    The Chairman. Pardon me; go ahead.
    Mr. Murray. In discussing this with Mr. Small on one
instance I took Mr. Blumenthal to Mr. Small's office when he
had this confidential in his hand and showed it to Mr. Small.
That had to do, as my memory serves me, with the fact that a
man who had made faulty antiaircraft munitions on the West
Coast and his name slips me at the moment, had been given a
contract to produce aluminum at, I believe it was the Crazy
Horse Dam. He had been given approval for a tremendous amount
of electrical energy and that he had also been given the nod
by, I believe it was General Services Administration to buy a
great many rectifiers and go into the manufacture of virgin
aluminum somewhere on the West Coast.
    The Chairman. Do you know that man's name?
    Mr. Murray. I do not know that man's name. I could get that
and supply it to you.
    The Chairman. If you would, we would appreciate that.
    Mr. Murray. It was all aired in Mr. Pearson's column as I
recall it.
    But, anyhow, this information was contained in some records
which Blumenthal had picked up somewhere and they were on
official navy letterhead. The point that he was driving at was
to try to write a story on why a man who had produced faulty
antiaircraft ammunition would be given the contract for current
war surplus material to go into the production of aluminum for
the air force.
    I think the aluminum which came from that was to go into
components.
    The Chairman. Let's get down to production figures. Did you
ever read to him production figures, figures that were
classified secret?
    Mr. Murray. Yes. Some were not classified at all, sir, some
were classified in various ranges. I couldn't recall
specifically which.
    The Chairman. I may say for your own protection that the
army had your room miked, army intelligence.
    Mr. Murray. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. There is a record of what you read to him.
    Mr. Murray. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. I just wanted to tell you that for your own
protection when you answer these questions. The question was,
did you read to him production figures that were classified as
secret?
    Mr. Murray. Well, my recollection, sir, of reading to him,
and I never permitted him to see anything, was this: He came in
time after time after time with the fact that this program or
that program had bogged down.
    The Chairman. Let's get back to the question. The question
is, did you read him production figures, figures that were
classified as secret?
    Mr. Murray. I am attempting to answer that now, sir. When
he would say ``I understand that such and such a program is
down and this is very grave, or this looks like a good story,''
I would refer to a report and say, ``Mr. Blumenthal, your
figures are erroneous. Instead of being off 10 percent as you
have indicated, it is up 50 percent.''
    But to read specific figures of X number of rifles or X
number of guns, I have no recollection of reading anything like
that.
    The Chairman. I understand that Blumenthal would come into
your office as you say time after time, and one day he would
say the production of tanks was down, they were going to write
a story and you would give the accurate production.
    Another day he would say the production of some other
weapon was down, and you would give the actual production.
    Mr. Murray. No, sir; I would give percentages.
    The Chairman. By percentages, what do you mean?
    Mr. Murray. Well, if the program was down in the month of
April as an example, and he would say ``this looks like a good
story, the production is down,'' I would look at the figures
for May and would say ``Your information is wrong. They are up
fifteen percent.''
    The Chairman. So from his conferences with you, Blumenthal
would have almost a perfect picture of how our production of
ammunition and weapons was progressing, whether it was large or
whether it was ahead of schedule.
    Mr. Murray. I wouldn't agree with that, sir.
    The Chairman. You would not agree with that. How many times
would you say he was in your office?
    Mr. Murray. He came in whenever he had a mind to.
    The Chairman. About how many times? Is it not a fact that
he was in there conservatively at least fifty times?
    Mr. Murray. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. And each time he would come you would give
him some information on production?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Practically every time he came?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir.
    The Chairman. How many times? Would you say twenty, thirty,
thirty-five times you gave him information on production?
    Mr. Murray. I can't answer that, Senator. I don't recall.
    The Chairman. Is it not a fact that that was one of the
things discussed almost every time he came in? He would come in
and say, ``I understand production is down on a certain
thing,'' and you would get the file and read to him and let him
know roughly what the production was?
    Mr. Murray. That didn't happen every time.
    The Chairman. I say almost every time.
    Mr. Murray. Not almost every time.
    The Chairman. About how many times?
    Mr. Murray. I really couldn't say.
    The Chairman. Would you say it was more than twenty-five
times?
    Mr. Murray. I couldn't say. I don't have a reaction. I hate
to say more than twenty-five or if it isn't more than twenty-
five, or I hate to say anything over twenty-five.
    The Chairman. In other words, as of today you could not say
whether it was more than twenty-five times or less than twenty-
five times, that you discussed with him the production of our
weapons, the information that you discussed being classified?
    Mr. Murray. I could not honestly answer that.
    The Chairman. I see. Now, if a Communist agent had the
information which Mr. Blumenthal had, would you say that would
be a benefit to him?
    Mr. Murray. Mr. Chairman, I can only say this in
retrospect, that I question whether any information that I
discussed, some of which I discussed accurately and some of
which I discussed inaccurately with Mr. Blumenthal, would be of
any considerable aid or comfort to a potential enemy.
    The Chairman. Well, is not an enemy interested normally in
the production and weapons, or, put it this way: wouldn't it
have been of great benefit to us if we knew how Russia's tank
production is progressing, if we knew their production of
ammunition and rifles, that would be of great benefit to us,
would it not?
    Mr. Murray. I daresay that it would.
    The Chairman. Likewise, if a Russian knew about our
production, it would be of equal benefit to them, would it not?
    Mr. Murray. Yes, if they did, but I never gave Mr.
Blumenthal a complete rundown of our production by actual
figures.
    The Chairman. Yes. I wish you would be careful before you
answer this: You say you never discussed with him production in
number of units.
    I may say for your benefit, Mr. Murray, and I do not want
to be in a position of entrapping you or anything, we have the
information that you did discuss with Mr. Blumenthal our
production figures, not only in percentages, but also in number
of units, production, that you discussed the production of
ammunition, the production of bazookas, the production of
tanks, the production of different types of airplanes.
    That is the information we have, and I give you that before
we ask you these questions.
    Mr. Murray. Well, I don't see how you could have all that
information, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss with him the production
of bazookas?
    Mr. Murray. I don't recall discussing bazookas with Mr.
Blumenthal.
    The Chairman. Can you say that you did not discuss the
production of bazookas? Anti-tank bazookas?
    Mr. Murray. I have no recollection, sir, of ever discussing
it with him.
    The Chairman. Did you not discuss with Mr. Blumenthal to
refresh your recollection, the fact that the cost of a bazooka
was some sixty-seven lower than the cost of the tank? Did you
not discuss, number one, the drop over in our production of
tanks and you gave him as the reason the fact that you can
produce a tank-destroying bazooka for a infinitesimal fraction
of the cost of a tank and therefore, we were switching to the
production of bazookas and that we felt that Russia was making
a great mistake in her massive production of tanks because we
had the weapons that could destroy them and could turn them out
at a tremendous rate of speed and gave him that as an excuse
for the drop-off in the tank production?
    Mr. Murray. I have no recollection of ever saying that to
him.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss with him the production
of tanks?
    Mr. Murray. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you tell him that our tank production was
dropping off by plan?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir. My recollection on that, sir, is that
the only--well, I won't say only, because I think that would be
a little silly to say that, but my recollection of the tank
discussion with Mr. Blumenthal was this: He came in one day
with a story that he said he had picked up from a news
broadcast of, I believe, Douglas Edwards, in which it had been
alleged that there were a great many tanks lying at the tank
arsenal in Detroit and that the reason for the tanks laying
there and not being shipped abroad was of some considerable
interest to them and I told Mr. Blumenthal that that was not at
all true; that those tanks were awaiting modification and that
as soon as the modification had taken place they would be
shipped.
    The Chairman. Did you ever discuss the production of any of
our weapons or the production of anything in terms of units
rather than percentages?
    Mr. Murray. I have said that there were X number of
something or other produced in a month. I have no recollection
of ever discussing any total program with him.
    The Chairman. But you did occasionally tell him how many
units were produced in a month, or over a certain period of
time, did you not?
    Mr. Murray. I may have. I may have. I have no specific
recollection on it.
    The Chairman. Did you discuss ammunition production with
him?
    Mr. Murray. Only in the very general terms, sir. I don't
remember any specifics on ammunition.
    The Chairman. You discussed production with him very
freely, did you not? You and he got to be pretty good friends I
assume, after he stopped in there fifty or sixty times.
    Mr. Murray. I shouldn't say we were good friends, then or
now.
    The Chairman. You got to be friendly, did you not?
    Mr. Murray. It would depend on what you call being friendly
with a newspaper columnist.
    The Chairman. He would tell you a story was thus or so, and
you would discuss the figures freely with him, would you not?
    Mr. Murray. I shouldn't say I discussed them freely with
him.
    Senator Dirksen. Was it the custom, Mr. Murray, of
newspaper men, other than Mr. Blumenthal, to drop in and
discuss these matters with you?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Was he the only one?
    Mr. Murray. Well, I think probably in the two years I was
over there there was one or two people from either one of the
magazines or from the New York Times that dropped in to see
someone and I wound up interviewing them for whatever it was
that they wanted to see or wanted to discuss.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you discuss with those magazine people
with equal freedom----
    Mr. Murray. They were not interested in that sort of thing.
They were looking for the type of stories that the New York
Times will run or the Fortune magazine. I have forgotten, but I
daresay the almost two years I was over there outside of
Blumenthal, I never talked to a half a dozen people about
anything in the press.
    Senator Dirksen. But he is the only one with whom you had
these discussions from time to time?
    Mr. Murray. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. What is the nature of the regulation under
which you operate with respect to the disclosure of
confidential or secret or top secret information? Is there a
specific regulation covering the matter?
    Mr. Murray. Yes, indeed there is.
    Senator Dirksen. And is a copy of that available?
    Mr. Murray. I daresay it is; yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. I wonder if it could not be supplied for
the record.
    The Chairman. Yes, Mr. Carr will get a copy of that for the
record.
    But your testimony is that the only one to whom you gave
specific information outside of authorized personnel was
Blumenthal?
    Mr. Murray. I would say that is accurate; yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Did any of Pearson's other men ever accompany
Blumenthal on any of his trips?
    Mr. Murray. I beg your pardon?
    Senator Dirksen. Did any of Pearson's other men----
    Mr. Murray. Yes, once or twice Jack Anderson came over.
    The Chairman. You also gave the same type of information to
Jack Anderson, did you?
    Mr. Murray. Jack didn't come to see me. He came with Mr.
Blumenthal on something else.
    The Chairman. When Anderson and Blumenthal were in the room
with you, you did give classified information to Blumenthal so
that Anderson could hear it; is that correct?
    Mr. Murray. I couldn't say that that was so, no.
    The Chairman. At the time, did Mr. Small know that you were
giving classified information to Pearson's leg man, to your
knowledge?
    Mr. Murray. Well, that is a very difficult question to
answer. Mr. Small at all times knew that I was talking with Mr.
Pearson's people. Mr. Small knew that Mr. Pearson's people were
bringing classified information or bits and pieces of
classified information. I think that there were a number of
other people in the Pentagon that were completely aware of the
fact that Mr. Pearson's people were coming in.
    The Chairman. When you found Pearson's man with classified
material in his hand, material which you did not give him, did
you ever report that to army intelligence or anyone else?
    Mr. Murray. I reported it to Mr. Small. I took him in with
it in his hand and let him see it.
    The Chairman. What did Mr. Small say?
    Mr. Murray. He seemed quite surprised that he had it.
    The Chairman. Did Mr. Small indicate that he thought it was
improper for him to have it?
    Mr. Murray. He did, and so did I.
    The Chairman. Now, when you would give Pearson's man the
production figures, et cetera, in units or as you say
percentage wise, did you watch his column to see whether he was
using that in his column?
    Mr. Murray. Well, I naturally read his column frequently. I
recall seeing nothing in his column that I had ever discussed
with him except the tank story.
    The Chairman. Did you think it was rather unusual that a
man would come into your office and give you a phony story
about production figures in order to get accurate figures and
then not use it in his column? Did it ever occur to you that
the information might be going some place where it could do
this country grave damage? Did that occur to you?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir; it did not.
    The Chairman. Did you know that Pearson had two Communists
on his payroll, one Andrew Cardiello, who was disclosed as
being a Communist by an undercover FBI agent, and that Pearson
had been informed by the FBI that he was a Communist and that
when the information was made public he said he was trying to
reform him, and another man, David Carr, alias David Katz, who
not only worked for him, but for the ``Party Organizer,'' one
of the top secret instruction sheets?
    Did you know this when you were giving the information to
Blumenthal?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir.
    The Chairman. If you knew it, would you have given the
information?
    Mr. Murray. I question very much if I would have.
    The Chairman. I am curious to know why you gave this one
news man secret information knowing what secret means, knowing
the classification, that secret information in the hands of an
enemy can cause us, according to classification to lose a
battle, to lose a war, to lose a technical advantage, I am
curious to know why you would so freely give out that
information.
    Mr. Murray. Senator, you keep bearing down on me on the
point that I so freely gave it to him. I would like to
reiterate one statement which I attempted to make clear. That
was the fact that there were a great many stories which he
brought in ostensibly to run in the newspaper which I felt
would be of a tremendous detriment and in many instances I
discussed it with Mr. Small to everything ranging from the
blood bank program, I guess it is the Red Cross that were to
direct the donations of blood, up to items having to do with
helicopters.
    The Chairman. Aircraft ammunition?
    Mr. Murray. Not so much that.
    The Chairman. You say not so much that?
    Mr. Murray. He seemed more interested and apparently had
more access to leads on stories having to do with tanks and
mines.
    The Chairman. In other words, your testimony is that he
would come in and in effect threaten to run a story in regard
to production of certain military items. You felt the story
would do great damage, so in order to prevent his running the
story you were in effect blackmailed into giving the correct
information to him and you did that because you thought the
lesser of two evils was to prevent his running a story which
was completely untrue.
    Mr. Murray. I wouldn't say there was any blackmail involved
in it, but in essence what you say is true.
    The Chairman. What would you call it if I come in to see
you and say, ``Now, Mr. Murray, I am going to run a story
showing that ammunition production has dropped off
tremendously, that in the month of April your production was
down 30 percent. I am going to run that story.''
    In order to keep me from running it, you would give me
accurate figures, but it would be my definition of blackmail. I
do not know what your definition would be. Is that a roughly
correct recitation of the situation?
    Mr. Murray. Of course, they never phrased it exactly like
that, Senator.
    The Chairman. Senator Dirksen, the chairman here has
informed me that we have a public hearing and we promised to
start promptly at ten-thirty and if you don't mind we will ask
Mr. Murray to return at two o'clock.
    Senator Dirksen. Very well.
    The Chairman. We are going to excuse you and call another
witness. Will you come back at two o'clock?
    Mr. Murray. This same room?
    The Chairman. Yes, the same room.
    Mr. Murray. Thank you very much.
    The Chairman. Mr. Wilkerson, will you stand up and be
sworn.
    In the matter now in hearing before the committee, do you
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I do.
TESTIMONY OF DOXEY WILKERSON (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, DAVID
                             REIN)
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Wilkerson, are you a member of the Communist
party?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I refuse to answer that question on the
basis of my privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know a woman named Doris Walters?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I think I have known such a person.
    Mr. Cohn. Is it not a fact that she was your secretary up
at the People's Voice?
    Mr. Wilkerson. This is dim, but I believe when I was at
People's Voice as executive director, I believe that while I
was executive editor of the People's Voice some five or six
years ago, she served for five or six weeks as a temporary
secretary while my regular secretary was absent.
    Mr. Cohn. She has testified that she worked for you for
some five or six years.
    Mr. Wilkerson. Not as my secretary.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Doris Walters?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I think I know the lady you speak of.
    Mr. Cohn. I show this to you [document handed to witness].
    Mr. Wilkerson. I know her. I should say I haven't seen this
woman since about '48 or '49, about the time I left People's
Voice.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Wilkerson, did you recruit Doris Walters into
the Communist party?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I refuse to answer that question on the
basis of my privilege.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you hand her a membership card in the
Communist party in 1947?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I refuse to answer for the same reason.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you, Mr. Wilkerson, assign her to a pen at
the Claudia Jones Leadership Schools of the Communist party?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I refuse to answer the question for the same
reason.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you collect Communist party dues from her?
    Mr. Wilkerson. For the same reason, I refuse to answer the
question.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you assign her to become secretary to Mr.
Denton Brooks of the People's Voice, and ask her to spy on Mr.
Brooks and report to you, to Marvel Cooke, and to Madeline
Lawrence, information which would be of value to the Communist
party?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I refuse to answer the question for the same
reasons.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Marvel Cooke?
    Mr. Wilkerson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Is Marvel Cooke a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Wilkerson. That question I refuse to answer for the
same reason.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Wilkerson, did Doris Walter ever discuss with
you and in your presence at a meeting of the Communist party
work she was doing for the United States Navy?
    Mr. Wilkerson. She has never discussed with me any work she
has done with the navy at any time.
    Mr. Cohn. Has she ever discussed any work she has done with
any government agency?
    Mr. Wilkerson. She has not.
    Mr. Cohn. If she testified she had, she is not telling the
truth?
    Mr. Wilkerson. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Your testimony is that at the time you knew her
while working at People's Voice she never discussed any work
she was doing for the United States government?
    Mr. Wilkerson. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. You are positive about that?
    Mr. Wilkerson. I am positive about that. I never knew she
had a job for the United States government.
    The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, we want you and your client to
go to room 318.
    [Whereupon, at 10:45, the hearing was recessed, to
reconvene at 2:00 p.m. in the same room.]
                              After Recess
    3:00 p.m.
            TESTIMONY OF H. DONALD MURRAY (RESUMED)
    The Chairman. We are sorry, Mr. Murray, to bring you back
again this afternoon, but we had a public hearing this morning
and could not finish.
    Let me review your testimony, if I may, and do not hesitate
to check me when I am wrong. Your testimony is that, number
one, you are a civilian employee of the Munitions Board; your
immediate superior was Mr. Small who was chairman of the board;
that the only newsman to whom you gave classified material was
Drew Pearson's man Blumenthal; that on a few occasions Mr. Jack
Anderson was there, but apparently he was not there for the
same purpose as Blumenthal but apparently was in the building
to get other information; that you saw Mr. Blumenthal in your
office in excess of fifty times; that you are unable to say at
this time whether you gave him classified material on more or
less than twenty-five occasions; that the classified material
had to do with production; that the usual procedure was for him
to come to the office and tell you about a story they were
going to write; proposed to write; that you were disturbed by
the story which you thought would be damaging to the military;
it would for example, indicate a great fallout on the
production of some military equipment; and, in order to get him
to write a correct story or to refrain from writing a false
story which would hurt the military, you would then go to the
files and would give them classified material on production;
that in most instances the information you gave him had to do
with percentage increase or decrease in the production of
various pieces of military equipment but that on some occasions
you gave him the figures in number of units produced; and, so
that the record is clear, I believe I informed you for your own
protection that your phone had been tapped, that your room was
miked, and that you were heard giving the secret production
figures.
    I am trying to review the entire picture so that we will
know where we are going from here. You testified that you did
watch his column that you found published practically none of
the production figures to your knowledge except the production
figures on tanks that you gave him.
    Mr. Murray. I would like to correct that last one, sir, if
I may. It was not a production figure. It was the number of
tanks that were awaiting modification at the Detroit Tank
Arsenal.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Murray, I would like to ask this
question at this point. I notice in the administrative order
no. 8 which was issued on 20 September 1951 with respect to the
disclosure of information, that section 10 of that
administrative instruction has this statement, precisely
Section 10.02: ``Unauthorized disclosure of classified
material. Any person on duty with the Office of Secretary of
Defense who knowingly or with deliberate intent or through
gross negligence permits or causes classified material to fall
into the hands of unauthorized person or persons is subject to
the penalties provided by the Espionage Act. Public or private
discussion of classified material either with or in the
presence of hearing of any person or persons not authorized to
have knowledge thereof is strictly forbidden.''
    Is this instruction quite generally known, and are
personnel familiar with it in the defense establishment?
    Mr. Murray. I think that is correct sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Would you say, without assuming for the
moment that it was relevant or important information, that
disclosure to a newsman would fall within the provisions of
this section?
    Mr. Murray. Senator----
    Senator Dirksen. On the ground that he was not authorized
to receive it?
    Mr. Murray. I would like at this point to speak to that
point, if I may.
    Senator Dirksen. Yes.
    Mr. Murray. I can't tell you where I got the idea, but it
had always been a concept in my own mind the years I was in the
navy and the years that I was over at the Munitions Board that
there were times when you could discuss off the record with a
newspaperman a story which that newspaperman brought into you,
much in the same vein as this particular instance we are
talking about, and I went along on the misguided idea that I
was talking off the record to an accredited newspaperman who
carried a secretary of defense press pass, and when this
information came up I was horrified to find out that the only
way that that could be done--and I had never been told that
before--was that if you wanted to talk about a certain subject
that you had to go somewhere and have it cleared first and then
talk off the record to an accredited newspaperman.
    Senator Dirksen. Will you not agree that this language is
explicit and makes no provision for off the record discussion?
    Mr. Murray. I agree, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. The language I think is clear and
unmistakable.
    Mr. Murray. I agree, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. By the way, how long were you in the navy?
    Mr. Murray. In the first war, I was in the navy a little
over three years.
    Senator Dirksen. In the uniformed service?
    Mr. Murray. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Overseas and here?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir. Here in Washington principally.
    Senator Dirksen. And you were with the Department of
Defense, the army, for how long?
    Mr. Murray. I was with the Munitions Board, sir, from
December 26 of 1950 until the 4th of August 1952.
    Senator Dirksen. 1950 to 1952?
    Mr. Murray. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Roughly about two years?
    Mr. Murray. It would have been two years the following
December.
    Senator Dirksen. And was John D. Small the chairman of the
board all that time?
    Mr. Murray. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Could you detect from Mr. Blumenthal's
methods and techniques that this was a studied technique
whereby he would come in with what purported to be classified
or restricted or confidential information and then ask you
about it and, by that device, lure you to correct it so that he
would have correct figures and correct information on anything
that related to Munitions Board activities?
    Mr. Murray. Well, I hate to think I am a stupid person, but
I did not detect that there was any such sort of flim-flamming
going on on Blumenthal's part. There were times when he came in
with information that was awfully damn accurate and which I
corrected falsely rather than let him have the accurate
figures.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you see him personally over a period
of time as well as at the office at the Pentagon?
    Mr. Murray. Mr. Blumenthal came to my home once and I had
lunch with him once at the Pentagon and one time at the Town
and Country and in each instance there were other people
present.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you at any time have social contacts?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. With Mr. Pearson?
    Mr. Murray. By social contacts, do you mean did he ever
come to see me?
    Senator Dirksen. Not necessarily, but did you go to parties
together or luncheons or dinners?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir. I have never been to any parties with
either one of them and, to my knowledge, I have never broken
bread with Mr. Pearson.
    Senator Dirksen. Before you went into the navy were you
identified with government before that time?
    Mr. Murray. You mean before?
    Senator Dirksen. Before your naval service?
    Mr. Murray. Well, I went in the navy, sir, in 1942 and
prior to that I had been in industry.
    Senator Dirksen. You had been in industry?
    Mr. Murray. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. You are on duty with the navy here in the
uniformed service, but in navy headquarters here in Washington?
    Mr. Murray. That is right, part of the time, and part of
the time, I worked for the under secretary in the Office of
Emergency Plants Management which was a staff of people under
the direction of Captain Clark who seized strikebound plants
during the war and put them into operation.
    Senator Dirksen. Who was the under secretary at that time?
    Mr. Murray. Mr. Hensel.
    Senator Dirksen. Struve Hensel?
    Mr. Murray. That is right.
    Senator Dirksen. It does seem just a little unusual, Mr.
Murray, that of all the newsmen and columnists and commentators
in Washington, and, as you know, we have many----
    Mr. Murray. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen [Continuing]. That except for the times
when a correspondent of the New York Times or some other paper
like that, to do a special story, would come and see you, that
Mr. Blumenthal was the one who came so frequently to your
office for the discussions. Now, if others had come in like
proportion and the equivalent number of times, it would be a
little easy to understand, but to have just one individual come
puts it in a little bit of a different light, I would say.
    Mr. Murray. I can't help but agree to that. Excuse me sir.
    [Witness confers with counsel.]
    Senator Dirksen. Did you want to comment further on that?
    Mr. Murray. Yes, I would like to comment on that. I would
like to inject a couple of thoughts along this point: There
were a great many times, Senator, when Mr. Blumenthal came in
and asked me for information that I alleged to him I knew
nothing of. I don't want to get it into the record that the
gentlemen walked in and said, ``Are beans beans?'' I said,
``Yes, Mr. Blumenthal, beans are beans.'' I want to emphasize
that. Further than that, when I went aboard with Mr. Small, it
was my information that the Public Information Office attached
to the Munitions Board point blank refused to see Mr. Pearson
and, when that was called to the chairman's attention, he felt
that that was wrong.
    He felt that this is an open office and we should not deny
anyone who comes in here with clean hands and I was directed to
see Mr. Pearson or his staff and see if I couldn't keep him off
Mr. Small's back so he could proceed with the work at hand.
    The Chairman. You said the Munitions Board said that
Pearson should not be allowed into the office?
    Mr. Murray. The Office of Public Information refused to see
him or his staff.
    The Chairman. At that time, were you notified that he was
under investigation in connection with alleged violation of the
espionage act?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you have any reason to know that?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Why did you think they said Pearson could not
come in?
    Mr. Murray. I talked to the public information man about
it, and I can't recall his name at the moment, but he was
afraid of him and said he would just rather not see him.
    The Chairman. So you were put on notice that they were
afraid of Pearson?
    Mr. Murray. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. But you continued to give the information to
Blumenthal. How often did you personally see Pearson?
    Mr. Murray. I would say twice or three times.
    The Chairman. Now, in connection with the number of times
that you have given classified figures on the production to
Pearson's man, this forenoon you were unable to tell us whether
it was more or less than five times. Would you say it is
correct that on forty-seven different occasions you gave to
Pearson's man classified information on the production of the
weapons of war, including ammunition; forty-seven.
    Mr. Murray. Well, if you have that record, sir, I don't see
how I can deny it, but my recollection is that I did not do
anything of the sort.
    The Chairman. Well, how many times do you think?
    Mr. Murray. Well, I tried to tell you this morning, sir,
that I couldn't by the wildest stretch of the imagination
pinpoint that.
    The Chairman. Well, now, taking not a wild stretch of the
imagination but just a conservative estimate, would you say
that on forty-seven different occasions you gave Pearson's man
information, classified information on the production of the
weapons of war? In other words, do you consider forty-seven a
reasonable figure?
    Mr. Murray. I can't believe that that is accurate, sir.
    The Chairman. What would your high estimate be?
    Senator Dirksen. Would you excuse me?
    The Chairman. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Murray, in terms of months, how long
was your service with the Munitions Board; twenty-four months?
    Mr. Murray. No, it was from December. It would be nineteen
months approximately.
    Senator Dirksen. Well, now, that is roughly about seventy-
six weeks?
    Mr. Murray. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Could you recollect whether he came in
every week or once every two weeks? That might help to anchor
this.
    Mr. Murray. From the time I established the contact at Mr.
Small's instigation, I think Mr. Blumenthal tried to get in
there on an average of once every week, but there are a great
many weeks when I ducked him and didn't see him.
    Senator Dirksen. Were there weeks when he came more than
once a week?
    The Chairman. For your protection, keep in mind that after
a certain period of time that room was miked.
    Mr. Murray. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Is it not true that Pearson's man at times
came in every day and actually saw you?
    Mr. Murray. You mean every day, seven days a week?
    The Chairman. Not necessarily seven days a week. You said
he used to try to get in every week. Were there not periods of
time when he came in every day down the line?
    Mr. Murray. No. He might have come in but he didn't see me
every day, no, sir.
    The Chairman. Did he ever see you in a sequence of three
days?
    Mr. Murray. I don't recollect that he did.
    The Chairman. Would you say that it is untrue that he saw
you every day three days running?
    Mr. Murray. I couldn't answer that. I don't know.
    The Chairman. Do you know when your rooms were first miked?
    Mr. Murray. I didn't know that they were miked at all.
    The Chairman. Have you not heard that?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you not informed of that?
    Mr. Murray. I was informed they had a lot of information.
    The Chairman. Were you not informed that they had mikes in
your room?
    Mr. Murray. No one ever told me officially.
    The Chairman. Were you ever informed either officially or
unofficially that your rooms were miked?
    Mr. Murray. When I got my letter of suspension it was
intimated that that was done, but no one ever said, ``I want
you to know your room has been miked.''
    The Chairman. I am not speaking of anyone saying your room
was miked. Did you ever have reason to believe that microphones
had been placed in your room and the conversations recorded?
    Mr. Murray. I didn't believe that was true.
    The Chairman. You did not suspect it?
    Mr. Murray. I suspected my phones were tapped but I didn't
suspect that.
    The Chairman. When I ask about forty-seven contacts, I am
only asking you about the contacts after the rooms were miked.
You say you cannot tell us whether it was forty-seven or not,
but you think it was not forty-seven. Let us take the entire
nineteen months. For the entire nineteen months, how many times
would you say that Pearson's man was in your office?
    Mr. Murray. Well, sir, the first two or three months he was
never in my office and, after I established this contact, as I
say, he tried to come in once a week. He had a regular beat in
there.
    The Chairman. Do you think he came on the average of once a
week?
    Mr. Murray. I think he probably did.
    The Chairman. That would be for sixteen months?
    Mr. Murray. Approximately, sir.
    The Chairman. That would be between sixty and seventy
times. Sixteen times four is sixty-four and there are more than
four weeks in a month.
    Mr. Murray. That is right.
    The Chairman. Am I correct that the usual modus operandi
was to come in and say, ``I have got a story about production
figures,'' and he would ask you to correct his story and give
him the production figures?
    Mr. Murray. It wasn't necessarily, Senator, production
figures.
    The Chairman. Let us stick to the times he talked about
production figures.
    Mr. Murray. I couldn't accurately, sir, and I am not trying
to avoid you. I am trying to be as helpful as I can. I just
can't answer that.
    The Chairman. You say you do not think it was forty-seven
times. Would it be forty times, do you think, that he talked
about classified production figures?
    Mr. Murray. I don't know how to answer it.
    [Witness confers with counsel.]
    Mr. Murray. It might have been, Senator. I didn't keep a
record. I couldn't tell you and I certainly couldn't remember
how many times I talked to a man about such and such.
    The Chairman. Did it ever seem odd to you that here was a
man who would come in and give you this consistently phony
story? In order to get production figures, a man who worked for
Pearson who had two Communists on his payroll? Did you ever
wonder about it? Did you ever worry about it and say, ``I
shouldn't give this information out''?
    Mr. Murray. I never knew he had two Communists on his
payroll or I would have refused to see him.
    The Chairman. Did you ever hear that he had any Communists
on his payroll?
    Mr. Murray. I never heard that when I was working there.
    The Chairman. During the nineteen months that you worked
for the Munitions Board, did you have any outside income?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir. May I correct that? My wife had a
little outside income from an antique shop that she runs.
    The Chairman. Did you ever receive anything of any value
either cash or otherwise, either directly or indirectly from
either Pearson or Blumenthal or anyone connected with Pearson's
office?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Nothing of any value?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir.
    The Chairman. What were the occasions for your seeing
Pearson personally?
    Mr. Murray. He called and asked me to make an appointment
for him to see Mr. Small.
    The Chairman. So you talked to him over the phone?
    Mr. Murray. Then he came to my office and I took him to the
chairman's office.
    The Chairman. About three times?
    Mr. Murray. I saw him once in the lobby of the Mayflower
Hotel and chatted briefly with him in the lobby, and I saw him
once at the Pentagon and maybe I saw him once somewhere else.
    The Chairman. Did you ever personally give him any
classified material?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you realize that as of now you are in
complete violation repeatedly of the Espionage Act?
    Mr. Murray. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. I do not know if you followed it or not, but
in the Amerasia case there was the same general picture that
you have here, where a man claimed to be a newsman and got
secret government documents, as far as we know, passed them on
to the enemy.
    In the Remington case, you have the same picture, a claim
that it was giving out secrets to a newsman.
    In fact, would you not say, Mr. Cohn, that in about every
case of espionage that we have had, we had the same picture of
some individual claiming he was a legitimate newsman, getting
secret material of great benefit to the enemy, not using it in
his column except maybe an infinitesimal fraction so that it
would appear he was a newsman?
    Mr. Cohn. That was William Remington's sole defense, that
he thought this person who turned out to be a Communist spy was
a newspaper woman. Elizabeth Bentley said she posed as a
newspaper woman and came in asking for information, the
identical situation here, as a matter of fact; and I recall
that Bernard Redmont who was another member of this same spy
ring worked with exactly the same set of facts.
    The Chairman. The Amerasia case had the same set of facts?
    Mr. Cohn. I guess you can say that most of them were
presented along those lines.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this, Mr. Murray: Now that you
know that this man Pearson had two Communists working for him,
one who has been positively identified as a Communist and who
worked for Pearson for some four years, and David Carr, alias
David Katz who has been identified under oath as a Communist,
who wrote for the Daily Worker, who was a rewrite man for the
party organizer, one of the top secret instruction sheets that
they put out and who worked for Pearson or Pearson worked for
him; there is a serious question about which way it was; and
when you find Pearson always leading in the effort to destroy
anyone who is hurting the Communist cause, do you not have the
feeling now that you were just very, very badly duped over
there?
    Mr. Murray. Well, I mentioned a minute ago that I hated to
admit I was stupid, but a lot of this has certainly been stupid
on my part.
    Senator Dirksen. What was your title?
    Mr. Murray. Assistant to the chairman.
    Senator Dirksen. Assistant to the chairman?
    Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. You see--excuse me.
    Senator Dirksen. What was your grade?
    Mr. Murray. I was a 15.
    Senator Dirksen. That is the equivalent of a GSA-15 today?
    Mr. Murray. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. What was your salary rating?
    Mr. Murray. It was something less than $11,000. I think it
was around $10,845 or something like that.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, before you came to the navy, what
industry were you in? You said you were in industry.
    Mr. Murray. I was in industry before I came to the navy in
'42. I worked for Mr. Powell Crosley of the Crosley Company in
Cincinnati, and prior to that, I worked for the Carrier
Engineering Company in Syracuse, and prior to that I worked for
Mr. Insull in the public utility business for seven years.
    Senator Dirksen. And so far as you know, and it would of
course be a question of opinion, did Mr. Blumenthal have equal
access to other offices in the Pentagon?
    Mr. Murray. He must have had, sir, or else he could not
have brought in the information he had on bits of paper or
notes to talk to me about.
    Senator Dirksen. So when he came in and represented to you
that he had some classified information, you assumed that he
got it from some other source and therefore must have had equal
access to other sources in the Pentagon?
    Mr. Murray. I would certainly believe that, yes, sir, and I
told Mr. Small and I took Mr. Blumenthal by the hand and took
him to the chairman's office and showed him some of the
documents.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you mean that you showed Mr. Small the
documents that Mr. Blumenthal had?
    Mr. Murray. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. And those were classified?
    Mr. Murray. They were classified documents.
    Senator Dirksen. So he had to procure them from some other
source if he did not get them from you?
    Mr. Murray. He did not get them from me. You see, this is
another point that I think I haven't made clear to you. I felt
that I was doing the very best that I could of a terrifically
bad situation. I felt that here was a man with an accredited
card from the secretary of defense which gave him access to the
Pentagon the same as I had with my pass. He could come in there
in daytime. He could come in there at night, Saturdays or
Sundays. He had complete freedom of the Pentagon in any
entrance with this card. It was a card issued by the secretary
of defense, and I felt that in talking with him off the record
to keep half truths, slanted stories out of the press, and
protect my boss and protect the Department of Defense, I was
doing a job not only for the Department of Defense but the
country at large to keep those stories out of the press. When
you go to work for a man and he says, ``Make a contact and keep
this guy off my back,'' I don't know that you have too much
choice. I went to Mr. Small months before this was over and I
asked to be transferred, asked to be given another job, asked
that a statement be issued that I not have access to any
information.
    Senator Dirksen. You would agree, of course, that it is a
terrible thing if the defense structure of the country can be
carried on only by cultivating the good will of the people
engaged in the public relations business of one kind or
another?
    Mr. Murray. I would be the first to say so.
    Senator Dirksen. And the necessity for keeping them in good
grace in order to have this work go on is a terrible situation.
Would you not agree?
    Mr. Murray. I would certainly agree to that.
    Senator Dirksen. What kind of work are you in now?
    Mr. Murray. I represent the Sterling Diamond Tool Company
in Detroit and I sell industrial diamond tools.
    The Chairman. I am curious, and you need not answer this if
you do not care to answer. I understand that your lawyer was
supposed to be a Mr. Bursten from Milwaukee. Have you been
doing business with him?
    Mr. Murray. My lawyer, sir, is not Mr. Bursten. He is an
acquaintance of mine.
    The Chairman. Have you done business with Bursten?
    Mr. Murray. I have talked to Leonard when Mr. Bursten was
down here attempting to put the Wisconsin defense pool in
business. One of the men in our company is the eastern
representative for the Wisconsin pool and, as such, I met Mr.
Bursten socially and he was in the office a good many times.
    The Chairman. Now, when Pearson's man came in and showed
you papers marked confidential, as you said this morning, on a
navy letterhead, did you say to him, ``Fred, where did you get
that confidential paper?''
    Mr. Murray. Yes, indeed, I did. I tried in a great many
instances to find where he got it, and I never could find out.
    The Chairman. When you found that he was getting
confidential material from other departments, I do not
understand why you did not say, ``You will get no more secret
information from me.'' Did that not raise a red flag? Did you
not say, ``Here is a man collecting secrets on our production,
going from one department to the other and getting a bit here
and a bit there?'' Did you not think that if he were a
Communist that that is exactly what he would do?
    Mr. Murray. Well, I felt, sir, that when I had taken him by
the hand with the material to the chairman of the board and
disclosed that fact and there was nothing further said, that it
seemed like a regrettable thing. Yet no one did anything about
it and the people to whom I reported there knew about it.
    The Chairman. Why did you not ever go to Small and say,
``Mr. Small, I have been giving this man production figures. He
is getting figures from other departments. Let us check on this
man and see if he is a Communist agent.'' I may be asking you a
difficult question to answer, but it would seem the logical
thing for any man in your position to do. You are charged with
the security of the nation to some extent. You find a fellow
traveling around the building with confidential material. You
find him blackmailing you, if I may use the phrase, to get that
information. By blackmail, I am not referring to money
blackmail but telling you, ``Unless you give me other
information, I am going to print a bad story about your boss.''
Did it not occur to you that this was the way an espionage
agent would work?
    Mr. Murray. Sir, I am not an espionage agent and not a
Communist, and I brook no part of this particular Communist
hiatus that is currently in discussion in the press and in your
committees. I felt that Pearson as an individual was a citizen.
I felt that he was an accredited member of the press and, when
I saw Mr. Blumenthal's card and it had been endorsed by the
secretary of defense and I had been instructed by my superior
to make friends with him and keep him off his back, that I was
doing my duty.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you think that the issuance of press
cards should be hedged by some better security than prevails at
the present time?
    Mr. Murray. I was amazed to find that Mr. Blumenthal had
access to the Pentagon that he had and still has, I dare say.
    The Chairman. If the issuance of a press card is the same
as security clearance, that would mean that a Pravda
correspondent has security clearance. They have a press card.
The representatives of Pravda the representatives of the Daily
Worker, the representatives, as far as I know, of every
Communist paper have press cards.
    Mr. Murray. Do they have a press card, sir, from the
Department of Defense? This was a Department of Defense card
with the man's picture and his fingerprints on it, and he could
present that card to a guard at the door, Saturdays, Sundays,
daylight or dark.
    The Chairman. Just one other question. Number one, you gave
him information on ammunition production, is that correct?
    Mr. Murray. I believe that is correct.
    The Chairman. Number two, you gave him figures on the
production of tanks, airplanes, bazookas?
    Mr. Murray. I don't recall anything on the bazooka, sir.
    The Chairman. On tanks and airplanes, yes?
    Mr. Murray. On tanks, the only recollection I have of
anything on tanks was the modification story that I told you
about the tanks that were held up at Detroit.
    The Chairman. Well, you discussed the type of tanks, did
you not, being produced, the weight of the tanks?
    Mr. Murray I don't recall ever discussing weights, no, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you discuss the types of tanks being
produced?
    Mr. Murray. I think we mentioned that they were M-something
or other.
    The Chairman. Did you discuss the type of airplanes being
produced?
    Mr. Murray. You mean fighters as discriminated from
bombers? Yes.
    The Chairman. And the type of fighters?
    Mr. Murray. The type of jet fighters?
    The Chairman. Type and number.
    Mr. Murray. Well, when he would come in with information
having to do with jet engines, I think I told him on several
occasions that the jet engine program was being cranked up and
that production was on the increase. I do not recall ever
telling him that we were producing so many jet planes or so
many tanks on a total program, because I don't believe I had
those figures available. I think the only thing that I had was
a month to month review of production either upward or
downward.
    The Chairman. Actually you gave him all the information you
had, did you not?
    Mr. Murray. No, indeed I didn't give him all the
information I had.
    The Chairman. Well, you were giving the percentage increase
in May over April, the percentage increase in the production of
various types of jet planes?
    Mr. Murray. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. And tanks.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Murray, when Mr. Blumenthal came how
long would he stay with you? Would the discussion range over a
period of an hour at a time?
    Mr. Murray. Well, sometimes five or ten minutes, and
sometimes forty-five minutes. I don't know that he was ever
there an hour.
    Senator Dirksen. Of course, in a long discussion there
could be many disclosures that might be forgotten in the lapse
of time as to just what was said.
    Mr. Murray. I couldn't, as God is my judge, tell you of the
things we talked about specifically, nor how many times. I
don't believe any man is alive that could.
    The Chairman. To refresh your recollection, did you ever
meet him in the forenoon, spend several hours with him and go
out to lunch with him?
    Mr. Murray. At one time, he came over to the office and I
think that was the time we left and went to the Mayflower
Hotel.
    The Chairman. And spent several hours in the office first?
    Mr. Murray. I don't believe we spent several hours, sir.
    The Chairman. How long would you say?
    Mr. Murray. Well, he was there an hour or an hour and a
half, I would be surprised.
    The Chairman. Do you recall that you discussed with him the
fact that our tank production was falling off, that we were
cutting down tank production and increasing the production of
bazookas capable of destroying the Russian tanks?
    Mr. Murray. You mentioned that this morning, sir, and I
have no recollection of the bazooka story at all.
    The Chairman. Did you give him a figure of $87 as
production costs of a bazooka?
    Mr. Murray. I don't think I ever had such a figure to give
him. I doubt if I did.
    The Chairman. You did have complete information as to how
the defense production was going, whether we were being
successful, whether we were stepping up the production of
various items, whether we were dropping off, whether we were
producing more ammunition or less, and the kinds of ammunition?
    Mr. Murray. In some instances I had. It wasn't complete but
I did have that information.
    The Chairman. And you discussed with him the types of
ammunition being produced?
    Mr. Murray. I have no recollection of types of ammunition,
sir.
    The Chairman. Well, you discussed with him the question of
whether the production of artillery shells was increasing?
    Mr. Murray. The only recollection I have, sir, in
discussing artillery shells with him was at the time that there
was such a hiatus about the ammunition shortage in Korea.
    The Chairman. Did it not ever hit you as being unusually
extreme that a man would come in there on forty different
occasions, each time trying to worm out of you information on
production of the weapons of war? Did it not ever occur to you
that that was not the normal function of a newspaperman to do
that? Did you not ever get worried about that?
    Mr. Murray. Certainly I got worried about it and I tried to
get away from it. I tried to have my job changed.
    The Chairman. When you got worried, why did you not say,
``Mr. Blumenthal, you get no more secret information. I am
violating the espionage act and you are violating the espionage
act. You are guilty of a crime each time you come here and get
this information''?
    Mr. Murray. I was operating under this halo of all security
in my mind, that I was discussing this with an accredited
newspaperman off the record.
    Mr. Jones. Mr. Murray, I certainly can appreciate that
relationship between you and Mr. Blumenthal. I would like to
pursue that, however, a bit further. Who was the chairman of
the Munitions Board at the time you were there?
    Mr. Murray. Mr. Small.
    Mr. Jones. Did you ever speak to Mr. Small about the nature
of your conversations with Blumenthal?
    Mr. Murray. Well, I didn't go to Mr. Small and say, ``Mr.
Small, this morning I talked to Mr. Blumenthal about this or
that or the other thing.'' I did not run into Mr. Small's
office and brief him on everything that I had told.
    Mr. Jones. I understand that. Now, after the period of, for
instance, seventeen months, you evidently had seen some reports
in the paper as to the type of material you were discussing
with Blumenthal. Did it ever occur to you to be suspicious that
this information may stem as a result of your conversation with
Blumenthal?
    Mr. Murray. But I didn't see anything that I discussed with
him off the record in the paper, sir.
    Mr. Jones. You saw nothing at all?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir, with the exception of this one story
of the tanks in Detroit awaiting modification.
    Mr. Jones. Upon seeing that, did you talk to the chairman
about that?
    Mr. Murray. I did.
    Mr. Jones. What did he say?
    Mr. Murray. I don't recall what he did, but he wasn't
excited.
    Mr. Jones. When Blumenthal would say, paraphrasing your
expression, ``A bean is a bean,'' did you ever ask him to check
his original source?
    Mr. Murray. I don't know that I follow you, sir.
    Mr. Jones. When he would bring production figures to you,
did he ever ask you, ``Are these correct to the best of your
knowledge?'' Did he ever use that approach to you?
    Mr. Murray. No, that wasn't the approach at all. He would
come in and say--I was trying to think if I could point it up.
I think I can give you a case at hand. He came in one time and
said, ``I understand, and we are writing a story on the facts,
that the production of opium and the amount of opium that is
available to the armed services is so small that in the event
of an atomic attack or in the event of all-out war there would
not be sufficient opium to be put into morphine or changed into
morphine so that the armed services could be adequately taken
care of as well as the civilian population.'' When he would
come in with a story like that, which I will use as an example,
I knew nothing about opium. I knew nothing about the production
of morphine from opium, but we did have technicians on the
staff that I would go to and say, ``What is the story on the
opium situation?'' And they told me the story and I, in turn,
went back to Fred and said, ``Fred, your story is cockeyed.
This is the story.'' And he ran the correct story.
    The Chairman. May I interrupt there?
    Bob, for your information, that is one of the most highly-
classified items that we have, the production of opium, our
source of supply.
    Mr. Murray. It was not classified, sir, over in our shop.
    The Chairman. The opium production was not?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir.
    The Chairman. And the source from which we got it.?
    Mr. Murray. Yes.
    The Chairman. Are you sure?
    Mr. Murray. I am reasonably sure.
    The Chairman. We have had testimony before the committee
that that was highly classified.
    Pardon me, Bob, for interrupting.
    Mr. Murray. May I tell a story as I got it? The story I got
was that although opium does come from Iran and Iraq and
Turkey, that the bulk of the opium that is used coming from
those services or from those sources, in the event of war might
be denied coming into this country, and so somehow or other,
they got into the stockpile sufficient feed with two places in
the United States where they could grow the opium flower and
from which, with a year's inventory of opium, raw opium and the
production in these two areas throughout the country----
    The Chairman. May I ask you one question?
    Pardon me, Bob.
    Mr. Jones. That is all right.
    The Chairman. Are you aware of the fact now that if this
man were a Communist espionage agent that this would most
likely be the way he would go about getting information from
you and that these production figures could be of tremendous
value to an enemy to piece together with information which they
were receiving from other espionage agents? Do you realize that
now?
    Mr. Murray. Well, I realize the seriousness of this charge,
sir. I am the first to admit that I realize that. I hesitate to
say this, but I say it in humility. I say it sincerely: That I
doubt the very damndest that any information that I gave to Mr.
Pearson has given any aid or comfort to the Soviet conspiracy.
    The Chairman. Do you think they are interested in that
information?
    Mr. Murray. I think they are interested in all information.
    The Chairman. Would they be interested in our production
figures?
    Mr. Murray. Certainly.
    The Chairman. Would they not be interested in knowing
whether our production is increasing or decreasing, how many
tanks we are producing? Is that not the typical sort of thing
that an espionage agent would want?
    Mr. Murray. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. You were in charge of critical and
strategic materials at that time?
    Mr. Murray. I wasn't in charge of anything.
    Senator Dirksen. I mean the Munitions Board. Did they not
have a good deal to do as to say with our program for the
development of strategic and critical materials and their
procurement from outside sources.
    Mr. Murray. No. My recollection of that, Senator, is that
the Munitions Board arrived at a policy of what should be
bought, if it was offshore procurement and not something that
could be made in this country, and made the money available
from their budget to the General Services Administration who
acted as agents and bought through the emergency procurement
program of the GSA.
    Senator Dirksen. The point I was making, Mr. Murray, was
this, and I am going on recollection from days when Mr. John D.
Small appeared before the efficiency subcommittee of the House
Appropriations Committee of which I was a member; but it runs
in my mind that the Munitions Board had to determine the
quantities of different materials to be purchased, and
generally set up the objectives and the size of the stockpile?
    Mr. Murray. That is right, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. The actual mechanics of procurement were
handled by GSA?
    Mr. Murray. That is correct.
    Senator Dirksen. But the Munitions Board did lay out the
objectives and the quantities and sources of supply and so
forth?
    Mr. Murray. I don't know that they had sources of supply
but they did arrive at the point of objective and money.
    Senator Dirksen. I thought they would determine for one
thing in the case of mica whether it was to be bought from
Brazil or whether it was to be purchased from India. The same
thing would be true of bauxite or anything critical at the
time. They had to have some knowledge of where it was going to
be purchased and in what quantities. So that that information,
too, was rather highly classified and that was in the Munitions
Board shop?
    Mr. Murray. It may have been, but it wasn't in my shop,
sir. The only thing I ever had or the only thing I ever saw was
the stockpile objective report and the status of the stockpile
which is the same report which I believe we submitted to the
Congress every six months, or maybe it was only once a year.
    Senator Dirksen. That was classified, too, was it not?
    Mr. Murray. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. I recall Mr. Small's testimony that so
much of it from time to time was off the record.
    Mr. Murray. For security reasons.
    Senator Dirksen. That is correct.
    Mr. Murray. That is right.
    Senator Dirksen. Because we had to be very careful about
quantities and sources, and also we had to be careful about the
amount of money that was involved so that from that it could be
no inference as to how much or as to where we were going to
acquire it and what our difficulties in that position would be.
    Mr. Jones. Mr. Murray, I think this opium matter that you
just illustrated was an example of the approach that he made to
you. May I ask a broader question? May I ask what
conversations, if any, with this reporter, did you, in turn,
ever discuss with the chairman?
    Mr. Murray. Well, I discussed all of those stories like
this opium story or the story on blood plasma.
    Mr. Jones. What was his reaction?
    Mr. Murray. Well, I was of the firm impression that Mr.
Small thought I had done a good job by correcting this.
    The Chairman. One final question: There is no doubt in your
mind but what Pearson's man knew this material he was getting
was classified, is there? He knew he was getting secret
material?
    Mr. Murray. Yes, I told him several times, dozens of times,
``Blumenthal, this is classified and you may not use it.''
    [Discussion off the record.]
       HONORABLE ROBERT T. STEVENS, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
    Secretary Stevens. I am secretary of the army, Mr. Murray,
and the chairman has just asked me a question and I do not know
what the rules and regulations are with respect to the files in
the Department of Army. I would like this bit of information if
you are willing to give it to me. Would you have objection to
the file coming up?
    Mr. Murray. Would I have any objection?
    Secretary Stevens. Yes.
    Mr. Murray. I don't think there has been anything in the
file that has not amply been discussed here?
    Secretary Stevens. If the file can properly be turned over
to help stop some of this kind of thing, you would have no
objection to that, as I understand it?
    Mr. Murray. The only answer I can give you to that is: When
I left the employ of the Munitions Board, I signed a statement
saying that I would not reveal any classified information. I
don't know whether I have involved myself with the Pentagon
here this morning or not. As you know, when you leave, you say
you will not disclose any information that you picked up during
your tour of duty, and that statement is signed.
    I would like to have you ask Mr. Hensel, the general
counsel, whether I am in violation this afternoon.
    Secretary Stevens. I would make a strong recommendation to
Mr. Hensel that you are not in violation.
    The Chairman. I do not think that you have answered the
secretary's question. The question is do you have any objection
if the army decides to turn the files over to the committee?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You have no objection to that?
    Mr. Murray. No, sir.
    The Chairman. I want to thank you very much.
    Senator Dirksen. Let me ask Mr. Murray if there is anything
else you think this committee ought to know in its endeavors to
get to the bottom of situations that would impair the security
of the country? We have no axes to grind. I am not interested
in any headlines. This is an off the record hearing. I think
that every patriotic American citizen has a responsibility to
do what he can for the security of his country at a time when
there is so much hostility and bitterness in the world and when
we are confronted with an ideological enemy that would like to
take us down spout if they could.
    I would like to ask if on that broad basis there is
anything you think we ought to know? Certainly we would welcome
any such statement on your part.
    Mr. Murray. May I speak to that point off the record?
    [Discussion off the record.]
    The Chairman. The way I get the picture is this: This would
constitute blackmail by the broad definition. I do not mean
blackmail for money, but Mr. Blumenthal would come in on a
number of occasions with either a threat to print material
which would improperly embarrass your chairman of the board or
place him in an unfair light, one in which he did not deserve
to be placed, or a story which you thought might damage the
security of the country, and that in order to get him to
refrain from publishing such a story you felt that you were
duty-bound to give him information which normally you would not
give out, information which was classified; and after he would
get the information then the story would not be published but
he would come back the next day or the day after or the next
week with a different story concerning a different item with
pretty much the same modus operandi each time?
    Mr. Murray. Pretty much, sir.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this. I know that every man
has in his past life, unless he is in politics so that his
background has been fine-tooth-combed, some matters which he
would rather not have made public. I am not asking for any
details if he did, but did he ever threaten to write a story
about anything about your personal life or your background if
you did not give him information?
    Mr. Murray. Nothing directly.
    The Chairman. But was there that indirect threat at times?
    Mr. Murray. There might have been if he found something,
but there never was any direct threat.
    The Chairman. How about the chairman, Mr. Small? Was there
an indication that he was going to write a derogatory personal
story about him?
    Mr. Murray. Not that I know of, sir.
    The Chairman. In view of the fact that only two of the
senators are here and that Senator Mundt and Senator Potter are
not here, I would like very much, if you do not object, to have
you put on the record the material that was not on. This is an
executive session and is not for public consumption.
    Senator Dirksen. I think that Mr. Murray ought to be
assured by the committee that this is an embalmed record so
that you do not have to be afraid that this information will
move out to any publication or anywhere beyond this room.
    Mr. Murray. I would like to ask this question, sir. I would
like to qualify it first by saying that I am extremely sincere
in trying to help if I can, not so much in my own defense
because I have darned little defense, but if there is currently
any operation of a similar nature that I seemed to be
victimized by and if by virtue of releasing information which I
feel will be of interest to you it might tend to clam up on
anybody else still over there operating, I would like to know
whether the secretary knows of anything or if the senator knows
whether discussing this even in executive session might tend to
impinge on those activities?
    The Chairman. Let me say for your information, number one,
that, of course, the committee never makes any promises to a
witness. We cannot do it in the first place. There are only two
senators here. We try to accommodate a witness who is
cooperative. As far as we knew, the operations of this same
individual have not changed to any extent since he was
attempting to blackmail you into giving him information, if
that is the information you wanted. Let me say this for your
information: The press who will come in after this executive
session are always given a resume of what occurred. They are
entitled to that. We will not use your name or give any
information which will identify you in any way. The only way
they will find out you were here is if you or your counsel tell
them you were here. The staff and members of the committee are
bound to secrecy by the rules of executive session. The press
will be told however that we had a witness here who was
blackmailed into giving classified information to a leg man for
a columnist. I want to impress upon you that your name will not
be used. There will be no information given which will allow
you to be identified. The only way your name will be used is if
you yourself discuss it with the press.
    Whether the evidence here would ever come to public notice
or not, I cannot tell you, and Senator Dirksen cannot tell you.
As of this moment, it would appear that it would not. However
if there would be an espionage case brought against Blumenthal
and I think there should be, and against his boss Pearson who
sent him there, the combination of espionage and blackmail, the
Justice Department would have access to this and in any
subsequent trial they might or might not use it. I wanted you
to know that we are not in a position to make you any promise
that this would not be used publicly at any future time. Is
that a fair statement?
    Senator Dirksen. I think so, with this much assurance as
two members of the committee can give: That we certainly will
try to restrict, and to indicate our appreciation for the
cooperative spirit in which you have approached this off the
record hearing. Sometimes, of course, as in the case of a
Department of Justice action, if they should ask for the file,
I presume we would be in the position of having the committee
consider the matter and determine whether it would have to be
released; and even there it seems to me they would respect the
file as used, for their, own information, whatever might be in
the file, and then pursue it in their own way.
    Over that, of course, we would have no control, but
certainly it would not be for this committee to publicize it or
put it on the front page or bring about any embarrassment for
you.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    [Witness confers with counsel.]
    Mr. Murray. Senator, sir, counsel tells me he doesn't think
I made myself clear when I made this observation about
something else that was going on. My concern was that if this
got immediate publicity and if my name has to go in it, so be
it. If it does and there are some other operations under the
sheets going on over there and they can see that you had moved
back and picked me up on this particular item, number one, you
will find Pearson's staff shunning the Pentagon like the
plague; and, number two, anyone else over there is going to
take a vacation for a couple of months and you might be on the
verge of a good story and not get it.
    The Chairman. I have found the contrary to be true.
Normally if you start to expose a man with a bad record as this
Blumenthal apparently has, there will be other people who have
been victimized who will volunteer information. Instead of
doing damage, a great many people are waiting to see that
someone is interested in the case and they will bring in their
material and throw it on our desk.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Murray. At one time Mr. Blumenthal came into my office
and presented to me in such a way that I couldn't see it a
letter which had a signature of a general at Wright Patterson
Field at Dayton. The information in the letter led me to
believe that the general had told Blumenthal, and it was
addressed specifically to him, that the Russians had a mine
against which there was no defense as yet in the United Nations
or United States; and he asked me if I knew anything about it.
I did not know anything about it and he asked me if he could be
permitted to use my telephone. I granted him the use of the
telephone and he called someone apparently in the office of the
chief of naval operations, and whatever information he asked
for he apparently got because he took a series of notes on a
yellow pad and stuck them in his pocket and thanked me for the
use of the telephone and left.
    I gathered from the information that he asked me that it
was a very hush-hush project, as I am sure the development of a
mine against which there was no defense would naturally fall,
and I was particularly impressed with the fact that he could
call someone in the chief of naval operations office and get
that information.
    The Chairman. I assume that as usual there will be a great
mass of the members of the press outside the door. I do not
think that they would recognize you at all so you just walk
through them.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, is it the practice of this
committee to allow revision of remarks? Can he have a copy of
his testimony today?
    The Chairman. The rule has been that we do not send copies
of the office but he can come down here either alone or with
his counsel to room 101 and make any corrections of
stenographic errors and that sort of thing.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Murray. Thank you, sir.
    [Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the committee recessed, subject
to call.]
           COMMUNIST INFILTRATION AMONG ARMY CIVILIAN WORKERS
    [Editor's note.--Alexander Naimon and Esther Ferguson
(1916-1997) did not testify in public session. John Lautner
(1902-1977) testified publicly on September 18, 1953.]
                              ----------
                      WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1953
                               U.S. Senate,
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met (pursuant to Senate Resolution 40,
agreed to January 30, 1953), at 10:30 a.m., in room 357, Senate
Office Building, Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;
Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Robert
Jones, administrative assistant to Senator Potter; Richard
O'Melia, general counsel, Committee on Government Operations;
Donald A. Surine, assistant counsel; and Ruth Young Watt, chief
clerk.
  TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDER NAIMON (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL,
                      MURDAUGH S. MADDEN)
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Naimon, have you been sworn?
    Mr. Naimon. No.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony
you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Naimon. I do.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Naimon, would you give for the record
your full name and your address?
    Mr. Naimon. Alexander Naimon.
    Senator Dirksen. And you reside where?
    Mr. Naimon. 1432 Girard Street N.W., Washington, D.C.
    Senator Dirksen. Have you always resided in Washington?
    Mr. Naimon. No. Do you want me to say when I came to
Washington?
    Senator Dirksen. Would you, please?
    Mr. Naimon. I came to Washington about April 1951.
    Senator Dirksen. And you came to Washington from where?
    Mr. Naimon. From New York City.
    Senator Dirksen. Is New York your native state?
    Mr. Naimon. New York is where my parents live.
    Senator Dirksen. You were born where?
    Mr. Naimon. In New York City.
    Senator Dirksen. And you are how old?
    Mr. Naimon. I am now twenty-seven.
    Senator Dirksen. You are represented by counsel this
morning?
    Mr. Naimon. I am.
    Senator Dirksen. Would counsel identify himself?
    Mr. Madden. My name is Murdaugh S. Madden, attorney in
Washington, Offices, 1000 Hill Building.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, Mr. Naimon, what is your present
employment?
    Mr. Naimon. I am employed as a procurement attorney for the
Office of the Surgeon General.
    Senator Dirksen. Procurement attorney?
    Mr. Naimon. I am an attorney doing procurement work for the
Office of the Surgeon General in the Department of the Army.
    Senator Dirksen. How long have you been in that employment?
    Mr. Naimon. Since the end of April of this year.
    Senator Dirksen. April 1953?
    Mr. Naimon. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. What was your employment immediately
before that?
    Mr. Naimon. I was a price attorney for the Office of Price
Stabilization until the agency began to be liquidated and I was
``RIF'd.''
    Senator Dirksen. How long were you with the Office of Price
Stabilization?
    Mr. Naimon. From May 1951--my last duty date was about
March 18, 1953. I had some annual leave that carried about a
week or two.
    Senator Dirksen. Roughly, you were in the Office of Price
Stabilization about two years?
    Mr. Naimon. Roughly that.
    Senator Dirksen. And then you went with the Office of the
Surgeon General?
    Mr. Naimon. That is correct.
    Senator Dirksen. Are you a member of the Bar of New York
State?
    Mr. Naimon. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. And also the Bar of the District of
Columbia or not?
    Mr. Naimon. Yes, sir. I am a member of the District of
Columbia Bar.
    Senator Dirksen. What are your duties and functions as
procurement attorney?
    Mr. Naimon. Principally, whenever the contracting officer
who represents the government on our contracts, which are
medical research contracts, which most of the medical research
if not all medical research is assigned to various universities
and nonprofit institutions throughout the country--contracts
are usually assigned on the recommendation of the National
Research Council, I understand, and then we have a Medical
Research and Development Board which handles the technical
phase of contracts; then for sort of the business details, the
actual person who represents the government on contracts is the
contracting officer. He has an assistant. When any more
important business questions to the contract come up, such as
one of the universities doesn't like a certain provision in the
contract they want to know whether or not the armed service
procurement and the army procurement procedures permit us to
make amendments or commends us to make amendments. In other
words, what is within army policy so they consult me and get my
legal opinion.
    Senator Dirksen. You interpret applicable regulations and
pass upon questions of law that may arise in connection with
these research contracts?
    Mr. Naimon. That is right.
    Senator Dirksen. Were you employed in the government prior
to your employment with the Office of Price Stabilization?
    Mr. Naimon. Not other than a sailor. You don't take that to
mean government?
    Senator Dirksen. No, not necessarily.
    You did have military service?
    Mr. Naimon. I was in the navy from June 30, 1944 to July 5,
1946.
    Senator Dirksen. Roughly about two years?
    Mr. Naimon. Two years and five days.
    Senator Dirksen. What were your duties in the navy? Were
you on a vessel abroad?
    Mr. Naimon. Well, I was on a vessel for my last three and a
half months of my tour.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you have combat service with the navy?
    Mr. Naimon. Well, certainly not combat in any literal
sense. My recollection is that I was given overseas pay,
although my vessel didn't go more than one hundred miles
overseas.
    Senator Dirksen. So you actually did not have actual
overseas service as such even though under the regulations you
got a certain number of miles from shore and you were entitled
to overseas pay?
    Mr. Naimon. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. What was your navy rating?
    Mr. Naimon. Electronics. Navy's technicians mate third
class.
    Mr. Carr. Mr. Naimon, the other day I mentioned to you it
would certainly be to your advantage to tell the entire truth
concerning matters we might question you on.
    We have information that you were a member of the American
Youth for Democracy and also a member of the Communist party.
    Now, I would like you to tell the senators how you happened
to go to American Youth for Democracy meetings prior to
enlistment in the navy. I understand that you were in
attendance at these meetings as early as 1944.
    Mr. Naimon. I'd like to make clear in the beginning that I
was never a member of either organization.
    Mr. Carr. To your knowledge?
    Mr. Naimon. Well, naturally everything I am now saying is
to the best of my recollection but I was not a member of either
organization.
    The way that I happened to go to these meetings was that a
bunch of the fellows had been told that there was some nice-
looking girls at the neighborhood AYD club and why didn't we
take a look at them?
    Mr. Carr. How old were you?
    Mr. Naimon. At the time I had just turned eighteen. At the
time I didn't have political interests. I knew nothing about
the organization and I was never the joining type but I was
beginning to get interested in girls and I thought someone--A
few of us went to one of these meetings.
    Mr. Carr. How many meetings did you go to at this period
before you went into the navy?
    Mr. Naimon. My best estimate would be about fifteen
meetings.
    Mr. Carr. Who did you go to these meetings with?
    Mr. Naimon. Well, I don't know if there was a regular
practice. I went to one or two meetings, no doubt, with some of
my boyfriends.
    Mr. Carr. Who were they?
    Mr. Naimon. Well, I recall one was Eddie Lavene and a
second was Ted Ranhenzofer.
    Mr. Carr. How do you spell that?
    Mr. Naimon. I don't know--R-a-n-h-e-n-z-o-f-e-r.
    [Off record discussion.]
    Mr. Carr. What went on? What type of meetings were they?
    Mr. Naimon. Well, at the time it seems my best recollection
is that their stress was on having group activities for young
people, getting young people interested in being a group and--
--
    Mr. Carr. Being a group for what?
    Mr. Naimon. The only purpose that I can recollect now is
that they worked with starting a second front, which at the
time was not alien to my philosophy, and I think they had
activities such as going around collecting clothes, which
didn't seem harmful to me. I didn't join any of these
activities. I'd like to make it clear that my interest in AYD
was always limited to my interest in this particular girl.
    Mr. Carr. Now, you haven't told us about this girl yet.
    Mr. Naimon. I don't know what I have said and what I
haven't.
    Mr. Carr. There was a girl that you meet at these meetings?
    Mr. Naimon. Well, at this first meeting that we went to, I
think there was about three. That is all I recall at this time.
There was a girl who was speaking and I thought rather ably and
I always sort of admired people who could speak well in public
since I get nervous, without regard to what she was saying,
which I have no recollection of and also quite good-looking.
    Mr. Carr. And subsequently you became friendly with this
girl?
    Mr. Naimon. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Is this girl Laura Kerr?
    Mr. Naimon. Yes, it is.
    I think the best way I could put it would be that I went to
these meetings in the hope of seeing her.
    At the first meeting it turned out, after it was over, one
of the fellows on the way back, I don't recall which, said,
``You know that girl'' and he described Laura, ``is only
fifteen'' and I know at that point I experienced a certain
amount of disappointment, since she was fifteen and I was
eighteen and I did feel, well maybe she is too young for
anything.
    Mr. Carr. You subsequently learned she was an officer of
this AYD group?
    Mr. Naimon. Yes. I came to a few more meetings in 1944 and
my interest was always just in seeing her. Probably for the
first few times, at any rate the first two or three, it would
be I had no connection with her. I just sort of admired her.
    Mr. Carr. Now, you start out by telling us that you went to
those AYD meetings because you and some other boys in the
neighborhood wanted to meet some girls who apparently attended
these meetings and you had no political ideas, yet you say what
they were doing was not alien to your philosophy. You must have
had some philosophy at the time. The thing that is difficult to
understand is why you continued to go back to these meetings
once you determined they were a Communist type meeting.
    Mr. Naimon. Well, shall I make clear what my political
philosophy is? At that time and up until 1948 when the
Czechoslovakian coup occurred, my political philosophy--I
always believed that we had the best system of democracy with
the emphasis on individual liberties within a framework of
majority rule. This was my view and I thought the best view
there could be. I did think within that view it was not
consistent to permit other countries their right of self-
government so that if other countries decided upon having a
different form of government they were entitled to their own so
long as they did not transgress outside of the wrong boundaries
and I didn't think at that time--the big enemy was Germany and
Japan--I didn't think there was anything wrong since Russia and
America were both interested in beating Germany and Japan; and
I didn't see anything wrong in joining in that struggle; and if
there were certain people who admired the Russian system I was
just different than they but I didn't think I should hate them
for it.
    Mr. Carr. When did you learn that these meetings were
Communist meetings? When did that thought occur to you? After
attending how many?
    Mr. Naimon. I don't think I went to any in which I had the
view they were Communist meetings.
    Mr. Carr. When you came back from the navy during the
period you were in the navy you became educated to what
communism was? Is that correct?
    Mr. Naimon. No. I would say my real education came with the
Czechoslovakian coup. That was the main education.
    Mr. Carr. You mean in 1948?
    Mr. Naimon. 1948. I would say the main difference between
my attendance before and after my navy experience was one of
degree. In the beginning I went to the meetings so I could have
a chance to see this girl. That was in 1944. After the war I
was already seeing this girl. You might say we had a ``golden
relationship'' so that after the war I went because she
insisted upon that, insisted meaning it wasn't absolute
insistence. She wanted me to go to those and I didn't want to
go. I went to see her afterwards.
    Mr. Carr. But you knew they were Communist meetings at that
time?
    Mr. Naimon. No. The AYD, as I recall, always took the
position it was a mixture of all youth elements. Their position
was: We don't discriminate against Communists. It wasn't until
after the Czechoslovakian coup and later that I came to
understand anything at all about how active Communists were in
organizations, but to my knowledge AYD wasn't----
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Naimon, let's see if we can summarize.
    Your interest in AYD was mainly, as you say, because of a
young lady active in the operations of this group?
    Mr. Naimon. That is right.
    Senator Dirksen. That continued on until you went into the
navy.
    Mr. Naimon. That is right.
    Senator Dirksen. You spent from 1944 to 1946 in the navy.
    Mr. Naimon. That is right.
    Senator Dirksen. You returned from the navy and resumed
your interest in AYD in large part because the young lady whom
you were interested in was still active in the operations of
AYD.
    Mr. Naimon. I wouldn't ever call it interest in AYD. I
would call it interest in a girl who went to AYD activities in
AYD and I went there under a theory that I was so attached to
the girl----
    Senator Dirksen. Did you know then subsequently that AYD
had been cited by the attorney general? Did you ever learn that
fact one way or another?
    Mr. Naimon. No, not until I'd say, the last few days.
    Senator Dirksen. The last few days of what?
    Normally, when the attorney general issues a list it is
publicized in the papers and word gets around. When did you
discover that AYD had been cited by the attorney general as a
front organization?
    Mr. Naimon. I would say within the last three days.
    Senator Dirksen. You mean the last three days as of now?
    Mr. Naimon. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. You mean you just discovered it now and it
was really cited quite sometime ago?
    Mr. Naimon. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Who brought that to your attention within
the last three days?
    Mr. Naimon. I decided--I guess it must have come out by
inference out of conversation with counsel.
    Senator Dirksen. You didn't know it before?
    Mr. Naimon. No, although I always wondered in my mind
whether it had been. That was a question.
    Mr. Carr. As of what period----
    The Chairman. The AYD, I believe, was cited the first of
1944 and then again cited in 1947. Did you hear that matter
discussed in any of the meetings you attended?
    Mr. Naimon. No. To the best of my knowledge it was never
discussed.
    The Chairman. Didn't you ever discuss this matter with the
young lady? If you and she were so close I would assume you and
she would discuss this citation?
    Mr. Naimon. I had numerous political discussions with this
young lady with a view to weaning her away from her radical
ideas.
    The Chairman. The question is: Didn't you ever discuss the
fact the AYD was cited by the House committee and the attorney
general?
    Mr. Naimon. No, I don't recall any such discussion. I am
fairly certain it didn't take place.
    The Chairman. Did you know AYD was a front for the Young
Communist League?
    Mr. Naimon. I had heard that was the case.
    The Chairman. Wasn't it just general knowledge that the
Young Communist League just changed its name to the AYD and was
actually just the Young Communist League with a different name?
    Mr. Naimon. At the time I would say I did not have evidence
enough to say. I had heard that was the case but didn't know
whether it was.
    Senator Dirksen. The more important thing, Mr. Naimon,
after you came out of the navy and you resumed an interest,
which was primarily in the young lady and secondary in the
organization or equal interest in both, did you participate in
any Communist activities at any time, anywhere, of any kind?
    Mr. Naimon. No. However, if by activity you include
attendance at an open meeting I could disclose to you the
circumstances of one such.
    Senator Dirksen. Then let's get at it in this way. First, I
should ask you whether you are now or ever have been a member
of the Communist party?
    Mr. Naimon. Absolutely not.
    Senator Dirksen. You have not?
    Mr. Naimon. No.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you ever take an interest in Communist
activities by attending meetings, known Communist meetings?
    Mr. Naimon. No, I would like to explain what I mean by
known Communist meetings.
    Senator Dirksen. Give us that.
    Mr. Naimon. I had made it clear to my girlfriend, Laura
Kerr, that I could never form a permanent attachment with her
if she kept her radical ideas. She was young at the time and I
always suspected that I could wean her away from her radical
ideas. I figured there was still time.
    Senator Dirksen. By radical ideas, do you mean she
subscribed to the Communist philosophy?
    Mr. Naimon. I would say that she was at that time still
young, but she did subscribe to that philosophy and gave every
indication unless weaned away that she would turn into a
Communist.
    Senator Dirksen. When did you break up with her?
    Mr. Naimon. I was just about to say, my first break--It was
only a sort of partial break came in the summer of 1947 and my
first complete break came in the end of May or the beginning of
June 1948, at which time--What it amounted to, I had previously
made it clear to her that I couldn't become permanently
attached to her if she became involved in communism, and
actually, I'd say, the die was cast as far as a permanent
attachment probably back in December 1947. At that time I
really realized I never could marry her because by that time I
think she had either joined the party or was thinking very
seriously of it. In any event, she was completely loyal to the
Communist party. I had over-judged my ability to wean her away.
    Senator Dirksen. You say you broke over this particular
subject?
    Mr. Naimon. I would say that this particular subject was
the reason for the break. In other words, that was the reason
that I could never marry her and I made that point clear, but
she took the initiative as far as a break was concerned. That
was when I came home from school in May 1948 and when I did she
rebuffed me. She more or less saw the handwriting on the wall
and took action and put me into a bad emotional state. Even
though I had realized six months previously that I could never
marry her, I still was put into a traumatic state during this
period.
    Senator Dirksen. This loyal to communism for the purpose of
joining the party doesn't seem to tie in too well with the
statement that you only learned three days ago that the AYD was
a Communist front.
    Mr. Naimon. I am sorry. I don't see the inconsistency.
    Senator Dirksen. When did you first have reason to believe
this organization was an instrument of the Communist party?
    Mr. Naimon. I guess I would have to say that was in 1948.
In other words, I'd say I first understood Russia's aggressive
intentions at the time of the Czechoslovakian coup and with
that too came my first learning that the Communist party in
America strove to be an instrument of Russian policy.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you do any speaking at any of these
meetings yourself?
    Mr. Naimon. No, my interest was passive. I might have. If I
spoke I am sure it was critically and I think all in terms of
sides to her. I might add, although it might be
parenthetically, I do recall at these meetings they had what
looked to me like a silly practice. People would get up and
they would criticize each other. They would say, ``This is how
you could correct yourself'' and, of course, these were all
open meetings and not everyone was involved. I was one of the
people who wasn't involved.
    The Chairman. Just to refresh your recollection, this
practice of self-criticism is never indulged in open meetings.
That was only closed meetings, then they did indulge in telling
each other how they could be better Communists, criticizing
each other. Is that correct?
    Mr. Naimon. I can only say I remember this incident
distinctly. There was only one of such kind and it was not a
Communist meeting because I certainly never went to a closed
Communist meeting of the AYD functions.
    Mr. Carr. Did you pay dues to this AYD?
    Mr. Naimon. No.
    Mr. Carr. Did you ever get any indication of membership in
writing?
    Mr. Naimon. No, not to the best of my knowledge.
    Mr. Carr. How many meetings would you say you attended all
together?
    Mr. Naimon. I have tried to reconstruct that as best I
could.
    Mr. Carr. Just roughly?
    Mr. Naimon. I'd say fifteen.
    Mr. Carr. Do you think it is possible you attended as many
as twenty-seven meetings?
    Mr. Naimon. I guess about the only thing I could say is
that my best estimate would be fifteen.
    Mr. Carr. Would you tell us positively you did not attend
as many as twenty-seven?
    Mr. Naimon. I don't know if I can bring it down any more
precise than that.
    Senator Dirksen. Tell us about this meeting you were going
to relate to us-the facts and circumstances of a Communist
meeting you attended.
    Mr. Naimon. I don't know whether it was a Communist
meeting. This is what happened. After this rupture in early
1948, that was May 1948----
    Senator Dirksen. You are speaking about the break with the
young lady?
    Mr. Naimon. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Incidentally, have you seen her since that
time?
    Mr. Naimon. I did see her subsequent to that but it was
always--I had another make and break but it was always with the
knowledge that it couldn't be a permanent relationship. It was
mostly an ego blow which I suffered and had to recover.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you know whether she is still active in
this work?
    Mr. Naimon. I haven't seen her in, I'd say, two years, and
before that I hadn't seen her in about another two years. I
would assume she is from what I knew.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, give us the details on this meeting.
    Mr. Naimon. After she broke with me in May 1948, I spent
the summer sort of hoping to bump into her, without having the
pride to call her and someone mentioned there was going to be a
meeting in the Bronx. As a matter of fact, they didn't call it
a meeting but a social and invited me to go along.
    Senator Dirksen. That was in what year?
    Mr. Naimon. That was in 1948. I think it was in this period
when all I wanted to do was to see her and I was hoping to see
her there and that is the reason I went along. When we arrived
there was a lecture speaking and the lecture was obviously a
Commie. He got me so excited that when the questioning period
started I rose and asked him whether in the event of war
between Russia and America, he would fight for them or for us.
The lecturer never answered the question. He put it off and
everybody in the audience looked very hostile to me.
    By the way, Laura was there and I knew whatever I wanted to
do with the relationship--I felt compelled to ask because of
the attitude of the speaker. I wasn't there at the beginning of
the meeting exactly to know whether it was a Communist meeting
or not. He sounded like a Communist speaker, so shortly after I
asked that question it became clear he wasn't answering. The
social part of the evening was to start after the lecture and I
left.
    Senator Dirksen. Were there any other meetings you attended
of a similar nature?
    Mr. Naimon. No.
    Senator Dirksen. That was the only one?
    Mr. Naimon. I am fairly certain that was the only one.
    Mr. Carr. You said you never attended a Communist party
meeting to your knowledge but if we had information that you
had attended a Communist party meeting, isn't it possible that
one of these meetings you say you went to with the girl--I am
not talking bout AYD--something at someone's home could have
been a Communist party meeting?
    Mr. Naimon. I didn't understand the question.
    Mr. Carr. We are in the position of having information that
you were a Communist party member. Now, you say you were not a
Communist party member and never attended Communist party
meetings to your knowledge.
    Mr. Naimon. With the exception of one mention, which may
have been.
    Mr. Carr. If we have information that you are a Communist
party member, attended Communist party meetings, our
information may very well be correct?
    Mr. Naimon. Well, about all I can say is naturally
everything I say is to the best of my recollection. My best
recollection is that I didn't go to any. If you have
information, something might ring bell and if it did I'd
naturally try to recall if that was the case. As best I can say
is that was the only one I have recollection of.
    The Chairman. It is a fact that you attended a great number
of meetings in private homes, which you have reason to believe
were Communist meetings. Is that correct?
    Mr. Naimon. No.
    The Chairman. Didn't you attend meetings in various homes?
    Mr. Naimon. I didn't attend any meetings in any homes.
    The Chairman. Gatherings?
    Mr. Naimon. I went to parties in various homes and these
parties were, to the best of my knowledge, parties sponsored by
AYD or people in AYD.
    The Chairman. And at those parties you discussed Communists
and their aims?
    Mr. Naimon. No, I never did.
    The Chairman. Was that discussed? Did someone lead a
discussion of the aims of the Communist party?
    Mr. Naimon. No. I only went to parties on the basis of it
being a party.
    The Chairman. Answer my question. At those parties
sponsored by the AYD or members of the AYD, did anyone ever
lead a discussion----
    Mr. Naimon. To the best of my recollection, I have not been
to a party at which anyone lead a discussion.
    The Chairman. And at these parties did anyone have any
Communist literature that was either discussed or passed out?
    Mr. Naimon. To the best of my recollection there may well
have been literature passed out. Of whose sponsorship, I don't
know. I certainly wasn't interested in it and I didn't take any
home.
    The Chairman. How many meetings did you attend in homes?
    Mr. Naimon. I would like to make it clear these were not
meetings.
    The Chairman. Gatherings? How many parties?
    Mr. Naimon. How many? I would estimate from five to ten.
    The Chairman. Did you attend any at which this young lady
was not present?
    Mr. Naimon. I would say I attended none at which the lady
was not present or which I was not seeking the lady.
    Mr. Jones. What is that girl's name?
    Mr. Naimon. Laura Kerr.
    Mr. Jones. You met her, you say, when she was fifteen years
old?
    Mr. Naimon. That is right.
    Mr. Jones. You say also that at that time she was imbued
with radical ideas as far as government is concerned?
    Mr. Naimon. I don't know if I'd say radical insofar as
government----
    Mr. Jones. Didn't you say you felt her ideas were radical?
    Mr. Naimon. Radical Communist ideas.
    Mr. Jones. Radical at fifteen?
    Mr. Naimon. They were radical in the sense she was imbued
with a love of communism.
    Mr. Jones. Did she ever explain to you how she developed
those ideas?
    Mr. Naimon. Well, I tried to get at that. I assume it came
from her sister.
    Mr. Jones. What is her sister's name?
    Mr. Naimon. Her sister's name is Eileen Kerr.
    Mr. Jones. And where do you suppose either she or her
sister got these idea--some school, Communist school or some
other kind of school?
    Mr. Naimon. Well, I thought that was a sufficient search.
    Mr. Jones. I am quite surprised at a girl of fifteen years
old having radical ideas. I have a daughter that age and I can
never imagine her, unless she was exposed to certain groups,
certain----
    Mr. Naimon. She had an older sister who undoubtedly
expressed these views.
    Mr. Jones. Did this Laura ever introduce you to people who
influenced Laura or her older sister to believe these ideas?
Did she ever introduce you to Communists?
    Mr. Naimon. I think very likely her sister's boyfriend, who
later married her.
    Mr. Jones. What is his name?
    Mr. Naimon. Roy Stiefberg.
    Mr. Jones. And he lived in New York, did he?
    Mr. Naimon. He lived in New York and I think went to school
in California. He came back to New York and may have gone back
to California. I am not sure where they are.
    Mr. Jones. Did you ever meet any bonafide Communists
through your association with Laura Kerr?
    Mr. Naimon. You mean persons who told me or I assumed they
were?
    Mr. Jones. Made known to you they were people who were
members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Naimon. It seems to me the only way I could know that
would be if they told me.
    Mr. Jones. Did anyone ever tell you they were through your
association with Laura Kerr?
    Mr. Naimon. I think--I don't know exactly whether it came
through my association with her. She was certainly--I guess
anyone I met would be through that association. I seem to
recall----
    Mr. Jones. What was that Communist's name?
    Mr. Naimon. Stanley Lavene.
    Mr. Jones. Where is this Miss Kerr now?
    Mr. Naimon. I don't know. As I said I haven't seen her in
about two years.
    Mr. Jones. What was her address?
    Mr. Naimon. It was at 183rd Street and Webster Avenue in
the Bronx.
    Mr. Jones. Were her parents Communists?
    Mr. Naimon. Not to my knowledge. Her mother certainly knew
nothing about politics whatsoever and she read the Daily News.
    Mr. Jones. How about your brothers and sisters? Were they
members of the AYD also?
    Mr. Naimon. I have only one sister. To the best of my
knowledge she never was.
    Mr. Jones. Did she attend AYD meetings?
    Mr. Naimon. I don't know. I imagine not, maybe.
    Mr. Jones. Did she ever attend any with you?
    Mr. Naimon. No.
    Mr. Jones. Are you sure of that?
    Mr. Naimon. Well, I'd better say then to the best of my
recollection. I should make clear I was given this subpoena
thirty-six hours ago and I was under the impression--tomorrow I
had already gotten annual leave. Previously I had asked for
annual leave over the holidays.
    The Chairman. Annual leave has nothing to do with whether
you attended Communist meetings. The question is, did you take
your sister along to AYD meetings?
    Mr. Naimon. My answer is, I don't recall having done so.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Naimon, I think another question--
insofar as you know, was Laura Kerr or her sister ever employed
by the federal government?
    Mr. Naimon. No. As far as I know, no.
    Senator Dirksen. In your present capacity in the surgeon
general's office do you handle restricted, confidential or
classified matter?
    Mr. Naimon. I have an interim clearance for handling
classified matter and it is interim clearance and I haven't yet
done business with classified matter because our contracts are
these medical research contracts.
    Senator Dirksen. I think that is all, Mr. Naimon.
  TESTIMONY OF JOHN LAUTNER, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
                            JUSTICE
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Lautner, have you ever been sworn by
this committee?
    Mr. Lautner. Not yet.
    Senator Dirksen. Would you hold up your hand? Do you
solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give shall be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
    Mr. Lautner. I do.
    Senator Dirksen. Would you give to the reporter your full
name and where you live and your present occupation?
    Mr. Lautner. My full name is John Lautner and my mailing
address is Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Room 2216.
Forgive me Senator. I didn't give my home address because I
have been threatened.
    Senator Dirksen. I wouldn't expect you to.
    You are presently identified with the federal government?
    Mr. Lautner. That is correct.
    Senator Dirksen. Would it be a proper question to ask you
how long you have been?
    Mr. Lautner. Since the end of September 1950.
    Senator Dirksen. So that roughly you have been in the
federal service for a period of about three years?
    Mr. Lautner. That is correct.
    Senator Dirksen. Where did you live before you came to
Washington?
    Mr. Lautner. New York.
    Senator Dirksen. And prior to your advent to the federal
service what was your line of endeavor?
    Mr. Lautner. I was a functionary of the Communist party for
approximately twenty years with short intervals out of
activity, as for example when I was in the armed service and
for a few months while I was waiting for assignment I worked
with my dad, a general contractor, at that time in New Jersey.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you procure a card in the Communist
party?
    Mr. Lautner. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. And you were a card carrying member as
such?
    Mr. Lautner. Yes since 1929, November or December, up to
January 1950.
    Senator Dirksen. So you held that card without interruption
for roughly twenty-one years?
    Mr. Lautner. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. You said you were a functionary of the
Communist party. I wonder if you could precisely define what a
functionary is, what duties and title.
    Mr. Lautner. A functionary of the Communist party is a
professional revolutionary. He has a specific assignment and
personal responsibility to carry out that assignment from time
to time. There are full time functionaries and part time
functionaries. A full time functionary is a person who is a
member of the Communist party who devotes all his time, energy
and at the expense of personal problems or personal habits, his
full time is devoted to the task assigned to him in the
Communist party.
    A part-time functionary is non-party paid functionary who
has a minor assignment from time to time or an assignment in
the lower organizations of the Communist party.
    Senator Dirksen. What was your title as a functionary?
    Mr. Lautner. Well, I had various functions and various
titles in the course of twenty years. At the time I left I was
a member of the National Review Commission of the Communist
party, head of the New York review commission, security officer
for the party building at 35 East 12th Street, New York City.
    Senator Dirksen. Your duties were roughly as a member--
member of the National Review Commission, head of the New York
State Review Commission?
    Mr. Lautner. My function was to carry out investigations in
the party against anti-Communist elements in the ranks, to
watch vigilantly any manifestation of deviation in party ranks,
antimarxist deviation, review disciplinary cases processed on
lower levels of organization and to close up these cases that
were heard and decisions were made in county, section or state
organizations of the Communist party.
    Senator Dirksen. You said ``task assigned.'' Who assigned
that task to you?
    Mr. Lautner. At various times various bodies of the party
from the Central Committee of the party to state organization
committees and at times the Nationality Group Commissions and
the Nationality Language Bureaus of the party.
    Senator Dirksen. Were the assignments in writing or oral?
    Mr. Lautner. Oral. Invariably oral.
    Senator Dirksen. Oral?
    Mr. Lautner. That is correct.
    Senator Dirksen. In your capacity as a functionary you
learned many members of the party by their party names and real
names?
    Mr. Lautner. Party names and in some instances real names.
In most instances by their party names.
    Senator Dirksen. Were you in a position to have access to
party records?
    Mr. Lautner. Some records.
    Senator Dirksen. Only at the level at which you were?
    Mr. Lautner. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. On the basis of those records, would you
have some estimate of party membership?
    Mr. Lautner. In the United States at the time I left the
Communist party in 1950, the estimate--there were approximately
thirty thousand paper members in the New York organization and
the New York organization had approximately half of the total
membership of the Communist party, so on paper membership sixty
thousand party members. Paper members I emphasize due to
fluctuating and lagging behind in dues, in payment. There was
never a correct and precise estimation of party membership.
    Senator Dirksen. Are you a member of the party at the
present time?
    Mr. Lautner. Oh, no.
    Senator Dirksen. When did you leave?
    Mr. Lautner. The 17th of January 1950.
    Senator Dirksen. That is roughly about the time you entered
the federal service?
    Mr. Lautner. No, there was a lapse of about ten months.
    Mr. Carr. I think we should make the record straight on the
federal service. Mr. Lautner is a consultant to the Department
of Justice rather than in federal service.
    Mr. Lautner. I have no Civil Service status.
    Senator Dirksen. Doubtless there was some reason for your
departure from the party. Would you amplify the record and tell
us about it?
    Mr. Lautner. Well, I was allegedly investigated and found
to be a spy and agent in the ranks of the Communist party. I
was called to a so-called hearing in Cleveland, Ohio, in a
cellar where efforts were made on the part of certain party
officers to make me admit the fact that I was an agent in the
ranks of the Communist party. I was exposed to all sort of
indignities, my life threatened, and when I got back to New
York I read my expulsion from the Communist party in the Daily
Worker.
    Senator Dirksen. But were you a member at that time or not?
    Mr. Lautner. I was a member of the Communist party at that
time.
    Senator Dirksen. That was before you became a consultant to
the Department of Justice?
    Mr. Lautner. While I was in the party up to the time of my
expulsion I had no contact with any agency of the government.
    Senator Dirksen. How did it come about that you were given
what is really a trial to determine whether you were a
deviationist or whether you were spying on the party?
    Mr. Lautner. I was charged with protecting in the party FBI
informants. I was charged with hearing unreliable elements in
the party defense office during the first trial of the
Communist leaders and on further investigation I was found to
be an enemy agent of long standing in the ranks of the
Communist party and these were the charges that were printed in
the Daily Worker. However, at the New York trial of Communist
leaders in the cross-examination it was quite evident to me and
I also know to the bureau that my expulsion was directed from
the other side, from behind the Iron Curtain. The reason for
that was that during the war I was in the armed services. I
served twenty-five months overseas, Africa and Italy, assigned
to psychological warfare and in my station field unit, which
was stationed in Bari, Italy, and I was in contact with
Yugoslavian people there, re-equipped and re-armed by Allied
Forces there and I was branded as a Tito agent in the ranks of
the Communist party over here.
    Mr. Carr. Isn't it true, at least to your knowledge as a
student of the subject, that yours is the only expulsion from
the American Communist party that has ever appeared in the
publication--
    Mr. Lautner. The official organ of the Communist
Information Bureau. To my knowledge, I am the only one printed
up in that publication and the Communist party members were
warned to be more vigilant against international political
police spies.
    Mr. Carr. Isn't it also true that all of these charges made
against you were false and you were entirely faithful member of
the Communist party until the very day they took you to
Cleveland--surreptitiously took you down to the cellar--isn't
it true you were good member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Lautner. That is correct. I would even go further. I
even made application to appeal the case and to get a real
hearing and never heard from them.
    Mr. Carr. And it was only after a lengthy period of
thinking this matter over that you eventually contacted the FBI
on your own volition the first time?
    Mr. Lautner. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you receive pay for your services?
    Mr. Lautner. I was always a paid functionary.
    Senator Dirksen. What was your pay?
    Mr. Lautner. Well, it varied. My highest pay was $60.00 per
week. In the last few years that was my regular pay minus
deductions for social security, etc.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, as a high level functionary, did you
attend high level conferences and meetings?
    Mr. Lautner. Yes, I attended practically all conventions
since 1934. I attended National Committee meetings of the
Communist party from 1936 up to 1942 and I attended various
conferences organized by the party--Eastern Seaboard
conferences, Midwestern conferences held in Pittsburgh and
practically all the operating staff meetings of the Communist
party on New York State level in the years 1947, 1948--review
commission meetings and numerous other meetings.
    Senator Dirksen. You had contact with the Daily Worker also
and personnel employed there, staff----
    Mr. Lautner. Were the staff that worked in the party
headquarters at 35 East 12th Street.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, Mr. Lautner, for immediate purposes,
in the course of party activities did you ever encounter a
woman then known as Doris Walters?
    Mr. Lautner. I am positive I saw her at the party building.
I asked to check whether she was an employee of anyone of the
staff over there-Daily Worker Bookshop. Certainly I saw her in
the party building.
    Senator Dirksen. Will you look at the photograph handed to
you and state whether or not you recognize her?
    Mr. Lautner. I recognize her as one of the persons who came
by the party building.
    Senator Dirksen. You can give positive identification of
Doris Walters?
    Mr. Lautner. Senator, I was security officer for the party
building from 1947 up until the time of my expulsion. It was my
business to see who was in the building, who comes and who
goes. For your information, it was a building that sometimes
five hundred people went out of the building in one day. You
just cannot remember every face of everybody but people that
consistently come and go from there, I know I have seen her and
she is one of those persons--at 35 East 12th Street, New York
City.
    Senator Dirksen. And you feel she came often enough for you
to recognize and identify her--to know the face?
    Mr. Lautner. To know the face.
    Senator Dirksen. Would you know whether she is a member of
the party?
    Mr. Lautner. I wouldn't know.
    Senator Dirksen. Would it be a fair assumption on the basis
of her visits that she was a member or had business related to
party activities?
    Mr. Lautner. The correct assumption would be that those who
came to that building, possibly 2 or 3 percent were not party
members and didn't come more than once or twice. All others
were members of the Communist party.
    Senator Dirksen. In respect to the small percent, would it
be fair to assume they were connected with party activities and
might be designated as fellow travelers?
    Mr. Lautner. Some of them. Some of them came to the Daily
Worker to place ads--they wanted an ad in the Daily Worker or
something in the business office, but as I said, about 98
percent of those who came to that building on party business,
county level, state level, national level, either Daily Worker
or Bookshop.
    Senator Dirksen. Getting back for a moment to Mr. Lamb of
Toledo, did you ever see Mr. Lamb?
    Mr. Lautner. No, I just know the name.
    Senator Dirksen. And is there anything in your mind to
identify him and any interest he may have had in the party as
far as you can tell?
    Mr. Lautner. No, the only record I have is that the Daily
Worker was very favorable to him in many instances; that he was
held in high esteem in the party. Whether he was a party member
or not, I don't know.
    Senator Dirksen. You say he was held in high esteem by the
party and he was considered a valuable person in Ohio?
    Mr. Lautner. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you notice in the papers the hearings
relating to Edward Rothschild and his wife, Esther Rothschild?
    Mr. Lautner. Whatever appeared in the press I read.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you ever see her?
    Mr. Lautner. I know her face. I don't know his face. I know
her face.
    Senator Dirksen. Would you care to make a comment on
whether in your judgment she was or was not a member of the
Communist party?
    Mr. Lautner. As I say, I know her around functions. I know
her face. I have seen her around. Where, I don't know. Years go
by but I know the face. She was around. Whether she was in the
party--I had a very secluded and very secret--my contact was
with party people, party forces. I never went to progressive
organizations or front organizations. When I recall a face,
that person was somewhere around the party.
    Senator Dirksen. You say you had no opportunity to know the
activities of one Doris Walters?
    Mr. Lautner. No.
    Senator Dirksen. But you are positive she was a frequent
visitor to the party building?
    Mr. Lautner. That is correct.
    Mr. Jones. Mr. Lautner, did you have occasion to read the
report of the Internal Security Committee on the Communist
conspiracy in the federal government?
    Mr. Lautner. The report recently released? Yes, I read it.
    Mr. Jones. You read it thoroughly?
    Mr. Lautner. Yes.
    Mr. Jones. Do you recall it was left that there are two
Communist conspiracies still existing down here?
    Mr. Lautner. Yes.
    Mr. Jones. Have you any knowledge to the whereabouts or who
those people are?
    Mr. Lautner. I can only guess.
    Mr. Jones. Where?
    Mr. Lautner. My assumption is that the best short cut to
that would be through the contacts at various embassies
maintained with government personnel--Poland, Czechoslovakia,
Hungary and Rumania. That is where your direction and attention
should be pictured.
    Mr. Jones. Would you have any reason to believe Mrs.
Rothschild, whom you recognize, may be attached to one of these
conspiracies still functioning?
    Mr. Jones. It depends on a number of factors. To be an
effective spy one must have a certain amount of background
training and intelligence. When a person knows immediately the
importance and evaluates things. Whether she is that caliber of
woman. That is the type of people you would have to look for--
clever, articulate, elegant, quick. These are the type of
people you have to look for.
    [Off record discussion.]
    Mr. Jones. Mr. Lautner, I represent Senator Potter here.
The senator was unable to get down today. He was very much
interested in learning you were going to be a witness and asked
me to ask you one question on the basis of a statement he made
last week in Michigan. He has recommended that the Communist
party be outlawed.
    I wonder if you would carefully consider the question on
the basis of your long experience and tell us what in your best
judgment would be the most effective method our government
could undertake to combat communism both above ground and
underground, as briefly as you possibly can?
    Mr. Lautner. Well, first let me make this categorical
statement. By outlawing the Communist party you would make
martyrs out of them. Also you would give them a weapon and this
weapon would be used very effectively--that the strong,
powerful United States is so afraid of a handful of Communists
they have to outlaw them; that the United States follows the
pattern of Europe where the parties were outlawed and similar
arguments. They would make the most of it in developing of so-
called ``Revolutionary Romanticism.'' The best and most
effective way to combat communism here is constantly to show
the inter-relationship between the policies, the technical
approaches, issues that the Communist party raises over here of
being identical with the aims and objectives and desires of the
Soviet Union of Russia and that the Communist party is not a
political party in the true sense of the word but members of
the Communist party are agents, willingly or unwillingly,
knowingly or unknowingly, in the effort of the Soviet Union and
in the effort of the world-wide Communist party to bring about
the downfall of capitalism. The best method as far as
propaganda is to say what they are doing and why they are doing
it.
    Mr. Jones. Now, what organizational measures can be taken?
    Mr. Lautner. I think the Sweet Act is a very powerful
weapon heading it off. Every time a particular group raises its
head, cut if off. Like we had cases in New York, Hawaii, Los
Angeles, Seattle, Pittsburgh. Here too I think this process is
extremely slow. Here is what happened: Up until now, out of a
party membership of approximately twenty-five thousand, which
party still has ten thousand capable Communist leaders--out of
the ten thousand I would state, I don't know the exact figures,
but around one hundred at the most have been indicted. That is
not effective enough.
    Mr. Jones. What would your suggestion be?
    Mr. Lautner. To speed up this process and extend this
process not only to Communist party staff functionaries but go
after the Communist party functionary trade union movement; go
after Communist party functionaries in the front organizations
and go after the Communist party functionaries in the
nationality group, field editors and functionaries operating in
this field. Cut heads there. Cut the articulate Communist
element off over there. I think more effective work could be
done.
    The Chairman. Here is a question I have been curious about.
You would be in a position to know. How would you say the
Communist party actually feels towards the committees of
Congress, this committee, the Jenner committee----
    Mr. Lautner. No comment. These are imposition committees
and they violate all inalienable rights, civil liberties, etc.
    Mr. Jones. Is there a liaison man who works with the party
above ground and below ground?
    Mr. Lautner. Definitely.
    Mr. Jones. Who is that person?
    Mr. Lautner. My assumption was Bob Thompson--one of the top
men--maintained liaison with the open party.
    Mr. Carr. Isn't it a fact Bob Thompson set up the framework
for the underground?
    Mr. Lautner. That is correct for the New York State
organization. The person who really was responsible was William
Z. Foster himself when he went to Europe in 1947.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, Mr. Lautner, you had headquarters
established in New York City. Did you or those associated with
you make it a special point to contact people in the United
Nations?
    Mr. Lautner. The party liaison between the United Nations
and the party was Joe Sterobin up to the time he left for a
better climate. He is in France today and Betty Gannett and
Sterobin were the ones who always discussed the United Nations.
Steve Nelson, New York----
    Mr. Carr. I believe we will ask you to identify these
people.
    Mr. Lautner. Well, Sterobin was the foreign editor of the
Daily Worker. Betty Gannett was the assistant organizational
director of the Communist party and Steve Nelson was a member
of the National Board of the Communist party elected in 1945 up
to 1947 when there was a reorganization and he was brought back
from California to head the Nationality Group Commission of the
Communist party. These are three people to my knowledge who
were very much interested in maintaining contact with people at
the United Nations, particularly with the various
representatives who came to the United Nations from abroad. I
know on two occasions there were such representatives who came
to the UN Assembly to meetings. They delivered lectures to high
functionaries right at 35 East 12th Street. One was a French
delegate who gave a lecture on the problem of the French
Communist party and the French government policy in relation to
Indo-China. The other representative was a delegate from India
who gave a lecture on Communist party methods of propaganda in
India because of the lack of literacy in India--what novel
methods must India's party employ to put across the party line
in the face of illiteracy in India.
    Mr. Carr. Do you recall the name of the French or Indian
delegate?
    Mr. Lautner. No, Senator. If I go through the files of the
Daily Worker I could find traces of it somewhere. Some formal
recognition would be given them in the Daily Worker.
    Mr. Carr. What particular effort did the Communist party
make to infiltrate the United Nations with party personnel?
    Mr. Lautner. Well, it was after 1945 a situation began to
develop where the party was more security conscious and the
fact that the party policies were more day by day--more in
conflict with the policies of the government. It was quite
clear the United Nations would be a good place for the party
personnel to get into and particularly in the various technical
staffs over there where they could get a large measure of
protection from those members of the UN who came from behind
the Iron Curtain. As a matter of fact, one of the UN speech
stenographers by the name of Gene Wallick was part of the
personal apparatus of security in 1948 and 1949 while he was a
$10,000 a year man in the UN.
    Mr. Carr. Where did he work?
    Mr. Lautner. For the secretariat.
    Mr. Jones. Mr. Lautner, I assume certain priorities are
assigned to the various tasks by the Communist party. Assuming
that to be the case, what priority is the UN assignment given--
top priority?
    Mr. Lautner. I don't think so. The top priority in the
party is and always was the building of the party and
strengthening of party influence and gaining decisive influence
in the basic industries of the countries, basic industry with
raw material and heavy industries--steel, metal, etc., rubber
and transportation and communications. In other words, the
nerve center of our industrial productivity. Once the party
gains decisive support of the basic industries they have
subjective conditions for successful overthrow of the
government.
    Senator Dirksen. You mentioned there were no secrets in the
United Nations----
    Mr. Lautner. I am talking about top priority. The United
Nations was established in this country in New York City and
effective party work could be done by technical people by
eavesdropping and listening to conversations and such
intelligence would help. Those were the forces with which the
party operated and contributed to the UN.
    Senator Dirksen. There was definite party efforts to have
its people in UN positions of all types, technical,
stenographic, advisory and higher levels.
    Mr. Lautner. There must have been efforts. If not, how come
the top party speech stenographer, Gene Wallach, became top
steno in the secretariat. He use to take party proceedings.
    Senator Dirksen. Wallach is a member of the Communist party
to your own knowledge?
    Mr. Lautner. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jones. Were any efforts made by the Communist party, to
your knowledge, to plant members with Congressional committees?
    Mr. Lautner. To my knowledge, whether there was any effort
to plant or not, this is a fact: In 1941, January, I came to a
conference which was sponsored by the Dashiell Hammett-Helen
O'Brien committee, the Constitutional Committee for Civil
Liberties. I came to the conference from New York with Gurley
Flynn. The chairman of that conference was Ed Smith. A number
of other people I know at the conference like the Iserman
Brothers, attorneys, Dr. Max Jergan--Elizabeth Gurley Flynn was
one of the principal speakers. After the meeting we went up to
a club called, I don't know, the Havana-Madrid or something
like that. At that club I went up there and Gurley Flynn and
myself sat down and within five or ten minutes or seven or
eight, party people there who were on the La Follette committee
investigating civil liberties and later Harry Bridges came too,
hugged and kissed Gurley Flynn and looked around, sat down and
had a nice little get together. This is a fact. Whether the
party made any special effort, I have no personal knowledge.
    Mr. Jones. You have no knowledge that there are some
Communists employed on special congressional investigating
committees today?
    Mr. Lautner. No knowledge.
    Mr. Carr. To get back to the UN, there was, as you say, a
definite alertness to concentration on the UN. It is not the
same type of concentration as in industry; however, it is one
of the party's objectives to infiltrate the UN?
    Mr. Lautner. It was a concentration on top level on a very
discreet basis to select qualified personnel in various
technical capacities in the UN. That is clear.
    Mr. Carr. Mr. Lautner, I'd like to ask you about a man by
the name of Joel Remes. Now, you have identified Eugene Wallach
as having been a Communist party member and then going over to
UN.
    Do you know Joel Remes?
    Mr. Lautner. Yes. Joel Remes is the brother of Andy Remes.
They are both high functionaries of the Communist party. Andy
Remes was district organizer of the Communist party in
Wisconsin. He was district organizational director in the
northwest section organization in New York City. The last time,
to my knowledge, he was district organizer or district leader
in Ohio. Joel Remes all along these years was associated,
particularly since 1946 as one of the editorial workers of
Political Affairs, co-worker of V. J. Jerome and Eugene Dennis,
operating at 35 East 12th Street. He also gave a hand to George
Siskind in the preparation of curriculum for national training
schools of the Communist party.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know him as being a Communist party
member?
    Mr. Lautner. He was a Communist party functionary.
    Mr. Carr. Now, if he should turn up in the United Nations
as an employee of the Polish delegation to the United Nations,
what would your opinion of that be?
    Mr. Lautner. My opinion would be that he was a person
directed to go and work there because an official functionary
of his caliber is not a free agent and he does and acts as he
is told to do.
    Mr. Carr. We have information that he was assigned to the
Polish delegation. He is an American citizen, incidentally,
assigned to the Polish delegation, being the contact between
the party and the Polish delegation and the UN. What is your
opinion?
    Mr. Lautner. He is liaison between the party. The party is
behind the Iron Curtain. He is capable of it.
    Senator Dirksen. Could you come back tomorrow at 10:30?
    Mr. Lautner. Yes.
                TESTIMONY OF ESTHER L. FERGUSON
    Senator Dirksen. Mrs. Ferguson, will you stand and be
sworn.
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
    Mrs. Ferguson. I do.
    Senator Dirksen. Mrs. Ferguson, I wonder if you will give
your full name to the reporter.
    Mrs. Ferguson. Esther Leenov Ferguson.
    Senator Dirksen. I assume Leenov is your maiden name.
    Mrs. Ferguson. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. And you reside where?
    Mrs. Ferguson. 1406 East-West Highway, Hyattsville,
Maryland.
    Senator Dirksen. Have you always lived in Washington?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Well, since I was about five.
    Senator Dirksen. You were born where?
    Mrs. Ferguson. New York City.
    Senator Dirksen. If it is not too personal a question, what
is your present age?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Well, thirty-six.
    Senator Dirksen. I asked only to identify you.
    You have been in Washington about thirty years.
    Mrs. Ferguson. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. You are married?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Is there a family?
    Mrs. Ferguson. No, just the two of us.
    Senator Dirksen. What about your parents, family, father,
mother, any other brothers and sisters living in Washington?
    Mrs. Ferguson. My parents live in Washington. My brother
teaches at the University of Chicago.
    Senator Dirksen. In what capacity?
    Mrs. Ferguson. He is an instructor in Physics.
    Senator Dirksen. Your father is employed here in
Washington?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. What does he do?
    Mrs. Ferguson. I don't know exactly what he does. Clerical
work.
    Senator Dirksen. What department?
    Mrs. Ferguson. War Department.
    Senator Dirksen. Has he been there a long time?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Yes, quite a few years.
    Senator Dirksen. You would say how long?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Oh, twelve approximately.
    Senator Dirksen. Would you know what branch or agency of
the defense establishment he works? You say he works for the
army. What particular function?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Well, I really don't know what branch or
anything.
    Senator Dirksen. Located in the Pentagon. He is a civilian
worker in the defense establishment?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Yes, sir, presumably.
    Senator Dirksen. You wouldn't know what his particular
duties are over there?
    Mrs. Ferguson. No.
    Senator Dirksen. I mean in a general way. Does he work in
the General Staff Office, Air Corps----
    Mrs. Ferguson. No, it is not Air Corps, I don't think.
    Senator Dirksen. But he does work in one of the offices in
the Pentagon?
    Mrs. Ferguson. He is not in the Pentagon.
    Senator Dirksen. Where is he located?
    Mrs. Ferguson. I think it is somewhere around the
reservoir.
    Senator Dirksen. But it is an agency of the army where he
works?
    Mrs. Ferguson. As far as I know.
    Senator Dirksen. You say clerical work?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Is it of a particular nature you could
describe? Administrative work? You say clerical and that is
rather a broad term.
    Mrs. Ferguson. Well, I really don't know. Probably some
kind of work with figures.
    Senator Dirksen. Does he have a Civil Service rating? Would
you know?
    Mrs. Ferguson. I believe he does.
    Senator Dirksen. Would you know what that rating is?
    Mrs. Ferguson. No. I don't.
    Senator Dirksen. Your father's name is Isadore Leenov?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Now then, you are presently employed with
the federal government?
    Mrs. Ferguson. That is right.
    Senator Dirksen. How long have you been?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Since 1940.
    Senator Dirksen. That would be a period of thirteen years?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. What is your present employment?
    Mrs. Ferguson. I work with the Civil Service Commission,
correspondence analyst.
    Senator Dirksen. What is the GSA rating?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Six.
    Senator Dirksen. And have you been employed with the Civil
Service Commission all thirteen years? No other employment?
    Mrs. Ferguson. No.
    Senator Dirksen. No other employment?
    Mrs. Ferguson. No.
    Senator Dirksen. I naturally assume, of course, Mrs.
Ferguson, that you have outside activities of one kind or
another, social, probably political, church activities, etc.
    Mrs. Ferguson. Well, only social.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you have any political activities and I
am using these words not in the protestant sense but overall
sense. Any activities that has a bearing on the world, national
governmental policy?
    Mrs. Ferguson. No, I don't.
    Senator Dirksen. Are you familiar with an organization
known as the International Workers Order?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you ever have identity with it?
    Mrs. Ferguson. I belonged to it a short time in the
thirties.
    Senator Dirksen. Early thirties?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Well, middle I would say.
    Senator Dirksen. What is the nature of this organization?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Well, I primarily joined the organization
for social reasons and as such wasn't interested in any other
aspect of it. I joined in order to make friends. I was quite
lonely at the time and I stayed trying to make friends in the
organization. When I finally found out I didn't seem to make
out, I dropped out. That was really my primary purpose in
joining and the length of time I stayed.
    Senator Dirksen. And you became familiar with the aims and
objectives of the organization?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Well, not to any great extent. I have never
been very much of a reader except sporadically and then not
politically and I practically never read the newspaper except
the funnies, ads.
    Senator Dirksen. How long did you say you were a member of
this organization?
    Mrs. Ferguson. I'd say about three years, three or four
years possibly. It is hard to remember dates.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you ever hold office in this
organization?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Well, I was secretary once for a short time
because I thought working with the people I would be able to
become more friendly. As I say, that didn't seem to materialize
and I eventually dropped the whole thing.
    Senator Dirksen. When was that?
    Mrs. Ferguson. It would be impossible to say. Possibly
around 1937 or 1938, maybe. It is just a wild guess.
    Senator Dirksen. Could it have been as late as 1942?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Oh, no.
    Senator Dirksen. You are positive about the date?
    Mrs. Ferguson. I am positive.
    Senator Dirksen. What is required to become secretary?
    Mrs. Ferguson. As far as I remember one was just elected.
There was a general election and whoever wanted to be elected.
    Senator Dirksen. I assume someone put your name into
nomination?
    Mrs. Ferguson. I imagine so.
    Senator Dirksen. And either oral ballot or whatever ballot
was used, you were elected?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Yes.
    Senator Dirksen. What were your duties?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Take minutes, send out announcements of
meetings.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you keep a record of the membership in
the organization?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Well, I don't recall that I did.
    Senator Dirksen. Normally, it would be one of the
secretary's duties to keep a record because that would be the
only way she could correspond with the members.
    Mrs. Ferguson. Probably for that reason I did have.
    Senator Dirksen. Could you say about how many members there
were in this group?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Well, it never was very large and probably
fluctuated considerably. There might be more at one time than
another. It would be very hard to say. I would guess the figure
at twenty. I don't know how close that would be.
    Senator Dirksen. It had a purpose other than social
congregation?
    Mrs. Ferguson. One other factor was the insurance angle.
Since it was quite inexpensive insurance that was another
reason.
    Senator Dirksen. Did it have a constitution and by-laws?
    Mrs. Ferguson. I think we did but I never read them.
    Senator Dirksen. Wouldn't that be one of the duties of the
secretary as that states the aims and purpose of the
organization?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Well, it would be. I have a lot of
background material I never did get around to reading. That was
just another----
    Senator Dirksen. So you couldn't say what its aims and
purposes were?
    Mrs. Ferguson. I couldn't.
    Senator Dirksen. Are you still a member of this
organization called the International Workers Order?
    Mrs. Ferguson. No. I haven't been for at least fourteen
years.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you let your membership lapse or did
you notify them?
    Mrs. Ferguson. I dropped out, as I say, when I became
disinterested and found the purpose of making friends didn't
materialize. It would be impossible to say the last time. I
know it has been a good thirteen or fourteen years ago.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you out of curiosity, if for no other
reason, keep in touch and find out what happened to the
organization, this particular chapter?
    Mrs. Ferguson. No.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you know whether they meet any more?
    Mrs. Ferguson. I haven't the vaguest conception.
    Senator Dirksen. Did it ever come to your attention that
the attorney general characterized this as a Communist front?
    Mrs. Ferguson. I believe I saw in the paper or heard
someone mention that fact.
    Senator Dirksen. You had no knowledge before the attorney
general's announcement published in the paper.
    Mrs. Ferguson. No.
    Senator Dirksen. What was discussed at these meetings?
    Quite aside from the good time you had at the meeting,
there must have been some discussion. I presume the president
or the vice president or someone brought in a speaker who had
something to say?
    Mrs. Ferguson. As far as I can recall--We would have
discussions for increasing the membership, membership campaign,
planning for social affairs and then the only other thing I can
remember aside from that, I can remember one time we had a
doctor coming to discuss syphilis. Aside from that, I can't
remember any other type. It seems they were largely concerned
with getting more people and then, of course, social gatherings
are another way of increasing membership, attracting people to
come.
    Senator Dirksen. Is it necessary to retain active
membership in order to carry that insurance?
    Mrs. Ferguson. I don't believe so.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you still carry that insurance?
    Mrs. Ferguson. No. In other words, when I stopped going I
stopped paying the dues and that automatically lapsed the
insurance.
    Senator Dirksen. Did they ever have a speaker discuss
Marxism, the Communist line, the relationship between Soviet
Russia and the United States?
    Mrs. Ferguson. No, not to my recollection.
    Senator Dirksen. Mrs. Ferguson, have you ever been a member
of the Communist party?
    Mrs. Ferguson. No, never. I have never even been to a
meeting of any sort even remotely connected.
    Senator Dirksen. If it had been a fact, would you have
known at the time you were secretary of the group whether they
had affiliation with the Communist movement?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Well, I don't feel I was taken into
confidence particularly so I never suspected it.
    Senator Dirksen. You never heard anything that might allude
to it or anything?
    Mrs. Ferguson. I had no idea, whether, if or anything.
    Senator Dirksen. If you care to answer and I would not
prevail upon an answer, is any member of your family identified
with the Communist party in any way?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Never has been.
    Mr. Carr. What is your father's present address?
    Mrs. Ferguson. 1489 Newton Street N. W.
    Mr. Carr. Which is your former address?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Yes, that is.
    Mr. Carr. Your father's name is Isadore?
    Mrs. Ferguson. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. Has your father ever been a member of the
Communist party?
    Mrs. Ferguson. No.
    Mr. Carr. To your knowledge?
    Mrs. Ferguson. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. What is your father's approximate age?
    Mrs. Ferguson. He is in his late fifties.
    Mr. Carr. What is your brother's name?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Daniel.
    Mr. Carr. Was he also a member of the IWO?
    Mrs. Ferguson. No.
    Mr. Carr. Was your father?
    Mrs. Ferguson. I am not sure.
    Mr. Carr. How did you happen to join?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Well, I heard, someone probably mentioned it
to me.
    Mr. Carr. Nobody took you there?
    Mrs. Ferguson. I don't recall. It was so long ago. That is
almost twenty years ago.
    Mr. Carr. Were you ever a member of the Washington
Committee for Democratic Action?
    Mrs. Ferguson. No.
    Mr. Carr. Never have been a member?
    Mrs. Ferguson. No.
    Mr. Carr. Did you ever receive literature from that
organization?
    Mrs. Ferguson. I don't recall that I did and if I did it
might have been maybe one item or so, but not as far as I
recall on a steady basis.
    Mr. Carr. Do you read the Daily Worker?
    Mrs. Ferguson. No.
    Mr. Carr. Did you ever subscribe to the Daily Worker?
    Mrs. Ferguson. No.
    Mr. Carr. Was the Daily Worker around your home before you
married?
    Mrs. Ferguson. No.
    Mr. Carr. What is your husband's name?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Allen Ferguson.
    Mr. Carr. Where does he work?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Agriculture Department.
    Mr. Carr. What type of job?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Attorney.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you have access to the Civil Service
files?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Which files are you referring to?
    Senator Dirksen. Any files?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Well, I work on cases.
    Senator Dirksen. And some of those files are stamped
restricted, confidential, secret?
    Mrs. Ferguson. I am not in the investigations division.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you know whether your father was ever
accused of being a Communist?
    Mrs. Ferguson. No, I don't.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you know whether or not he ever
attended Communist meetings?
    Mrs. Ferguson. No, not to my knowledge.
    Senator Dirksen. Were any of your close relatives ever
employed by the Russian Embassy?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Well, my father was.
    Senator Dirksen. For how long?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Approximately three or four years.
    Senator Dirksen. Just before he went to work for the army?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Well, he was out of work for a while too. It
wasn't immediately before.
    Senator Dirksen. He worked at the Russian Embassy for four
years?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Approximately.
    Senator Dirksen. From 1935 to 1939?
    Mrs. Ferguson. That is reasonably close.
    Senator Dirksen. What kind of work did he do?
    Mrs. Ferguson. He was practically doorman.
    Senator Dirksen. Did you know he had to be a member of the
party before getting a job?
    Mrs. Ferguson. I could almost say positively he didn't.
    Senator Dirksen. Did he ever discuss communism or joining
the party while he was working at the Russian Embassy?
    Mrs. Ferguson. No.
    Senator Dirksen. You are married and, of course, living in
your own home. How far does your father live from you?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Five or six miles.
    Senator Dirksen. When have you last seen him?
    Mrs. Ferguson. About a month ago.
    Senator Dirksen. Were there ever any meetings in your home,
that is when you were living in your father's home, that you
had reason to suspect were attended by members of the Communist
party?
    Mrs. Ferguson. No.
    Mr. Carr. Prior to your father's going with the Russian
Embassy, did he work for Amtorg?
    Mrs. Ferguson. He worked for them a short time.
    Senator Dirksen. In what capacity?
    Mrs. Ferguson. I really don't know what he did there but he
was unemployed and couldn't find work elsewhere. He worked for
them much less than a year.
    Mr. Carr. After he left the Russian Embassy?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. In other words, he worked at Amtorg between the
time he left the Russian Embassy and the time he got the job
with the army?
    Mrs. Ferguson. Then he was dismissed.
    Senator Dirksen. Mrs. Ferguson, this is an off-record
hearing and no names will be disclosed. This will not be
publicized. If information, for any reason, or names appear in
the press, it will not be because of any leads or volition on
the part of the committee.
    I wanted you to be assured of this point.
    Mrs. Ferguson. If this is a hearing about me I wonder why
my family was brought into it.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you think it unfair when your father
worked for the Russian Embassy, Amtorg, a vehicle of the Soviet
espionage? You may think it is unfair to ask these questions.
We feel that is the only way we can get the information about
you.
    The Chairman. You have information or should have it. This
committee is charged with protecting the security of this
nation. When we discover that you, who are presently holding a
government job, as an officer of an organization officially
listed by the attorney general as a front for doing the work of
the Communist party; when we have information that your father
worked for the Russian Embassy, worked for Amtorg--labeled as
an espionage organization, and is now working for the army, we
have no choice, regardless of how pleasant or unpleasant it
might be. We don't enjoy this. I'd like to be back in Wisconsin
fishing. We don't enjoy this any more than you do.
    Mrs. Ferguson. I would like to add on that that there are
times when people with families to support must have work, and
as far as my father working at the Russian Embassy and Amtorg,
he was not taken into any confidence. As I say, he was
practically a doorman. Actually, they made it their business to
see that he got in no contact or heard anything. He was simply
working there. He only got about $20.00 a week.
    Senator Dirksen. I could say this. Obviously the committee
could subpoena your father. I think it is in the interest of
time and economy that we ask you those questions at the same
time you are here.
    I assure you no invidious conclusions, premature
conclusions are drawn by the committee from any testimony. We
try to be extremely circumspect. You need not leave the
committee with the feeling that on the basis of what is adduced
that we come to any conclusion. I think the committee tries to
nail down completely any facts it finds to have been uttered in
respect to any case.
    That is all.
    [Whereupon, the hearing adjourned at 1:00 p.m.]
