The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1930-02-17

THE renegade organ of Lovestone denies the
facts of Lovestone appearing as state
witness in 1920, deny that Lovestone gained
immunity from prosecution for himself by this
testimony, deny that his testimony was looked
upon by the state as of especial value to them
in establishing their case, deny that there was
anything whatever wrong with Loyestones ap-
pearance in court for the state.
We will let the facts speak for themselves
We quote from the record certified to the SUI
preme Court by the official stenographer, in
the appeal by the defense.
Did Lovestone testify In court for the state
in return for immunity from prosecution? We
turn to his testimony beginning with page
375. We find Lovestone freely answering all
questions asked, 149 questions in all, before
he made any objections at all. On the 150th
question he baked and refused to answer. The
following conversation between Mr.. Lovestone
and "His Honor" the judge throws much light
on the reasons:
Question by the Court: I understand you
refuse to answer that question on the ground
you say it would tend to incriminate you?"
answer by Lovestone: Yes, sir. (Enlarg
ing upon this, Lovestone said): | do not
mean incrimination merely within the juris-
dictional area of the state of New York. l
suppose you are aware of the fact that /
have an indictment against me in the city
of Chicago. That is the reason that claim
my ground, constitutional ground of incrin-
nation Now what l say is that while this
provision of the legislature. of the state of
New York may give me, as you say, does
give me immunity in the irgisdictional area
of the state of New York, cannot see Why
on earth it can possibly give me any i'm
munty without this jurisdictiopal boundary"
After some haggling, the district attorney
finally delivered the additional guarantees of
personal immunity for Lovestone also in Chi
cago as we'll as New York. The court record
says:
"Mr Rorke: If your Honor please, have
been authorized by the states attorney, the
prosecuting attorney Of Cook County, Hi
nois, Mr.. McClay Hoyne, in the event that
this defendant Lovestone, who is now on the
stand. refuses to answer questions put to
him by the district attorney of the county
of New York the grounds that his an
swers would incrimnate him in the state of
Illinois, was authorized on behalf of the
state of Illinois to offer the witness i'm
munity against prosecution on the charge
growing out of the formation AMI the organ
izaton of the Communist Party of America"
Note that Mr.. Rorke makes "offer" of
immunity, in return for the same kind of tes-
timony regarding the Chicago convention as
had already been given by Lovestone regard
ing New York. Lovestone considered that such
testimony would endanger himself unless he
had guarantees of immunity. His testimony
was mainly concerned with what other people
did and said, and what positions they held.
But after he had this "offer" from Mr.. Rorke,
he hesitated no longer about testifying freely
about Chicago also. Lovestone stated his
position to the court in the following words
(page 407, Stenographc Record:
swell, on the advice Of counsel after the
instruction of the Court and upon recogni-
ton Of the fact that the statement made
here in public in the court will hold good
for immunity in Jurisdictions outside the