INVESTIGATION OF COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES
IN THE SEATTLE, WASH., AREA—Part 1
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
EIGHTY-FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MARCH 17 AND 18, 1955
Printed for the use of the Committee on Un-American Activities
(Index in part 3 of these hearings)

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON: 1955

CONTENTS

(Testimony of Robert Krahl, Robert Miller, Eugene V. Dennett, Lawrence Earl George, and Harriett Pierce, also heard on March 18, 1955, is printed in pt. 2 of this series.)

Public Law 601, 79th Congress

The legislation under which the House Committee on Un-American Activities operates is Public Law 601, 79th Congress [1946], chapter 753, 2d session, which provides:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, * * *

PART 2—RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Rule X

SEC. 121. STANDING COMMITTEES

17. Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine members.

Rule XI

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES

(q) (1) Committee on Un-American Activities.

(A) Un-American activities.

(2) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommittee, is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (i) the extent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, (ii) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and (iii) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary remedial legislation.

The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such investigation, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable.

For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American Activities, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act at such times and places within the United States, whether or not the House is sitting, has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, and to take such testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under the signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by any member designated by any such chairman, and may be served by any person designated by any such chairman or member.

RULES ADOPTED BY THE 84TH CONGRESS

House Resolution 5, January 5, 1955

Rule X

STANDING COMMITTEES

1. There shall be elected by the House, at the commencement of each Congress, the following standing committees:

---

(q) Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine members.

Rule XI

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES

17. Committee on Un-American Activities.

(a) Un-American activities.

(b) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommittee, is authorized to make from time to time, investigations of (i) the extent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, (ii) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and (iii) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary remedial legislation.

The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such investigation, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable.

For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American Activities, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act at such times and places within the United States, whether or not the House is sitting, has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, and to take such testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under the signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by any member designated by such chairman, and may be served by any person designated by any such chairman or member.

INVESTIGATION OF COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN THE SEATTLE, WASH., AREA—Part I

THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 1955

United States House of Representatives,
Subcommittee of the
Committee on Un-American Activities,
Seattle, Wash.

PUBLIC HEARING

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

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

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

Mr. Moulder. The subcommittee will be in order.

Let the record show that the Hon. Francis E. Walter, chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives of the Congress, pursuant to the provisions of law creating this committee, appointed Hon. Clyde Doyle of California, Hon. Harold H. Velde of Illinois, with myself, Morgan M. Moulder of Missouri as chairman, a subcommittee to conduct hearings in Seattle, Wash.

The membership of the subcommittee, with the exception of Mr. Doyle, is present. Mr. Doyle has asked that I express his regret that a legislative assignment by the Speaker of the House makes it impossible for him to leave Washington at this time.

Following an extensive investigation by the staff, the Committee on Un-American Activities held hearings here during June 1954, and also in Portland during that same period. These hearings were productive of outstanding results in that the committee was furnished by numerous witnesses with facts reflecting the extent of Communist Party activities in the great Pacific Northwest, and the infiltration methods used in this area by the Communist Party.

Mrs. Barbara Hartle will be remembered as a witness whose knowledge of the Communist movement in the Pacific Northwest was very extensive, and the careful and intelligent consideration she gave to her testimony has been excelled by few if any other witnesses which this committee has heard.

In the time allotted for that hearing the committee could not hear all the witnesses who had been summoned, and could not hear fully some of the witnesses who testified. The committee desires at this time to continue with the hearings begun in June of 1954, last year.

Before calling the first witness I desire to recognize the Hon. Charles P. Moriarty, United States attorney for the Western District of Washington, whose office has rendered outstanding service to the Congress of the United States in matters of importance to this committee which have been referred by the Congress to him.

I also desire to extend the committee’s thanks to Mayor Pomeroy and the board of county commissioners who made it possible for us to use this room as a hearing room, United States Marshal William B. Parsons, also Sheriff Tim McCullough and Chief of Police H. J. Lawrence, and members of their respective staffs for their great assistance to this committee.

I also desire to announce at this time—and I trust that it will not be necessary to repeat it at any time during the course of the hearing—that a disturbance of any kind or audible comment on the part of persons other than witnesses during the course of the testimony, whether favorable or unfavorable to the committee or any witness appearing before it, will not be tolerated by the committee. For any infraction of this rule the offender will be ejected from the hearing room.

I also wish to announce that Congressman Velde and I have conferred with respect to the use of cameras and the taking of pictures in the hearing room. Each House of the Congress has its own rules. The rules of the House prohibit the use of cameras, the taking of pictures and televising proceedings of the Congress in the House while it is in session. The Speaker has ruled that that applies to committee hearings wherever they may be held in any part of the United States. However, Congressman Velde and I have decided that it would not be in conflict with the ruling and the interpretation placed upon the rules by the Speaker of the House to permit photographs to be taken at any time in the hearing room except when a witness is testifying, and in the course of his testimony.

Therefore, photographs will be permitted to be taken of the witness while he is being sworn in and after that. While he is testifying no additional photographs will be permitted to be taken.

Mr. Velde. I certainly want to say, Mr. Moulder, that I concur with you in the statement you have just made about the matter of taking photographs. However, I do feel that we should also protect the freedom of the press as much as possible, instead of merely protecting the so-called rights of some of the witnesses who will appear here.

It is very important in my opinion, and I think the Chair will concur with me in this, that we do give the public, especially in the great Northwest area of our country, the benefit of all the information we are able to obtain. And I do feel that within the rules of the House of Representatives we should do everything we can to give that information to the public here in Seattle.

I also want to say that it is great to be back here. I enjoyed very much being here last June for at least 3 days, as chairman of the full committee at that time.

Mr. Moulder. I am in complete agreement with you as to the committee televising and giving the public all information possible as to those who have proved to be active in the Communist Party. However, the rules of the House and the ruling of the Speaker of the House prohibit the televising of the hearings we are going to hold today.

Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Counsel?

Mr. Tavenner. Yes.

Mr. Moulder. Call your first witness.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Eugene V. Dennett, please come forward.

Mr. Moulder. Hold up your right hand.

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

Mr. Dennett. I do.

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

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

Mr. Dennett. Eugene Victor Dennett.

Mr. Tavenner. Are you accompanied by counsel, Mr. Dennett?

Mr. Dennett. I am, sir.

Mr. Tavenner. Will counsel please identify himself for the record.

Mr. MacDonald. Kenneth A. MacDonald, attorney at law, of Seattle, Wash.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dennett, you were subpenaed as a witness before this committee in June of 1954, and you were called on the first day of that hearing, which was June 14.

Mr. Dennett. Yes, sir.

Mr. Tavenner. At that time you stated some special considerations you had in mind under which you felt that you desired not to testify and, as a result, you refused to testify on the ground of the fifth amendment.

Mr. Dennett. Correct.

Mr. Tavenner. Later on during the hearings, in fact on the next to the last day of the hearings, you and your counsel came to me and stated that after further considering the matter, you desired to appear as a witness.

Is that correct?

Mr. Dennett. That is correct.

Mr. Tavenner. As a result of that you were again called before the committee.

Mr. Dennett. Yes, sir.

Mr. Tavenner. The record of the hearing at that time reflects that neither you nor your counsel was approached by any member of the committee or the staff, or any representative of either the committee or the staff in an effort to get you to change your testimony.

Mr. Dennett. That is absolutely correct.

Mr. Tavenner. That is true, is it not?

Mr. Dennett. Yes, sir.

Mr. Tavenner. As a result of that the committee proceeded to ask you a few questions. However, the record also shows that counsel was of the opinion that your knowledge of Communist Party activities in the Northwest was so extensive that at that late point in the hearing it would be impractical to try to take your testimony unless the committee would cancel the rest of its hearings, and there were a number of witnesses waiting to be heard at that time. Consequently the committee decided that it would have to interrogate you at another time. So you are here this morning for that purpose.

Mr. Dennett. That is correct, sir. As a result of that decision I conferred with the then subcommittee chairman—who was at that time Mr. Jackson—following that session, and Mr. Jackson was unable to advise me when I might be called again. He referred me to Mr. Wheeler. I asked Mr. Wheeler at that time when I might be called again. I anticipated some problem of preparation. I wanted to look at some of my old material and refresh my knowledge. But Mr. Wheeler was unable to give me any information at that time.

Later, on January 28, I wrote to the new chairman of the committee asking him what I might expect from the committee by way of further interrogation. He did not reply directly. Instead, later I received a letter from Mr. Wheeler advising that they expected to hold the hearings in June.

The day after that I received another letter advising that they were going to hold the hearings at this date. So I still was unable to do the preparation that I wanted to do.

Mr. Tavenner. You have a great wealth of Communist Party literature and documents in your possession, do you not?

Mr. Dennett. Well, I saved them over a period of 20 years. I have quite a few.

Mr. Tavenner. In the limited time that we have here this week, have you made some of that material available to the staff?

Mr. Dennett. That is correct.

When Mr. Wheeler came to town he left word in his letter to me that he wanted to reach me at a certain time. I called the hotel and saw him, asked him what he wanted to know. He wasn’t too certain what he wanted specifically, but he wanted to know what I knew.

So I said, “Well, the simplest way to find that out is to come up to my house, and you can look at everything I have got.” So Mr. Wheeler came out to my house and he looked at everything I had.

Mr. Tavenner. During the course of the hearing in June 1954 you were asked a number of questions regarding your background. But the present chairman of the subcommittee was not present with the committee on that occasion, and I think it would be well to begin as if we had taken no testimony whatever.

Will you tell the committee, please, when and where you were born?

Mr. Dennett. I was born in Revere, Mass., April 26, 1908.

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside?

Mr. Dennett. 7324 34th Avenue SW., Seattle 6, Wash.

Mr. Tavenner. When did you move to the general area of Seattle, or may I say to the State of Washington?

Mr. Dennett. In 1932.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give the committee, please, a brief outline of your formal educational training?

Mr. Dennett. I graduated from high school in Rickreall, Oreg. I was out of school a year, unable to raise the finances to go on to college. The second year I made arrangements to finance going to normal school by carrying a paper route.

I graduated from the Oregon Normal School in 1928, and started teaching school. That was a 2-year college at that time, or 2-year normal school. It has since been changed to a college of education, and it is a 4-year school now. That was at Monmouth, Oreg.

After receiving my teaching certificate and starting to teach, I carried on extension work with the University of Oregon, and later, at a later year, I took a couple more quarters of advanced work at the University of Oregon in the School of Education, Sociology, and Philosophy. I did not graduate.

Mr. Tavenner. When did you complete your work at the university?

Mr. Dennett. Well, the work that I took, which was not sufficient for a degree or graduation, ended in 1931.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, briefly, what your employment record has been since that time.

Mr. Dennett. Well, after I left teaching I was unemployed for quite a long period of time. The great depression had started, and I became active in the unemployed work.

Later on when the CCC’s were organized, that is, the Civilian Conservation Corps, since I was in a soup line here in Seattle and saw an announcement that it was possible for us to leave the soup line and go out in the woods in the CCC’s, I chose to do so, and spent a year there, about 15 months, in fact.

When I came out of the CCC’s one of the fellows whom I had worked with in the CCC shanghaied me onto a boat here in the sound. And, unbelievable as it may sound, I actually was shanghaied to work on the waterfront, working on one of the Puget Sound freight boats. I didn’t know a thing about it. And that is how I got started, a fellow just shoved me on and fed me, and the boat pulled away from the dock without my knowing what was going on. Then I got started working in the waterfront work and continued.

Mr. Tavenner. What year was that?

Mr. Dennett. 1935. I continued at that work off and on practically until the beginning of the Second World War, doing various kinds of work, deckhand and freight handling, and some longshore work. I also worked on some of the tugboats and some of the barges.

Mr. Tavenner. You say that type of employment continued until the war. Were you a member of our Armed Forces?

Mr. Dennett. I was. There was an intervening period there, however. I was screened off the waterfront in 1942. After being screened off the waterfront in 1942 I was searching for work again, and I saw a big advertisement in the paper that Bethlehem Steel Co. was hiring everybody and anybody. So I went out there to work.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee what you mean by screened off the waterfront? Briefly, not in detail.

Mr. Dennett. There was an intelligence unit of the Army which seemed to have information which convinced them that I was some sort of a dangerous person, and they were convinced that I should not be permitted to work on the waterfront. So my passes were lifted and I was denied opportunity to do any further work longshoring or work anywhere on the waterfront. By the way, according to my information, I am the only one who never did get his pass back that was lifted at that time.

Mr. Tavenner. Did the lifting of your pass have anything to do with Communist Party activities on your part?

Mr. Dennett. Well, I was asked to go down to the security office at that time. It was in charge of a Mr. John J. Sullivan, I believe. And he put it to me rather bluntly. He said, “We think that you are still a Communist. And so we just don’t think we should have Communists on the waterfront. That is why we are lifting your pass.”

Mr. Tavenner. Will you continue with your narrative of employment?

Mr. Dennett. I went to work at Bethlehem Steel Co.

Mr. Tavenner. What year was that?

Mr. Dennett. In 1942, October 19.

And after being employed there for some little time I was classified I-A in the draft. I didn’t know until after it was all over, but the company evidently thought enough of my work to get at least two deferments for me unbeknownst to myself. You remember there was something of a manpower shortage at that time.

I was finally inducted into service on the 27th of August 1943, took my 3-week furlough which was permitted to married men at that time, and reported to the service. I think it was the 17th of September of 1943, reported for active duty.

I remained in the service until, I think it was about October 10 of 1945, at which time I received an honorable discharge. But I was in somewhat broken health. So upon my return to Seattle I had to take some little time to recuperate, and spent a little time at the naval hospital which was conducted by the Navy at that time. It is now known as Firlands.

By the time I got out of the hospital the steelworkers were in their famous 1946 strike. So I couldn’t return to work until the strike was over. I did, however, return to work shortly after the strike was over. I think it was in April of 1946. And I have been working continuously there ever since.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee whether or not you were a member of the Communist Party at the time that your pass was lifted?

Mr. Dennett. I was.

Mr. Tavenner. How long had you been a member?

Mr. Dennett. Well, originally I joined the Communist Party in 1931.

Mr. Tavenner. 1931?

Mr. Dennett. I was in active membership in the Communist Party until the time I went into the Civilian Conservation Corps. During the year I was in the CCC I was not an active member of the Communist Party. As a matter of fact, I was under some cloud. The leadership of the party at that time disapproved of some of my activities and some of my policies, and I certainly disapproved of some of theirs. It was sort of a mutual disagreement. And they were satisfied to leave me alone while I was in the CCC, and I was satisfied that they did.

However, upon my return from the CCC, as soon as I went to work on the waterfront, the conditions under which we were working at that time were so repulsive that it was no wonder that the workers there were seriously contemplating strike action. With my prior knowledge about trade unions and some knowledge of political activity, it was only natural that I should assume a position of leadership among those workers. And when the strike was called I was elected to leadership in that strike committee. It was at that moment that the Communist Party found it very convenient to make new approaches to me and to try to enlist my efforts in their behalf. I was willing and I did cooperate and I became a member again in good standing.

Mr. Tavenner. What date was that?

Mr. Dennett. 1935.

Mr. Tavenner. I think it may be well at this point, before I ask you any detail about your knowledge of Communist Party activities, as a matter of general background for the committee, you should state briefly the various positions you have held in the Communist Party, and the opportunity you have had to know of Communist Party activities.

Mr. Dennett. I have held nearly all the organizational positions in the lower ranks of the party. That is, I have been a branch organizer, sometimes called branch, sometimes called unit. I have been an educational director in a branch, I have been a section organizer, I have been a fraction secretary, I have been a district agitprop director. That is a combination of two words—agitation and propaganda. I doubt that the term is used very much any more. It would be comparable to educational work now.

I have been a member of the district bureau of the Communist Party. I was a member of the secretariat of the Communist Party in district 12 on 2 different occasions. The secretariat is a group of perhaps 2 or 3 persons who are responsible for the daily activities of the Communist Party and the way in which the various branches and sections are carrying out the Communist Party policy program. I think that covers it.

Mr. Tavenner. What was the last position you held in the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. I think the last position was that of an educational director in a branch.

Mr. Tavenner. What was the date?

Mr. Dennett. I think that would be in 1946 or 1947.

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

Mr. Dennett. I am not.

Mr. Tavenner. Over what period of time were you an active member in the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. With the 2 exceptions of the CCC and the term of service in the Army, from 1931 to 1947.

Mr. Tavenner. I believe in 1947 you were expelled from the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. That is correct.

Mr. Tavenner. With that general background I would like to go back, Mr. Dennett, to the inception of your membership in the Communist Party.

You have said that that was in 1931. And the committee would be interested to learn what the circumstances were under which you became a member of the Communist Party. By that I mean why you joined the Communist Party as well as the mechanics that were used in your becoming a member.

Mr. Dennett. Well, I would remind the committee and those who have read the record of a statement I made at the other hearing. I was named after Eugene V. Debs. I am very proud of that. It should be remembered that Eugene V. Debs was the leading Socialist in the United States of America for a great many years.

I was virtually born into the Socialist movement. My parents admired Debs very much, and my father was an active leading Socialist. Therefore, I had a great deal of knowledge of the Socialist movement as a child. In fact, I had the honor of appearing on the same platform with Eugene V. Debs in Old Peoples Hall in Boston. He was making a political speech. I had a great admiration for the man and I felt greatly honored to be named after him.

In the period following the First World War after my mother’s death, my father and I moved to the farm in the West. That was in 1919. Those who may have some knowledge of the history of that period will remember that following the First World War there was a depression in agriculture. Those who farmed suffered a continuing crisis, and we were trying to farm.

So we were confronted daily with the problem of how in the world do you get out of a depression. And, frankly, we did not find any solution to it.

I went on to school being firmly convinced, as a result of what I had seen as a child, having seen workers defeated time after time in strikes and in disputes, I became thoroughly convinced that the most priceless thing that anyone could obtain would be a full and complete education. And I hoped to receive one. I don’t think I ever received as much as I wanted.

Finally, after obtaining my teaching certificate and beginning to teach—you remember the year was 1928. And in 1929 the stock market crashed. And it wasn’t very long before the effects of that economic interruption began to be felt throughout the land. And among the first to feel it were the teachers, at least in the State of Oregon with which I was then familiar.

The teachers were required to accept great discounts in order to cash their warrants—15, 20, and in some cases 25 percent discounts were taken by the banks to cash the teachers’ warrants. And teachers were generally receiving at that time about $100 per month.

I was fortunate. I was teaching in a district which was a rather wealthy district, and they were not on a warrant basis.

But I began to have great apprehension because most of the teachers I knew were suffering this way. And this was in 1931.

Of course, I had been concerned about economic problems over most of my life. And when I was a high school boy I read Marx’s Das Kapital, and I was somewhat acquainted with his theory of economics. And I was quite disturbed at this economic crash which began with the stock market crash of 1929.

So I was looking for some organization which might give some kind of an answer. In fact, I think that I told some of my friends that I was actually looking for the Communist Party for 2 years before I found it.

In 1931 my father sent me a notice of a Civil Rights Conference to be held in Portland, Oreg. This conference was being called to organize a defense for some people in Portland who had been accused of violating the criminal syndicalism law in the State of Oregon. They were alleged to be Communists. Some of them I later learned actually were Communists. My father was unable to attend the conference. So he asked me to go. I went. There I met the first Communists. The first one that I met was Mr. Fred Walker, and a person by the name of Paul Munter.

Mr. Moulder. May I interrupt? Is that the Civil Rights Congress?

Mr. Dennett. It wasn’t a congress, it was a conference.

Mr. Moulder. Civil Rights Conference?

Mr. Dennett. Yes, sir.

Mr. Moulder. Was it an organization?

Mr. Dennett. No. It was certainly a temporary organization for that particular case.

Mr. Moulder. Who was the leadership of that?

Mr. Dennett. It was organized under the auspices of the International Labor Defense, better known as the ILD.

And they had their attorney at this conference who gave an explanation of the case, an explanation of the law, and outlined the program of the International Labor Defense for the purpose of trying to win that case.

I was very much impressed by his presentation. Later on, years later, I was still more impressed when I learned that he actually had met with success, because after the persons who were charged then had been convicted he appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case of Dirk De Jonge which held that the criminal syndicalism statute in the State of Oregon was invalid. And the decision was reversed. Those convictions were reversed that way.

So you see that my interest and introduction was of a twofold character: One, I was impressed with the economic problems that were not being solved. I was also impressed with what appeared to me to be an invasion of the civil rights of individuals to think and act as they pleased in political matters.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you state the first person you knew as a Communist was a man by the name of Walker?

Mr. Dennett. Yes, Fred Walker.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether Mr. Fred Walker held any position in the Communist Party at that time?

Mr. Dennett. At that time he was the section organizer of the Communist Party in Portland, Oreg.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee whether or not, as a result of your attendance at that conference and your discussions with Mr. Fred Walker, you became a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. It was not immediate, but it was soon after that that I became a member of the Communist Party. Actually I wanted to become a member of the Communist Party, and they were a little bit fearful that since I was a teacher that maybe there was some kind of bourgeois corruption there that they were afraid of. And they insisted that if I wanted to join the ranks of the Communist Party it would be necessary for me to take a little schooling.

So they offered me an opportunity to attend some classes which they had organized, classes in labor history, classes in analyzing the role and functions of the Communist Party? And they had other classes. I do not recall exactly what they were. But these 2 were the 2 main groups.

Mr. Tavenner. Was this a recognized school of the Communist Party or what was it?

Mr. Dennett. Well, it was a school that was organized by the section in Portland under Fred Walker’s leadership. It had the approval of the district leadership.

Mr. Tavenner. Of the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. And they were following the outlines which were sent out by the Workers School of New York, which was the center of the Communist Party.

Mr. Tavenner. Was it unquestionably a Communist Party function that was being performed?

Mr. Dennett. Very distinctly so. We used 2 important textbooks, 1 by Bimba, and 1 by Forner, in those schools. Both of them on labor history.

Mr. Tavenner. Who were the teachers in that school?

Mr. Dennett. Fred Walker taught some of them. Munter taught some of them.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know his first name?

Mr. Dennett. Paul Munter, I believe.

And then there was another fellow by the name of Rodney. His last name was Rodney, R-o-d-n-e-y.

My recollection of him is due to the fact that at that time he was some kind of under secretary or employed by the YMCA in Portland. I did not then know him as a member of the Communist Party either. I heard later that he did join the Communist Party. But at the moment or at the time that he was teaching this class in labor history I did not understand him to be a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. Tavenner. Was your attendance at this school prior to your becoming a member or after you had become a member?

Mr. Dennett. It was prior; it was before joining.

Mr. Tavenner. Were there others in this school besides yourself?

Mr. Dennett. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. How many?

Mr. Dennett. My recollection is between 15 and 20.

Mr. Tavenner. Due to the fact that you have told us that you, yourself were not a member at that time, is it possible that others in attendance likewise were in a similar category and not actual members of the Communist Party at that time?

Mr. Dennett. I am quite sure that was true, that most of them who attended that class were not members of the Communist Party, but they were curious, and their curiosity had been aroused because of what appeared to all of us was an attempt at oppression by the use of the criminal syndicalism statute against unemployed veterans and unemployed workers and other people, and particularly some foreign-born people.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, to what extent did this training that you had in this particular school prepare you for the role you later played in the Communist Party? Did it amount to anything? Was the instruction effective? Did it serve to instill the spirit of the Communist Party in you?

Mr. Dennett. I certainly felt that it did. As a matter of fact, I was one of those teachers who considered that most of our teaching methods were quite inappropriate for the best benefit to the child. I felt that what is characterized as the lock-step system of education is inadequate to our modern needs. And I finally despaired of ever hoping to be able to do what I felt should be done as a teacher.

Mr. Moulder. Just what do you refer to there? I mean in what respect?

Mr. Dennett. The rigidity with which big school systems are straitjacketed. Courses of study are laid out in an ironclad fashion, and there is no opportunity for teachers to attempt to satisfy the needs or the growing needs of the child.

Now remember this was in 1932. There have been a great many changes in most of the school systems since then. And while I was personally not under that kind of restraint, I knew many teachers in the city of Portland who felt that they were at that time. And I was an active member of the Classroom Teachers Association in Portland—or not in Portland, but in the State of Oregon.

We were always concerned with this problem, and we felt that it was very difficult, almost hopeless to expect to make the improvement which needed to be made.

The Communists introduced me to some of the writings of Frederick Engels and Nicolai Lenin, and I found these writings to be very illuminating. I found them to throw a great deal of light on the development of economic and political crises. And they intrigued me by showing me a set of what is known as the Lenin library. I believe there were about 8 or 10 volumes of it published at that time. And I purchased the whole business. I think it cost me about $15. And I proceeded to read voraciously. I read everything there was in it, and I was very much impressed by the analysis, the penetrating analysis which Lenin made of all of the various political movements that existed way back at the turn of the century in 1900. All these things caused me to feel that there was more here than the average person realized, and I hoped that I was finding the solution to the problems which beset mankind.

Mr. Tavenner. Inasmuch as all persons in attendance were not members of the Communist Party, I am not going to ask you to give me the names of all who participated in that school. But I will ask you to give us the names of any of those who participated in that school who later became functionaries in the Communist Party during the period of time that you were a member.

Mr. Dennett. That is an awfully long time ago, and I did not keep any record of those persons.

Frankly, outside of Fred Walker and Paul Munter and this fellow Rodney, I do not recall distinctly enough to be certain in my own mind. I think that a couple of persons attended there whose names would come up at a later period. But I couldn’t be certain of identifying them in that period.

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you attend this course of training?

Mr. Dennett. I think it was about 3 months.

Mr. Tavenner. Was it an intensive training course?

Mr. Dennett. Yes; it was. I believe the classes were at least twice a week, and there was a great deal of reading and study to be done with it. And they found that I was a ready and willing subject. So they assigned reports to me very frequently. And I made many of them.

Mr. Tavenner. How soon after the completion of that work, or was it during the period of that course of training that you became a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. It was during that time. I think within 6 weeks after I started they satisfied themselves that I was sincerely trying to be a good Communist.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what mechanics were used for bringing you into the party?

Mr. Dennett. Well, at that time the party was what is generally referred to as underground. They were very much afraid of their own existence and their own identity. And they were particularly fearful of agents of the police entering their ranks. And they viewed all persons with great suspicion, especially these foreign-born workers. And they used to spend a great deal of time talking with me, inquiring into every phase of my life and my background and my existence, giving me in their own way the third degree to determine whether or not I was trustworthy and whether or not I was worth being a member of the ranks.

Mr. Tavenner. Now as you look back upon it, do you think that that careful study of your past and your capabilities was rather in the way of choosing you for future leadership in the party as distinguished from membership in the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. No. I think that so far as they were concerned, they looked upon all persons entering the party as equals. That is, they did not predetermine who was going to be a leader and who wasn’t going to be a leader. But they were determined to work each new member to the utmost until they got the most out of each one that they could. And in my case I responded by studying very intensely, and they had great hopes that I would develop into the kind of leader which they needed.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you proceed, please, to tell us about your induction into the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. Some of that is rather indistinct at this period. There are only snatches of it that are vivid.

One thing that is quite vivid is one of the foreign-born workers warning me that they had to deal rather vigorously with traitors. That seemed to be their chief obsession.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you mean traitors to the cause of communism?

Mr. Dennett. Yes. That seemed to be their chief concern.

Mr. Moulder. In what period of time are we now?

Mr. Dennett. That is still in 1931.

Finally they told me that my name had been submitted to the party as a candidate for membership. And after—I think it was about a month delay—they informed me that the membership had passed upon my name, and that I had been accepted. And they invited me to party meetings.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you become a member under your own name or were you given a pseudonym?

Mr. Dennett. I was given what is known as a party name. All the party records and documents were kept in that name. However, it always seemed rather ridiculous to me because alongside of the party name there was always my real name anyway.

Mr. Tavenner. What was your party name?

Mr. Dennett. Victor Haines, H-a-i-n-e-s.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have anything to do with the selection of it, or was it selected for you?

Mr. Dennett. Yes; I had something to do with selecting it. When they told me that I had to choose a party name I asked for help on it, and the only help they could offer was to use the name of J. P. Morgan or John D. Rockefeller or Henry Ford or something like that. They were always suggesting the most prominent capitalists as the party pseudonym.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what your first activity was in the Communist Party after becoming a member?

Mr. Dennett. I believe that I was first assigned to carry on this classwork in Portland, to keep this school going that was started. But that didn’t last very long because at that time the district organizer of the party was a man by the name of Alex Noral, who was here in Seattle.

And Noral was troubled because they were unable to get someone to fill the function of a district agitprop director here in Seattle. So he was asking Fred Walker to come to Seattle to be the agitprop director because Fred Walker had organized such a successful school in Portland and had done such splendid work which met with the district approval.

Walker, however, had personal reasons for not wanting to leave Portland. So he requested me to accept the assignment to Seattle. And I was perplexed as to what to do. I was in the middle of a school teaching year, but I was becoming more convinced all the time that there was no future in teaching—at least the way I wanted to do it. So I accepted, under a great deal of pressure, the assignment to come to Seattle. And that was, I say, under a great deal of pressure, too, because the way I was approached on it was that “Well, now you are a member of the party. You do what the party tells you to do, and you go where the party wants you to “go.”

Mr. Moulder. May I interrupt at that point before you start on your Seattle testimony?

I am curious to know, during that period of time when there were no laws prohibiting membership in the Communist Party, why there was direction that you operate underground or under false names?

Mr. Dennett. You remember I spoke about the criminal syndicalism prosecutions in Oregon. The members of the party were being accused of violating the criminal syndicalism statute.

Mr. Moulder. A statute?

Mr. Dennett. In Oregon, yes. And they considered that they were under attack for illegality.

Mr. Velde. May I ask a question?

Mr. Velde. I would like to know at the time you joined the Communist Party, I believe it was in 1931, if you had any idea at that time that the policy of the Communist Party of the United States of America was being dictated by Soviet Russia?

Mr. Dennett. Well, there is a sort of mixed answer to that.

I had been reading the Daily Worker. I had been reading the Butte Daily Bulletin. I was somewhat familiar with the international politics in which there was conflicting interest between the United States and the Soviet Union. But it was reconciled in my thinking with the firm conviction that the Communist Party was attempting to serve the interests of the working class all over the world and that in doing so there would be no conflict so far as we were concerned. Now that was the way it was resolved in my mind at that time.

Mr. Velde. I think that is true of many early Communist Party members.

Mr. Tavenner. Without going into detail, did your views continue to be the same or were they altered as time went on in the course of your Communist Party work?

Mr. Dennett. It didn’t take very long after I reached Seattle before I had my first rude awakening. I was naive enough to believe that it was proper for anyone to ask any question at any time in a party meeting. But after coming to Seattle and being assigned as the district agitprop director, believing that my duty required that I should supervise the production of leaflets and propaganda which was being issued, I was naive enough to ask what were my various duties. And the answer I got from Mr. Noral was to the effect that anybody knows what that is, which left me completely in the dark.

So I turned to the nearest associate who, at that time was Mr. John Lawrie, Sr., who more or less agreed with me that it was time to get some clear definition as to what the function was. Later on when I insisted upon criticizing a leaflet which Noral had issued he accused me of being some kind of a deviationist. I had only been in the party about 3 months. I didn’t know what the term meant.

Later on he accused me of being a Trotskyite. I think he used the term “Trotskyite,” which was a term of derision. And that conflict led ultimately to my being removed as district agitprop director. As a matter of fact, if Noral had carried out his wishes at that time I would have been liquidated.

I didn’t know what he meant by liquidation then, and I think the term was used rather loosely. But he did declare that liquidation was the proper thing to do with deviators such as I at that time.

However, there was another leader in the district by the name of Ed Leavitt, L-e-a-v-i-t-t, who was the organizational secretary, and Leavitt felt that it was improper to deal with me in that fashion, and he felt that since I was a young man at that time that I should be given an opportunity to prove my worth and prove myself. And he prevailed upon the district secretariat, namely, himself, Noral, and Lawrie, to assign me to section organizer in Bellingham. It wasn’t very long before I was banished from the district headquarters and sent to Bellingham to prove myself, which I think I did.

Mr. Moulder. Were you then being compensated?

Mr. Dennett. No, sir.

Mr. Moulder. Or reimbursed for your travels?

Mr. Dennett. I was not. We just bummed our way around.

Mr. Moulder. Were you employed then?

Mr. Dennett. I was unemployed. But we were just living as best we could, from hand to mouth.

I never was on the payroll of the Communist Party.

Mr. Tavenner. I think you should define more specifically what was meant by the term “liquidate.”

Mr. Dennett. Well, in that connection, I believe it occurred during a meeting of the district bureau, in which I had insisted that the grammar of one of Mr. Noral’s leaflets was in need of repair. He insisted that he knew what he was saying and that if anybody else didn’t know it was just too bad. And he proceeded to describe the importance of party discipline.

And in a very boastful way remarked that he was in the Fosterite faction that went to the Soviet Union in 1928 to the Sixth World Congress of the Comintern, and that following the decision of the Sixth World Congress to liquidate factionalism in the American section of the Communist Party, that the Comintern set up a special commission to deal with the American section delegates, dealing with the Foster faction, the Lovestone faction, and the Cannon faction. And he said that since he was in the Foster faction that they, being the largest faction, were called up first.

And when they were called before the commission the chairman of that commission was Josef Stalin, and that Stalin leaned over the rostrum, shook his finger at them, and demanded to know, “Do you or do you not submit to the authority of the Comintern and its decisions?”

Noral said that he very proudly was the first to arise and say that he did submit to it. And he gave that to us as an illustration of the kind of discipline that we must expect and that we must follow.

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Dennett and Mr. Tavenner, would you like to have a recess at this time?

Mr. Tavenner. Yes.

Mr. Moulder. The committee will stand in recess for a period of 5 minutes.

(Whereupon a short recess was taken.)

Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order.

Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to call the witness, Mr. Jerry O’Connell.

Mr. Jerry O’Connell. Is he present?

(There was no response.)

Mr. Tavenner. May I ask that he be called in the corridor?

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Officer, would you call the witness Jerry O’Connell in the corridor?

Is there anyone here, an attorney representing the witness Mr. O’Connell?

(There was no response.)

Mr. Moulder. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

Is there any announcement you wish to make on that, Mr. Tavenner?

Mr. Velde. May I inquire of Mr. Tavenner or Mr. Wheeler, was Jerry O’Connell served with a subpena?

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir; he was.

Mr. Moulder. For appearance here today?

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir.

Mr. Velde. I think it would be appropriate at this point to have the subpena and the return thereon entered in the record.

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to interrupt the course of this testimony and produce to the committee a copy of the subpena served on Mr. Jerry O’Connell, and call the committee’s attention to the return which shows that it was served at 12 minutes to 9 p. m., March 8, 1955, at his residence, 3415 Central Avenue, Great Falls, Mont., signed Harold Mady, chief of police.

I desire to offer the document in evidence and ask that it be marked as “O’Connell Exhibit No. 1,” for identification purposes only and to be made a part of the committee files.

Mr. Moulder. It is so ordered.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dennett, you were asked a question by one of the members of the subcommittee with reference to your knowledge at the time you became a member of the Communist Party as to what control, if any, that a foreign power had, over the Communist Party in this country, and you explained that.

I would like to carry that point a little further at this time.

While you were a member of the Communist Party were you acquainted with an organization known as the Trade Union Unity League?

Mr. Dennett. I was.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, briefly, what that organization was?

Mr. Dennett. Well, it was an effort on the part of the Communist leadership in this country to bring about the organization of unorganized workers. It had the idea that they should be organized in industrial unions. This is because its leader was William Z. Foster, and William Z. Foster had been an active leader in A. F. of L. unions. As a matter of fact, he was the leader of the great steel strike of 1919, and in the course of that strike he drew certain conclusions about the way it was conducted, namely, that it was next to impossible for the workers to obtain the kind of solidarity they needed to win when they were divided into so many different craft organizations.

So it was Foster who gave the greatest attention to this question of getting the maximum strength through organization of the workers in unions. And the Trade Union Unity League was an effort to organize these unorganized workers.

Now to the best of my knowledge some of the greatest success of the Trade Union Unity League occurred right here in the Northwest.

When I came into the district in 1932 there was a comparatively young fellow by the name of James Murphy who was the head of the Trade Union Unity League here. He was a lumberworker. He was a bona fide worker. He knew the language, he knew the habits, and he was able to get around the same as any “bindle stiff.”

For fear some might not understand the use of the term, in the old days loggers had to carry their own blankets when they went from place to place. And the way they carried them caused them to be called bindle stiffs.

These fellows were very adaptable. They were very skillful at traveling under adverse conditions, overcoming all kinds of physical difficulties. The stories of Paul Bunyon are not something out of the figment of the imagination entirely; they grew out of the huge efforts that the Northwest lumberworkers had to make in order to live.

So Murphy was a very successful organizer. He organized a very large number of people in the National Lumberworkers Union. He had an assistant by the name of Roy Brown who was almost equally successful. I do not recall the names of the others who were active in that organization, but I do know that they met with great success organizing miners here in the Northwest. They organized fishermen.

Mr. Tavenner. What connection did those organizations have with the Trade Union Unity League?

Mr. Dennett. They were all national unions in the Trade Union Unity League. And one of the greatest successful organizing drives was conducted among fishermen here in the Northwest.

A person who is now deceased, by the name of Emil Linden, was profoundly successful in organizing fishermen on the Columbia River and here in Puget Sound.

Mr. Tavenner. Was he successful in the organization of groups affiliated with the Trade Union Unity League?

Mr. Dennett. That is right.

The fishermen’s unions, as a matter of fact, had the distinction of having been organized and affiliated directly with the Red International of Labor Unions, which had a headquarters in Prague at that time.

Mr. Tavenner. What do you mean by saying that the Trade Union Unity League was affiliated with or a part of the Red International of Labor Unions?

Mr. Dennett. Well, they paid dues to an international organization, and this particular fishermen’s group which originated here were affiliated directly with the Red International of Labor Unions, and they paid dues directly to the headquarters in Prague.

Mr. Tavenner. Did that make them virtually a part of the Red International of Labor Unions?

Mr. Dennett. They were.

Mr. Moulder. What period of time was that?

Mr. Dennett. That was way back in about 1931 or 1932, or 1932 or 1933.

Mr. Tavenner. Where was the seat of the headquarters of the Red International of Labor Unions?

Mr. Dennett. At that time it was in Prague.

Mr. Tavenner. Among the documents which you have turned over to the staff of the committee and which we have examined is one entitled “The Trade Union Unity League, Affiliated to the Red International of Labor Unions.”

Will you examine it and state whether or not you can identify it as one of the documents which you turned over to us?

(Document handed to the witness.)

Mr. Dennett. If it has got my initials on it is mine; and it has.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you return it, please?

Mr. Chairman, I think I should read into the record at this point several paragraphs which I see in this document.

Mr. Moulder. Very well.

Mr. Tavenner (reading):

The national center of the revolutionary industrial union movement in the United States is the Trade Union Unity League, organized in Cleveland, August 31, 1929. The TUUL coordinates and binds all the revolutionary union forces into one united organization. It leads and directs the general struggle of the new union movement. It is the American section of the Red International of Labor Unions.

Is that just what you have been telling us, Mr. Witness?

Mr. Dennett. Correct.

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to read again from page 35 of this document.

In the event of an imperialist war it will mobilize the workers to struggle against American imperialism and to transform this war into a class war against the capitalist system itself.

Do you recall that as one of the objectives of the Trade Union Unity League?

Mr. Dennett. Yes, of course, I do. It is very plain. It is in black and white. I think that it has to be admitted by anyone with any knowledge of the subject that that was the objective, that was the policy. That goes back a long way. That goes back to Lenin’s teaching. It goes back to the teachings of Marx. In fact, it goes back to the teachings of almost any of the philosophers, the idea that when a given set of circumstances becomes impossible to withstand it is to be expected that somebody is going to break the bonds somewhere.

Mr. Tavenner. I find this following paragraph on the same page under the title “Defend Soviet Union”:

The Trade Union Unity League especially organizes and educates the masses to fight in defense of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is the stronghold of the world’s working class. It is the cause of the workers in all countries. The overthrow of the Soviet Union by the capitalists would mean not only the slaughter of tens of thousands of Russian workers but would mark the beginning of the worst period of reaction internationally that the world has ever known. It would lead to widespread Fascist terrorism, and wholesale destruction of workers’ economic, political, and cultural organizations and the wiping out of conditions won by the workers through a century of sacrifice and struggle. It would throw back for decades the development of the world labor movement.

The workers must fight to the end in defense of the Soviet Union.

Is that paragraph in accord with what you understood at the time to be the objectives of the Trade Union Unity League?

Mr. Dennett. Well, shortly after my induction into the Communist Party I, as recounted earlier this morning, became the district agitprop director. In that position at that time we had the special privilege of receiving the first issues of all new pamphlets or magazines or anything like that that were issued. At that time there came into my possession a document with the title “The 21 Conditions for Affiliation With the Communist International,” and among those conditions these points that are set forth in this document you have just read cover some of those conditions.

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, was there a strict linking together through this organization and through the action of the Comintern, of the control of the Communist Party in this country by the international organization?

Mr. Dennett. I think that has to be acknowledged by anyone who is familiar with the record at all.

However, there is one little addendum that should be inserted at this point, that at a later point in the history of the Communist Party in the United States—I believe it was about the time the Voorhis Act was passed—under the leadership of Earl Browder the Communist Party in the United States took steps by formal resolution adopted at convention to completely disassociate itself legally from any of this previous material. They attempted to satisfy and comply with the provisions of the Voorhis Act.

And in their effort to do so they adopted a resolution in which they repudiated all of this political statement and line that we are now talking about. That was a formal act.

Mr. Tavenner. There was considerable testimony before this committee at the time it attempted to interrogate Max Granich and his wife, who were connected with a news facility which transmits from Europe to this country decisions of the Communist Party on an international level, and we heard a number of witnesses, including Louis Budenz, who was connected with the Daily Worker.

The testimony is very clear that that action you have spoken of was a device, not in good faith a severance or a disavowal of what had happened before. But it was a device, to keep the Communist Party from being liable under provisions of the Voorhis Act to which you have referred, of representing a foreign country.

Mr. Dennett. Browder visited here in the Northwest during the time this action was being taken, and he explained it to our district bureau in this fashion, that the law was clearly aimed at putting the Communist Party out of business, and that the Communist Party was determined to not be put out of business, and it was going to comply with the act to the best of its ability, but that certainly did not mean that the Communist Party was going to disavow its sympathy with the working class throughout the world and the various sections of the Communist Party throughout the world.

There was great apprehension on the part of our district bureau about the action. We feared that perhaps the Communist Party was going nationalist on us, and we thought that was a heinous crime, that you should always be internationalists. And Browder was reassuring us that the Communist philosophy was still internationalist and would continue to be internationalist, but that the formal connection and the formal affiliations would have to be dispensed with.

He felt that the party was strong enough to travel along the road, as it needed to, without the direct intervention of the Comintern.

And, of course, it was shortly after that the Comintern itself was dissolved.

Mr. Tavenner. How long did this organization, the Trade Union Unity League, remain in effect in this area? And when I say in effect, I mean in existence.

Mr. Dennett. Until the organization of the CIO.

As the organization of the CIO approached or became clear that it was going to come in, the policy of the Red International of Labor Unions was modified by the international headquarters in Prague. It was modified because the 12th Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International had reviewed the developing world situation, had noted with alarm the rise of fascism in Germany, and resolved that somewhere their policies were not being too effective and, therefore, they must make certain modifications and allow for a little more flexibility than they had before.

You must understand that one of the conditions which existed as a condition for organizing these Red trade unions was that those workers so organized were virtually obliged to declare their loyalty to the cause of the Communist Party. Now that did not mean that they had to be members of it, but it meant that they had to express their sympathy with the efforts of the Soviet people and they had to accept the idea that the objectives of the working class and of the Communist Party were the same.

Therefore, they didn’t meet with much success in the United States in organizing these Red trade unions because the average worker who was confronted with this choice would say, “The devil with you.” He wouldn’t make a choice of that kind.

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, they realized they could not sell communism to the rank and file of American labor if it knew what they were buying.

Mr. Dennett. They certainly couldn’t sell it under that label to the American worker. They rejected it.

Mr. Tavenner. A label is for the purpose of describing an item; is it not?

Mr. Dennett. I can accept your statement; I think you are right. I think that confirms our experience.

Mr. Moulder. This was in a period, the conditions and circumstances of which offered a ripe opportunity for the exploitation of labor in this country by the Communist organizations.

Mr. Dennett. That is very true. And you must understand that we met with an uneven success.

I have described to you that in the Northwest we did meet with great success among the lumber workers, among the miners, and among the fishermen. We did meet with great success there because a very large number of those workers originally had been with the Industrial Workers of the World. And they weren’t afraid of a Red label. Wherever you found workers who were not afraid of a Red label they could accept such organization in good faith. But in most of the industrial centers in the East except in places where desperation was at the breaking point they did not meet with success.

I am thinking now of the situation which obtained in the textile mills of Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill following the First World War. In those places the Industrial Workers of the World were successful in offering leadership to those workers. And it is true that in some parts of the South, contrary to the usual idea, in some parts of the South the Red leaders were quite successful in organizing.

I remember vividly the Gastonia strike, and that was completely Red leadership. There is no question about it. They were the only ones that had the tenacity to stay with it under such adverse circumstances. But they stayed with it and they met with great success. They organized thousands and thousands and thousands of workers.

Mr. Tavenner. Would you say, generally speaking, the rank and file of labor would not accept the Communist Party if the Communist Party label were on it?

Mr. Dennett. That is true. They wouldn’t accept even the red cards which were used.

It was a peculiar thing. It seemed as though it was a badge of honor to some people, but something of a shock and surprise to others that the membership cards very often were printed in a very deep red color in the various unions of the Trade Union Unity League. And, of course, some of the membership cards of the Communist Party at that time were in identically the same color. The only addition was the hammer and sickle was imposed upon it as well. And it would be a very easy matter to become mixed up or confused if you didn’t look carefully at some of those cards in that period of time.

But to complete the point that you are concerned with at this moment, it is true that the program as set forth by the Red International of Labor Unions did not meet with the uniform success which they hoped for in the United States. So in 1935—I believe it was in 1935, it may have been a little bit earlier than that—following the 12th Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International’s decision that a sharp turn must be made in the mass work, that they must combat the rise of fascism by allowing greater flexibility to organize masses to resist the onrush of fascism, they took note of the situation in the United States and concluded that they could not prescribe the exact conditions under which to organize the workers in the United States.

That gave the opening which permitted the top leadership of the Communist Party in the United States to grant the request of most of the organizers in the Trade Union Unity League to dissolve their organizations and permit them to join the new rising organizations which were developing as industrial unions, and also to join the appropriate American Federation of Labor unions.

In other words, at the time of the split between the A. F. of L. and the CIO in the United States of America the Communist movement declared that it was logical and necessary to give up its own identity, which it did when it sacrificed the industrial unions that it had organized. And by 1935 they issued instructions that the industrial unions under the Trade Union Unity League must dissolve.

And I recall the regret which some of the fishermen had in having to give up their affiliation with the Red International of Labor Unions and go into what they call the “finky” organization, the International Seamen’s Union. They didn’t like it. They resented it. But nevertheless, as good soldiers, they obeyed the order. Later on it didn’t take them more than a couple of years when they were embarrassed whenever I would remind them that they had a Red origin. And the leadership there came to dislike me with a very firm resolve because I would never permit them to forget that they did have a Red origin and that I was ashamed of them being backward about taking progressive steps.

They caused me no end of concern because they were trying to be as conservative as the stanchest Republican when, in fact, they had a very, very Red origin.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dennett, would it be correct to analyze the situation you have described generally in this way: Beginning in 1935, and from then on, when the Red international of labor unions gave up the idea of having its own organizations within labor under its own label in this country, was the principal problem in dealing with the question of communism a matter of infiltration or attempted infiltration by the Communists into the leadership of all the unions in which they had a chance to gain leadership?

Mr. Dennett. Well, I recognize that the term infiltration is used to imply generally that somebody did something with a secret purpose.

Now that may have been true. So far as my own knowledge is concerned, we took it in stride. We didn’t think that there was anything special about it. We declared our objective to be the organization of all the workers. And, of course, we were part of all the workers. And as long as we could maintain that philosophy we were satisfied that we were part of the organization.

Mr. Tavenner. When you say part of the organization, what do you mean?

Mr. Dennett. I mean that those members that were organized by the Communist Party in the Trade Union Unity League, when they gave up their identity as members of a Trade Union Unity League organization, such as the national lumberworker’s union or the fishermen’s union or the miner’s union or something of that kind, they had the opportunity to become members of the appropriate union which was organizing in that field. In the case of the Northwest it was at that time the woodworkers federation, which was organized, in part, under the leadership of the carpenters and joiners, but against the wishes of the top leadership of the carpenters and joiners.

The top leadership, especially Mr. Hutcheson (William), was fearful of these rebels from the Northwest. He was afraid that if they became organized strong that they might cause him some trouble in his organization. And he put in a great deal of effort to see to it that they didn’t succeed in that.

Well, it is true that these rough-and-ready lumberworkers were willing to take on all comers so far as opposition was concerned. And Mr. Hutcheson seemed to be no bother to them, no more than anyone else would be. They didn’t fear anyone. They just proceeded to organize as best they could. But they were so thoroughly indoctrinated with the old Wobbly notions, that is, the Industrial Workers of the World ideas, they were very strong individualists, and they didn’t take kindly to the kind of discipline which doesn’t explain why it gives an order, and, consequently, the Communists in the woodworkers had a great deal of trouble.

As a matter of fact, the organization of the woodworkers federation was punctuated with stormy upheavals at every convention. The various caucuses which were led by the Communists and led by some of the old Industrial Workers of the World and led by some of those who wanted their loyalty to the carpenters and joiners and some who wanted their loyalty to the new organization of the CIO, these various groups were unable to compose and resolve their differences. It was never completely resolved. To this day it is not completely resolved.

The result of it today is that, well, of course, I realize there is a new merger in prospect, but the lumber workers in the Northwest were divided between the A. F. of L. and the CIO to such an extent that they were unable to use their full strength to bring it to bear during negotiations with their employers, and they have suffered very, very much here in the Northwest.

Mr. Velde. You are making a very fine story of the methods used by the Communist Party in infiltrating labor unions.

I want to ask you this: from your experience as a member of the Communist Party, which of the unions in this area were most successfully infiltrated by the Communist Party?

Mr. Moulder. May I ask during what period of time?

Mr. Velde. During the whole period of time since the Communists started infiltrating.

Mr. Dennett. I think it would have to be said that it was lumber. Actually, to begin with, it was the marine unions. The organization of the Maritime Federation of the Pacific was something that was inspired by the Communist Party because the Communist Party called for the organization of industrial unions, industrial organization. And that was a result of Foster’s leadership.

Mr. Velde. You think they were more successful in lumber than in the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union?

Mr. Dennett. Yes, I do. I do for the reason that in the maritime unions at the outset the Communists furnished the aggressive leadership which initiated the organization of all of the maritime unions, but it didn’t take very long before those workers, upon getting together, found that they had differences with those leaders. And the sailors union particularly made a sharp break with the Communists early in 1935, not over the issue of Communists but over tactical application of policy.

The Communists at that time were opposed to Harry Lundeberg’s organization of the tanker strike. And Mr. Lundeberg felt that he had the right to go out and improve the conditions of a contract by a process known as job action.

Now the Communists couldn’t possibly condone a thing like that because that permits individual action, and the Communist philosophy and theory did not permit variations of that kind.

It is also true that the old conservative leaders in the labor movement likewise frowned upon such an action. So you will find that if you have familiarity with it you will very often find that the most conservative people and the most radical people, if you go to the point of referring to the Communists, you very often will find that they are in agreement more on policy and on discipline than other people in between. Because both extremes depend upon centralized authority in order to maintain their positions, whereas the other people in between are a little bit more apt to make their decision on the basis of the merits of the given situation—a little more flexibility.

Mr. Velde. Before you get back to your story, let me ask you this:

The distinguished chairman was not present at our hearings here last June, but I am sure that counsel and our investigator and Mr. Dennett, too, recognize the fact that the great majority of the loyal labor unions in this area cooperated with this committee 100 percent last June. While our gratitude was expressed at that time, I again want to express gratitude to these local labor unions who cooperated with this committee and did everything within the bounds of reason to eliminate the Communist movement from this area.

Mr. Dennett. Mr. Chairman, may I be privileged to just make one comment about that?

Mr. Moulder. Yes.

Mr. Dennett. I have conferred with Mr. Wheeler, and I have expressed the idea to Mr. Tavenner that I think that it is a mistaken idea to refer to me as a cooperative witness or to refer to another witness as an uncooperative witness. I am here to testify to facts that I know. And I think that the question of cooperation is sometimes subject to misconstruction.

And the reason I say that, is because the other day while I was conferring with Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Tavenner and my counsel, I received a phone call, and this phone call had a conversation of two words that came from the other end. A person said, “Rat—stool pigeon.”

I am sorry that people who have been my friends over the years cannot see that I feel that it is my duty and my obligation to testify as to facts. I am sorry that they feel as embarrassed or bitter as they do.

I suppose before these hearings are over I will probably have as many people hate me as people even know me. That is not my concern.

I recognize that we do have some major problems to resolve, and I am fully aware that the Congress of the United States has made efforts in many different directions, many of which I am not in agreement with.

But I think that I do owe the obligation to you gentlemen and to the Congress and to my fellow Americans, that to the best of my knowledge, I will give you the benefit of my knowledge and my experience, and we will just let the chips fall where they may.

Mr. Velde. I don’t want to become involved in an argument with you.

Mr. Dennett. I don’t either.

I wanted to take an opportunity to say that, so I said it.

Mr. Velde. In my use of the word cooperate, and saying that the great majority of the labor unions cooperated with us, possibly I did misuse the term, but I wanted to again express my appreciation for the way they responded, let us say, to the evidence we produced here at the last hearings.

Mr. Moulder. I would like to say I think you are entitled to be complimented, and to the respect of the Congress of the United States and fellow American citizens, for the sincere and conscientious manner in which you are now testifying as to the facts.

Mr. Dennett. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Velde. I think you will find, Mr. Dennett, that you will have a lot more friends now after you get through testifying in this area than you had when you relied on the fifth amendment and refused to answer questions at a previous hearing.

Mr. Dennett. Without trying to prolong this, I would just say that I feel a keen obligation to one group of people, and that is the fellows that I work with on the job. The fellows that I have worked closest with have always had confidence in my integrity, and even when I have been under the sharpest attacks they have remained confident that my integrity would stand up.

Mr. Moulder. You should have more of them now.

Mr. Dennett. To them I feel the greatest obligation. And it is mainly for them that I am testifying here today, and I hope that it will be of satisfactory use to you.

Mr. Tavenner, for your benefit, during the recess I found something which I did not know that I could find, on this question of Mr. Stalin’s insistence upon iron discipline, and I found it in a little pamphlet: The Soviets and the Individual. I do not recall the year in which this was published. I will see if I can find a date on it. Well, this is an address that he delivered to the Red Army Academy, in the Kremlin, on May 4, 1935, and in the course of it he makes a remark like this:

Of course, it never even occurred to us to leave the Leninist road. More, having established ourselves on this road, we pushed forward still more vigorously brushing every obstacle from our path. It is true that in our course we were obliged to handle some of these comrades roughly. But you cannot help that. I must confess that I, too, took a hand in this business.

Mr. Tavenner. I believe that was after the first set of purges but before the second.

Mr. Dennett. I read that to corroborate the oral information which was passed on to me from Alex Noral.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Tavenner. Let us return at this point to that period of your Communist Party experience when you were assigned as agitprop or agitation propagandist in Seattle.

You have told us that you were relieved from that position. But how long did you serve in that capacity here?

Mr. Dennett. My memory is a little indistinct as to how long. It was only a very few months. It seems to me that it was between April of 1932 and some time in the summer of 1932 because I am quite sure that I went to Bellingham as the section organizer late in 1932.

Mr. Tavenner. The committee would be interested in learning the nature of your activities while engaged as an agitprop in Seattle.

Mr. Dennett. Actually in that first assignment no one seemed to know exactly what my duties were. I was struggling to find out. In the process of it I learned that the head of an agitprop department had to do almost all of his work through the organizational apparatus of the party, and it was his responsibility to see to it that the organizational structure of the party became thoroughly indoctrinated with the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism, as it was called.

Now the main thing that they were concerned with was to spread the knowledge of the theory and tactics of the class struggle. And I believe from my own study that it must be acknowledged that Lenin was the greatest master of that because Lenin proclaimed that every act has a class character to it, and he contended that every act of the employer is a class-conscious act, every act of the bourgeois politician is a class-conscious act. That was his contention.

And it was his contention that it was necessary for the workers to become thoroughly conscious that this is the nature of our present-day society, and they must learn the methods by which to overcome the ruling class.

Now this stems from the teachings of Marx. Marx originally stated that the capitalist state is the executive committee of the ruling class.

That is an abstraction which is very difficult for the average person to comprehend. I used to think that the reason it was so difficult was because these people had not come into contact with the material experiences which would be convincing.

In later years, since my leaving the party, I have had to reflect upon that a little bit more carefully, and I am rather inclined today to believe that both Marx and Lenin were in error in trying to apply a uniform rule.

I think that it is foolhardy for anyone today to deny that there are many evidences of class warfare which do exist, but I believe that it is also foolhardy to think that those points of conflict are going to be resolved by engaging in class warfare because they lead ultimately to the destruction of either one or both participants in that combat.

Mr. Moulder. May I interrupt you?

You made a very interesting and impressive statement a while ago, that both extreme radicals and extreme conservatives are inclined to assume a position of dictatorship.

In what year are we now on his associations here?

Mr. Tavenner. We are still in Seattle during the period that he was agitprop here.

Mr. Dennett. We are dealing with the question of the theory and tactics of the Communist Party in which it was the responsibility of the agitprop to make certain that it spreads through the ranks so that all the members understand it.

You see, there has been a great deal of effort put in to try to describe the role and function of the Communist Party. The leaders from time to time have gone to great lengths to explain it. But under Stalin’s leadership he resolved that question very firmly and very positively, that the members of the party were soldiers in the ranks, and they were obliged to obey the orders of their superiors. And he enforced that with a determination which I think is unequaled in history.

Mr. Tavenner. Throughout your experience in the Communist Party did you observe instances of iron discipline to which you have referred?

Mr. Dennett. Well, I have been told since my expulsion from the Communist Party that I had the reputation of being one of the worst offenders in the matter of enforcing that discipline. I was very vigorous, and I did try to insist that everyone I came in contact with follow the party line to the very letter. I was among the first to sense any deviation, and I was among the first to insist that steps be taken to correct such deviation. In doing so I thought I was following the party line.

Mr. Tavenner. Let us proceed now to the period when you were transferred to another area.

Will you tell us about that?

Mr. Dennett. I went to Bellingham, Wash., in 1932, and found a party membership, I believe, there of seven persons.

Unemployment was our greatest problem at that time. Everyone was unemployed. And, of course, the Communist Party policy then was to organize unemployment councils. And, of course, we had an unemployment council, and it consisted of seven members.

It was the exact duplicate of the membership in the Communist Party.

No one else would join it. No one else would have anything to do with it.

Mr. Tavenner. In what capacity were you sent to Bellingham?

Mr. Dennett. As section organizer.

I was in charge of the party. I immediately questioned the wisdom of the policy that they had been pursuing where they had two organizations consisting of the same people, doing exactly nothing.

So I began to take rather vigorous steps. I contacted people in the district center and advised them that this was a ridiculous situation and was very unrealistic.

Mr. Tavenner. What do you mean by district center?

Mr. Dennett. Seattle was the district headquarters of the party, and I was trying to win the agreement of Alex Noral to permit me to do something to get more members, at least in the unemployed council, in the hope that if I got them in the unemployed council I might be able to work upon them to win them to membership in the Communist Party.

But Noral was very adamant. He insisted that I must follow the exact directions which the national leader, Herbert Benjamin, had issued with respect to the policy of unemployment councils. And, of course, Herbert Benjamin had earlier outlined that the organization of the unemployed was one of the most important political tasks confronting the party because he called attention to the fact that the Russian revolution had obtained its greatest strength because it had organized the unemployed prior to the 1905 revolt, and that during the course of the 1905 revolt these unemployed organizations became Soviets, they became councils, and that when the 1917 revolution broke out these soviets had been reconstituted and the unemployed had comprised a very essential part of the organization to begin with, and therefore the masses of unemployed in the United States were looked upon as the elementary core around which it might be possible to develop a Soviet power in the United States.

Mr. Moulder. To what period of time are you now referring?

Mr. Dennett. That was in 1932.

We had another situation in Bellingham at that time. Noral had been there prior to my assignment. He wasn’t their section organizer, but he had been there on a visit as the district representative, and he had taken part in disciplining some people who apparently, prior to my arrival, had had ideas similar to my own, namely, that the people who were unemployed should be organized for the purpose of getting some assistance to solve their problems of hunger and housing and clothing, and that that should be the center of our attention.

But Noral was adamant with my predecessor as he was with me and had brought about the expulsion of a person there. A person who is known by the name of M. M. London.

Mr. London had adopted this name of London in honor of Jack London. It was not his real name at all.

But Mr. London was a very sharp-thinking person and very devoted to his neighbors and associates, and felt that the unemployed, the people who were suffering should be fighting for immediate relief whereas the unemployment councils had offered the slogan that the solution must be in the form of unemployment insurance.

Well, to the person who is hungry the hope of unemployment insurance, which required the adoption of legislation, which would take a longer period of time, wasn’t a very realistic thing.

But the demand for immediate relief was a very realistic thing. And the people in Bellingham flocked to the banner of London, and London organized what was known as the people’s councils.

He had as his able assistant a man by the name of George Bradley. George Bradley had had no connection with the Communist Party at that time or prior to that time. George Bradley at that time was an unemployed railroad worker. London, I believe, was an unemployed seaman at that time, who was actually living on a farm.

Mr. Tavenner. What was London’s real name?

Mr. Dennett. I do not know. I never have known. I think he took legal steps to have London established as his proper name. I think that is his legal name.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know in what court and at what time he took that action?

Mr. Dennett. I have no knowledge of that. I say that I think that is true.

Mr. Tavenner. Proceed.

Mr. Dennett. In a county with a population of, at that time, about 40,000—there were, I guess, about 60,000 in the county, and there were about 40,000 in the city. London had succeeded, London and Bradley had succeeded in organizing the people’s councils until it actually had a dues-paying membership of over 60,000, and we were stewing around with 7 people. And we were trying to contend that our program was a better program than his.

I finally violated district discipline and joined the people’s councils myself. It caused great consternation in the district. The district leader, Mr. Alex Noral, threatened to have me expelled because I had violated discipline. The leaders of the people’s councils were fearful that I had joined to infiltrate their ranks.

So I was damned on both sides. It seems to have been my lot through the biggest part of my life.

It is immaterial to me, however. I think that my decision was correct because before the year was over we changed the situation until we had approximately 150 members in the Communist Party, and the unemployed movement was under the leadership of the people’s councils, and practically all of our people were in those people’s councils exerting an influence in them. It was not a decisive influence but it was an influence, and it did have a lasting effect because we recruited some people who later rose to great heights in the party, and they served the party very well and ably and as devotedly as they knew how.

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Tavenner, we will resume the hearings after the noon recess. It is now 12 o’clock.

Congressman Velde, do you wish to make a statement before taking the noon recess?

Mr. Velde. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think that most of us remember our hearings last June as a result of which two witnesses who appeared before us were cited for contempt.

I was very pleased and happy to learn that both of these witnesses, who were unanimously cited for contempt by the House of Representatives, were found guilty.

I want at this point to express my appreciation to Judge Bolt, to United States Attorney Moriarty, and United States Attorney C. E. Luckey for the promptness and efficiency and fairness exhibited during the trial of these two cases.

We all remember that the witness, George Tony Starkovich, was one of the most contumacious witnesses who has ever appeared before this committee in my experience.

I certainly hope that the Supreme Court, upon his appeal—while he certainly has the right of appeal—will affirm the decision of the United States district court.

Mr. Moulder. Thank you, Mr. Velde.

Mr. Dennett, you will return promptly at 1:30. The committee will stand in recess until 1:30 o’clock.

(Whereupon, at 12 o’clock noon, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p. m.)

AFTERNOON SESSION, MARCH 17, 1955

Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order.

Is Mr. Jerry O’Connell in the hearing room?

(There was no response.)

Mr. Moulder. Will the officer standing at the door call for Jerry O’Connell in the corridor.

(There was no response.)

Mr. Moulder. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

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

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dennett, you were describing to the committee the formation of the unemployed councils in Bellingham and the success which the Communist Party had in having its members become members of that organization. You also described for us in a general way the extent of influence that the Communist Party had in those organizations, in those councils, by reason of having its own members become members of the councils.

I ask you why the Communist Party was interested, and why it made a fight to get its own members into these unemployed councils. What was the purpose of it?

Mr. Dennett. Our purpose was at that time to find some way of prevailing upon the unemployed organizations to adopt a program we were advocating.

At that particular time it consisted mainly in fighting for the adopting of the slogan of demanding unemployment insurance. And I think that that is a point which must be remembered by everyone.

Many people accept unemployment insurance today as a principle, but they don’t know that its origin in the United States, at least, came because the Communists seized upon that as a means of winning the support of the masses of unemployed people.

And any ordinary person should have known in that period, if you look back from now, they should have known that that was a necessary step to be taken. But at that time the resistance to it was terrific.

Mr. Tavenner. Are you saying it was the desire of the Communist Party, by these methods, to win support of the masses?

Mr. Dennett. Correct.

Mr. Tavenner. To win support in what way?

Mr. Dennett. To win them to an interest—I should say, first, an interest in the Communist Party; then to lead them along the path of struggling against the capitalist system which would ultimately, they hoped, result in the replacement of the capitalist organization of a Soviet form of society.

Mr. Tavenner. Would you say that the Communist Party made that type of effort in almost every form of our society?

Mr. Dennett. Well, the leaders were held responsible to see to it that they did make such an effort. It wasn’t so easy to do so among the ranks of the members who didn’t hold any official position, but any person who held an official position, such as a unit organizer or a section organizer or an agitprop director or a trade-union organizer or a fraction secretary, in any of those positions a person was expected to carry the Communist Party line. If he didn’t, he was certainly subject to discipline.

Mr. Tavenner. The committee from time to time has heard a great deal of evidence about the organization of Communist Party cells or branches or units which have been variously termed neighborhood groups and street groups. There has been an effort made in some instances to make it appear that such groups had very little part to play or very little function in the overall picture and purposes of the Communist Party, although they testified that in the instances where Communist Party branches were organized within factories and within industry generally that they had a more definite purpose.

Will you tell the committee about the formation of neighborhood groups of the Communist Party, or what we call sometimes street groups, and explain what part those organizations played in the overall Communist Party program?

Mr. Dennett. Well, first of all, it is necessary to understand one principle of organization that the Communist Party adopted, and that is, that the form of the organization had to satisfy a need, and that the form itself was subordinate, the form was not the principal question.

The principal question was the function that they were to serve.

So the Communist Party adopted a very flexible attitude on this. In some of the early Communist Party literature it refers almost exclusively to Communist cells. And cells are generally thought of as some very small unit that is sort of hidden away. Actually it was Lenin’s instruction to the party that they should make every factory a fortress for Communist activity.

And the directives of the Red International of Labor Unions always held forth that as an objective.

Now they found that in some countries such factory cells were impractical forms of organization. They just didn’t work out. And it was particularly true in the United States of America because most workers in most of the factories had very little opportunity to discuss political business while they were at work.

In some of the other countries workers did engage in that kind of effort and activity. So shop units and shop cells were possible of organization and were effected. In fact, they were openly known.

In the united States the Communist Party adopted the practice of adapting its basic organization, the elementary part of the organization, to whatever circumstances they found themselves in.

In the period of great unemployment people weren’t working in the factories. So we found them in the neighborhoods. And in the neighborhoods where we could recruit a half dozen Communists we made a neighborhood branch.

At first we called them units. In later years I understand they were called branches. But at the time when I was most active we always referred to them as units. And we would try to get each neighborhood branch to assume some responsibility for some factory or some industry, to carry on agitation and propaganda among the workers of a particular factory or plant for the purpose of trying to recruit those workers into the party and establish a shop unit or what later became known as a branch.

So the point that is of importance here, as I see it, is that the party was flexible in adopting forms of organization, but it was inflexible as to the purpose of those organizations. And their purpose certainly was always as far as I knew—and I was one of those who insisted that it must be kept foremost—to lead the working class to overthrow the capitalist class in political power.

Now I think that there is a great deal of misconception and misunderstanding as to just what that may involve.

The Communist Party went to great length to try to draw a distinction, particularly in the United States, between overthrowing the rule of a particular class and overthrowing the form of the particular government. And it was always the party’s claim in the United States that what they were trying to accomplish was to unseat the robber barons and the big business interests who had seized the seats of government in the United States, and the Communist Party always played down the problem of changing the form of government because nearly all liberal persons you come across will raise the point that one thing that America contributed which the rest of the world has never enjoyed is the right to individual freedom.

The preservation of the constitutional democratic form of organization in the United States governmental structure has always held a very firm appeal to any person who has made any study of governmental structures. The Communist leadership found it virtually impossible to convince anybody that is acquainted with that fact that this constitutional, democratic form of representative government should itself be changed. However, I think that it is a form of self-delusion, and I think that perhaps I have to admit my own in that connection because, among the principles that Lenin hammered away on was the necessity, once the workers seize power, of completely destroying the bourgeois forms of organization. And there is no question about it; there is plenty of literature to substantiate that that would include what was referred to as the constitutional democracies.

You must recall that in the history of the Russian Revolution when the Bolsheviks seized power they replaced a representative form of government, which had been completely unable to solve the economic, financial, and political problems that confronted the people in old Russia. So it was quite natural that the Bolsheviks should say we must sweep aside all these forms that are hindrances.

And I fear that the average person who attempts to transplant an arbitrary form or an idea which is erected in one part of the world because of a certain historical set of circumstances and arbitrarily transplant it to another part of the world under entirely different historical circumstances finds himself trying to solve an impossible problem. And I think that that is basically the problem which the Communist Party itself ran into.

There is no question about it: Lenin’s teachings and the teachings of the Communist Party call for the change of the form of the present so-called bourgeois democratic governments.

I don’t know how valuable or informative this line of response is for your committee, but I would just interject this part of my own thinking, that it is self-delusion on the part of those who think that it does not involve sweeping aside the present constitutional government.

I can see no explanation which would justify such a conclusion.

My own conclusion necessarily is that it does involve such a change, and for a long period of time I felt that such a change was justified because of the adamant refusal of people in high places in government to respond to the needs of the people. And that was particularly true in the depression period, in the unemployed period.

Mr. Velde. I take it from your testimony that you feel the Communist Party of the United States never did teach the overthrow of our form of government by force and violence.

Mr. Dennett. I would have to say to that that they did not emphasize that point.

I think it would be ridiculous to contend that that is the complete statement of it.

They relied and fell back on Lenin’s explanation of the question of force and violence. And Lenin’s explanation always was that force and violence occurs because the employers start it.

In the case of strikes Lenin always contended that it was the employers who started the violence by bringing in either strikebreakers or armed guards or police or something of that sort, and that the violence is started against the workers to begin with.

And then he taught that the workers must defend themselves.

Mr. Velde. Did you have the feeling while you were in the Communist Party that the ultimate goal in case all peaceful methods fail was to use force and violence?

Mr. Dennett. It is hard to give you a direct answer to the question as you are posing it.

Let me say it this way and see if this answers you:

This is the most delicate question that is before everyone on the subject, and I think that I would be unfaithful to myself if I were to give you a snap answer because a snap answer, I think, is inappropriate.

I think we have to get at the facts as they exist. And my own feeling and the thing that I was impressed with was, again, the teachings of Lenin wherein he proclaimed that never did any autocracy willingly yield up its power. Never did any tyranny willingly yield up its power, and that necessarily any group who sought to obtain political power under those circumstances would be confronted with solving a problem of force and violence. They would be met with force and they would have to answer it with force.

Mr. Velde. That substantiates the testimony that Barbara Hartle gave us here last June. I am satisfied.

Mr. Dennett. I think that is fundamental teaching of the Communist Party, and anyone who reads Lenin’s works very carefully will find that is there.

The point that is germane to us is: Does the United States come in the category that Lenin was speaking of?

Now the Communist Party went through a terrific amount of theoretical argument on this question, and some resolved the question as meaning, yes; the United States comes in that category.

Some questioned whether that were true, and I think that is why you will find a divergence of testimony from different Communists.

Mr. Velde. I take it then you feel that the methods used in the United States were different than the methods used by the Comintern in other parts of the world, in countries that are now Communist countries.

Mr. Dennett. I was referring in what I was discussing to the difference between the form of government in the United States and the form of government as exists in other countries, particularly comparing it with old Czarist Russia.

Something most people don’t realize is the extent of the oppression which existed under the old Czar. And it was only natural that people who sought to accomplish a change, after finding that no amount of effort could bring about a rational or reasonable change, finally came to the conclusion the only thing they could do was to eliminate the Czarist regime. That was an autocracy.

Now the question theoretically arises: Does such a situation obtain in the United States? Or is it possible for the people, by legitimate political organization, to bring about the changes that they consider to be desirable?

There was a great dispute raging in the ranks of the Communist Party over that question.

Mr. Jay Lovestone fell by the ax over it. He taught that America was an exceptional situation and that exceptional tactics had to be used in the United States. Because of that he suffered expulsion.

Mr. Velde. Do you happen to know Jay Lovestone?

Mr. Dennett. I did not know him. I have read some of his works. Not very much; only what the party said he said.

Mr. Velde. Of course, Mr. Dennett, you realize that we have had, I think about 100 convictions under the Smith Act whereby various Communist Party leaders were convicted of advocating communism.

Mr. Dennett. I didn’t know how many.

Mr. Velde. It may be less or more than that.

Do you know, Mr. Tavenner?

Mr. Tavenner. 86 or 87, according to my recollection.

Mr. Velde. And, of course, those trials were held under our American system of jurisprudence.

I am inclined to agree with all the juries involved and all the judges involved that the Communist Party here in the United States of America did advocate the overthrow of our form of government by force and violence, if necessary. I don’t want to appear to be arguing with you.

Mr. Dennett. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this question with you because I think any general rule is a dangerous thing to lay down. I think that it has to be on the merits of each individual case. That is my own feeling. And I think that that is consistent with our American tradition of jurisprudence, too.

Mr. Velde. I certainly agree with you on that.

Mr. Dennett. I have a feeling that it is unwise to make sweeping, uniform applications of the rule. I think they have to be judged on the merits of each particular case. I think that is one of the things that we must fight with all our might and main to preserve.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you state, with respect to Jay Lovestone, that you thought his group insisted on viewing the aspects of this problem under special circumstances?

Mr. Dennett. It was known as the theory of exceptionalism.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you state very briefly what the theory of exceptionalism is?

Mr. Dennett. The Communist Party taught that the theory and tactics which Lenin taught were universally applicable, that they applied to all countries, they applied to all situations.

Lovestone said, “Yes; except in the United States. Here we have got to do something different.”

Mr. Tavenner. I was discussing with you the purposes of the Communist Party in infiltrating the unemployment councils which you have described. I handed you, just a few moments ago, a document which was one of those you turned over to the staff. That document discusses the importance of Communist Party cell organizations. I believe it discusses it in very much the same way that you have.

Mr. Dennett. I think that is where I learned it.

Mr. Tavenner. What was the source of that document?

Mr. Dennett. Well, the title of it is: “How the Communist International Formulates at Present the Problem of Organization.” And the title or the subject was written by a person by the name of B. Vassiliev. He was a high official in the Comintern and was responsible for one of the committees in the executive committee of the Communist International. I do not recall much else about him. And this document doesn’t establish much more. But I believe that the document originally came into my possession while I was an agitprop director, and it was in a mimeographed form. It came from the central committee.

Mr. Tavenner. Of the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. Of the Communist Party.

It was sending forth to the districts direct information as to the policy which had been laid down by the executive committee of the Communist International, and it was detailed information because many people had been complaining that nowhere was there anything in a detailed form describing organizational methods and practices.

Vassiliev came forth with a document which outlines it, spells it out in every detail. It spells out how to work under illegal conditions, it spells out how to work under legal conditions. It also spells out how to combine legal and illegal work.

This, by the way, for those who have been in the Army, you can readily recognize a similarity of military training with party organization because there is the method of the emphasis upon maintaining communication lines between various parts of the organization at all times, the necessity of having secondary lines of communication in case the primary lines are destroyed. And there is also the question of use of passwords. It is all described. The description of how to use code is also contained here. And I think that some people attach more significance to it than I do for the reason that I saw military organization practice virtually the same things.

Of course, that brings up a subject which may be unpleasant to reflect upon, and I suspect that the average member of the Communist Party is quite unaware of the similarity of his position as a member of the Communist Party to that of a person who is a member of the Armed Forces. He is under discipline. His directions come from above. He has to obey or suffer the consequences.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, this is a very unusual document. I wish the committee had time right now to go into every phase of Communist Party organization that is referred to in it.

I think all that we can do now is to offer it as an exhibit and have it made a part of the record with the view of giving it more detailed study later. So I offer it in evidence and ask that it be marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 1,” and that it be incorporated in the transcript of the record.

Mr. Moulder. The exhibit offered in evidence, marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 1” for identification, will be admitted as a part of the record.

Dennett Exhibit No. 1
How the Communist International Formulates at Present the Problem of Organization
(By B. Vassiliev)

The Enlarged Presidium of the E. C. C. I. (February 1930), summing up the international situation, called upon all Communist Parties to fundamentally change the methods and pace of their work by concentrating their chief attention on the problems of the preparation and the carrying out of mass REVOLUTIONARY ACTIONS OF THE PROLETARIAT—strikes, demonstrations, etc., while at the same time continuing as far as possible to promote their agitational and propaganda work. Consequently, in the present conditions, the Party apparatus, in response to the demands which the direction of the Comintern puts forward, should in the first place be fitted for the organization of demonstrations, strikes and other mass actions of the proletariat. Party leaders who are not capable of organizing demonstrations and strikes do not answer to the demands which the circumstances of the class struggle are now placing before the Communist Parties, and therefore should be replaced by others who have shown these qualities in the course of the class battles of the most recent period.

Why did the Enlarged Presidium put the question in this way? The political resolution of the Enlarged Presidium states that the growing new economic crisis is hastening the process of upsetting capitalist stabilization (it has already led to the beginning of the collapse of capitalist stabilization) and the growth of class contradictions, thus accelerating the rise of a new revolutionary wave. The resolution further states that the working class movement in the period since the 10th Plenum of the E. C. C. I. had been raised to a higher stage. The revolutionary activity of the proletarian masses has grown stronger, the fighting capabilities of the Communist Parties have been heightened. The whole position of the class struggle has placed before the Communist Parties and the Communist International as a whole, a number of new fighting tasks. In the process of the growth of a new revolutionary upsurge there are present already in certain capitalist countries elements of a gathering political crisis and of a revolutionary situation, as for example, in Poland, Italy, Spain, partly in Rumania, in Yugoslavia, and in Greece. A deep political crisis is present in China and India, being the starting point of a revolutionary situation. In Germany the process of the radicalization of the masses of the working class is proceeding at a swift pace. In France, another country of powerful capitalism, the number of strikers grew from 222,000 in 1928 to 431,000 in 1929, whilst these strikes assumed a more and more clearly expressed political character and were characterized by the growing tenacity of the workers. In England, in spite of extraordinary difficult conditions for the growth of a revolutionary movement, in spite of the extraordinary weakness of the Communist Party (on the 1st January 1930, 2,800 Party members and 120 members in the Y. C. L.), the number of strikers in 1929 compared with 1928 grew from 124,000 to 534,000 comprising the most important sections of industry, such as mining and textiles.

At the same time, the gigantic successes of socialist construction in the U. S. S. R. are sharpening in the most extreme way the contradictions between U. S. S. R. and the entire capitalist world and are forcing the leaders of the capitalist world to strengthen and hasten to the highest degree their military preparations of a new armed attack on the U. S. S. R. The 10th Plenum of the E. C. C. I. showed that the danger of new Imperialist wars and of new attacks of the imperialists on the U. S. S. R. never was so imminent from the time of the imperialist war of 1914-18 as it was at the moment of the 10th Plenum. By March 1930 that danger had increased still more.

In these conditions of growing economic crisis and heightened threat of war against the U. S. S. R. all measures will be taken by the ruling classes of the capitalist countries to guarantee their rear before declaring war, that is, everything will be done by them to weaken, disorganize and, as far as possible, liquidate completely all revolutionary proletarian organizations, and in the first place the Communist Parties.

Moreover, the elections themselves in illegal Parties must, as a rule, take place in such a way that even the members of the conference do not know who is elected on to the Party Committee. At the present time two methods of electing leading organs in illegal Parties are practised. The first method. The Party Conference elects a special commission for counting the votes cast for candidates for members of the Party Committee. Then the candidates are named and the election of the Party Committee proceeds by secret vote. The commission checks the results of the voting, whilst it does not report to the conference as to the personnel elected. Another method of election. The conference elects a narrow commission in which a representative of the higher Party Committee takes part and this narrow committee elects the new Party Committee. In strictly illegal Parties, as for example, the Italiana Communist Party, the latter method of election is the only one which more or less guarantees strict conspirative conditions.

Self-criticism of the mistakes of the Party direction in illegal Parties must also be organized through narrow conferences and must take place in such a way that the names of the Party leaders and the functioning of the Party apparatus, do not lose their conspirative character.

15. QUESTIONS OF COMMUNICATIONS

The most important element of successful working of the Party Committee—the one on which during the checking of its work the most serious attention must be concentrated—is the question of connections of the Party Committee with the higher and lower Party organizations, especially with the factory cells and the fractions of the mass non-Party organizations. This question now has a decisive importance, especially in the legal and semi-legal Communist Parties. The illegal Communist Parties have already worked out a whole number of measures and methods in order to keep their communications with the lower organizations and with separate members of the Party, in spite of the severest police repression. But with the legal and semi-legal Parties there is bad work all the time along this line. In Austria during the last Fascist rising, the C. C. lost connection with the Vienna Committee, and the Vienna Committee lost connection with the enterprises. In Paris on the 6th March 1930, the C. C. lost connection with the Paris organization for six days. Such a state of affairs is absolutely impossible and the most important task of each of our Party organizers, of every instructor going to the locals to check the work of the Party Committee is above all to check how the connections between the Party Committee and other Party organizations are organized, and especially these with the lower Party organizations, and the factory cells. It is perfectly clear that the Communist Parties will not be in a position to organize any mass actions of the Proletariat or mass strikes, or mass street demonstrations, if the Party Committees at sharp moments of struggle lose connection with the factory cells and mass non-Party organizations.

Which are the most important methods of communication it is essential to foresee? It is essentially important to have a well-laid out live communication. Live communication is kept going by the help of the system of so-called appearing or reporting places. What is a reporting point. A reporting point is this: the Party Committee establishes special addresses of flats or other places where on certain days and at certain times representatives of the cells and fractions of the mass organizations must appear. There also representatives of the Party Committees appear. The representative of the cells and fractions makes reports on what has happened in the factory, what the cell has done, what it proposes to do and so on, and the representatives of the Party Committee, having received the report, advises the cell how it should act, passes on to it the directions of the higher Party organs and so on. This system of appearing places must without fail be established in all Parties without exception, legal and illegal whilst in the legal Parties a double system of reporting places must without fail be established—a system of legal and illegal appearing points. Legal reporting places in the legal premises of the Party Committee and illegal appearing places in case the legal premises of the Party Committee are closed, or a police ambush is sitting there, in order quickly to re-establish connection with the lower Party cell in another way through the illegal reporting place. For the latter, appearing points should therefore be prepared beforehand. In Germany, in Belgium, in France, Party meetings in cafes were at one time very widespread. This is a very bad habit because there are always spies in cafes in countless numbers and it is difficult to get rid of them. It is necessary to go over more quickly to the establishment of appearing places in safer localities. If the Party has already more or less seriously and fundamentally gone over to underground positions, and the shadowing of leading active Party members has begun, and Party members are being arrested in the streets, then it is very important that special signals should be established for the appearing flats, showing; in the first place, the safety of the flat, second, showing that exactly those people have come who were expected and that these comrades who have come are talking with exactly those comrades whom the observer is coming to see. In order to show that the reporting places are in working order, in Russian conditions, for example, a flowerpot was placed in the window, the comrade came, saw that the flowers are there, knew that it is safe, and entered. It is necessary to say that these reception signals were very quickly learned by the police and that they therefore, when visiting any flat, carefully searched for signals before fixing an ambush. If they saw that flowers are in the window and the person whom they have come to arrest has tried by all means possible to take these flowers away, the police insisted on putting them back in the place where they were. So, when arranging safety signals for reporting places, it is necessary to arrange them in such a way that they don’t strike the eyes of the police and that they can be taken away without being noticed by the police.

For verifying those who come to the reporting places, a system of passwords is established. The comrade comes to the reporting place, and he says some agreed-upon sentence. They answer to that agreed-on sentence by some other agreed-on sentence. So both comrades check each other. In Russian underground conditions very complicated passwords were sometimes used in the central appearing places. This was called forth by the circumstances that different workers passed through such reporting places; rank and file workers from the cells, district and Central Party workers. Accordingly, one password was fixed for the rank and file worker, a more complicated one for the district worker and still more complicated one for the central worker. Why was this necessary? It was necessary for conspirative reasons, since only certain things could be said to the rank and file worker while perhaps other things could be said to the district worker, whilst you could speak with full frankness about the whole work of the illegal organization to the representative of the Central Committee. Therefore, passwords were, as they used to say at that time of “three degrees of trust.” This was done in this way. The first degree of trust: a comrade comes and says an agreed-upon sentence and is replied to by an agreed-upon sentence. The second stage: the comrade who has come in reply to the agreed-upon sentence spoken to him, says another agreed-upon sentence, in reply to which yet another agreed-upon sentence is spoken to him. The third stage of trust: to the second agreed-upon sentence the comrade replies by a third agreed-upon sentence. Then the keeper of the appearing place also replies to the third agreed-upon sentence.

Besides flats for reporting points, connecting link flats are also needed for communication by letter, and these flats must in no case coincide. And finally, there must be flats for the sheltering of illegal comrades, comrades whom the police are looking for; comrades who have escaped from prison, etc., etc. For all our legal Communist Parties the question of addresses and flats now plays a role of the first importance. Last year, on the eve of the 1st August, when it was clear that the leading workers would be arrested in a number of countries, comrades did not know where to go, there were no flats. In any case, when it was necessary to shelter comrades hiding from the police in Germany, Czechoslovakia and France very great difficulties occurred, especially in the provinces. It is essential for all Parties to occupy themselves now in the most serious way with the solution of the “housing” problem.

Concerning communications by letter. It is also necessary to give the most serious attention to the problem of the organization of letter communications. In checking the work of the Party Committee it is necessary to consider this question specially: Does the Party Committee have addresses for communicating by letter with the higher and lower Party organizations, and how are these communications put into practice? Now, even for the legal Parties, the firmest rule must be established that all correspondence concerning the functioning of the Party apparatus, must without fail go by special routes guaranteeing letters from being copied in the post. All kinds of general circulars, general information reports on the condition of the Party in legal parties can go through the ordinary post to legal Party addresses, but everything concerning the functioning of the Party Committee even in legal Parties, most now without fail go by special routes. In the first place, the use of special couriers must be foreseen, who will personally carry letters, not trusting these letters to the State post. Here the Parties must make use of the connections which they have with post and telegraph and railway servants, connections with all kinds of commercial travellers for trading firms and so on. All these connections must be used in order that without extra expense responsible Party documents can be transported. Further, every Party should take care that every letter, apart from whether it goes through the State post or by courier should be written in such a way that in case it falls into the hands of the police it should not give the police a basis for any kind of arrest or repression against the Party organization.

This makes the following three requisites. The first requisite: the letter must be in code, i. e., all aspects of illegal work are referred to by some special phrase or other. For example, the illegal printing press is called “auntie”; “type” is called “sugar” and so on. A comrade writes: “auntie asks you without fail to send her 20-lbs. of sugar;” that will mean that the press is in need of 20-lbs. of type or a comrade writes: “we are experiencing great difficulty in finding a suitable flat for our aunt.” That means that it is a question of finding a flat for the illegal printing press.

Second requisite: besides a code, as above, ciphers are used, illegal parts of letters being put not only into code but also into cipher. There are many different systems of cipher. The simplest and at the same time most reliable system of cipher is the system of cipher by the help of a book. Some book or other is agreed upon beforehand and then the cipher is made in this way: simple fractions or decimals are ciphered. The first figure of the first fraction shows the page of the book. Then further comes the actual cipher. For the numerator of the fraction we must take a line counting from above or below; for the denominator that counting from the left or from the right which it is necessary to put into cipher. For example, we need to put into cipher the letter “A”. We look in the book and we see that this letter is in the third line from the top, the fourth letter from the left to the right. Then we cipher 3 over 4 (¾), that is the third line from the top, fourth letter from left to right. You can agree also on this method; for example, counting the line not from above but from below, then the 3 will not be the third line from above but the third line from below. You can agree to count the letter in the line not from left to right but from right to left. Finally, for greater complexity in order to keep the sense from the police, you can also add to the fraction some figure or other. Let us say the numerator is increased by 3 and the denominator by 4. In this case in order to decipher, it will be necessary first to subtract in the numerator and denominator of every fraction. A whole number of similar complications can be thought out in order to complicate the cipher. The advantage of such a cipher is that it is not only very simple but also that each letter can be designated by a great number of different signs and in such a way that the cipher designation of the letters are not repeated. The book cipher can be used without a book. In place of a book some poem or other can be chosen, learned by heart and the ciphering done according to it. When it is necessary to cipher or decipher, the poem must be written out in verses and then the ciphering or deciphering done and the poem destroyed.

The third requisite which is also recommended should be observed in correspondence, is writing in chemical inks, that is, with such inks that it is impossible to read them without special adaptations. If a secret Party letter falls into the hands of the police written in invisible ink they must first of all guess that it is written in invisible ink; the open text of such letters must be made perfectly blameless, for example, a son is writing to his mother that he is alive and well and of the good things he wishes her. Not a word about revolution. The police must guess first of all that under this apparent innocent text there is a hidden text. Having discovered this secret the police tumble against the cipher. If they succeed in deciphering the cipher, they stumble up against a code and they have still to decipher that code. But all this takes time in the course of which the police can do nothing. If the police succeed in reading it in the course of two or three weeks, then by that time the Party organization has been able to cover up all the consequences of the question which was written about in the letter.

What kind of invisible ink should be used? Invisible inks exist in a very great number. They can be bought in any chemist’s shop. Finally, comrades must use the latest inventions of chemistry in this direction. The simplest invisible ink which can be recommended and which can be found everywhere, is, for example, onion juice and pure water.

16. PLAN OF WORK OF THE PARTY COMMITTEE

Every Party Committee must have a definite plan of work for the period immediately ahead. In the conditions of the capitalist countries Party Committees cannot work out the same complicated calendar plans as the Party organizations of the C. P. S. U. The C. P. S. U. is a Party in power, the plans of the C. P. S. U. regulate the whole social and political life of the country. In capitalist countries the Communist Parties are the parties of an oppressed class. The bourgeoisie in power uses the whole apparatus of the State power and the full help of the Social-Fascist and other reactionary organizations in order to smash the plans of the Communist Parties. In these conditions the committees of the Communist Parties must systematically reconsider and reconstruct the plans of their work; accordingly, these plans must be very pliable. But plans there must be, without fail. Every Party Committee must have an approximate plan of its work for the period immediately ahead and must group the forces of the Party organization according to that plan, fit the forms of the Party structure to it and also the methods of Party work. The essence of the plan of work of the Party Committee is the adequate catering for the needs of the masses in the largest enterprises, playing a more important role in the territory of the given Party organization. The structure of the local Party organization must be such that the organizations can above all serve these big enterprises. That is to say, that in the first place the Party Committee must interest itself in questions of the work of the factory cells at these big enterprises, must help in the work of these factory cells, seeking to attain that these Party cells should become really strong political and organizational organs of the Party, that they should be in practice connecting organs between the Party and the masses of workers at these enterprises. This idea can best of all be made clear by a concrete example, say as follows: in a town there are two or three big enterprises; railway workshops, a metal factory, a textile factory. Besides these three big enterprises there are two or three dozen small enterprises, and in addition scattered Party members, individual workers, artisans, representatives of the so-called liberal professions,—lawyers, writers, a doctor and so on, as well as a few students. The Party Committee of this town should interest itself above all in what is happening in the big enterprises—in the railway workshops, in the metal factory and the textile factory, how the factory cells are working there and in the first place help the factory cells of these enterprises by all and every means possible, concentrating all their attention and all their forces on this task. In the lawyer’s office and the doctor’s surgery there are no masses which the Party must win over and organize for revolutionary struggle. It is another matter with the big enterprises. Therefore the central question in the work of every Party Committee is the question of systematically coming to the assistance of the factory cells in the big enterprises. A Party Committee which cannot provide serious daily help to such factory cells, a Party Committee which cannot organize factory cells capable of working in the enterprises, is a bad Party Committee and the leading organs of the Party and the mass of Party members should hasten to draw from this state of affairs the necessary conclusions and as quickly as possible make a change so far as such a Party Committee is concerned.

17. MOBILIZATION OF THE FORCES OF FACTORY CELLS

We must bear in mind with regard to the internal organization of the work of factory cells that in all countries some members of the Party working in the enterprises, do not wish to be members of factory cells and do not wish to carry on Party work in the factory. For example, in the documents of the Central Committee of the Czechoslovakian Party on the preparation for the campaign for the 6th March 1930 there is information from all districts that when practical questions of the preparation for the demonstration for the 6th March were put before the meetings of factory cells, in many factory cells voices were raised to the effect that it was impossible to do any work in the factory, and at a place called Laza in Moravia, one responsible worker of a factory cell even put the question in this way: “If the Party will guarantee material help after I have been thrown out of the factory for taking part in the demonstration, but if the Party cannot guarantee my family and myself then I will not carry on Party work in the factory.” Such moods among Communists working in the factory are to be observed on all sides. There are Party members who agree to pay membership dues, agree to come to a meeting once every fortnight or once a month, in order to hear a report on the world proletarian revolution, and vote for the platform of the Comintern against the liquidators, the Trotskyists and all other renegades, but are not willing to carry on recruiting work among the workers of their enterprise, do not wish to prepare strikes in their own enterprises, do not wish to call out the workers of their enterprises to demonstrations, and so on. Every Party Committee has to fight with such Party members in their enterprises. What should we do with them? The most important task of the Party committee consists in organizing all Party members working in enterprises into factory cells and drawing them into the day to day work of the factory. With regard to Party members who do not wish to take part in the work of factory cells, the most attentive and stubborn explanatory work must be carried out. But if somebody or other all the same, categorically refuses to work in a factory cell, that comrade must be told that nobody is keeping him in the party. (The Communist Party is a voluntary organization, but every worker who voluntarily joins the ranks of the Communist Party accepts iron party discipline. If that discipline seems very hard to him, even unbearable, then the Party should not shut its doors upon him.) In this regard we must bear in mind that Party members who do not wish to work in factory cells are not necessarily traitors to the working class. In some organizations Party workers, proletarians, who have refused to carry out difficult tasks in their enterprises, have been cleaned out of the Party as alien elements. There are alien elements in the ranks of the Communist Party, including direct provocators, agents of the police and the employers, who specially creep into the Party for the purpose of carrying on disruptive work in the ranks of the Party. The Party must strictly observe each one of its members, verify in the most careful way every suspicious Party member, and if it is established that he is an alien element and even more a provocative agent, then of course, there is absolutely no reason to beat about the bush with him. But in the ranks of the Communist Parties there are a large number of proletarians who sincerely sympathize with Communism but who at the same time are not strong enough to fulfill all the demands of Communist discipline. With regard to such proletarians, if they are not capable of being members of the Communist Party there is no need to keep them in the Communist Party, but at the same time there is no need to throw them out of the Party like a dirty rag; they must be organized round the Party as sympathizers as members of non-Party mass organizations, in the Red Trade Unions, in the I. L. D., the W. I. R. and so on. In these organizations no such discipline is demanded as in the ranks of the Communist Party and they can work here in a suitable manner. At the present stage of development of the Communist movement, when the Communist Parties are ceasing to be organizations for propaganda and agitation of the Communist idea, and are turning into fighting organizations, preparing and leading revolutionary actions of the proletarian masses against the organized forces of the employers, police, State and Social-Fascists, some members of the Party are showing themselves incapable of fulfilling the new fighting tasks of the Communist Party. But without doubt such Party members can be useful to the Party as sympathetic elements, and even as leading active elements in different mass organizations, as for example, in the ILD, Tenants’ Organizations, W. I. R., and so on. Factory cells must be composed of proletarians who are really the advance guard of the workers of a given enterprise, devoted to the cause of Communism, ready to carry out the directions of the Party, grudging neither health nor strength, nor life, not being afraid if Party interests demand it to carry out such work in the enterprise as may cause the employer to throw them out of the factory, perhaps the police to arrest them, and the courts to condemn them to heavy punishment. In fact, only factory cells composed of such proletarians can do great revolutionary work even though they be very small. In one of the mining districts of Czechoslovakia in 1930 there was such a case. The Social-Democrats organized a meeting of miners. Only one Communist took part in the meeting. Different questions which the Social Democrats brought forward were considered. After a discussion in which the Party member present at the meeting took the most active part, the meeting decided to join up in the Red Trade Union. The Czechoslovakian comrades will remember another case which took place in 1930 in Prague. When the famous social traitor Vandervelde came there, the Social-Democrats organized a big meeting at which about 30 active Party members were present. Vandervelde delivered a long speech pouring dirty water on the Communist International, the U. S. S. R., and the Czechoslovakian Communist Party, nevertheless, not one of the 30 Party members present at the meeting and there were members of the C. C. amongst them, opened his mouth in protest against the counter-revolutionary speech of the Social-Fascist leader. It is perfectly clear that with activists like the “activists” of the Prague organization, who were present at Vandervelde’s meeting, the Czechoslovakian proletariat will not win power but the Communist Party will be a shameful laughing stock in the eyes of the proletariat and the proletariat, quite rightly, will not listen to such “activists” and will not support Party organizations which keep such “activists” in leading Party work.

18. STREET CELLS

The organization of a factory cell in a big enterprise in the present conditions is a very difficult affair, demanding very long and stubborn work by the Party members, both those working in the enterprise as well as those who are employed elsewhere. It is the business of the Party Committee to secure the essential co-ordination of the work of the Communists who are working inside the enterprise, with that of the Communists who are outside the boundaries of the enterprise. And here a very important question presents itself with regard to the form of organization of Party members who are not workers in enterprises; artisans, housewives, etc. According to the decisions of the International Organizational Consultations, and according to the constitution of the Communist Parties, such Party members are organized in street cells. But how should these street cells be organized? The practice of the Parties of the different countries shows that the street cells are often organized without any plan. Street cells are organized according to place of residence, those Party members who live in the territory of a definite district or around some street or other, being brought into the street cells. But what should these street cells do? The practice of street cells in many countries shows that as a rule they meet from time to time, discuss various general questions, but do not carry on any practical day to day work. Street cells as a rule come to life only during big campaigns at the time of various elections, etc., when they are called upon to distribute leaflets, collect signatures, canvass flats, etc.

In future Party Committees must see to it that street cells are constructed so that in their day to day work they should help the Party Committee to strengthen its connection with the workers in big enterprises, strengthen the work of factory cells and so on. This should be the fundamental practical rule for the organization and work of street cells. At the same time it must be firmly borne in mind that along with the development of the class struggle Party Committees must not fail to carry out changes in the composition and structure of the street cells which may become necessary, make a re-grouping of the forces of the members of street cells, in order at a given moment to have a concentration of forces on the most important sectors of the front of the class struggle. For example, if some unrest should arise in a textile factory, the Party Committee must at once consider the possibility of developing that unrest into a strike inside the factory. But a strike can only be organized provided good preparatory work has been carried out. Who must carry it out? In the first place Party members and sympathizers working in the textile factory, but on the other hand, the Party Committee must organize the maximum assistance for these comrades, drawing on Party members working in other factories, and also members of street cells. There can be all kinds of combinations here. For example, it might be advisable and practicable that a Party member working as a fitter in a metal factory, a member of the factory cell of the metal factory should apply for a job in the textile factory where a fitter may be needed. Everything must be done in order by such means to strengthen the cell of the textile factory from within. Further, let us suppose that near the textile factory a street cell is working and that in this street cell there are, let us say, five more or less weak comrades living in the district. It is essential to strengthen this street cell by including in it a number of other comrades who live nearby, or even at the other end of the town, in order with the help of this street cell to strengthen the agitation among the workers of the textile factory on their way to and from work, to strengthen through this street cell the distribution among the workers of a textile factory paper, leaflets, and other literature which may be issued by the Party with the aim of preparing and organizing a strike, in this textile factory. Let us suppose that after the strike is finished a movement begins in another factory; the Party Committee must at once regroup its forces in order to concentrate them again on another fighting sector of the Party work. And so all the time. It is impossible to regard the Party structure or any local organization as something unshakably firm and not liable to undergo changes. The Party Committee must systematically check the distribution of members between different cells, check the expediency of the organization of the cell, carry out regrouping of the members of the cell in order in each separate case and at each concrete moment, to concentrate the best forces of the Party round the most important sectors of the front of the class struggle. In this lies the fundamental art of the Party organizer. His general task consists in seeing that every Party member as well as sympathizer should be constantly drawn into day to day work, attention being concentrated upon the most important sectors of the class struggle.

19. SHOCK GROUPS

The practice of the Y. C. L. has recently given rise to the method of so-called shock groups or brigades. This method of shock brigades could be usefully carried over into the practice of the Party. The term “shock brigade” is not in itself very good. Shock brigades are organized in the factories in the U. S. S. R., the Communists working in the factories organizing shock groups around which non-Party workers are gathered. But the Communist Party is the advance guard of the working class, i. e., it is in itself the shock group of the working class; to create within this shock advance guard of the working class yet other shock brigades is of course at bottom not correct. But this is what IS correct. In the Party organizations of capitalist countries, numbers of Party members are not drawn into the everyday work. Every Party member belongs to a cell, which meets once a fortnight or once a month, and in between these meetings Party members do not perform much Party work, in many cases, in fact, have no Party tasks at all. This happens because in the given cells at the given time, there is not much internal work, while other sectors of Party work may at the same moment have important militant tasks before them. It is for the Party Committee to keep on combining Party members into different groups for the concentration of forces upon the most important sectors. Having performed a given task such groups or brigades are broken up or reconstructed into other groups for taking up new work. The general aim in creating such groups should be the strengthening of Party work in the big enterprises of the most important sections of industry. Here, on this problem the full attention of the leading Party organs must be sharply directed in the near future.

20. WORK OF THE FACTORY CELLS IN THE ENTERPRISES

When we approach the study of the work of the factory cells in capitalist countries we are often struck by the great passivity of the members of the cell. A further examination of the reasons for this passivity will reveal, as a rule, a complete ignorance on the part of the Party members as to what they should do in the factory in their everyday work. The task of the Party organizer, his most important task, consists in teaching every Party member working in the factory what he should do every day. Every Party member working in the factory should begin with the workshop in which he is working, organizing the Party work there. He should first of all find out who his fellow workers in the shop are. That is his first Party duty. He should establish who is the Fascist agent in order to know whom to avoid, and in his presence not talk about Party affairs or carry on Communist agitation; next he should find out which workers are so narrow-minded that they are not interested in politics at all, either Communist or Social-Democratic; he should know which of his neighbors in the shop is a member of the Social Democratic Party, but still an honest proletarian, capable of fighting for the interests of the working class even though against his Party leaders. Finally, what is specially important, every member of a factory cell should know which of his neighbors at the bench is revolutionary minded even though non-Party, and ready to take or has already taken, active part in strikes and revolutionary demonstrations. When a Party member working in a workshop has a clear picture of what each worker there represents, it will be much easier for him to carry on his everyday work. He will then know whom he is to avoid, whom he will have to fight, with whom to become acquainted and establish closer relations with the aim of bringing them into active revolutionary work. As to the latter, he must have systematic chats with them in the intervals of work, preferably during working hours, also on the way to and from work, or arrange special walks with them in the town on holidays; he must patiently, unceasingly, from day to day, using every hour, every minute, agitate them into the spirit of Communism, of course not in a general abstract way, but on questions of everyday struggle in the given enterprise and in the given workshop, organizing them around himself and thus creating a revolutionary kernel in the shop, and in consequence a workshop factory cell. Next, the most important everyday task of the comrade in the workshop is to carry on discussions with the Social-Democratic workers, winning over the Social-Democratic workers to his side, bringing the more revolutionary minded of them and members of reformist trade unions into every kind of action against the employer, against the Social-Democratic and reformist leaders. His third task should consist of getting the Fascist agents, police spies, etc., driven out of the shop and factory. This last task is forgotten most often of all. However, it is evident that so long as there are among the workers in the shop police agents who are following every movement of the revolutionary minded workers, and informing the boss about their actions every day, it will be very difficult to organize work in that shop. But if by pressure of the workers he should succeed in ridding the shop of these agents, Party work will be greatly facilitated. Among those who should be thrown out it will now be necessary to include individual Social-Democrats who show themselves Fascist police agents, but the general line in relation to Social-Democratic workers must remain, i. e., they must be drawn into the general class channel of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat by means of the organization of the united front from below.

Thus the foundation of the factory cell must definitely be the workshop of dept. cell. The general factory cell can work well only when it has strong support points in the workshops and separate departments.

21. THE SHOP CELL

The most important task of the shop cell is to concentrate the non-Party active workers in the shop compactly around itself. To organize the shop, the dept.—this is the task of the shop cell, so that every shop of a factory may act as an organized force. How can this be done? It can be done only provided the shop cell works on the foundation of the defense of the everyday interests of the working class, that every Communist in every shop organizes the mass of the workers of that shop around every question of everyday struggle of the working class. For example, there is a foreman in the shop who behaves very roughly to the workers. The cell must organize the whole mass of the workers around the demand that this foreman should be dismissed. The cell should create a committee of action, organize elections of shop stewards who should be delegate-representatives of all the workers in the shop, in order to effect the driving out of the foreman. Active Communists among these shop stewards should form the leading core, but non-Party workers who are respected by the mass of the workers, should also be drawn in, including even individual Social-Democratic workers who have declared their readiness to fight for the removal of this foreman, in spite of all orders and threats from their leaders. If the shop cell succeeds in creating such a directing center around concrete tasks affecting the interests of all the workers of the factory, then we can say that this shop cell has worked well: it has become the revolutionary leader of the workers of a given shop. A cell which is every day closely bound up with the working masses on questions of the defense of their closest interests and which enjoys the full confidence of the workers in the cause of the defense of their interest, will retain that confidence in the future, in more responsible actions and at most responsible moments of the struggle for power.

The question of the creation of such support points for revolutionary class struggle in the shops and also on a general factory scale is the most important question in the work of our factory cells. In the first place the question of the so-called revolutionary shop stewards is bound up with this. This slogan was issued by the Communist Party of Germany in 1929. At present it is extremely real for all capitalist countries. Revolutionary shop stewards—that means those workers elected by the revolutionary section of the workers of the factory at their workshop of general factory meetings, who are the organizers of the united front from below in the struggle for the defense of the closest interests of the workers of the given factory against the attacks of the employers and against the leaders of the Social Democratic and reformist trade unions.

So the factory cell can only become a strong Party organization capable of acting efficiently, and connected with the masses, when it operates on the basis of strong shop cells. Therefore the strong shop cell is the most important organizational guarantee for the good working of the general factory cell. The shop cell in its turn will only work well when it is able to organize the whole mass of the workers of its shop around the issues of the class struggle, which are near to and understood by all the workers of the shop, including non-Party workers and members of the reformist unions and members of the Social-Democratic Party. Shop cells should carry on their mass work within the shop on the basis of the tactic of the united front from below through revolutionary shop stewards. Revolutionary shop stewards in their turn most include among their number the most active Communists, members of the shop cells, but in addition individual revolutionary-minded Social-Democratic workers and non-Party advanced workers must be drawn into this work who are ready not to listen to their leaders in the struggle against the employers and their agents. When the shop cell succeeds in creating the institution of revolutionary shop stewards leading their everyday struggle, then no police can drive the Party organization from the factory, then, in order to drive the Party organization out of the factory it will be necessary to shut the factory down, to dismiss all the workers and recruit a new staff of workers.

22. ON WORK IN THE MASS ORGANIZATIONS

Mass organizations must be divided into two large groups: mass organizations supporting the Communist parties and other mass organizations fighting the Communist Parties. To the first category belong the revolutionary trade unions. ILD, WIR, etc. Organizations of the second kind are in their turn divided into two groups: 1) formerly non-Party mass organizations like reformist christian and other reactionary trade unions, sport organizations, etc. and 2) all kinds of organizations politically hostile to us, such as the Social-Democratic Party, various Fascist political unions, etc.

In all non-Party mass proletarian organizations, such as trade unions, sport organizations, tenants’ organizations, etc. the Party should form fractions embracing all Communists and sympathizers. There are thousands of decisions about fractions in mass organizations, but up to now the position in all Parties with regard to fractions is bad. In the first place fractions are far from being organized everywhere. In the second place, organized fractions in the majority of cases work without the direction of the Party Committee. So, the Party Committees should before all find out whether fractions exist everywhere, where they should be established, and in the second place it is essential that Party Committees should direct the work of the fractions and that the fractions should in the strictist way carry out all the directions of the corresponding Party Committees. In the constitution of the Communist Party it is laid down that a fraction has the right to appeal against the decision of a Party Committee. A Party Committee is bound to examine the protest of a fraction against its decision in the presence of a representative of a fraction. The decision of a Party Committee is binding on a fraction and there is no appeal against it: it should be accepted without argument and put into the life without delay. At present in practice directions of the Party Committee are frequently not carried out by fractions. The task of the Party is to see that every fraction carries out these directions in the strictest way. With regard to fraction members who avoid carrying out directions, the most serious explanatory work must essentially be undertaken and in case of necessity, the strictest Party measures should be taken even up to expulsion from the Party, for otherwise the Party will be completely unable to direct the work of a fraction. There may be cases when swift interference of the Party Committee is called for, while it may be impossible to convene a full meeting of the Party Committee to give out such a new direction. For example, some trade union Congress or other is being held. Before the congress the fraction meets, called together by the Party Committee and jointly works out instructions. But during the Congress questions may come up which have not been foreseen in the directions of the Party Committee. What is to be done? Should the committee meet immediately? And how can this be arranged, when questions may arise at any moment which are absolutely unexpected and which must be reacted to at once? For such cases the Party Committee must nominate a special group of three comrades or a plenipotentiary representative, who could decide in the name of the Party Committee. At the meeting of the fraction it should be explained that for the leadership of the work of the fraction the Party Committee has nominated a group of three comrades consisting of such and such comrades, or such a plenipotentiary, and that the intervention of these comrades, their propositions, should be looked upon by all fraction members as official directions of the Party Committee and carried out without any argument. In this way uninterrupted guidance of the Party Committee is guaranteed in the work of the fraction.

Mr. Dennett. I would only say that the existence of a document of that kind probably was more responsible for Mr. Browder’s insisting that the central committee disavow all previous documents which had been issued prior to, I think, 1938. That one was issued much earlier. This was issued in the period just as the depression was starting. In fact, the depression had not reached its maximum at the time that document came out, and it anticipated the depression was coming, and laid out plans how to take advantage of the depression for revolutionary purposes.

Mr. Tavenner. I notice under section 17 of this document a reference to the voluntary character of the person’s membership in the Communist Party. This reference reads:

The Communist Party is a voluntary organization, but every worker who voluntarily joins the ranks of the Communist Party accepts iron party discipline. If that discipline seems very hard to him, even unbearable, then the party should not shut its doors upon him.

Mr. Dennett. At the time I first came into the Communist Party the most common expression I heard in that connection was that you couldn’t leave the Communist Party voluntarily. And I think that document intends to convey that impression because individuals who become members of the Communist Party become privileged to knowledge and information about their associates which, if they leave the Communist Party, may fall into the hands of persons who are unsympathetic to the Communist Party. And they were fearful that whenever anything like that would occur it would hurt the working class. As a matter of fact, most people in the Communist Party are probably just blaspheming me up one side and down the other for testifying here to you on these matters for that very same reason.

It is my own feeling, however, that the average member of the party is completely unaware of the nature of the discipline. They only come in contact with surface scratches of it.

Mr. Tavenner. This document also refers to the importance of establishing cells of the Communist Party among the professions, such as the doctors and the lawyers; does it not?

Mr. Dennett. Yes.

The attitude of the party was simply that it must win the majority of the working class to support its position. To do so often required the aid and assistance of prominent people.

Now this is a political tactic which every political group uses. This is not something peculiar to the Communists, but they used it quite effectively.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I think that this document warrants a great deal of study and analysis. It should be analyzed, and the contents of it put into this record. It would take too long to attempt to do it through answer-and-question form.

Mr. Dennett. Well, it has roots in the fundamental theory of the Communist movement, which actually should be pursued when you have time and leisure to do so. It is not something that lends itself to this meeting.

Mr. Moulder. It has been admitted as an exhibit, and, by order of the committee, if it is agreeable with Congressman Velde, consent will be given to counsel to read such portions as he wishes to read at this point.

Mr. Velde. May I ask counsel, have we ever had a similar document to this one?

Mr. Tavenner. I was so impressed with the contents of this document, Mr. Chairman, that I called our Washington office. I received a reply this morning that there is neither a copy nor a record of this document in the files of the committee.

I am unable to state without further study whether there is anything of a similar character. But this document certainly goes into detail. It is much plainer in its purposes than anything I have seen on the subject.

Mr. Moulder. How many pages are there in the document?

Mr. Tavenner. It is 26 pages in length. However, the exhibit covered page 1 and pages 17 through 26.

Mr. Moulder. How do you refer to that exhibit?

Mr. Tavenner. That is Dennett Exhibit No. 1. It is so marked.

Mr. Moulder. From whom did you receive this document?

Mr. Dennett. I received it when I was district agitprop director in the district.

Mr. Moulder. And do you know the source of it?

Mr. Dennett. It came through the mail from the central committee.

Mr. Moulder. The central committee of what?

Mr. Dennett. Of the Communist Party in New York City.

Mr. Moulder. Let me ask you the date you received it. Approximately in what year?

Mr. Dennett. It must have been in about 1932.

Mr. Tavenner. How long were you engaged in the work of an organizer at Bellingham?

Mr. Dennett. Approximately 1 year. The latter part of 1932 through the early part of 1933.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have any experience in youth work within the Communist Party while you were at Bellingham?

Mr. Dennett. Not too much in Bellingham. There was a little work of the Young Communist League there. They did interest a few students at the normal school. There was a normal school in Bellingham, and they did organize, I think, a half dozen young people who became interested in the theoretical work of Marx and Lenin. Most of those later became members of the Communist Party.

Mr. Tavenner. Was there an organization known as Pioneers, or Young Pioneers, in the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. Yes; Young Pioneers of America.

Mr. Tavenner. Are you now speaking of that group?

Mr. Dennett. No. That group I have just referred to was the Young Communist League, which dealt with a group in the younger age, but mature people. The Young Pioneers was an effort on the part of the Communist Party to organize a group which would be comparable to the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.

In the Soviet Union the Young Pioneers occupied that position. It is a position of support to the Government. It is a position of support to the Communist Party similarly as the Scouts are here to the Government and service organizations and patriotic organizations occupy a similar position, parallel organization.

Mr. Velde. There is one distinct difference, is there not?

Mr. Dennett. I can think of several.

Mr. Velde. The Young Pioneer movement is financed by the Soviet State, and here in America the Boy Scout movement is financed by good will of the American people.

Mr. Dennett. I don’t know too much about how they finance it there. I have an idea that they probably do finance a lot of it through individual contributions, however, there. I think that there are dues, membership, and that sort of thing which carries the big part of the financing. Of course, it receives approval by the Government, and receives favors.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you called upon in connection with your Communist Party duties to either organize or supervise the operation of any of the Young Pioneer groups?

Mr. Dennett. Yes.

There was one occasion when I was falling in some disfavor in the eyes of the district leadership, and they wanted to get me out of their hair. At the time a young woman by the name of Yetta Stromberg came to Seattle from California for the purpose of organizing a Young Pioneer summer camp. And she requested the district leadership to assign someone from the district leadership to work with her in the organization and supervision of this camp.

Mr. Moulder. Can you give us the year on that?

Mr. Dennett. I am quite sure this was in 1932. I think this was before I went to Bellingham.

Mr. Tavenner. Was this while you were in Seattle?

Mr. Dennett. While I was in Seattle.

I was the one chosen to go to this camp to represent the district. The purpose at the camp was to offer summer recreation facilities to provide relaxation for youths, young people, under supervision of party leadership, and to introduce them to some of the theoretical program of the Communist Party.

Mr. Tavenner. Was it basically an actual part of the Communist Party plan of recruitment and indoctrination?

Mr. Dennett. Yes, it was. I thought we were quite successful, too.

Mr. Tavenner. What age group attended that camp?

Mr. Dennett. Well, at that particular camp the age limits were not restricted too narrowly. Ordinarily the age limit would be in the teens for the Young Pioneers. Some of them did get up just beyond, up into the early twenties. These young people were of mixed age and grouping.

Mr. Tavenner. I hand you another document which we found among the documents you turned over to the committee, and I will ask you to identify it, if you will, as a flier advertising the camp to which you refer.

(Document handed to the witness.)

Mr. Dennett. Oh, yes. This was circulated by the party to its branches, and was especially circulated among what we called the language sections.

The language sections were organizations such as the Finnish Federation, and there were some Slavic organizations; there were some Jewish organizations, which were national in form. I mean only members of those particular national groups belonged to those organizations. And we were trying to offer them an opportunity to see to it that their children had a chance to go to a summer camp and to have as much prestige and as much satisfaction as people who went to YMCA or YWCA camps, or Girl Scout or Boy Scout camps.

We were trying to rival them, compete.

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, was the Communist Party selecting what was probably to the interests of a group of people and attempting to use it for the benefit, and the advancement of Communist Party purposes?

Mr. Dennett. Very true.

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer the document in evidence, and ask that it be marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 2,” and that it be incorporated in the transcript of the record.

Mr. Moulder. The exhibit offered in evidence, marked “Exhibit Dennett No. 2,” for identification, will be admitted as a part of the record.

Dennett Exhibit No. 2
Pioneer’s Summer Camp

On the other side of this page are the questions which will have to be filled out in detail by all the children who wish to go to the camp, or by their parents. The Pioneer Summer Camp this year will be held at Pine Lake, 30 miles outside of Seattle. The camp will open on July 10, and will last for a period of one month unless too many children who wish to go cannot be accommodated during this time. If such is the case, the camp will last for 6 instead of 4 weeks. Each child will remain for a period of two weeks.

The charge will be $5 for the two weeks, if possible the parents pay this amount. If not, then the sponsoring organization is to make arrangements to raise the money. By the sponsoring organization is meant the organization that recommends the child for the summer camp and assists the camp project in every way possible. Every child coming to the camp must be O. K.’d by some such organization, so that we are sure that the children at the camp are worth while elements to work with. 50 children will be accommodated during each shift. The transportation will be provided by the sponsoring organization. Parents, if they like, will be able to visit the camp during week ends.

The camp will provide swimming, boxing, boating, dancing, music, dramatics, educational and organizational training along working class lines. A lot of fun and real training for every worker’s child. The location is great, right on the shore of Pine Lake, pine trees on the grounds, good beach, swings and teeter-totters for the children. The children will be taken good care of, there will be a nurse at the camp the full time, good meals will be served and the children will be watched all the time they are swimming, so parents need have no fear that their children will not be properly cared for.

For further information, phone Main 9850, Seattle, or write to Lila Walker, Secretary Pioneer Camp Committee, 1421½ Eighth Avenue, Seattle.

All children who have filled out their application blanks and have been accepted by the executive committee of the summer camp conference in Seattle should bring the following equipment with them:

1. A sheet blanket, to be used instead of sheets, or sheets if the parents prefer them; also pillow case (pillows will be provided.)

2. Sufficient blankets and quilts for covering.

3. Three or four towels.

4. Toothbrush, toothpaste, comb, soap.

5. Bathing suit, several pairs of stockings or socks, several changes of underwear, play clothes, tights for boys, some kind of sun suit for girls, if possible.

6. Balls, bats, checkers, dominoes, puzzles, books, paints, etc., should be brought by the children if they have any and would like to put them into the camp library while they are at camp.

THESE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS WHICH EVERY CHILD MUST PASS

1. The child must be sponsored by some working class organization.

2. The child must be examined by a physician furnished by the sponsoring organization.

3. The signature of either or both of the child’s parents must be obtained before the child will be considered for the camp.

4. The child must be between the ages of 10 and 15. (Inclusive.)

5. The registration fee of $5 must be brought with each child to the camp when he or she comes, this fee to be paid by the parents or by the sponsoring organization.

6. The child must be of a working class family and his parents must thoroughly understand the purpose of the camp.

7. Each child must fill out one of the registration blanks sent out from the Pioneer Camp Committee, 1421½ Eighth Avenue, Seattle.

Registration Blank for Pioneer Summer Camp at Pine Lake

(Please read the instructions on the other side carefully before filling out this blank.)

Organization sponsoring————————————————————-
Name——————————————————————————————
Address—————————— City———————- State—————-
Age—————- School attending————————— Grade————-
Occupation, if any——————————————— Wages—————
Where employed—————————————————————————
Member of what organizations——————————————————
Did you ever attend a Pioneer camp before?———————————
If so, when and where—————————————————————-
Did you ever attend a summer camp for Boy Scouts, Girl Reserves,
Girl Scouts, etc.?—————— If so, when———————————
Mother’s name—————————————————————————-
Occupation——————————— Working?————— Wages———-
Are you willing that your child go to a working-class children’s
camp for the purposes of recreation, physical development, and
working-class training?————————————————————-
(Yes)
—————————————————-
Mother’s Signature
Father’s name—————————————————————————-
Occupation——————————— Working?————— Wages———-
Are you willing that your child go to a working-class children’s
camp for the purposes of recreation, physical development,
and working-class training?——————————————————-
(Yes)
——————————————-
Father’s Signature
Fee of $5 for two weeks being paid by organization
sponsoring———————————————————————————
Fee of $5 for two weeks being paid by parents—————————-
This is to certify that I have examined————————————-
and have found him, her, with no physical disabilities and
free of communicable disease. Signed
—————————————-
Examining physician
The——————————————— Feels that——————————
Name of sponsoring organization child’s name
--------------------------------answers all the requirements for
admission to the Pioneer Summer Camp and is sponsoring him, her.
——————————————————
Secretary of sponsoring organization.
——————————————————
Chairman of sponsoring organization.

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to read into the record one or two sentences from this advertisement:

Every child coming to the camp must be O. K.’d by some such organization, so that we are sure that the children at the camp are worthwhile elements to work with.

What was meant by that?

Mr. Dennett. Well, I cannot recall exactly at this time except to say that it was our purpose then to find young people who would have at least enough knowledge and understanding to be possible leadership material. It was our hope and purpose to develop more leaders. We needed them very much.

Mr. Tavenner. To develop them for leadership in the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. True.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you conduct any courses at the camp yourself?

Mr. Dennett. Yes; I did.

Mr. Tavenner. We find among the documents that you turned over to us what apparently is a questionnaire submitted to a number of members of the class, with their names appearing on them and with questions relating to their plans for the future, what they consider about class struggle, surplus value, materialist conception of history, and so forth.

I do not want you to mention in the testimony the names of any of these individuals at this moment, but I would like you to examine the questionnaire.

Mr. Dennett. I have my own copy.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you examine the group and state whether any child attending these classes was as young as 15 years of age?

Mr. Dennett. I have one 19, I have one 16. Yes; here is one 15.

Mr. Tavenner. In fact, there are several as young as 15 years of age, are there not?

Mr. Dennett. 21, 20, 15, 17, 17. Yes; 18, 17, 17.

Mr. Tavenner. Am I correct in stating that this is in the form of a questionnaire to determine the success of the training at this camp?

Mr. Dennett. Well it must be remembered that I was just fresh from teaching, and one of the things that a teacher has to learn is whether or not their teaching is successful. The way you determine that is to devise a test. So I devised a test to determine whether or not my efforts had been successful. So this is in the form of a test.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what reaction you get from reading the test papers of some of the younger of the group? Say, 15, 16, and 17 years of age.

Mr. Dennett. I have picked out those 2 that were 15 years of age.

I had something here in which I asked this kind of question: What organizations they belonged to. I asked them to list them. And this one said: “YPA,” which was the Young Pioneers of America. And a workers’ youth club.

And I asked also what kind of work they did in the organization, and one of them says that he was the secretary of the club. And I asked what his occupation was, and he said a student in school. And I asked if he had any special abilities, and he says “Sing, act, sports, football and track.” Hobby: “music, sports, reading.” Main shortcoming: “To learn more about organization.” Received most benefit from camp: “Art and music.” Most benefit from class: “What Marxism is based on.”

Mr. Moulder. Are you reading the answers to the questions?

Mr. Dennett. These are the answers to the questions.

I asked what they knew about the materialist conception of history, and this student answered:

“It is based on scientific facts.”

I asked if the student understood surplus value, and this student answered:

“The difference between the amount paid to the worker and the amount of goods he produces.”

I asked this student if he understood the meaning of the class struggle, and his answer in his own handwriting is:

“It is the history of the workers fighting against their rulers.”

I asked his plans for the future, and his answer is:

“To help organize the Pioneers and the Workers Youth Group.”

And I asked if there was anything special, and this student answers:

“I want to start a sports club, and I wish to play the baritone horn.”

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Dennett. I have another one here of a little older one who was 21 years of age at that time. Without going through all of the preliminaries, there are certain details here that are of some concern. And this is in that student’s own handwriting.

I asked what is the most benefit he received from the class, and his answer is:

“Why the present system cannot stand up.”

I asked what his understanding of materialist conception of history was, and he said:

“Taking a scientific attitude.”

I asked him if he understood surplus value, and his answer is:

“Is the amount of the value left after the laborer’s wages are paid.”

I asked him if he understood the class struggle, and he said:

“It is a struggle for the needs of the working class.”

I asked for plans for the future, and his answer:

“To work on Pioneer—”

I asked if anything special, and he says:

“To develop public speaking and to be able to teach workers of the class struggle.”

We looked upon that student as a very promising student.

Mr. Tavenner. For any particular reason?

Mr. Dennett. For the reason that he indicated that he was interested in continuing his efforts in the class struggle.

Mr. Tavenner. In looking over these I find another name where the age is given as 14 years of age. I believe that is about the youngest of the group.

Among those papers is also a list of the names of students. I am not certain that they are the same students whose examination papers are attached.

Mr. Dennett. They are.

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to have these documents marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 3” for identification only. I do not want to make them a part of the record. However, I desire to withdraw from this exhibit one typewritten sheet describing the objectives of the Pioneer Leader’s camp and have it admitted in evidence and marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 3-A,” to be incorporated in the transcript of the record.

Mr. Moulder. It is so ordered.

And the committee wishes to announce the purpose of so admitting them in that manner is that we do not wish to reveal at this time the names of young people who were then being indoctrinated into the Communist philosophy or belief through their enrollment in the Young Pioneers’ youth camp. Is that the name of it?

Mr. Dennett. Young Pioneers.

Mr. Moulder. Because we feel that it might be an injustice to them for they probably have had no connection with the Communist Party, and maybe never did have so far as we have any evidence to show.

Dennett Exhibit No. 3-A

The Pioneer Leader’s Camp had two objectives: One to equip those in the Camp with the necessary theoretical foundation to do effective work in the Revolutionary Movement in general; and second to equip and train them to do Pioneer Work in particular.

The First Objective was approached mainly from the class in Theory which dealt with 1. The Materialist Conception of History, 2. Dialectics, 3. Surplus Value, 4. The Class Struggle, 5. Orientation in Organization, 6. Proletarian, 7. Discipline as Social Control.

The Second Objective was approached from the very organization of the camp itself. Study circles were arranged in the subjects of Revolutionary Art, Revolutionary Music, Study of Science, Woodcraft—practical work, gathering wood etc.—sewing—practical work, sewing badges for Pioneer Leaders, organized sports—learning games which have been organized with a view to adaptation to use with workers children in a way to take chauvinism out of them, etc., and still retain the benefits of physical exercise contained therein.

Mr. Velde. I presume, Mr. Chairman, that some of those members of the Young Pioneers are still in the area.

Mr. Dennett. I think some of them probably are, although it is very difficult to keep track of young women because of their changing names.

Mr. Moulder. It might result in an injustice to reveal them at this time.

Mr. Dennett. Right.

Mr. Moulder. May I ask, Are you going into the conduct of the classes, how you proceeded to teach them, what they were taught, and whether or not you felt the answers to the questions were the result of your teaching at that time?

Mr. Dennett. I think I could answer that briefly, that they certainly were the result of my teaching.

Mr. Tavenner. I have a few other questions, Mr. Chairman, to finish this subject.

Mr. Velde. Let me state that while I concur with the chairman and the views of our counsel that the names of these young people should not be put on record, I do think that any adults you knew to be members of the Communist Party should be identified in this record at the present time.

Mr. Moulder. May I also add that further investigation will be made concerning it.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dennett, we have followed with a great deal of interest the record of many of these young people who were gotten into camps, gotten into the Young Communist League organizations in school, Labor Youth League organizations in school, to determine what happened to them afterward.

We have found at one place, for instance, that there was an organized drive made by the organizer of the Communist Party in that area to follow these young people after they had finished their schooling.

Mr. Dennett. It was my intention in this case, too.

Mr. Tavenner. To follow them and to eventually bring them into active work within the Communist Party. Was that the general purpose?

Mr. Dennett. That was my purpose. And I tried to do it. But I was shifted around a little bit too rapidly, and I broke contact too many times and lost track of all of them.

Mr. Tavenner. I want to ask at this time, with the chairman’s approval, this question:

Are there any of these young persons who attended this camp who you later learned identified themselves with the Communist Party and became active in Communist work? If so, I think those names should be given.

Mr. Velde. Certainly I concur.

Mr. Dennett. There is only one in this list that I feel certain enough about to identify in the manner in which you ask. The rest are names which do not ring as clearly to me after a passage of 20 years. Remember now that was in 1932. It is nearly 25 years ago. In fact, I had no idea that I even kept this record. I had forgotten that I had kept it.

But it is very refreshing to me because it brings back to my own recollection certain things which, if I hadn’t kept such a record, I would have completely forgotten.

The only person in this group that I remember distinctly is Oiva Halonen.

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

Mr. Dennett. The first name is O-i-v-a, and the last name Halonen, H-a-l-o-n-e-n.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, this individual was also identified by Barbara Hartle while a witness before this committee as having been known by her to be a member of the Communist Party, and has been subpenaed.

Mr. Moulder. Is that a man or woman?

Mr. Dennett. It is a man.

Mr. Moulder. Do you know where he is located now?

Mr. Tavenner. He is under subpena, Mr. Chairman.

Will you examine the answers to his test, and state whether you can identify the handwriting, whether you filled it out, or whose it was?

Mr. Dennett. His was the one I referred to as a very promising one.

Mr. Tavenner. You are at least correct in stating that he found his way into the Communist Party, according to the testimony of Barbara Hartle and yourself.

Mr. Dennett. Yes; he is the one who said he wanted to develop public-speaking ability so he could teach workers the class struggle.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you write the answers? Is this in your handwriting?

Mr. Dennett. It doesn’t look like my handwriting to me. In fact, I am quite certain this is not my handwriting. It looks to me as though it is written in the same manner as the name, which was his.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, whether other camps were conducted after this one?

Mr. Dennett. Yetta Stromberg tried hard to get someone in this area to continue the camps each year. She was unable to return each year herself. I believe 1 or 2 camps were held after that. I lost track of it. So I couldn’t swear as to what happened later.

But it was a very difficult undertaking. It required volunteer help from the mothers of these young people. The camp was held out at Pine Lake. Pine Lake could best be located by someone familiar with the county territory. But one of the members of the Finnish Federation—I believe it was the Finnish Federation—owned some property out there at that time and built a rather large dining hall there, tents were pitched, and the regular facilities of a summer camp were established.

Mr. Tavenner. Have you any recollection now how many persons attended that camp?

Mr. Dennett. I think, looking at my list, that there were at least 22 persons who attended it, including some of the adults who were there to do the work and supervise the camp. It looks to me as though there were about 18 young people.

Mr. Moulder. Before taking a recess, however, it is announced that a subpena was duly issued for service upon Jerry O’Connell, 3415 Central Avenue, Great Falls, Mont., to be and appear at this place of hearing in this room, 402, County-City Building, Seattle, Wash., at 9:30 a. m., on this date, March 17, 1955, to testify in matters of inquiry committed to this committee to inquire into, and it appears from the record that the subpena was personally served upon Jerry O’Connell on the 8th day of March of this year, as provided by law. The witness, Jerry O’Connell, has been called several times on this day but has failed to appear as he was required to do as provided in the subpena.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of this subcommittee, both of Congressman Velde and myself, that unless cause or satisfactory legal excuse is presented for his failure to appear and abide by the summons or subpena, that the subcommittee will recommend and request that Jerry O’Connell be cited for contempt as provided by law.

The committee will stand in recess for 5 minutes.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dennett, I have asked you to produce the original examination paper of the young man to whom we referred, Oiva Halonen. Do you have it before you?

Dennett Exhibit No. 4

Mr. Dennett. I have.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I desire to offer that particular examination paper in evidence, and ask that it be marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 4,” and that it be incorporated in the transcript of the record.

Mr. Moulder. It will be admitted.

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to have the privilege of replacing the original exhibit by photostat.

Mr. Moulder. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Tavenner. Inasmuch as reference has been made to this individual and the fact that he has been subpenaed, I believe the committee should hear him now. I ask that Mr. Dennett be excused until tomorrow morning, and that we proceed with the other witnesses.

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Dennett, you will be excused for the remainder of the afternoon, with the instruction to report tomorrow morning at 9 a. m.

Mr. Dennett. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Halonen, will you come forward, please, sir.

Mr. Moulder. Will you hold up your right hand and be sworn? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Halonen. I do.

TESTIMONY OF OIVA R. HALONEN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, JAY G. SYKES

Mr. Tavenner. What is your full name, Mr. Halonen?

Mr. Halonen. Oiva R. Halonen.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell it, please.

Mr. Halonen. The first name is O-i-v-a; the initial is R; the last name is Halonen, H-a-l-o-n-e-n.

Mr. Tavenner. It is noted you are accompanied by counsel. Will counsel please identify himself for the record?

Mr. Sykes. Jay, J-a-y, G. Sykes, S-y-k-e-s.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Halonen, when and where were you born?

Mr. Halonen. In Minnesota, in 1912.

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside?

Mr. Halonen. In Seattle.

Mr. Tavenner. What is your occupation?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. I am a machinist.

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you worked as a machinist in Seattle?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. The last 12 years.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, briefly, what your educational training has been?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. Merely a high-school graduate.

Mr. Tavenner. What employment have you had in Seattle other than the employment beginning 12 years ago which you just described?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. Prior to the time that I became a machinist I knocked around in the apple orchards, harvest fields, did odd jobs this way and that way—no particular trade.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Halonen, where did you live in 1932?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. In Minnesota.

Mr. Tavenner. What was your first address on arriving in Seattle?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. 1011 East Columbia Street.

Mr. Tavenner. During what period of time did you live at that address?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. From the middle of 1933, I would say; between the 15th of May and the last of June, somewhere in there, for approximately a year, or a year and a half. I can’t remember.

Mr. Tavenner. I hand you Dennett Exhibit No. 4, purporting to be a test or an examination taken at the Young Pioneer camp at Pine Lake in the State of Washington. Please examine the exhibit and state whether or not the handwriting found thereon is your handwriting.

(Document handed to the witness.)

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. On advice of counsel, that the answer to that question might tend to incriminate me, I must invoke the fifth amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you examine, please, the name at the top of the test paper and read what name you find there?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. I must invoke the fifth amendment again, for the same reasons as stated before.

Mr. Velde. Mr. Chairman, I notice the witness states that he must invoke the fifth amendment.

The fifth amendment is a privilege that you have, and you are under no compulsion to invoke the fifth amendment.

The only question is, do you?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. I do invoke the fifth amendment.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you examine the exhibit again, please, and state what you see on the line immediately under the name appearing at the top of the page.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. Again, I do invoke the fifth amendment for the reasons previously stated.

Mr. Tavenner. I am not asking you, Witness, whether or not that is your address. I am asking if you will read what appears on the document? I am asking you no question other than what is it that appears on the document.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. I respectfully give the same answer I gave before, on advice of counsel.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you see it before you?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. Yes; I see it.

Mr. Tavenner. Rather than lose more time, I will read into the record from this document that the address on the line under the name Oiva Halonen is 1011 East Columbia, Seattle.

Mr. Moulder. Is this the same document that you referred to as an exhibit which was identified by Mr. Dennett?

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir; and it is marked “Dennett Exhibit No. 4.” Was that your address in 1933?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Moulder. Did he state what his address was at the beginning of his testimony when he first appeared on the stand?

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir; I asked him where he lived when he first came to Seattle, and it is the same address, if I recall the testimony correctly.

So that there may be no uncertainty about it, what was your address in 1933 when you came to Seattle?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. It was 1011 East Columbia.

Mr. Moulder. Is that the same address appearing on this exhibit?

Mr. Halonen. Yes.

Mr. Velde. May I inquire of counsel the year he attended the youth camp at Pine Lake, as testified to by Mr. Dennett. Was that in 1932?

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. The year was not specified.

Are you acquainted with Mr. Dennett who just testified here a moment ago?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. Was the name Dennett or Bennett?

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dennett.

Mr. Halonen. On advice of counsel, on the grounds that the question might tend to incriminate me, I do invoke the fifth amendment and refuse to answer the question.

Mr. Velde. I can’t possibly see how the admission that you were acquainted with any person would possibly tend to incriminate you. So I ask the chairman to direct the witness to answer the question.

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

Mr. Halonen. I do invoke the fifth amendment.

Mr. Moulder. I want you to answer this question.

You say upon advice of counsel you are advised that the answer might tend to incriminate you. Now is it because of the advice of counsel or do you yourself feel that it will incriminate you?

Mr. Halonen. I do it on advice of counsel. Counsel advises me to invoke the fifth amendment.

Mr. Moulder. May I ask you this:

Would your answer tend to incriminate you?

(The witness confers with this counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. It might tend to incriminate me.

Mr. Moulder. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you attend a Young Pioneers summer camp at Pine Lake in the State of Washington?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. Could we be more specific as to time?

Mr. Tavenner. Did you attend any “Pioneer” summer camp at any time?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. On advice of counsel, I do again invoke the fifth amendment on grounds of possible self-incrimination.

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with Barbara Hartle?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. Again on advice of counsel, I find myself in the position that I do invoke the fifth amendment on grounds of possible self-incrimination.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Tavenner. Were you present in the hearing room at the time Mr. Dennett identified you as having been a member of the Communist Party?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. Yes; I was in the room.

Mr. Tavenner. You heard his testimony?

Mr. Halonen. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Was he correct in stating that you became a member of the Communist Party?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. I find myself in the situation of invoking the fifth amendment again on grounds of possible self-incrimination.

Mr. Tavenner. And you do so invoke?

Mr. Halonen. I do so invoke.

Mr. Moulder. Do you decline to answer the question for that reason?

Mr. Halonen. I decline to answer the question on grounds of possible self-incrimination under the fifth amendment.

Mr. Tavenner. Mrs. Barbara Hartle testified in June of 1954 before this committee as follows:

Oiva Halonen was a member of the Communist Party in the central region; lived in that area; and was connected with the national group’s work of the district.

Do you desire to explain her testimony in any way or to deny it? Or do you confirm it as being true?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. I decline under the grounds of the fifth amendment, on possible self-incrimination.

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

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. I decline to answer that question under the fifth amendment for the reasons stated before.

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

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. I decline to answer that question for the same reasons.

Mr. Tavenner. Have you engaged in various activities of the Communist Party within mass organizations in the area of Seattle?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. I decline to answer that question for the reasons stated previously, under the fifth amendment.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you at any time affiliated with the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. I decline again, under the fifth amendment, to answer that question, as previously stated.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you actively engaged in the work of the Young Communist League in 1942?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. I decline to answer that question under the fifth amendment, as previously stated.

Mr. Tavenner. Have you traveled outside of the continental limits of the United States?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Sykes. May we have a minute, please.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Moulder. Let the record show that the witness is conferring with counsel.

Mr. Halonen. To the last question I again invoke the fifth amendment on grounds of possible self-incrimination, and refuse to answer.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade?

Mr. Halonen. Once again I do decline to answer the question on the grounds of the fifth amendment, as previously stated.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you in the Spanish area 14 months during the Spanish Civil War?

Mr. Halonen. Once again I decline to answer the question, under the fifth amendment, on grounds previously stated.

Mr. Tavenner. Have you had any affiliation with the International Workers Order?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. Once again I decline to answer the question, under the fifth amendment, for previously stated reasons.

Mr. Moulder. In response to the question asked by counsel, which you refused to answer or declined to answer, there are constitutional reasons as to whether or not you served in the armed services in Spain.

Now you declined to answer the question in reference to the Spanish Civil War. I want to ask you this question:

Did you ever serve in any branch of the armed services of the United States of America?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. No; I never did.

Mr. Moulder. Do you refuse to state whether or not you have served in the armed services of another country?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. I refuse to answer that specific question; yes.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Moulder. In other words, it leaves the impression you were willing to fight for some other country but you are not willing to fight for the United States of America, your own native country.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. I refuse to answer the question in regard to the Spanish Civil War.

Mr. Moulder. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Halonen, I don’t want to leave an inference that this committee feels that a person should be criticized by it for any position he or she may take regarding any bill before Congress, but if a certain bill before Congress is being opposed by the Communist Party and the Communist Party is instrumental in creating opposition to it, then the committee would be interested in that fact.

Now I am not attempting to criticize any opposition you may have registered to the Walter-McCarran Act, but, if you did oppose it, I want to know whether or not the Communist Party had anything to do with the position that you took in the matter.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. I decline to answer that question on the grounds of the fifth amendment, as previously stated.

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

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Velde?

Mr. Velde. Were you born in Minnesota?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. Yes.

Mr. Velde. I note you took refuge in the fifth amendment when questioned about your acquaintanceship with Mr. Eugene Dennett.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. That is correct.

Mr. Velde. You were here in the hearing room while he was testifying about your activities at the youth camp at Pine Lake, were you not?

Mr. Halonen. I so testified earlier.

Mr. Velde. You did see him here, didn’t you?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. Yes, I did.

Mr. Velde. Had you ever met him before? Did you recognize him when he was testifying?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. I invoke the fifth amendment and decline to answer that question on the grounds of possible self-incrimination.

Mr. Velde. You might have some misunderstanding about what acquaintanceship is. I wanted to know if you ever saw him before. I can see no reason why you shouldn’t answer that question or why that would tend to incriminate you in any way.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. Not being too sharp on the legal aspects, I am afraid of waiving my rights under the fifth amendment, and, for that reason, I am invoking the fifth amendment.

Mr. Velde. I am not trying to trap you. Seriously, I can see no reason for not identifying him or anyone else you may have seen before. A lot of people in this room are acquainted with people who have been incriminated and have served jail sentences. I see no reason why an acquaintanceship of that type with a person should incriminate you or me or anyone else.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. Well, I respectfully invoke the fifth amendment again on the question asked for the reasons previously stated.

Mr. Velde. Have you ever known any member of the Communist Party?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. I again must decline to answer that question under the fifth amendment, as previously stated.

Mr. Velde. Have you ever met a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Halonen. Again I decline to answer under the fifth amendment for the reasons stated previously.

Mr. Velde. Do you know anyone in this room?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. I know my counsel here.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Velde. Why do you admit that you know your counsel and refuse to admit that you know Mr. Dennett?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. My acquaintance with my counsel could not possibly incriminate me in any way.

Mr. Velde. Do you feel that you are engaged at the present time in any activity which is of a subversive nature and subversive to the Government of the United States?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. I must decline to answer that question again, under the fifth amendment, for the reasons as stated previously.

Mr. Velde. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Moulder. In connection with the last question Mr. Velde was asking if you had any knowledge, or if you ever committed any act of espionage or engaged in any activity contrary to the interests of the United States, I will ask you this question?

Are you engaged in any organization work or any activities leading toward the overthrow of our present form of government by force or violence?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. I must decline, or I must state that I have never engaged in any espionage, but, as far as the rest of the question is concerned. I must again invoke the fifth amendment on possible self-incrimination.

Mr. Moulder. In other words, you answer by saying that you did not engage in any espionage, but refuse to answer as to whether or not you are actively engaged in any effort to overthrow our Government by force and violence. That is the way I construe your answer.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Halonen. That is correct.

Mr. Moulder. Are there any further questions?

Mr. Velde. No, but I do feel that the witness possesses a great deal of information which would be valuable to the committee in its work, in its obligations that we are duty bound to perform, and I regret the position the witness has taken.

I hope he will reconsider his position and return to give the committee the information he possesses.

Mr. Moulder. The witness is excused.

(Whereupon the witness was excused.)

Mr. Moulder. Counsel, proceed with the next witness.

Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Eugene Frank Robel, please.

Mr. Moulder. Will you hold up your right hand and be sworn?

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

Mr. Robel. I do.

TESTIMONY OF EUGENE FRANK ROBEL, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, JAY G. SYKES

Mr. Wheeler. Will you state your name, please.

Mr. Robel. E-u-g-e-n-e F-r-a-n-k R-o-b-e-l, Eugene Frank Robel.

Mr. Wheeler. When and where were you born, Mr. Robel?

Mr. Robel. I was born in Kit Carson County, Colo., on a homestead.

Mr. Wheeler. In what year?

Mr. Robel. 1911.

Mr. Wheeler. You are represented by counsel. Will he please identify himself for the record?

Mr. Sykes. Jay G. Sykes, Seattle.

Mr. Wheeler. Would you briefly advise the committee as to your education?

Mr. Robel. I have a high-school education and 2 years of university.

Mr. Wheeler. What university is that?

Mr. Robel. Moscow, Idaho—not Russia.

Mr. Wheeler. The University of Idaho?

Mr. Robel. Yes, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. How long have you lived in the city of Seattle?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Robel. I came here the latter part of 1937, I believe. I have been here since.

Mr. Wheeler. Have you ever served in the Armed Forces of the United States?

Mr. Robel. Yes, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. In what branch?

Mr. Robel. United States Navy.

Mr. Wheeler. At what period of time were you in the United States Navy?

Mr. Robel. From 1933 to 1937.

Mr. Wheeler. Were you honorably discharged?

Mr. Robel. Yes, sir. I had a good-conduct discharge. I have the medal at home.

Mr. Wheeler. What is your employment record for the last 10 years?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Robel. I worked for an oil company for my first 4 years in Seattle, General Petroleum Corp.

Mr. Wheeler. That would be 1937 to 1941?

Mr. Robel. I think that is approximately the figures. Then I worked as a machinist at various jobs.

Mr. Wheeler. Specifically, what jobs have you held as a machinist?

Mr. Robel. Mostly outside machinist, but at times maintenance.

Mr. Wheeler. For what companies have you worked?

Mr. Robel. I have worked for Todd’s, Pacific Iron Foundry, Isaacson Iron Works, and Sahlberg Equipment Co.

Mr. Wheeler. Where are you employed now?

Mr. Robel. Todd’s.

Mr. Wheeler. Todd Shipyards?

Mr. Robel. Yes, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. Are they engaged in defense work or defense contracts?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Robel. I think so, indirectly. I don’t know how they get their contracts.

Mr. Wheeler. Do you have a security clearance?

Mr. Robel. No, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. Have you been denied security clearance?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Robel. No, sir.