INVESTIGATION OF COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES
IN THE SEATTLE, WASH., AREA—Part 2
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
EIGHTY-FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MARCH 18 AND 19, 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 Eugene V. Dennett, Harold Johnston, Edwin A. Carlson, and Margaret Elizabeth Gustafson, also heard on March 18, 1955, is printed in pt. 1 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 2

FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 1955

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

PUBLIC HEARING

A subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met, pursuant to recess, at 1:30 p. 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.

Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order.

Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Wheeler?

Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Robert Krahl.

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. Krahl. I do.

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT B. KRAHL, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, JAY G. SYKES

Mr. Wheeler. Would you state your full name?

Mr. Krahl. My name is Robert B. Krahl.

Mr. Wheeler. Will you spell the last name?

Mr. Krahl. K-r-a-h-l.

Mr. Wheeler. I see you are represented by counsel.

Will counsel identify himself for the record?

Mr. Sykes. Jay G. Sykes.

Mr. Wheeler. When were you born, Mr. Krahl?

Mr. Krahl. To the best of my knowledge, I was born on February 6, 1925.

Mr. Wheeler. Where do you presently reside?

Mr. Krahl. I live in Seattle.

Mr. Wheeler. What is your present occupation?

Mr. Krahl. I am unemployed.

Mr. Wheeler. What was your occupation before becoming unemployed?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Krahl. With the chairman’s permission, I would like to make a very, very short statement, less than a hundred words.

Mr. Moulder. What was the question, Mr. Wheeler?

(The pending question was read by the reporter.)

Mr. Moulder. That question calls for an answer, not a statement. And you can reply or give the answer, and then make any explanation you wish if it is relevant to the question and your answer.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Krahl. Well, I have been employed with odd jobs the past 9 months; haven’t really been employed. I just worked a few days here and there.

Mr. Wheeler. Would you relate to the committee your occupational background for the past 5 years?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Krahl. To the best of my knowledge—let’s see; 5 years would be around 1950. I think I have worked as a waiter, I have worked as a draftsman, I have done a little extra work as a casual laborer, worked a little time in a sawmill—I think that about covers it.

Mr. Wheeler. What is your educational background?

Mr. Krahl. I graduated from high school. I have got a couple of years of college. I haven’t graduated from college.

Mr. Wheeler. What college did you attend?

Mr. Krahl. The University of Arizona.

Mr. Wheeler. When did you cease your studies there?

Mr. Krahl. I think it was around the end of 1947.

Mr. Wheeler. How were you employed from 1947 to 1950?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Krahl. From 1947 until 1950 I worked as a seaman part of that time; I think most of that time.

Mr. Wheeler. Have you served in the Armed Forces?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Krahl. Yes; I have.

Mr. Wheeler. In what branch of the service did you serve?

Mr. Krahl. In the United States Army.

Mr. Wheeler. What were your dates of service?

Mr. Krahl. I am not sure, but I think it was around the beginning of 1951 until about the end of it, probably 2 weeks after the first of the year, until a week prior to Christmas 1951, I am pretty sure.

Mr. Wheeler. What type of discharge did you receive?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Krahl. I received a general discharge under honorable conditions.

Mr. Wheeler. Are you familiar with the committee called the Youth Committee that is within the circles of the Communist Party in King County?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Krahl. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to invoke the fifth amendment on the ground that I think that this may lead into questions which could force me to testify against myself.

Mr. Wheeler. Are you acquainted with Mrs. Barbara Hartle?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Krahl. I give the same answer, for the reasons previously stated.

Mr. Moulder. You decline to answer for the same reason?

Mr. Krahl. I decline to answer for the reasons previously stated.

Mr. Wheeler. I would like to refer to part 2 of a document entitled “Investigation of Communist Activities in the Pacific Northwest Area.” It is a copy of the transcript of hearings held here last June. Mrs. Hartle is testifying:

About 1949 and 1950, the last year that I was in Seattle—a youth committee was set up which I worked with, controlled, and guided all of its activities and tried to train the youth along Communist Party lines; and on that youth committee I remember a young man named Al Cumming, Robert Krahl, Calvin Harris.

Are you acquainted with Mr. Al Cumming?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Krahl. I invoke the fifth amendment for the reasons previously stated. I believe that is the way to work it.

Mr. Wheeler. What were the functions of the youth committee of the Communist Party?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Krahl. I again invoke the fifth amendment on the grounds previously stated, and refuse to answer.

Mr. Wheeler. Was Mrs. Hartle correct when she identified you as a member of the Communist Party, a member of the youth committee?

Mr. Krahl. I give the same answer, for the same reasons.

Mr. Wheeler. Are you a member of the Communist Party today?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Krahl. I give the same answer, for the same reasons.

Mr. Wheeler. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Moulder. Do you decline to answer as to whether or not you are a member of the Communist Party today, and, as the reason for your refusal, do you invoke the fifth amendment?

Mr. Krahl. That is correct; yes.

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Velde, any questions?

Mr. Velde. Were you a member of the Communist Party during the time you were in the Army?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Krahl. For the reasons previously stated, I must invoke the fifth amendment and refuse to answer.

Mr. Velde. I take it that you will refuse to give this committee the benefit of your knowledge concerning the Communist Party activities, and rely on the fifth amendment whenever you are questioned about anything touching on communism. Is that correct?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Krahl. I refuse to answer that question for the same reasons and the reasons I have previously stated.

Mr. Velde. That is all.

Mr. Moulder. How long were you in the service? I forgot the period of time. That is, in the armed services of the United States.

Mr. Krahl. About a year. Just under a year.

Mr. Moulder. Was that the full period of your enlistment, the time you served, or were you discharged prior to the termination of your period of enlistment?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Krahl. Well, I was drafted. I didn’t enlist.

Mr. Moulder. Why were you discharged?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Krahl. I decline to answer, reluctantly, because I am a little—I don’t really understand where this question of waiver comes in. So I decline to answer that question on the grounds of the fifth amendment, and for the reasons that I have previously stated.

Mr. Moulder. Where were you stationed while in the service?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Krahl. Well, I was stationed for a while at Fort Ord. I think it was a few days. And then I served the rest of my time at Camp Roberts.

Mr. Moulder. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? I believe the question was asked in another form.

Mr. Krahl. Mr. Chairman, I decline to answer that question on the grounds of the fifth amendment, and for the reasons I have previously stated.

Mr. Velde. Did I understand you to say that you were given a general discharge under honorable conditions from the Army?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Krahl. That is what I said; that is correct.

Mr. Velde. That is not as high class a discharge as an honorable discharge; is it?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Krahl. Well, I really don’t know. I don’t know the answer to that.

Mr. Velde. Don’t you have any idea why you weren’t given an honorable discharge instead of a general discharge?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Krahl. At this point I invoke the fifth amendment and decline to answer that question on the grounds that I have previously stated.

Mr. Velde. That is all.

Mr. Moulder. Do you know whether or not you were discharged for security reasons?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Krahl. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly invoke the fifth amendment again, and for the same reasons, the reasons that I have previously stated.

Mr. Moulder. While you were serving in the armed services were you at any time engaged in any un-American or subversive activities?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Krahl. Mr. Chairman, I decline to answer that question on the grounds of the fifth amendment and for the reasons previously stated.

Mr. Moulder. The witness is excused.

Call your next witness.

Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Robert Miller.

Mr. Moulder. Put 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. Miller. I do, sir.

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT MILLER, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, SOLIE M. RINGOLD

Mr. Wheeler. State your name, please.

Mr. Miller. My name is Robert Miller.

Mr. Wheeler. When were you born, Mr. Miller?

Mr. Miller. To the best of my knowledge, November 22, 1922.

Mr. Wheeler. Where do you presently reside?

Mr. Miller. Seattle, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. What has been your educational background?

Mr. Miller. General, normal grammar school. I don’t know whether you call it junior or senior. And up to the third year of high school.

Mr. Wheeler. Are you currently employed?

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. How are you employed?

Mr. Miller. I am an appliance, radio and television repair man, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. Is that here in Seattle?

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. And what has your employment background been, say since 1940?

Mr. Miller. Since 1940, part of the time in the shipyards, part of the time in Boeing Airplane Co. Part of the time also was spent in the Armed Forces during the period which you mentioned.

Mr. Wheeler. What is your military service record?

Mr. Miller. I was inducted into the Navy, and, the best I can recall, the dates are from June of 1945 until March of 1946.

Mr. Wheeler. What type of discharge did you receive?

Mr. Miller. It is difficult for me to answer that. I believe it was an honorable discharge. There is some question now that you bring it up, as to whether it was what the Navy refers to as a battleship discharge, which I think they reserve to only those who have served overseas. There are no peculiarities in regard to my discharge, if that is the intent of the question.

Mr. Wheeler. When were you employed at Boeing Aircraft?

Mr. Miller. To the best of my knowledge, with interruptions, of course, it was in 1943. I do not know now when I was last employed by Boeing Aircraft except to place it in relation to an event which would be several months prior to the strike which has been mentioned, of course, in the proceedings. I could not recall even the month or the year involved.

Mr. Wheeler. How were your services terminated at Boeing?

Mr. Miller. My services were terminated for lack of attendance there.

Mr. Wheeler. Lack of attendance at work?

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. While at Boeing were you a member of any union?

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. What union was it?

Mr. Miller. The Aeronautical Mechanics Union,[1] sir.

Mr. Wheeler. Are you still a member?

Mr. Miller. No, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. Why are you no longer a member of the union?

Mr. Miller. Because when I was terminated from Boeing Aircraft I saw no reasons for further continuing membership, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. I see you are represented by counsel.

Will you identify yourself, please?

Mr. Ringold. My name is Solie, S-o-l-i-e, M. Ringold, R-i-n-g-o-l-d. I am an attorney practicing law in the city of Seattle.

Mr. Wheeler. Do you know a person by the name of Barbara Hartle?

Mr. Miller. I have known her in the past, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. Under what circumstances have you known her?

Mr. Miller. I recall one. I have eaten dinner with her at my father-in-law’s establishment.

Mr. Wheeler. Did you ever see her on any other occasion?

Mr. Miller. I have seen her on television, perhaps on the street, and I may have other than that.

Mr. Wheeler. Do you recall ever meeting her in connection with Communist Party activities?

Mr. Miller. It is difficult to say as to what were the connections. I would say that perhaps it was in relation to the Communist Party, sir.

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

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. When did you first become a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Miller. To the best of my knowledge, in 1943, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. What were the circumstances under which you joined the Communist Party?

Mr. Miller. It is difficult to reach back that far for me and determine just what motivated my becoming a member. The only thing that I can recall is I attended several open Communist Party meetings during that period of time and I saw nothing at variance with what I believed to be for the common good of the people of the country. I thereupon became active, and I could not even recall the initial period of action, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. Who contacted you to get you in the Communist Party?

Mr. Miller. That I could not recall at this time, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. After you joined the Communist Party were you assigned to any particular group or unit?

Mr. Miller. Not at any time that I recall, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. Not at all?

Mr. Miller. Not that I can recall, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. How long were you a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Miller. There were perhaps interruptions while I was in the service; I believe there were. To the best of my knowledge. I was probably a member of the Communist Party from 1943 until 1948, the best I can recall. I believe there was a period of time there that I was not a member, and it is hard for me to distinguish between what is actual membership and carrying of a card, if there is such a thing, or payment of dues, and whether I just worked with them. It is difficult to reach that far back in my mind, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. During this 1943-48 period I believe you stated you were in the United States Navy. Is that correct?

Mr. Miller. For a portion of that—from 1945 until 1946. Approximately 9 months, to the best of my knowledge.

Mr. Wheeler. When did you say your employment terminated at Boeing Aircraft?

Mr. Miller. I cannot name a date. I can only relate it to some several months prior to the major strike which they had. I could not name the date.

Mr. Wheeler. Was that in 1943 or 1944?

Mr. Miller. No. Could someone refresh me as to when the strike occurred at Boeing Aircraft Co.?

It was 1946 or 1947; I believe in there, at the time which I was terminated.

Mr. Wheeler. Were you a member of the Communist Party while employed at Boeing?

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. Were you employed at Boeing when you became a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Miller. I do not recall. I think I was perhaps a member prior to going to Boeing Aircraft Co. I do not recall, however.

Mr. Wheeler. Mrs. Hartle, in previous testimony before the committee, went into quite a bit of detail on the efforts of the Communist Party to infiltrate Boeing Aircraft. Do you have any knowledge along those lines?

Mr. Miller. The answer that you want from me is whether there was any direction as far as I was concerned, as to where to get employment. Is that, as I understand, the intent of the question?

Mr. Wheeler. Yes.

Mr. Miller. At no time, to the best of my recollection, was I directed to go anywhere to work or to do any specific thing, as I can recall it now.

Mr. Velde. Do you have knowledge of any attempt by the Communist Party to infiltrate the Boeing plant?

Mr. Miller. I have no specific knowledge which I can testify as to facts, sir. I assume that is what you want, only things I know to be fact.

Mr. Velde. Yes.

Mr. Wheeler. Did you ever hold an office in the Aero Mechanics Union?

Mr. Miller. Yes. I was at one time a shop steward, at one time a shop committeeman, and, if memory serves me right, I was president of one of the locals during the war. I am not too clear on whether that was president or vice president, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. To your knowledge, were there any other members of the Communist Party in the Aero Mechanics Union?

Mr. Miller. I do not know with any degree of certainty anyone at Boeing while I was there who might have been members of the Communist Party. There was certainly speculation or perhaps reason to assume they were. However, I would like to confine my testimony to facts, and I do not know any to be a fact.

Mr. Wheeler. We desire to be confined to facts. Are you testifying that you knew no one at Boeing Aircraft Co., to be a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Miller. To the best of my recollection at this time, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. You knew no one in the Aero Machinists Union to be a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Miller. In the Aero Mechanics Union?

Mr. Wheeler. Aero Mechanics; I am sorry.

Mr. Miller. I relate the two together, in that I believe the Aero Mechanics were only involved with employees of Boeing.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Wheeler. You have also stated, I believe, that you were not assigned to any group or unit of the Communist Party.

Mr. Miller. To the best of my recollection, that was my testimony, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. You don’t recall who recruited you into the Communist Party?

Mr. Miller. I do not, sir. In fact, I might explain it this way: I am not even sure whether it was any specific individual or whether, during the course of an open meeting, it fell upon me, a desire to become a member. It is difficult for a man to reach that far back in years and testify with any certainty, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. You were very vague in your testimony as to how you became a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. Miller. Sir, is it unreasonable to be vague on something that occurred nigh onto 12 years ago when I was between the age of 20 and 21, sir? Is that difficult to understand, that a man might honestly be vague?

Mr. Wheeler. How many meetings of the Communist Party did you attend from 1943 until the time you went in the Armed Forces in 1945?

Mr. Miller. I would be unable to give you any number with any degree of accuracy. It would be pure speculation and only an estimate. If you want an estimate, I could give it if the committee so desires.

Mr. Wheeler. I think you can speculate on this part of your testimony.

Mr. Miller. As I get the question, you are asking me how many do I think might have gone to. If I am recalling something I would have an actual number and would not have to estimate. I am not able to recall any number of meetings at which I attended. There was perhaps 30, 40 meetings, I do not know, over this period of time. It is purely a speculative answer, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. But you may have attended that many?

Mr. Miller. That is right. And that may be at variance 50 percent one way or the other.

Mr. Wheeler. We are not binding you on this.

Mr. Miller. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. Where were these meetings held that you attended?

Mr. Miller. I cannot recall specifically where any meetings might have been held. In fact, most of my activity while at Boeing’s was in legitimate, recognized trade-union work within the framework of the contract with Boeing Aircraft Co. Most, or if any, activity with other members, who I perhaps suspected to be Communists, or persons of my particular persuasion, was not in the form of a meeting, but perhaps I would meet one while at work, or I might meet one at the cafeteria, or several of us might meet together in the cafeteria and just discuss general problems.

Mr. Wheeler. Did you receive any direction from the Communist Party to conceal your membership because of your employment at Boeing’s?

Mr. Miller. I do not believe it was at anyone’s direction. Thinking back—and I can only assign, a reason now going backward—I perhaps knew of my own intelligence not to do so. I would perhaps be expelled from the Aero Mechanics Union, which, of course, would mean loss of employment at Boeing’s. I do not recall any specific direction.

Mr. Wheeler. But you have testified that you may have attended approximately 40 meetings during the period from 1943 to 1945, a period of, say, 18 months or 20 months.

Mr. Miller. I had thought I was testifying during the whole period at which I was in the party.

Mr. Wheeler. No, it is confined to the period from the time you joined the Communist Party to when you entered the United States Navy.

Mr. Miller. Well then, of course, it makes more obvious that the answer was purely speculative and could well have been largely in error. I thought I was answering or speculating in regard to my whole membership in the Communist Party.

Mr. Wheeler. Would you like to estimate again that period of time?

Mr. Miller. Well, I have got to go backward here. Which period of time are you referring to?

Mr. Wheeler. From the time you joined the Communist Party until you entered the United States Navy.

Mr. Miller. That would be from 1943 up until 1945. Right? Two years?

Mr. Wheeler. That is right.

Mr. Miller. Again a purely speculative answer: perhaps 20 meetings, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. Now you attended approximately 20 meetings from 1943 to 1945. And from 1946 to 1948 you attended approximately 20 more. And you don’t recall the place where any of these meetings were held?

Mr. Miller. I have testified where I recalled that I thought we had conducted some. I cannot recall any specific place. One or two might have occurred at a rooming house where I stayed. I do not recall, sir.

Mr. Moulder. Where were they usually held? Was there a regular meeting place?

Mr. Miller. To the best of my knowledge; no, sir.

Mr. Moulder. Who called the meetings? That is, how did you get a notice there was going to be a meeting held somewhere? How did you know where to go?

Mr. Miller. About the only way that I can think of it backward now, and I am not at all sure, is I would probably see or meet someone else on the job or in the cafeteria, and they might mention that we were going to get together and discuss the general problems.

Mr. Moulder. On the average, how many people would ordinarily attend those meetings?

Mr. Miller. As I recall it, it was a very, very few. I could not say. Probably under 10, looking way, way back. But it is difficult to say.

Mr. Moulder. Were they composed of people that you knew at the same place of employment?

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.

Mr. Moulder. All of them?

Mr. Miller. To the best of my knowledge now; yes, sir.

Mr. Moulder. Proceed, Mr. Wheeler.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, might I make one brief point in regard to this time? It might be better understood.

The question probably arises as to how I am so vague on meetings and meeting places. It might be better understood if we take into account that, as best I can recall, this occurred during the time when the Communist Party was then the Communist Political Association. I believe that they held open meetings. I do not recall too much secrecy involved in it. And for that reason secrecy did not perhaps impress itself on my mind. And to recall in one period of time where a change takes place and into another, it changes things, looking backward and forward.

Mr. Moulder. Yes; I can appreciate what you are saying.

Mr. Miller. Thank you.

Mr. Moulder. At those meetings would there be a record kept of the meeting; minutes of any sort?

Mr. Miller. Not to my knowledge, sir.

Mr. Moulder. Would there be an officer or a person presiding at the meeting? Someone who would act as a chairman or some official?

Mr. Miller. Whether it would be a person who acted as a chairman or whom the rest might just look to on the basis that—from the manner in which they spoke, they appeared to——

Mr. Moulder. Were dues paid at those meetings?

Mr. Miller. I cannot recall anything specific. However, I would imagine that there were, sir.

Mr. Moulder. I wish to compliment you for coming forward here as a witness admitting that you were a member of the Communist Party, which is far better and a better reflection upon you as an individual and as an American citizen than to hide behind the fifth amendment. But surely while you were a member you recall having paid membership dues.

Mr. Miller. Sir, I would have to answer it in this way, that undoubtedly I did. However, to recall a specific instance—I could not.

Mr. Moulder. Do you recall the name of any one person who attended those meetings at any time? I mean during that long period of time, with the frequent meetings you have admitted that you attended, and the close contact that you had with the individuals, where you say you not only attended meetings, but frequently had lunch or ate meals together or visited with one another and discussed the meetings, surely you could remember the name of at least one person or more that you know, of your own personal knowledge, who associated with you at the same time in that respect.

Mr. Miller. Perhaps I am confused. Perhaps that is the difficulty I have in answering. I was under the impression that the only names which you wished from me, to give out here publicly, would be persons whom I was certain or knew to be Communists.

Mr. Moulder. Right.

Mr. Miller. And it is only for that reason that I do not mention names. It is probable that I could prod my memory into remembering persons whom I met with or worked with while at Boeing’s in the trade unions. But to identify them here gives the impression that I am identifying them as Communists, which I do not know to be a certainty.

Mr. Moulder. Do you recall the names of any persons who attended any of those meetings that you have referred to as Communist Party meetings or as Communist Political Association committee meetings, who were not members of the Communist Party?

Mr. Miller. Sir, I could not be certain of where they were. I mean either way. If I was certain of those who were not members, that, by process of elimination, would make me certain of those who were. And I am not certain either way, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. Mrs. Hartle testified that you were a member of the Holly Park Branch of the Communist Party. Does that refresh your memory to any degree?

Mr. Miller. In relation to what question, sir?

Mr. Wheeler. Do you recall being a member of that unit or cell of the Communist Party?

Mr. Miller. I do not recall any activity in the branch that is mentioned. It is possible that in their records or in their determination that they maybe have regarded me as a member of that branch and that I did reside there.

Mr. Wheeler. You testified that during the period of time of your membership, the Communist Party was dissolved and the Communist Political Association formed. However, when you returned back from the Army in 1946 the Communist Political Association had been disbanded and the Communist Party reformed. A reorganization had taken place and the party had tightened up considerably after the Duclos letter, if you are familiar with that.

But did you notice, upon your return from the Armed Forces, any difference in the structure of the Communist Party?

Mr. Miller. I don’t know that I paid any particular attention, sir. I don’t recall any great activity in the Communist Party after I returned from the service.

Mr. Wheeler. You have also testified that you left the Communist Party in 1948. For what reasons did you leave the party?

Mr. Miller. As to the best of my knowledge, sir, I was dropped from the Communist Party for inactivity.

Mr. Wheeler. Have you attended any other Communist Party-type meetings like the Socialist Workers Party since you left the Communist Party?

Mr. Miller. To be specific, as far as the Socialist Workers Party, I never have. And, to the best of my knowledge, I have attended no meetings of that type, sir.

Mr. Wheeler. And at this time you cannot recall one individual who was a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Miller. Well, I could put it this way: I could recall knowing Barbara Hartle. The only way I could say that she was is that she has publicly testified that she was.

Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions at this time. However, I would like to recommend that the witness’ subpena be continued.

Mr. Moulder. All right.

Do you have a question, Mr. Velde?

Mr. Velde. Yes.

I believe you said you got out of the Army in 1948. Is that correct?

Mr. Miller. To the best of my knowledge, sir.

Mr. Velde. What prompted you to get out of the Communist Party when you did?

Mr. Miller. To the best of my knowledge, the party dropped me for inactivity, sir.

Mr. Velde. You never wrote a letter disavowing membership in the Communist Party then?

Mr. Miller. No, sir, I never did.

Mr. Velde. Or any other formal withdrawal from the Communist Party?

Mr. Miller. Not to my knowledge, sir.

Mr. Velde. Are you a Communist Party member today?

Mr. Miller. No, sir, I am not. And again I have to testify to the best of my knowledge. I hope and trust that no one has me on the rolls unbeknownst to me. To my knowledge, I am not a member, no, sir.

Mr. Velde. I certainly do appreciate your coming forward. It is rather refreshing.

It appears to me that with a little searching of your memory you might be able to recall some of the incidents more clearly than you have. I am sorry to say you are vague in your testimony about activities of the Communist Party in this area. So I will be in favor of the recommendation of Mr. Wheeler that you be retained under subpena so that you might check. If you want any assistance from our files, I am sure Mr. Wheeler will be able to give that to you. Next time you testify you may testify a little more definitely.

Mr. Moulder. For your own benefit and for your own interest, I will ask you this question:

You say, as far as you know, you are no longer a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.

Mr. Moulder. That is with the fear that some organization or someone might still be carrying your name on the rolls.

Mr. Miller. It is a possibility.

Mr. Moulder. Do you publicly, and here and now before this committee, disavow any belief in the Communist Party and refute all of the principles and policies for which it stands? Do you now take that stand, and do you now so testify?

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Miller. The question, as I understand it, is—I mean the question of my avowal of a belief.

I hope I am allowed a little bit of latitude in answering this.

I state I am not a member of the Communist Party today due to any action on my part. I further state that I disavow anything which is contrary to the best interests of our country and of our people. As to pinning it down to the Communist Party, I have to frankly concede that I am not at all sure where the Communist Party is. I mean if the things that are ascribed to them are true, certainly I disavow them. I say that I have no association with them. It is only that I hesitate to disavow anything that I am not sure of.

I am sure of the one thing, that I am opposed to anything that is against the best interests of the people of our country.

Actually, since I was dropped in 1948 I have been inactive in all political activities to the point where I am not even registered to vote, I don’t believe, since 1948. I am confused on where most everybody stands, and I have not enough facts to draw a conclusion on it.

Mr. Moulder. The reason I ask you that question is because there is considerable evidence before this committee and other investigative Government agencies that many Communist Party members ceased to be active as party members but have gone underground and still continue in their same belief, the same philosophy, and with, of course, the same objectives. I believe your answer is clear to this point: you attended all of those Communist Party meetings; I believe you said a hundred, and it would vary one way or another, 50 percent either way.

Mr. Velde. Approximately 40, wasn’t it?

Mr. Miller. That is it.

Mr. Moulder. But during that period of time you certainly must have been well versed and qualified to know the purposes and the policies of the Communist Party as such, because at those meetings didn’t you study the Communist Party literature and study the purposes for which it was organized?

Mr. Miller. Is that the question?

Mr. Moulder. Yes.

Mr. Miller. Yes, I did.

Mr. Moulder. Has your opinion now changed with respect to the Communist Party from what it was when you were attending the Communist Party meetings? Or is it the same as it was then?

Mr. Miller. I see what you are driving at, and it is hard for me to get my understanding across.

Mr. Moulder. You say you have severed your association with the party, and I want to know if it is just a technical disassociation or is it a clean break from the Communist Party?

Mr. Miller. No; it is not a technical disassociation. If I might have a moment, I would like to go on a little further.

First, the reference is to having attended, say, up to 40 meetings, one way or the other, and being aware of the goal of the Communist Party. I would have to say this in all honesty: During the time I was a member of the Communist Party I at no time was aware of their desire to do anything which was contrary to the best interests of the people. Now it could conceivably be that I was not aware, perhaps naive.

All of my activity—and, in fact, that is what prompted me not to take the fifth amendment. At no time in my life have I knowingly done anything contrary to the best interests of the people of this country. And certainly were I to be aware of that in an association and continue activity I would be guilty of doing something against the best interests of the people.

Mr. Moulder. The subpena that has been served upon you will be in full force and effect. You will be subject to recall upon due notice.

Mr. Miller. Should I leave for the day?

Mr. Moulder. Yes.

The subpena will remain in full force and effect, and you will be subject to recall upon due notice at any time in the future. That does not mean, of course, that you have to attend any of the hearings here today or tomorrow.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call Mr. Eugene V. Dennett at this time.

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

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dennett, at the time we suspended your testimony you had completed your narrative with regard to your experience in the CCC camp, and told us that immediately thereafter you had been shanghaied into working shipping.

(At this point Representative Morgan M. Moulder left the hearing room.)

Mr. Dennett. A little freight boat here in Puget Sound.

Mr. Tavenner. I am sure that would be a very interesting story, but it is not a matter we are investigating in our work here.

After you had that experience how long was it before you returned to the work of the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. It was within a very few months because I didn’t know at the time I started to work in the freight-boat industry in Puget Sound that there was an organizing drive of a union to organize the employees and that they had reached the point before I came along where they had entered into an arbitration. And they were awaiting the decision of this arbitrator. Finally the decision came down, I think about 3 or 4 months after I entered the industry, and the decision was so adverse that the men stopped work as soon as the boats got into port.

Mr. Tavenner. What do you mean by saying that a decision came down?

Mr. Dennett. The arbitrator handed down his decision. He was a very long time making his decision. When it finally came down it was very disagreeable to all the employees. In fact, they rejected it; they refused to accept it and called a strike.

When they called that strike they were confronted with a problem of electing delegates to attend a meeting of the union to determine what course of action to pursue.

I was elected a delegate from the crew that I was working with.

When we arrived at this meeting—I believe the meeting was held in the labor temple—we discussed the award, and the union leaders at that time were very frankly disappointed in the results of it.

The sum total of it was that it led to a strike, and the members seemed to like the way I presented their case during the course of the arguments, getting ready for the strike. And when the strike occurred I was elected chairman of the strike committee and chairman of the negotiating committee.

So we were again brought into public attention, and the Communist Party looked me up very quickly to find out what was going on and to try to advise me how to conduct myself in the course of that strike. They really knew very little about it. They learned a great deal from me because I was working with the men. And their advice was I must immediately fight the leadership of the union.

I made a few feeble efforts in that direction and found that I didn’t have any good reason for fighting that leadership because they were carrying out the program which I had advocated in the original strike meeting to satisfy the needs of the members.

Mr. Tavenner. Apparently, the Communist Party was more interested in promoting its own objectives than it was the objectives of the union which was on strike.

Mr. Dennett. They were anxious that someone from the Communist Party gain control in that organization.

Mr. Tavenner. What was the name of the organization?

Mr. Dennett. At that time it was called the Ferry Boatmen’s Union of the Pacific. It later has changed its name, and, in making use of that name, I certainly want it to be clearly understood that using that name in nowise should be construed as meaning that it was any Communist organization because it was not.

Mr. Tavenner. It rather demonstrated just the contrary.

Mr. Dennett. And its leaders were not.

But the leaders of that organization were making as sincere an effort as they knew how to represent the wishes and needs of the membership.

While there were some tactical differences between myself and them on various occasions, we did adopt a program wherein we agreed with each other that none of us would attempt to do anything or to speak in behalf of the organization without conferring with the other. In other words, we made a mutual agreement among ourselves as officials of the strike committee which required the exchange of mutual confidence. And, to the best of my ability, I carried that out, and I think, in all fairness, it should be said that, to the best of their ability, they carried their part out. I think the value of that is demonstrated by the fact that in the final settlement of that strike we succeeded in raising the wages of the freight-boat employees from $49 per month, without any regulation of hours, to a wage of about $150 per month with a regulation of hours and provision for overtime.

Mr. Velde (presiding).

I am not quite clear about this ferry boatmen’s union. Was it a local union not affiliated with any other?

Mr. Dennett. It was a part of an American Federation affiliate. At that time it was the Ferry Boatmen’s Union of the Pacific, affiliated with the International Seamen’s Union of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.

Mr. Velde. In what year?

Mr. Dennett. That was in 1936.

Mr. Velde. How large was the local? How many members?

Mr. Dennett. I think there were in the neighborhood of 300 or 400 members in Puget Sound at that time. But that, of course, controlled all the tug boats and all the barges, all the towing, all the servicing, on the waterside of the smaller vessels.

I think that that completes the statement of what was in progress at the time of the question.

Mr. Tavenner. After this experience on the waterfront what was your next contact with the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. The next occurred in the district council of the Maritime Federation of the Pacific. That was Northwest District Council No. 1 which was in Seattle. This was the council to which delegates were sent from all the maritime unions.

(At this point Representative Morgan M. Moulder returned to the hearing room.)

Mr. Dennett. And some of the shoreside unions, which worked in the shipyards.

These unions were brought together in the 1934 strike, which was before my time. And I would be presuming on you to try to give any testimony about the exact way in which it was formed except to say that, consistent with the Communist Party policy, it was our objective, from the days of the old Marine Workers Industrial Union, which was one of the affiliates of the Red International of Labor Unions, to organize all the maritime workers into one organization.

However, it was the desire of the workers in the industry to choose their membership in the duly constituted, chartered organizations of craft unions which were already in the field, such as the Sailors’ Union of the Pacific, the Marine Firemen, Oilers, Water Tenders and Wipers Association, the Marine Cooks and Stewards of the Pacific.[2] And later on I believe the radio operators, the masters, mates, and pilots,[3] and the marine engineers.[4] Then, of course, the shoreside organizations of longshoremen, machinists and shipwrights, joiners, boilermakers. There were many organizations that were involved in any kind of waterborne traffic.

Through the Maritime Federation of the Pacific all of these were brought together, and, for a brief period of time at least, cooperated quite successfully.

However, by 1935 one organization began to object to the Communist Party influence in the federation. That was the sailors’ union under Harry Lundeberg. However, in that dispute it wasn’t clear to the average person who was in the industry just what the nature of the dispute was, and most people felt that the dispute was a personal dispute between the leaders of the sailors and the leaders of the longshoremen. My own knowledge of the situation, of a later date, would lead me to believe that that is not an adequate explanation of what the dispute was all about.

The dispute ran much deeper than personality clashes. The dispute was a fundamental policy question dispute, and that dispute centered around whether or not the organization would move closer and closer to the Red International of Labor Unions through this new form or whether it would permit itself to separate into the respective component parts and each function separately and independently without that international Red affiliation.

Mr. Tavenner. What was the outcome of that dispute?

Mr. Dennett. The outcome was that the split spread. First one organization and then another began to have misgivings as to the consequences of being full partners in the Maritime Federation of the Pacific.

The first one to show the disaffection were the sailors. Subsequently the marine firemen showed disaffection. Then the master mates and pilots showed disaffection. And the marine engineers showed disaffection. The radio operators began to show some disaffection. Some of the longshoremen showed disaffection.

So the result was that by the time 1937 or 1938 rolled around the Maritime Federation was becoming sort of a bare skeleton which existed with a powerful name but did not have the moral backing and support of the members of the organizations that were affiliated to it.

Mr. Tavenner. Was the organization Communist-dominated?

Mr. Dennett. The Maritime Federation of the Pacific top leadership had at all times some prominent Communist leaders, some persons who were Communists.

Mr. Tavenner. Can you at this time give us the names of those who occupied an official position in that organization who were known to you to be members of the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. One of the first ones that I knew was a man by the name of Walter Stack.

Mr. Tavenner. Did Walter Stack become very prominent in the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. Walter Stack was in the marine firemen’s union and exercised a great deal of influence in that organization here.

Another was Ernest Fox. Ernest Fox was a patrolman in the Sailors Union of the Pacific, and he exercised a great deal of influence in the sailors union. He was one of the original ones. When Mr. Lundeberg was the first president of the organization Mr. Fox was his right hand bower who did most of the leg work for Mr. Lundeberg at that time. Lundeberg was the first president of the Maritime Federation of the Pacific.

Mr. Tavenner. At that time was he anti-Communist?

Mr. Dennett. I think, from the stories that I have been told, that Mr. Lundeberg was thought so well of at that time that he was invited to take part and did participate in some top fraction meetings of the Communist Party in the Maritime Federation. And when he turned against the Communist Party a little bit later on that incensed the Communists so much that they looked upon Mr. Lundeberg as a potential traitor who might reveal a good deal more about them than they wished to have revealed, so that they launched many attacks upon Mr. Lundeberg for the political purpose of diverting the attention from the real reason for the attack.

I do not mean to say by that that I endorsed everything Mr. Lundeberg did, because I disagreed with most of the things he did on a straight trade-union basis on a later date. But this much about that relationship I do know, and I know that—continuing the answer to your question as to the others—the next one whom I knew who also became president of the Maritime Federation of the Pacific was a man by the name of James Engstrom.

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

Mr. Dennett. E-n-g-s-t-r-o-m. Engstrom also came from the Marine Firemen’s Union here in the Seattle branch. Mr. Engstrom exercised powerful influence in the organization. However, he came to a very sad end in his relationships there because, for some reason or other, he began to have some difficulty following the Communist Party line and instructions, and ultimately took a vacation, went to Alaska, thought the situation over, and I believe that he informed some Federal Government agency of his connection and relationship at that time, and severed his connection or resigned from his position, and what happened to him after that I do not know.

Mr. Velde. I am not clear on this probably because I am not up on my organization of labor unions as well as I should be.

Was the Sailors Union of the Pacific a part of the unit within the federation?

Mr. Dennett. Yes, it was affiliated.

Mr. Velde. It was not a new organization then when it split off under——

Mr. Dennett. No. The Sailors Union of the Pacific is one of the oldest organizations on the west coast, founded originally by old Andrew Furuseth.

Mr. Velde. Is the same true of the other organizations that split from the federation? Were they at one time units within the federation?

Mr. Dennett. Yes, they were. Later on there was a man that became an official in the Maritime Federation, by the name of Pringle, P-r-i-n-g-l-e. I do not remember his first name. Pringle occupied a high position in the federation. I do not recall at this moment the exact position, but I do know that when I had business to transact on behalf of the Ferry Boatsmen’s Union at that time, as it was known, I had to deal with Mr. Pringle. And he was a member of the party also.

Later on I came to know another person who later became president of the Maritime Federation, and was the last president to the best of my recollection, a man by the name of Bruce Hannon, H-a-n-n-o-n. Mr. Bruce Hannon was a longshoreman from the city of Seattle, worked on the Seattle waterfront for a good many years. Mr. Hannon also came into conflict with the Communist Party policy while he was a member of the Communist Party, and totally disagreed with the decision to wipe out the Maritime Federation.

The policy decision arrived at on that question was due to the fact that the CIO was coming into existence in 1937, and it was the belief of the Communist Party that if the Maritime Federation were dissolved and liquidated that the affiliates of it would form a very good, solid, and substantial core of the new CIO organization and would be able to take all the fishermen unions with it into the CIO.

Mr. Hannon did not agree with that policy. He felt that the Maritime Federation still had a function to perform and it should not have been liquidated. And he came into violent dispute with the party leadership over that question. How it was finally resolved I do not know. I did not see Mr. Hannon until after the war, and I met him one day very casually and he did not at that time express anything definitive which I could contribute now to enlighten anyone as to what he felt except to say that he was still bitter.

Mr. Tavenner. As a result of that change of emphasis on the part of the Communist Party, that is, from the Maritime Federation to its component parts, which were to form another organization, was the Maritime Federation of the Pacific disbanded?

Mr. Dennett. That is right.

Mr. Tavenner. Can you give us the approximate date?

Mr. Dennett. To the best of my recollection, it would be right around 1938 or 1939. I may be a little bit off one year or another there, but it is close to that date.

Mr. Tavenner. During this period, between the time that you were shanghaied on a boat here in Seattle and 1938, did you engage in any other activities in the Communist Party not connected with maritime affairs?

Mr. Dennett. I certainly did. I was sent as a delegate from the Inlandboatmen’s Union.[5] The name didn’t become Inlandboatmen until much later, but I think of it now in that term. The name actually was Ferry Boatmen’s Union at that time.

As a result of the successful conduct of our strike in 1936, the members and the good relationship which was established between the officers and myself, the officers agreed with the membership in electing me a delegate to represent the organization in the Central Labor Council. And that, of course, involved attending a weekly meeting every Wednesday night in the labor temple.

Mr. Tavenner. Where?

Mr. Dennett. In Seattle.

Mr. Tavenner. Just tell us very briefly what the Central Labor Council was.

Mr. Dennett. It was the city organization to which all American Federation of Labor affiliates were affiliated, and sent delegates to discuss their mutual business weekly.

Mr. Tavenner. Did the fact that you were sent there as a delegate make you a member of the Central Labor Council?

Mr. Dennett. It did. Because of my activity in the Maritime Federation District Council, the delegates there, most of whom were also delegates to the Central Labor Council, elected me chairman of the maritime caucus which was comprised of all those affiliates from the maritime unions who were also affiliates of the Central Labor Council. There was a duplication of affiliation there, and I was elected chairman of that caucus. As that chairman, I was able to speak in behalf of that caucus—all those maritime delegates—which was the largest caucus at that time in the Central Labor Council.

Consequently, when I arose to speak the chairman of the Central Labor Council would recognize me rather than recognize any other member of the caucus because he was recognizing the duly elected leadership of the caucus. Consequently, it was my function to represent that caucus on the floor of the Central Labor Council on all important questions, which I did. And it caused a great deal of attention to be focused on my work and on the work of the maritime unions.

We were trying our level best to support the policies which the Communist Party urged upon us, and that pertained especially to the question of war, fighting the program of involvement in war at that time. It involved being very critical of the top leadership of the American Federation of Labor, which many other people criticized as well as we, and by we, I mean the Communists were not the only ones that criticized; many of the rank-and-file members who had no knowledge of Communist Party policy or activity were also critical. But because of this similarity of criticism, the Communists, knowing where they were going, were able to direct this criticism along very effective lines. And I was a central instrument in that effort in the Central Labor Council in the city of Seattle.

Mr. Tavenner. As a result of your experience on the Central Labor Council were you selected for other organizational work in the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. Yes, I was.

Mr. Tavenner. What was the nature of your work?

Mr. Dennett. The Communist Party recognized that the position which I was attaining in the Central Labor Council represented a powerful political influence in the city because the city of Seattle at that time had the reputation of being the best organized labor city in the United States of America. There was hardly an industry that was not actually organized in some labor union, holding bona fide labor-union contracts with its management or employer. And the city had a very wide reputation in that respect. Some people looked upon that as good; some people looked upon it as bad. The Communist Party looked upon it as being very good because it provided us an opportunity to reach every single worker in the city indirectly.

Mr. Tavenner. Would you say that as a result of your successful efforts while a member of the Central Labor Council, you took part in other Communist Party activities?

Mr. Dennett. That is true.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you describe the nature of those activities?

Mr. Dennett. It was in the Washington Commonwealth Federation, which was an organization which came into existence, the elements of it came into existence, prior to my coming from the CCC’s. But this organization originally grew out of the transformation from the unemployed to the employed workers. And people built what was known as Commonwealth Builder Clubs. And then, of course, you recall that in that earlier period, 1933, there was a change of political administration due to a national election. And in that period there were a group of young, ambitious politicians who wanted to get elected to public office. There were many young aspiring graduates of college who felt that they had a contribution to make, and they sought audiences before these respective organizations to win political favor, make speeches and otherwise become publicly known so that when they did choose to file as a candidate for public office that they could expect enough support to get elected.

These Commonwealth Builders ultimately merged and formed what was known as the Washington Commonwealth Federation.

Mr. Tavenner. Was there anything of a Communist origin that you know of in the establishment of the Commonwealth Builders?

Mr. Dennett. No. To the best of my knowledge, this was a result of the efforts of people who were not directed or led by the Communist Party. However, their efforts met with such sweeping success that the Communist Party had to concern itself if it was going to remain a political factor.

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, the Communist Party in order to become the leader in the field which it desired, would have to get control of such organizations. Is that what you mean?

Mr. Dennett. Absolutely. We recognized that. And since being pushed into leadership in various activities in the city, it fell to me to do a lot of this representative work of the Communist Party in the ranks of the Washington Commonwealth Federation, because the prestige I had in the Inland Boatmen’s Union as a result of the successful strike made it a comparatively simple matter for the members to elect me a delegate and be a bona fide representative of a bona fide labor union in the Washington Commonwealth Federation.

Mr. Tavenner. Without going into detail, will you tell us what the connection was, between the Commonwealth Builders and the Washington Commonwealth Federation, or how one may have succeeded the other?

Mr. Dennett. The Commonwealth Builders were the groups of small organizations which preceded the Washington Commonwealth Federation. The Communist Party became interested in the success of Commonwealth Builders and brought forth some proposals to cause the organization to expand and grow.

One of the proposals of the Communist Party was that steps should be taken by the Commonwealth Builders to make possible the affiliation not only of neighborhood groups alone——

Mr. Tavenner. Neighborhood groups of what?

Mr. Dennett. Of either Democrats or Commonwealth Builders, or unemployed organizations or Workers Alliance. There are still a few remnants of those, remnants of the old Unemployed Citizens League organizations. These had all transformed and became the foundation upon which the Commonwealth Builders rested.

The Communist Party, however, conceived that if the organization were to become as powerful as it should and ought to be, that provision should be made for the affiliation of larger organizations. And the Communist Party succeeded in prevailing upon most of its members to enter the American Federation of Labor unions. Consequently it was a simple matter to introduce resolutions in numerous labor unions urging that the American Federation of Labor unions affiliate with the Washington Commonwealth Federation. At the same time they proposed the calling of a convention to broaden the base of the organization of this Commonwealth Builders.

That was done. And the Washington Commonwealth Federation was brought into existence as an organization with affiliation from large numbers of unions in addition to Democratic clubs and unemployed clubs and fraternal organizations. Anything and everything which was willing to affiliate was certainly welcomed and urged to affiliate to the organization, pay dues, participate in its conventions, participate in the electoral activities it engaged in.

Mr. Tavenner. The method that the Communist Party used to assist in the organization of the Washington Commonwealth Federation was to induce the leadership of the particular organizations which they were members of, such as the various labor organizations that you mentioned——

Mr. Dennett. They would raise perfectly legitimate reasons which any ordinary person would recognize as proper.

Mr. Tavenner. And they brought their influence to bear on the formation of the organization through that method.

Mr. Dennett. That is right.

Mr. Tavenner. As a result of that action did you say a convention was held?

Mr. Dennett. A convention of the Commonwealth Builders was held, which changed the name to Washington Commonwealth Federation.

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

Mr. Dennett. Because of that affiliation of whole organizations which were not geographical in nature—take a labor union: It was not geographical in nature; it was a complete affiliate without having geographical definition whereas a Democratic club in a particular district or a particular part of the city was restricted to a particular area.

I say the federation part became a necessary part of the title because of the nature of the changed affiliations.

Mr. Tavenner. Before the name was changed what was the title?

Mr. Dennett. Commonwealth Builders.

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, it was a conversion of Commonwealth Builders into an overall organization.

Mr. Dennett. It was.

Mr. Tavenner. Titled “Washington Commonwealth Federation.”

Mr. Dennett. That is true.

Mr. Moulder. The committee will stand in recess for approximately 5 minutes.

(Whereupon a short recess was taken.)

(Representatives Moulder and Velde were present upon reconvening at the expiration of the recess.)

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dennett, I think you have made it clear in your testimony that the Commonwealth Builders were not organized by the Communist Party and that there was very little, if any, Communist Party influence within those affiliated organizations as such. Am I correct in that?

Mr. Dennett. Well, that is essentially correct.

Mr. Tavenner. I want to be certain as to what the picture is with regard to the Washington Commonwealth Federation which succeeded; that is, whether or not at the inception of that organization it was heavily controlled by the Communist Party.

Mr. Dennett. No; it was not. And, as a matter of fact, it was quite anti-Communist at the very beginning.

Mr. Tavenner. The original method used by the Communist Party to become entrenched in the federation was through the various organizations which were affiliated with it.

Mr. Dennett. Through the process of building the organization larger and bringing into affiliation organizations in which it did have influence and ultimately getting top influence in the WCF.

Mr. Tavenner. I think that explains it.

You made reference to a convention that was being called. When and where was the convention held? That is, the convention of the Washington Commonwealth Federation.

Mr. Dennett. In the year 1936 it held two conventions. One was in April and another one was later in the year. The one in April was concerned with several important questions. It was the largest convention of any of the WCF conventions that I ever attended, and I understood it was the largest convention ever held. It was in Everett, Wash., in April 1936.

It must be remembered that 1936 was a Presidential campaign. The political situation in the whole country was quite alive. Many new people were rising in the political sphere. And, of course, the Washington Commonwealth Federation was an open and ready instrument through which ambitious political persons could make their first bid for public office and fame.

Many of them did so. Many young graduates of the university did so. I have very little personal knowledge about them, and I wish to make sure that you understand, and everyone else does, that I am not referring to these persons as Communists. They are not. And I make no inference of that kind. I simply recite the fact that here was an organization which was capable of exerting a great deal of political power, and it attracted all persons who had political ambitions. As a matter of fact, there were some Republicans as well as Democrats and Independents who beat a path to the door of the Washington Commonwealth Federation to obtain political endorsement.

Now this convention in 1936, in April, had before it several important policy questions. At that particular time the Communist Party had to exercise its influence by indirection. The top leadership of the federation were not Communists at that time.

The Communist Party was striving to obtain an endorsement of that federation convention which would call for the organization of either a farmer-labor party or a new independent political party. In other words, our effort, speaking of the Communists, was to drive the federation into making a completely new, independent, separate political organization. However, our plans were dependent upon approval from the central committee of the Communist Party. And the central committee of the Communist Party kept us dangling on the end of a string for many, many weeks prior to the opening of this convention.

The reason they kept us dangling on a string was that nationally the Communist Party wanted to see organized and wanted to have a part in organizing a new national organization which would be separate from and independent from the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. And it hoped to attract all persons known as liberals or progressives to support and participate in such an organization. But its chief difficulty was to obtain some national figure of great prominence to lead the thing to give it the initiative and give it the original sendoff that it needed to draw the strength necessary to win something in the next election.

The party leadership felt that the person most capable of accomplishing that purpose and fulfilling that objective was the then Governor of Minnesota. I think it is Minnesota. Yes. His name was Floyd Olson. He was Governor there. And he was a Farmer-Labor Governor there.

The very designation lent itself to the spreading of a nationwide farmer-labor party. And it was the original hope of the Communist Party that through various forms of manipulation——

It was the Olson from Minnesota. I am quite sure, thinking back on it now, it was Floyd.

But be that as it may, it was the Governor Olson of Minnesota who was Governor in 1936 as a Farmer-Labor Governor.

However, at the very last moment when we had the resolution all ready to press before the convention, we finally received word that this Governor Olson was not well enough to undertake the job of organizing a new national farmer-labor party because of ill health, and begged off from the responsibility. Nationally, we were unable to find another figure of as much prominence whom we thought would be capable of leading such a successful effort. Consequently, we had to whip our party machinery into shape rather rapidly and change our tactics right on the floor of the WCF convention, and reverse ourselves in the process of debating the question.

Actually the resolutions committee had come in with a report in which a majority had objected to going the independent route. But I was one of the delegates who was in the minority who was leading a fight for going the independent route. And in the process of starting the debate we got the official word that it was a hopeless task, and we had to withdraw that effort.

We made a last-minute switch in our strategy and tactics, and some of those who had been fighting us so vigorously on the floor were completely dumfounded to find that we compromised—what appeared to be a compromise—when we changed our policy during the course of the debate on the resolution itself and withdrew our minority position.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you change your policy as a result of directions from the Communist Party head in New York?

Mr. Dennett. Yes. And the district organizer of the party was in the anteroom of the convention hall, sending word and direction to those of us who were up near the microphone who had an opportunity to command the microphone and the debate. And there were runners running back and forth to us rather rapidly telling us what the latest news of the party line was.

And the executive secretary of the Commonwealth Federation at that time was a man by the name of Howard Costigan who became somewhat alarmed to see such an obvious maneuver where between 15 and 20 different people were running back and forth passing messages to me and to others up in the front from Rappaport advising us what the official party policy was. He later on commented that he could see the party line running all over the place, but he didn’t know what was in it.

Mr. Tavenner. Was Howard Costigan a member of the Communist Party at that time?

Mr. Dennett. Not at that time.

But that demonstration of power that we exercised in that convention was very convincing to him that if he wanted to remain as head of that organization he would have to make his peace with us, which he did before that summer was over.

Mr. Tavenner. And did he become a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. He did.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I think the record should show that Mr. Howard Costigan has appeared before the committee and has testified regarding some of the matters which have been mentioned here, including the fact that he did become a member of the Communist Party at about the time indicated by this witness, and at a later time, at approximately 1940, he left the Communist Party.

Mr. Dennett. I could substantiate that.

There was another matter which arose as a serious issue in that convention, and it concerned a proposal for an initiative measure which became known as the production-for-use initiative.

Many people, because of the Communist Party influence in the unemployed days, were quite concerned and alarmed over the problem of unemployment, insecurity, possible impoverishment, et cetera. All the consequences of economic dislocation. They had read many of the so-called utopian pieces of literature such as Bellamy’s Looking Backward and other documents of the kind. They had also read Mr. Upton Sinclair’s program in California. They were somewhat acquainted with the propaganda of the Soviet Union, to the effect that production-for-use was the solution to the problems of capitalist lack of planning. In other words, planned economy.

Mr. Velde. Mr. Dennett, you testified that you received the party line by courier, by runners from Rappaport. Do you have any idea how Rappaport received it from headquarters of the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. Yes. Sometimes he received it by telegraph. In this particular instance, about this Governor Olson, he received that by telegram.

Mr. Velde. Was there any secrecy involved, especially at that time?

Mr. Dennett. No; there was no secrecy in that communication. As a matter of fact, they took parallel measures to see that somebody in Governor Olson’s staff also sent word to Howard Costigan directly. He also received the word. So that there was parallel information. At least we did make that concession to Costigan, that he would have official information about it.

Mr. Tavenner. Did the rank-and-file membership of the Washington Commonwealth Federation know of the Communist Party manipulations which you have just described?

Mr. Dennett. I am quite sure that most of them did not, although the behavior of many of the Democratic Party leaders at that convention would lead me to believe that they suspected it, because they fought us so bitterly and so hard.

Mr. Tavenner. Proceed, please.

Mr. Dennett. The story on the production-for-use initiative is simply this:

Because there was such a popular demand for some change in the economic situation to assure continued production and a cooperative effort, many people tried to translate an ideal of a cooperative commonwealth into some form of legislative effort. This resulted in many conferences and the calling in of legal talent to try to draft a measure which would be legal and which would satisfy the ambitions of the people to have the so-called dream of a cooperative commonwealth organization.

Mr. Tavenner. Describe in a practical sense what production-for-use meant?

Mr. Dennett. I wish I could satisfy you completely on that point because that is one of the problems we ran into in trying to draw up this initiative measure.

We could never satisfy ourselves that we had it satisfactorily organized. However, the staff who worked on it worked long and hard and finally produced a measure which was known as the production-for-use initiative. It was ready for presentation to that convention. However, some of us in the Communist Party, while we agreed that such a measure was a good propaganda weapon and felt that it was an excellent means of popularizing the ideas which we understood and claimed were the basis of the operation of the economy in the Soviet Union, we were startled when we read the document and found that it sounded a little bit more like the Fascist corporate state that the Italian leader Mussolini had established. We became so alarmed about it, and were so perplexed that we asked a very world-famous person, who happened to be a guest of the convention, what this person thought about it.

The person to whom I refer is Anna Louise Strong, who had just come from the Soviet Union, extended greetings to us, to the convention, and otherwise gave a very enlightening report on her travels, and won wide acclaim for that effort.

Mr. Tavenner. Did she, on the floor of the convention, address herself to the problem of production-for-use?

Mr. Dennett. She did not. Not at that moment. She spoke only in general terms about it, referring to it in a complimentary way and hoping for success. But at that moment she did not know very much about what was in that document.

However, we felt that she, coming from the Soviet Union with fresh knowledge, might know quite a lot about it and might be able to assist us in revising the document so that it would be possible to satisfy us that it was, in fact, a step in the direction of a cooperative commonwealth.

So she consented very graciously to take the document and work on it overnight. She did exactly that. And we read it the next morning, and, much to our surprise, she had moved the emphasis in the control even more in the direction of top control and less in the direction of allowing the members or the organizations to have anything to say about it, which was just the reverse of the trend that we had hoped for.

Consequently, we began to ask ourselves, that is, the Communists asked themselves, if this is the end result of an effort to draw up an initiative, maybe it would be smarter politically for us to see that this measure dies aborning. Consequently, we came to the conclusion that it was impossible to draw up an initiative measure which would be adequate and which would answer our propaganda needs and our desires to satisfy us that it was in harmony with our program. So we embarked upon a campaign in the course of the election——

Mr. Tavenner. Was this a campaign to pass the proposed measure or to defeat it?

Mr. Dennett. Well, we all went out presumably to win support to get the measure adopted. That is, it was an initiative measure and it was before the voters. The voters were to cast a vote yes or no on this initiative.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Dennett. My counsel asked me if I knew the number of it, and I have forgotten the exact number of that initiative at this moment. So I can’t furnish that. I wish I could. It is a matter of official record, however, and it can be verified if anyone is curious about it.

The Communist Party found itself in that predicament. We were committed to support the measure, but we were determined to bring about its defeat. Consequently, we campaigned far and wide all over the State of Washington, explaining the measure in such a way as to convince the people that they should not vote for it.

At the same time we represented ourselves as campaigning for the measure.

And we did it so successfully that the measure was defeated. If we hadn’t of done it I am afraid it would have been adopted.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Dennett. My counsel asked me who was the “we.”

I am referring to the Communist Party in that instance.

The leaders of the Washington Commonwealth Federation were terribly disturbed by the nature of the campaign that we were carrying on, that is, the Communists.

Mr. Tavenner. I should think it would be a rather confusing campaign where the Communist Party, in order to defeat it, actually supported it.

Mr. Dennett. That is true. It was very confusing to everyone, even to us at times.

Mr. Tavenner. That is a very interesting thing. The Communist Party, in order to defeat this measure, went out and conducted a state-wide campaign in favor of it. But in order to accomplish its defeat, if I understand you correctly, the Communist Party so represented the issues that people would be bound to vote against it.

Mr. Dennett. That is true.

Mr. Moulder. I understood the situation to be that because of Communist Party support of the measure, the public sentiment opposed it.

Mr. Dennett. Not necessarily so, sir, because they didn’t know that we who were speaking were Communists. They thought we were representatives of the Washington Commonwealth Federation.

Mr. Moulder. Proceed.

Mr. Dennett. There is triple deception in this maneuver, which is rather hard to follow. I hope I have explained it.

Mr. Tavenner. I am afraid that the point may not be absolutely clear in the record, and I want to be sure that it is clear:

If I understand you correctly, it was not the fact that the Communist Party was supporting this measure that caused its defeat.

Mr. Dennett. You are correct, sir. That was not the reason. It was the way we, as disguised Communists, carried on the campaign, ostensibly for it, but, in fact, against it.

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, your representations were of such a character as to make known the weaknesses in the bill; and a person would actually think you were supporting it.

Mr. Dennett. True. You understand it quite clearly.

Mr. Tavenner. I think the bill was properly named when you used the word “initiative” because that certainly is the use of initiative. I am glad to know it is Communist Party initiative. It is a very deceptive type of campaign.

Mr. Dennett. Mr. Tavenner and Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one observation about my testimony earlier this afternoon.

I get the feeling, and I have a fear that perhaps people listening to this presentation might think that because of my testimony I was the only figure who was active in the Washington Commonwealth Federation carrying on this activity.

I hope that no one assumes that because I was one of a team. There were several others.

Mr. Tavenner. Who composed the team?

Mr. Dennett. Well, I didn’t mean to bring that up because I don’t like to have to do that. But I was fearful that people might think I was too much of a braggart in this thing, and I don’t mean to be because it is all ancient history and I am simply trying to furnish such information as I know of my own knowledge about that experience so that other people may comprehend it in full.

Mr. Tavenner. I am sure, Mr. Dennett, that the committee, having heard as many witnesses as it has on the subject of communism, recognizes that it is teamwork that has enabled the Communist Party to get where it is, rather than grandstand playing.

Who were the other members of the team?

Mr. Dennett. Well, that takes me into a description of the district bureau of the Communist Party in that particular period.

As I look back over it I might call it the golden age of the Communist Party’s efforts in the Northwest because it did at that time enjoy, that is, the leaders of the Communist Party did enjoy a relationship among each other and among themselves, and in the organizations to which each were members—they did enjoy a very full and rich democratic experience in procedure.

This, I think, was due largely to the efforts of Mr. Morris Rappaport who was the district organizer whom I mentioned earlier, who had, by his adroitness in calling the political moves, established himself in the eyes of the central committee of the Communist Party of the United States as a person capable of directing the political activities in the Northwest without the need of daily supervision on the part of national headquarters of the Communist Party. In other words, they did accord him the recognition that comes of confidence that he knew what he was doing and was capable of carrying it out.

And I am quite certain that the way he coordinated the efforts of each of us in the district bureau at that time were so gratifying to the central committee that most of the members of the central committee didn’t dare to try to interfere with our efforts for fear that they might be responsible for upsetting the applecart so to speak.

Now in that team were, first of all, Mr. Morris Rappaport, the district organizer. His right-hand man, who was also the trade-union secretary of the district, was a man known to me by the name of Henry or Harry Jackson. I know that that is not his real name, but I do not know what his real name was. That was his party name. That is the only name I knew him by in this area.

Mr. Tavenner. How long was he in this area?

Mr. Dennett. He came shortly after Morris Rappaport came.

Mr. Tavenner. Did he come from New York?

Mr. Dennett. He did. His original home was San Francisco.

Mr. Tavenner. I am sure we know him.

Mr. Dennett. Mr. Jackson had his early training in the Marine Workers Industrial Union organizing maritime workers. He came here originally for that purpose, and then his assignment was switched to that of trade-union secretary for the district in the Northwest.

I was one of his closest associates because I was footloose and free and available to carry the Jimmy Higgins load that had to be carried at that time. We were working daily and devoting all of our time to that effort.

We had a few people who were prominent in the University of Washington at that time who were active members of our district bureau. One was Mr. Harold Ebey, E-b-e-y.

And another was Mr. Hugh DeLacy.

Mr. Tavenner. Was he at one time a Member of Congress?

Mr. Dennett. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, he is the same person who was called as a witness before this committee at Dayton, Ohio, in September 1954, and who refused to answer material questions on the ground that to do so might tend to incriminate him.

Mr. Dennett. I mentioned Mr. DeLacy’s name with a great deal of regret because I was a very close associate of Mr. DeLacy and I had a great deal of respect for him, and he for me. It is only under the compulsion of the subpena and the fact that I am testifying and I have to testify when I mention his name. I do so with regret. I wish the rules were such that it wasn’t necessary because it is a source of great embarrassment to me. But I feel that I owe a big obligation to the men that I work for, and, under the rules as constituted by this committee and the way it is operating, I have no choice in the matter.

I make my apologies to Mr. DeLacy for having to do this. I regret it. But at the same time, in the long run, I don’t think it is going to hurt him, and I think it may do him some good. I hope so.

Others who were prominent in the district bureau were, of course, Mr. Howard Costigan, Mr. Jess Fletcher, Mr. William K. Dobbins, Mr. Karley Larsen.

Mr. Tavenner. Let me make this suggestion to you.

If you know whether any of these persons whose names you have mentioned, testified publicly before this or other committees and acknowledged their Communist Party membership and a withdrawal from the Communist Party, I think you should state it.

Mr. Dennett. I can state that about three persons whom I know. I know that Mr. Jess Fletcher separated from the Communist Party, and he has testified in a number of instances. He began testifying before the Canwell committee when he was separated from the Communist Party and from his union as a consequence of that fight. He later testified before a number of Government agencies in a number of court cases.

Mr. Howard Costigan testified before this committee. I read his testimony in the proceedings which have been published by the committee.

Mr. Harold Ebey also appeared before the Canwell committee and testified there. He is out of the Communist Party and has been for quite a considerable period of time. At least, I believe, since this period 1936, 1937, and 1938.

Costigan is out of the Communist Party. He left shortly after later political difficulties arose, which I will soon get into.

There may have been a few others who were in and out of the district bureau. This district bureau was the leading body, the leading organ in the district. It was the top body which had the top authority to determine party policy in this area.

At one time I believe there were about 12 or 14 members of this bureau. It may have been confined to nine. I have some recollection that there were nine members officially on the bureau, but there were a few who were candidates. That is, they were the next alternates to become members in the event of any vacancy on the bureau so that we could always have a reserve to fill any vacancies which might occur.

That district bureau covered the Northwest area which were the States of, at that time, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska.

Mr. Tavenner. Do I understand you to mean that it was that group of individuals who took the leadership in the work within the Washington Commonwealth Federation?

Mr. Dennett. Yes; they did.

Mr. Rappaport could not directly participate in the work of the Washington Commonwealth Federation because he was what was generally called the face of the party. He was the official representative of the party. And the Washington Commonwealth Federation, even though there were Communist leaders in it, it at no time accepted an affiliation from the Communist Party, and it at no time would acknowledge a Communist as a Communist in the organization unless it be someone like Rappaport who had the authority to represent the party as such.

By that I mean that if I presented myself to the Washington Commonwealth Federation to speak on any matter or to urge anything before its body, I could not speak in the name of the Communist Party even though other members of that executive board may know that I was a member of the Communist Party. I could not speak as a Communist. I could only speak as a member of that executive board, and it was the presumption that I was representing the affiliate from which I had been sent as a delegate.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, which of these Communist Party bureau members became officials in the Washington Commonwealth Federation.

Mr. Dennett. Mr. Costigan already was an official. He was the executive secretary.

Mr. DeLacy became the president of the Washington Commonwealth Federation.

I became the vice president of the Washington Commonwealth Federation.

Mr. Harold Ebey served in some advisory capacity. I think that he came from a teachers’ union affiliate at that time.

Mr. Dobbins was a member there, but I do not recall the exact relation that he held to obtain his position.

Mr. Karley Larsen was a leader there by virtue of the fact that he was a leader in the Northern Washington District Council of the International Woodworkers of America.

Mr. Tavenner. It would seem that the Communist Party had complete control of the organization.

Mr. Dennett. We had another person there who is now deceased, but I don’t think that it gives a complete picture without mentioning him, and that is Mr. William Pennock, because Bill Pennock was the workhorse. Bill Pennock carried the load. He was a very efficient man, one of the fastest shorthand artists that I ever knew, and was capable of keeping up with the fast pace that Mr. Costigan set.

Mr. Pennock deserves honorable mention for the work that he did in that setup.

Mr. Tavenner. What position did Pennock hold in the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. He attended the bureau meetings, but I do not remember exactly whether he was a member of the bureau. But he attended most of the bureau meetings by virtue of the fact that he became the head of the pension union which was one of the big affiliates of the Washington Commonwealth Federation.

Mr. Tavenner. You have given a very full description of how the Communist Party maneuvered to capture this organization.

Why was the Communist Party so interested in obtaining control of the Washington Commonwealth Federation?

Mr. Dennett. Because we wanted to ultimately obtain political power for the Communist Party in the United States of America.

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. Tavenner. In the same manner, I assume, that you were attempting to gain power for the Communist Party in every other field of endeavor.

Mr. Dennett. Of course.

My counsel has suggested that I indicate the total membership of the Washington Commonwealth Federation in that period.

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, I think you should.

Mr. Dennett. I am unable to give that in exact numbers, but I can give you a proportionate situation which may indicate something of value.

It was our estimate and the result of our study from the election returns of the candidates that we endorsed and the propositions that we supported——

Mr. Tavenner. When you say “we” are you speaking of the Communist Party or the Washington Commonwealth?

Mr. Dennett. The Washington Commonwealth Federation.

It was our estimate that it was capable of influencing and obtaining the vote of one-third of the members who voted in the Democratic Party slate or side of the ticket. And because of that fact and because we were in a higher state of mobilization than the rest of the Democratic Party, when primaries came along we could exercise a more direct influence in the primaries than anybody else because our members in the Washington Commonwealth Federation had a greater zeal and a greater devotion to carrying out their objectives than the other Democrats who frequently relied upon making their decisions in the general elections.

Mr. Moulder. What do you mean by other Democrats?

Mr. Dennett. Those who voted in the Democratic Party who were not members of the Washington Commonwealth Federation through affiliation.

Mr. Moulder. How many Communists would you estimate were members of the Washington Commonwealth Federation?

Mr. Dennett. The nearest I can give you by indication of that is that in the period 1937-38, the high point of membership in the Communist Party, as I recall the reports made to the district bureau by the organization secretary, was in the neighborhood of 5,500 members of the Communist Party in the Northwest, in the 3 States of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and Alaska, the Territory of Alaska. Those 5,500 members of course, were scattered throughout all the other organizations in the Northwest. And I am firmly of the belief that fully 90 to 95 percent of that were members of the Washington Commonwealth Federation through affiliations of one kind or another.

(At this point Representative Morgan M. Moulder left the hearing room.)

Mr. Tavenner. Did the Washington Commonwealth Federation extend throughout the entire 12th district, or, that is, in the Northwest area? Or was it confined only to the State of Washington?

Mr. Dennett. It was confined to the State of Washington. However, there were some efforts made in the State of Oregon to develop an Oregon Commonwealth Federation, but I have no direct knowledge of that, and I would be unqualified to give you any testimony about it because I did not participate in it and I do not know the people who did.

Mr. Velde (presiding). Did your district committee of the Communist Party, however, have representatives from Alaska and from Oregon?

Mr. Dennett. No, there was no territorial representation like that. The representatives of the district bureau of the Communist Party were chosen because of their capability as political leaders, not because of any particular area that they came from. And it was determined largely by their ability to influence public opinion and to intervene in the decision of public affairs.

Mr. Velde. Did the district bureau act for the 12th district of the Communist Party?

Mr. Dennett. Yes, it did.

Mr. Velde. But were they all from the State of Washington?

Mr. Dennett. That is true. I think perhaps it is necessary at this point to clear up one little problem of organizational structure that existed in the Communist Party at that time.

It was not based upon territory. Representatives of the higher committees did not have to come from any particular territory. They were chosen because of their availability and their influencing ability to carry the party policy into the mass organizations or before the public.

Mr. Velde. Were they actually chosen by the national committee of the Communist Party.

Mr. Dennett. Not in this district they were not, no.

Mr. Velde. Just how were they chosen?

Mr. Dennett. Well, that is another organizational problem of interorganization of the Communist Party which is rather difficult for persons not familiar with it to comprehend. But let me try to do it as briefly as possible this way.

When I first came into the Communist Party the usual procedure was something that went under the title of “Cooption.” Cooption meant that the district organizer could appoint anybody he wanted to the district committee or to the district bureau and could call them in to serve, and everybody else had to accept such a person as being a fully qualified member of that body. In other words, it was a handpicked staff which represented the wishes of that particular leader who held the authority at that time. That was the process of cooption in the event of a vacancy. He could appoint someone to fill that vacancy, and he did so. It was his responsibility to do so.

However, with the rise of Hitler Germany, the trials of the Reichstag, an international leader by the name of Dimitrov acquired world fame because, in his defense against the frameup which Goering tried to put over on him, he learned that the Communist tactics and the Communist policies in Germany had turned the masses of German workers against the Communist Party and had resulted or had certainly played a part in contributing to making it possible for Hitler Germany to result with Hitler’s ascension to power.

Therefore, Mr. Dimitrov, when offered asylum by the Soviet Government, immediately went to work for the Comintern, and, in that capacity as leader of the Comintern, brought forth what was known as a new line. And that new line called for introducing the practice of democracy into the ranks of the Communist Party organization. He urged and advised that the practice of cooption be abolished, and that the higher committees be elected by a democratic process. And he, in fact, insisted that that must be done in all countries where the party was not illegal.

Recognizing that it was not possible to hold conventions where the party was illegal, and that applied especially to the United States, when Mr. Rappaport came to this district he tried his best to follow out the decisions which were laid down by the Communist International and the national headquarters of the Communist Party, and that practice of electing the leadership was followed. However, at the district convention there was always a nominating committee who carefully screened the names of persons who were being proposed for leadership or election to these committees, and, in doing so, succeeded in accomplishing the original result, only satisfying ourselves that we were practicing democracy.

Mr. Velde. What year did that change take place, Mr. Dennett?

Mr. Dennett. Right around 1936.

Mr. Tavenner. So the matter of making nominations through a committee was a mere matter of form.

(At this point Representative Morgan M. Moulder returned to the hearing room.)

Mr. Dennett. The district organizers still carefully looked it over and still had a controlling influence there. But in this particular case Mr. Rappaport exercised his influence not in any arbitrary way but in a convincing way, because we all recognized that his broader experience and his tremendous capacity for work equipped him to give us the benefit of better wisdom than we had.

Mr. Tavenner. Going back to the Washington Commonwealth Federation, you were asked a question as to what the membership of the Communist Party was in the district. Do you know what the membership of the Communist Party was in the State of Washington at that time?

Mr. Dennett. Well, most of that membership was in the State of Washington. And I don’t know the exact number, but I think it would be quite safe to say that around 85 to 90 percent of it was in the State of Washington.

Mr. Tavenner. How long did the Communist Party succeed in bringing its influence to bear on political elections through this organization known as the Washington Commonwealth Federation?

Mr. Dennett. Until the international situation became unstable in about the year 1938.

Mr. Tavenner. How did the international situation affect political matters locally here in the State of Washington as far as the Communist Party was concerned?

Mr. Dennett. The Communist Party had as one of its principal objectives and one of its chief propaganda weapons, which it used upon other persons of political mindedness, that the Communist program was a consistent program on a domestic policy and on foreign policy, that our program was liberal domestically and liberal internationally. However, in 1938, after a long period of struggle and effort, the Communist Party succeeded in prevailing upon many people to accept the slogan of collective security as the proper policy to pursue in foreign affairs. That, of course, was quite consistent with the policy of the Soviet Union because it was the Soviet delegates to the League of Nations who had continually agitated for a policy of collective security.

I think it was some time in 1938 that the Italian Premier launched his attack in Ethiopia, and while we were clamoring for collective security to be applied to that situation, it wasn’t too long afterwards when the Soviet Union had a serious dispute with Finland, and hostilities broke out and the Soviet Union smashed the Finnish Army and the Finnish military installations.

We were confronted with the necessity of making an immediate switch demanding nonintervention.

Mr. Tavenner. What do you mean by we?

Mr. Dennett. The Communist Party.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Dennett. That is very true.

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

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

Mr. Tavenner. What was the final result?

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

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

Mr. Dennett. That is very true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Lawrence Earl George.

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

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

Mr. George. I do.

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

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

Mr. George. My name is Lawrence Earl George.

Mr. Wheeler. Where do you reside?

Mr. George. Seattle, sir.

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

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

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

Mr. George. I am a warehouseman, sir.

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

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

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

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

Mr. George. Yes; that is a fact.

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

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

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

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

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

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

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

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

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

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

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

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

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

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

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

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

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

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

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

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

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

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

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

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

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

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

Mr. Moulder. Where were you born?

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

Mr. Moulder. When did you move to Seattle?

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

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

Mr. George. Yes, sir.

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

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

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

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

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

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

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

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

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

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

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

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

Mr. Wheeler. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Moulder. The witness is excused.

Mr. Wheeler. Harriet Pierce.

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

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

Mr. Trolson. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Moulder. I want to talk to him.

(Whereupon Mr. Trolson conferred with the chairman.)

Mr. Moulder. Call the witness again, please.

Mr. Wheeler. Harriet Pierce.

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

Mrs. Pierce. I do.

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

Mr. Moulder. Yes; you may.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Trolson. Thank you.

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

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

Mrs. Pierce. Mrs. Harriet Pierce.

Mr. Wheeler. Where do you presently reside?

Mrs. Pierce. In Seattle.

Mr. Wheeler. Are you presently employed?

Mrs. Pierce. Yes; I am.

Mr. Wheeler. Where are you employed?

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

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

Mrs. Pierce. No; I do not.

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

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

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

Mr. Wheeler. On all prior occupation?

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

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

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

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

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

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have no further questions.

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

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

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

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

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

Mr. Moulder. Were you married at that time?

Mrs. Pierce. No, sir.

Mr. Moulder. Did you come to Washington alone?

Mrs. Pierce. Yes, sir.

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

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

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

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

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

(The witness confers with her counsel.)

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Moulder. Are you now employed?

Mrs. Pierce. I have already answered that question.

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

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

Mr. Moulder. Where are you now employed?

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Moulder. Any questions, Mr. Velde?

Mr. Velde. No questions.

Mr. Moulder. The witness is excused.

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

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

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

SATURDAY, MARCH 19, 1955

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

PUBLIC HEARING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Tavenner. Prior to the organization of what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Dennett. Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Tavenner. Who was he?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(The witness confers with his counsel.)

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

Mr. Tavenner. Counsel is consulting the witness.

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

Mr. Tavenner. Let me suggest this to you:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Dennett. I favor referendum votes myself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Dennett. They must be informed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Dennett. I listened to it very carefully.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Dennett. I am sure she was accurate.

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

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

Would you like to make further comment on that?

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

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

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

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

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

But let me give you the facts as it occurred.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Dennett. Yes.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Dennett. True.