Skip to main content

Full text of "Annual report for the year ..."

See other formats

Union Calendar No. 762 

88th Congress, 2d Session 

House Report No. 1739 

boston Public Library 
Superintendent of Documents 

AUG a 1 WA 



AUGUST 10, 1964 
(Original Release Date) 

August 11, 1964.— Committed to the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Prepared and released by the Committee on Un-American Activities 
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 




United States House of Representatives 

EDWIN E. WILLIS, Louisiana. Chairman 


JOE R. POOL. Texas DONALD C. BRUCE. Indiana 

RICHARD H. ICHORD, Missouri HENRY C. SCllADliUEKt;. Wisconsin 


Francis J. McNamara. Director 

Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., General Counsel 

Alfred M. Nittle, Counsel 


Congress of the United States, 

House of Representatives, 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington^ August 11^ 196^. 
Hon. John W. McCormack, 
The Speaker^ 

U.S. House of Representatives^ 
Washington., D.G. 

Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to House Resolution 5, 88th Congress, 
1st session, and by direction of the committee, I herewith transmit 
the Annual Report of the Committee on Un-American Activities for 
the year 1963. 

Sincerely yours, 

Edwin E. Willis, Chairman. 


Union Calendar No. 762 

88Tn Congress ) HOUSE OF EEPliESENTATIVES ( Kepoht 
2d Session f "i No. 1739 


August 11, 1964. — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. Willis, from the Committee on Un-American Activities, 

submitted the following 


[Pursuant to H. Res. 5, 88th Cong., 1st sess.] 



Letter of transmittal m 

Foreword XI 

Chapter I. Proliferation of Ultrarevolutionary Communist Organizations 

in the United States 1 

Chapter II. Hearings Conducted for Legislative Purposes: 

U.S. Communist Party Assistance to Foreign Communist Govern- 
ments (Testimony of Maud Russell) 25 

"United Front" Technique of the Southern California District of the 

Communist Party 29 

Violations of State Department Travel Regulations and Pro-Castro 

Propaganda Activities in the United States, Parts 1-4 30 

U.S. Communist Party Assistance to Foreign Communist Parties 

(Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade) 84 

Defection of a Russian Seaman (Testimony of Vladislaw Stepanovich 

Tarasov) 90 

Chapter III. Reports Compiled to Assist the Congress in its Legislative 

"United Front" Technique of the Southern California District of the 

Communist Part v 93 

World Communist Movement: Selective Chronology 1818-1957, 

Volume II, 1946-1950 96 

Chapter IV, Consultation : 

A Communist In a "Workers' Paradise" (John Santo's Own Story )__ 101 
Chapter V. 

Reference Service for Members of Congress 115 

Chapter \I. 

Bibliography of Committee Publications for the Year 19G3 117 

Chapter VII. 

Contempt Proceedings 119 

Chapter VIII. 

Legislative Recommendations 123 

Chapter IX. 

Memorial Resolutions for Deceased Members, Hon. Francis E. Walter 

and Hon. Clyde Doyle 157 

Index - i 


Public Law 601, 79th Congress 

The legislation under which the House Committee on Un-American 
Activities operates is Public Law 601, 79th Congress [1916] ; 60 Stat. 
812, which provides: 

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


Rule X 


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

Rule XI 


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

(A) Un-American activities. 

(2) Tlie Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by sxibcommit- 
tce, is autliorizocl to make from time to time investigations of (i) the extent, 
character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, 
(ii) (he diffusion within the United Slates of subversive and un-American propa- 
ganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and 
attacks tlie principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitu- 
tion, and (iii) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress 
in nny necessary remedial legislation. 

Tlie Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the 
Cl(>rk 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, 
hns 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. 


Rule XII 


Sec. 136. To assist the Congress in appraising the administration of the laws 
and in developing such amendments or related legislation as it may deem neces- 
sary, each standing committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
shall exercise continuous watchfulness of the execution by the administrative 
agencies concerned of any laws, the subject matter of which is within the juris- 
diction of such committee; and, for that purpose, shall study all pertinent re- 
ports and data submitted to the Congress by the agencies in the executive branch 
of the Government 



House Resolution 5, January 9, 1963 

• ••**** 

Rule X 


1. There shall be elected by the House, at the commencement of each Congress^ 

(r) Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine Members. 

• * * * * * * 



18. Committee on Un-American Activities. 

(a) Un-American activities. 

(b) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommit- 
tee, is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (1) the extent, 
character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities iu the United States, 
(2) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and uu-Ameriean prop- 
aganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and 
attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitu- 
tion, and (3) 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 investi- 
gation, 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. 

• •*•••• 

27. To assist the House in appraising the administration of the laws and in 
developing such amendments or related legislation as it may deem necessary, 
each standing conunittee of the House shall exercise continuous watchfulness 
of the execution by the administrative agencies concerned of any laws, the sub- 
ject matter of which is within the jurisdiction of such committee; and, for that 
purpose, shall study all pertinent reports and data submitted to the House by 
the agencies in the executive branch of the Government. 


Many Americans tend to scoff at, dismiss lightly, and underrate 
the importance — and the danger — of routine, day-to-day Communist 
agitation and propaganda activities. Human nature being what it is^ 
it is natural that stories of espionage and high-level intrigue — pub- 
lished after the fact and after the damage has been done — get the 
blazing headlines and extensive, detailed news treatment. There is 
excitement and drama in such developments — and that is what makes 

Tlie rank-and-file Communist peddling The Worker door to door, 
distributing handbills on a corner, speakmg at a front meeting, hold- 
ing a minor union office, teacliing in a school — or agitating in a reniote 
village in a distant land — is, by comparison, drab and uninteresting. 
News media pay little or no attention to him. Yet it is such Com- 
munists — rather than the espionage agents — who, to date, have played 
a major role in paving the way for Communist revolutions and the 
destruction of freedom in a number of nations. Moscow has accom- 
plished more through them than some would-be world conquerors of 
the past could accomplish through the use of all their military power. 

Because the United States is the major barrier to Communist world 
conquest, this country and its leaders are a prime target of these day- 
to-day Communist activities, many of which are primarily designed 
to engender hatred of America, its institutions, and its leaders. 

The Communists' constant "Hate America" barrage results in more 
than "Yankee Go Home" signs in foreign lands. It pays off for the 
Communists in the bombing of United States Information Service 
libraries abroad, the storming of U.S. Embassies, open insults hurled 
at our diplomatic representatives and high State Department officials 
in their travels abroad, and in many other ways. At home, it results 
in certain of our ow^n citizens defying our laws, stealing our secrets^ 
and engaging in other traitorous activities. 

Because of "Hate the U.S." propaganda and agitation campaigns^ 
attempts have been made on the lives of two recent Presidents of the 
United States. 

President Truman escaped an attempt to kill him made in 1950. 
The assassination effort \vas made by members of the terroristic Na- 
tionalist Party of Puerto Rico, which has for years been defended 
and aided by the U.S. Communist Party and which, like the U.S. 
party, engages in virulent "Hate the United States" propaganda. 

President Kennedy, unfortunately, did not escape the attempt made 
on his life by a man, since murdered, whose life and conduct — by his 
own admissions and actions — was shaped largely by Communist 

These frightening examples of the extremes to which "Hate Amer- 
ica" agitation-propaganda campaigns can drive adherents of radical 
movements should long since have alerted all Americans to the danger 
of communism and aroused in them concern and determination to 


combat the party's routine activities. Most radical movements have 
a significant unstable element within them — and there is no telling 
what such elements will do after years of indoctrination in hatred of 
their Government and its leaders. 

Yet today we see relatively little concern, and little being done, to 
combat and offset Communist agitation-propaganda activities which 
are boldly designed — as they have been over the years — to promote 
activities bordering on the treasonous. 

Twenty-five years ago, U.S. Communists were doing everything they 
could to sabotage U.S. defense preparations. They defiantly pro- 
claimed that they would refuse to serve in our military forces if 
drafted. They influenced others to take the same position. Today, 
we again see successful Communist operations in the same area. 
Scores of young men of draft age have openly proclaimed in paid 
newspaper advertisements that they would refuse to serve in Vietnam 
if drafted. They, too, have organized a group to persuade others to 
take the same position. 

Not long ago, there appeared in the press an account of a university 
campus meeting of approximately 350 persons, most of them students, 
who had gathered to view a propaganda film produced by the Viet- 
namese Communists and to hear speeches urging that America pull 
out of South Vietnam and abandon it to communism. 

There was loud applause, according to the press account, when the 
film showed a Viet Cong leader embracing Mao Tse-tung, chairman 
of the Chinese Communist Party. By contrast, only about 15 of those 
present applauded when, later in the program, one student stood up 
and said, "Let's have a round of applause for the Americans fighting 
and dying in Vietnam." 

A considerable number of those in the audience had traveled to Cuba 
last summer in defiance of the laws of this country and, while view- 
ing another Communist propaganda film there, had applauded the 
shooting down of an American aircraft in South Vietnam, 

The witness who told this committee about the latter incident said 
of the group in Cuba : "This is not a typical group of American stu- 
dents." Undoubtedly, it was not — and, undoubtedly, the 350 viewing 
the anti-U.S. pro-Communist film on the university campus was not 
a typical American student group. Both of these groups, however, 
were typical of those who regularly consume Communist propaganda 
with its "Hate America" themes. They are also typical of the ele- 
ment from which the revolutionists, espionage agents, and assassins 
of the future are recruited. 

Communists, of course, are not typical persons. Being not only 
deceptive, but truly the "masters of deception" (like their guerrilla 
colleagues of the Viet Cong, who peacefully plow their paddies by day 
only to slay and subvert at night), U.S. Communists may seem to be 
just like other Americans in the pursuit of their various professions 
and trades, in their outward appearance, and day-to-day activities.^ 

TVe can judge them by their surface appearance. We can dismiss 
their words as "only propaganda." But we will not do either of these 
things if we are wise, informed citizens with our country's interests at 

"Within the past year, we have witnessed a shocking example of the 
kind of horrible act that can be committed by a fanatical Marxist who 
had for years been an avid reader of Communist anti- American propa- 


ganda and — not long before the slaying of the President — a leader of 
pro-Castro agitation on the streets of one of our major cities. 

Certainly, we cannot afford to ignore, underrate, or lightly dismiss 
the day-to-day activities of the "ordinary," rank-and-file Communists 
and their potential effects. Their carefully contrived words are the 
father of thoughts that impel their adherents and sympathizers to 
actions that, in one way or another, are all designed to midermine and 
destroy our way of life. 

All Americans, I believe, were shocked to learn that our President 
had been assassinated by a citizen of the United States. Undoubtedly, 
it did not have to happen. Perhaps, it would not have happened if, 
during past years, the American people, as a whole, had worked harder 
to disclose the lies and half-truths in domestic Communist propa- 
ganda so that our youth would not be misled by it. 

Edwin E. Willis, Chairman. 
July 13, 1964. 





This Nation's internal security problems are being- complicated by 

^/^ growing number of revolutionary Communist groups which claim 

that the orthodox Communist Party of the United States is too soft 

on "capitalism" and too accommodating in its relations with all other 

non-Communist groups. 

Charges to this effect by dissidents, inside or outside the Communist 
Party, U.S.A., have been m.ade periodical!}'' throughout the 44-year 
history of the organization. They have resounded whenever the stra- 
tegists in the Kremlin have decreed it in the interests of Communists 
to collaborate and curry favor with non-Communists in the pursuit 
of certain immediate objectives. And such charges have been at a 
minimum during intermittent periods when Soviet Communist leaders 
have considered conditions ripe for Communist revolutions and in- 
structed local Communist parties to prepare for violent conquest of 
power in their respective countries, instead of concentrating on win- 
ning allies during an unavoidable period of coexistence with non- 
Communist and "capitalist enemies." 

A distinguishing feature of the latest outcropping of Communist 
gfroups professing more militant and truly revolutionary policies than 
those of the CPUSA is their support of policies of the Chinese Com- 
munist leadership and their opposition to policies of the Soviet Com- 
munist leadership. 

Moscow Versus Peking 

ISfost Americans are aware of the Chinese Communists' feud with 
the Soviet Communist leadership, which became increasingly bitter 
as it came increasingly into public view^ after 1956. It has been at- 
tributed to a varietv of motives including ideological diversfencies : 
<iifferences in political, economic, and social conditions; power politics; 
nationalism ; and personal animosities. It is not the committee's intent 
to deal with the Sino-Soviet conflict beyond mentioning a few details 
■essential to any consideration of revolutionary organizations in the 
United States which are in avowed agreement with Chinese Com- 
munist policies. It must be noted, however, that — for the first time 
since the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917 — the Soviet Com- 
munists' leadership and policymaking role with respect to the vast and, 
on the whole, disciplined international army of Communists through- 
out the world has been seriously challenged by the Red Chinese. 

The most publicized aspect of the Sino-Soviet conflict has been the 
war of words, in which each side accuses the other of advocating 
strategies and tactics for the international Communist movement 


which do not serve their common and undebated ultimate goal of a 
world Communist society. The Soviet and Chinese Communists, in 
their word warfare, have resorted not only to name-calling but to out- 
right distortion of each other's views. (Chinese Communists, for ex- 
ample, have unjustly accused the Soviet leaders of becoming fawning 
handmaidens of the capitalists and of opposing the extension of com- 
munism to other parts of the world, while Soviet Communists — with 
equal lack of justification — have declared that the Chinese Com- 
munists do not believe it is possible to prevent a new world war and 
do not believe communism can be extended without world war.) The 
Chinese Communist position, nevertheless, clearly favors more mili- 
tant action by Communists throughout the world. Among other de- 
mands, the Chinese insist that there must be more Communist prepara- 
tion for armed revolutionary struggle to overthrow non-Communist 

Soviet Communists have wrathfully condemned the Chinese Com- 
munists for sowing disaffection among Communist parties, heretofore 
faithful supporters of the men in the Kremlin. While most of the 
Communist parties are still counted on Moscow's side in the dispute, 
a number of parties openly champion the views of the Chinese Com- 
munists, while a number of other parties are divided over the issues. 
The leadership of the Communist Party of the United States has re- 
mained subservient to Moscow direction. Early in January 1963, it 
issued a public statement condemning the Chinese Communists and 
defending the Soviet policies under attack by the Chinese. 

In the course of this statement the Communist Party, U.S.A., made 
the charge that the Chinese Communist Party was not content to 
enunciate its differences with the Soviet Communists, but actively 
sought to recruit Americans to the Chinese Communist view. As the 
Communist Party, U.S.A., put it : 

The CPUS A cannot be indifferent to the fact that the Chi- 
nese Communist Party seeks converts for its dangerous poli- 
cies in our country * * *.i 

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in a subsequent "Open 
Letter" defending itself from the attacks of the Chinese Communists, 
claimed the Chinese Communist Party was actually "organizing and 
supporting" groups in non-Communist countries and named a group 
in the United States as an example of Chinese-supported "renegades" : 

The C.P.C. [Communist Party of China] leadership orga- 
nizes and supports various anti-party groups of renegades 
who come out against the Communist parties in the United 
States, Brazil, Italy, Belgium, Australia and India. * * * in 
the United States, support is rendered to subversive activities 
of the left-wing opportunist group "Hammer and Steel" 
which [sets] itself the main task of fighting against the Com- 
munist party of the United States.^ 

"Practical" and "subversive" activities of the Chinese Communists, 
according to the Soviet statement, have also included sharp attacks 

1 statement bv the Communist Party of the United States appearing in The Worker, 
January 13, 1963, pp. 3, 10. 

- Open Letter of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to 
party organizations and Communists of the Soviet Union, July 14, 1963, printed in The 
Worker, July 28, 1963. 


on Communist parties and their leaders who have refused to take 
China's side in the controversy. The Soviets comphiined that tlie 
Chinese Communists "have published and circulated in many lan- 
guages articles discrediting the activity of the Communist party of 
the United States, and the French, Italian and Indian Communist 

Such contention between the leaders of the two most powerful Com- 
munist nations has, without question, contributed to a present prolif- 
eration of organizations and publications in the United States com- 
mitted to achieving a Soviet America by more "militant" strategies 
than those employed by the Moscow-backed Communist Party, 

New Peking-Oriented Communist Organizations 

The Hammer & Steel group, which was singled out for attack by the 
Conmiunist Party of the Soviet Union, is one of the newest and most 
enthusiastic supporters of the Chinese Communist leadership to appear 
on the American scene. It began publicly advertising its operations 
in the spring of 1962. A few months earlier, however, another group 
of dissident Communists, gathered together in the so-called Progres- 
sive Labor Movement, had made their public bow with the launching 
of a monthly magazine. Yet another group of American revolu- 
tionaries-a-la-Peking has been in operation since August 1958 under 
the organizational title "Provisional Organizing Committee for a 
Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (POC)." Leaders of each of 
these organizations were expelled or resigned from the orthodox Com- 
munist Party, U.S.A., as a result of their opposition to prevailing 
party strategy. 

Another type of revolutionary Communist grouping which has ap- 
peared in recent years to sing the praises of the Chinese Communists 
has been formed by so-called Trotskyists. The principal Trotskyist 
organization in the LTnited States, the Socialist Workers Party, for 
many decades has competed with orthodox Communists over the right 
to lead an American Communist revolution. Avowedly loyal to the 
principles of Marx and Lenin as interpreted by Leon Trotsky, Joseph 
Stalin's Bolshevik competitor, Trotskyists are viewed as heretics 
by both the Chinese and Soviet Communists. 

The Socialist Workers Party has welcomed the Sino-Soviet conflict 
as heralding a "decomposition" of the monolithic international Com- 
munist movement of Stalin's time. While it has found faults on both 
sides, the Socialist Workers' Party nevertheless has indicated its sym- 
pathies are with the Chinese Communists on most points under dispute 
with Moscow because the Chinese are "more militant" and, therefore, 
closer to its own "correct" line than the Soviet Communists. 

The Socialist Workers Party has alwaj^s accused the Communist 
Party, U.S.A., of lacking sufficient revolutionary fervor. Ironically, 
the SWP was itself the object of the same charge when a group of its 
own members walked out in February 1959 and began issuing an 
independent, semimonthly publication, Workers World, which would 
"hold aloft the shining banner of revolutionary Marxism, and call 
upon all the advanced workers to gather around it." Despite its 
admittedly "irreconcilable" differences with the Chinese Com- 
munist leadership because of its Trotskyist heresy, the Workers 

36-584—^4 2 


World group has become one of the fiercest defenders of Chinese Com- 
munists in the United States. 

All of these new Communist groups have insisted that their aim is 
creation in the United States of the true Marxist-Leninist (Com- 
munist) Party, which will one day successfully lead the "masses" 
of Americans in overthrowing capitalism and setting up a Com- 
munist dictatorship of the "proletariat." They have undoubtedly 
been fortified in their aim by pronouncements from the second most 
powerful Communist nation that Communist leaders in non-Com- 
munist countries who fail to take heed of the necessity for a revolu- 
tionary outlook will inevitably be replaced by more capable Com- 
munist leaders from both inside and outside their parties. The Chi- 
nese Communist Party, for example, made this threat in a highly 
publicized message to the Soviet Communists on June 14, 19C3 : 

the proletarian [Communist] party should ideologically, 
politically and organizationally prepare its own ranks and 
the masses for revolution and promote revolutionary 
struggles, so that it will not miss the opportunity to over- 
throw the reactionary regime and establish a new state power 
when the conditions for revolution are ripe. * * * 

H: H: ^ ^ ^ 

Countless facts have proved that, whatever [sic] the dark 
rule of imperialism and reaction exists, the people who form 
over 90 percent of the population will sooner or later rise 
in revolution. 

^ ^ ^ Sjs !|! 

If the leading group in any Party adopt a non-revolution- 
ary line and convert it into a reformist party, then Marx'ist- 
Leninists inside and outside the Parti/ will replace them and 
lead the people in making revolution. * * "^ [Emphasis 
supplied.] ^ 

Competition on the Extreme Lett 

In keeping with the totalitarian nature of the Communist system, 
Communist theory (Marxism-Leninism) does not admit the possibility 
of more than one correct basic policy for Communists wherever they 

3 Letter from Central Committee of the Communist Party of China to Central Committee 
of the Coniniuuist Party of the Soviet Union, June 14, 10G3, printed in The Worker, 
Julv 28, liJOS. 

That the Chinese Communists considered the CPUSA to be a party which had strayed 
from tlie correct revolutionary patli Iiad l>een made clear earlier. Replying to a CPUSA 
statement tai^inR Moscow's side apainst Poking, the Red Chinese had retorted on March 8, 
19(>.3, that "certain leaders" of tlie CPUSA were guilty of erroneous, nonrevolutionary 
attitudes. The Chinese also warned the U.S. Communi.'it leaders on this occasion that 
"there are not a small number of genuine communists, both inside and outside the Com- 
munist Party of the United States," firmly opposed to their leaders' betrayal of Marxism- 

In their polemics against the Soviet Communists, the Chinese Communists have had 
much to say on the subject of revolution. "Let us, in the light of bloody facts both of 
the liistorical past and of the modern capitalist world examine all this nonsense about the 
'jiencefnl growth of capitalism into socialism' * * *," they declared in the pamphlet Lo7ig 
Live Leninism (Pelving: Foreign Languages Press. 1900). A review of the past shows 
that "Revolution means the use of revolutionary violence by the oppressed class, it means 
revolutionary war." If Communists should be confronted with an opportunity to obtain 
power in a iion-Communist country "by peaceful means," they are. of course, obligated to 
take advantage of It, this Chinese Communist statement went on. But it agreed with 
Lenin that this sort of opportunity is always exraordinarily rare and "it is therefore 
necessary to be prepared  • » for the other possibility, i.e. nonpeaceful development of 
the revolution." 

By March 31. 1964, the Chinese Communists were flatly declaring that "violent 
revolution is a universal law of proletarian [Communist] revolution" and that "Marxism 
has always openly proclaimed the inevitability of violent revolution." 


are located, nor more than one set of Communist leaders within a 
country to implement the policy. The possibilities of unity have been 
•explored by leaders of some of the new Communist organizations with 
apparently very little success. The "splinter" groups (as they are 
aptl}' referred to by Communists) have, therefore, tended to compete 
with each other as well as with the Communist Party, U.S.A. 

The dissidents have concentrated their fire on the orthodox, 
Moscow-oriented Communists, and a steady flow of spoken and writ- 
ten propaganda (the latter often printed in China) emanates from 
such sources to '"prove" that the leaders of the Communist Party, 
U.S.A., and their Soviet mentors have emasculated the "revolutionary 
soul" of true Marxism-Leninism and forfeited both the right and the 
ability to lead Americans to communism. 

If the activities of these organizations were restricted to debates 
among Communists, they would arouse little more than academic in- 
terest. Most of the dissident Communist groups, however, have pub- 
licly announced their commitment to radical action programs involv- 
ing America's non-Communist population. Many have taken pride 
in advertising the occasions on which their members have, for exam- 
ple, led picket lines and mass meetings, defied the laws of the United 
States, decided to infiltrate non-Communist organizations, or man- 
aged local committees and campaigns allegedly operating in behalf 
of some humanitarian cause. 

Less secretive about their Communist orientation than orthodox 
Communist Party members, the newly organized revolutionaries never- 
theless have tended to be cautious in their public pronouncements on 
the degree to which they are willing to rely on force and violence in 
their efforts to bring communism to power in the United States. 
Their vaunted "revolutionary" outlook and "militancy" must usually 
be implied from the vehemence with which they denounce the orthodox 
Communist Party for believing communism may be achieved by peace- 
ful, parliamentary^ means* and from their enthusiasm for the tactics 
of the Chinese and Cuban revolutionaries. In their practical ac- 
tivity, however, they appear to have little hesitancy in urging non- 
Communists in the L^nited States to seek their goals with the aid of 
forceful tactics. Most of the groups mentioned in this chapter have 
publicly scoffed at the concept of nonviolence in civil rights struggles 
in the Nation and urged upon American Negroes a policy of so-called 
armed defense. Members of some of these groups also have boasted 
of their run-ins with police authorities as well as with this committee 
for inciting riotous and near-riotous actions of one kind or another. 

The committee is encountering these extremist groups with increas- 
ing frequency in the course of its routine investigations into Commu- 
nist propaganda and agitation, and it believes that it would be derelict 
in carrying out its mandate from Congress if it failed to alert the 
Members to the existence of new organizations of the conspiratorial 
left. To this end, the committee is prefacing its annual summation of 
investigations, hearings, and reports with capsule descriptions of a 
number of the more active revolutionary groups which have appeared 
on the American scene in recent years. 

* The extremists perpetually distort the actual position of the Communist Party, U.S.A., 
which has never operated on the premise that communism can be achieved in the United 
States solely by parliamentary means and has foreseen a "peaceful" transition orly in the 
event the capitalists decide not to resist a Communist takeover. Certain langunge in the 
CPUSA constitution proclaimlns: advocacy of a "peaceful democratic road to socialism" 
has been mainly aimed at countering legal restrictions on party activity. 


Provisional Organizing Committee for a Marxist-Leninist 

Communist Party (POC) 

After operating as an opposition faction within the Communist 
Party, U.S.A., for more than a year, a group of party members formed 
a separate Communist organization at a conference in New York City 
August 16 and 17, 1958, attended by 83 national "delegates" allegedly 
representing 300 members. 

As its name impHed, the Provisional Organizing Committee for a 
Marxist-Leninist Communist Party chiimed to represent "genuine, 
solid Connnunists" whose "central task" was to create "a real Commu- 
nist Party." POC insisted that it— not the CPUSA— could be relied 
on to carry out the "revolutionary, internationalist Marxist-Leninist 
traditions of those American workers wlio established the CPUSA 
39 years ago." The splinter group appeared after the CPUSA had 
announced that it intended to wipe out organized internal opposition 
to party policies. POC organizers, by their own admission, decided to 
take action before every member of their faction had been expelled 
one by one from the CPUSA. 

POC operations are centered in New York City, but the organiza- 
tion also claims chapters operating on the West Coast and in (Cleve- 
land, Chicago, and Philadelphia. The top post of general secretary 
has been continuously held by Armando Roman who, while a member 
of the orthodox CPUSA, headed its Puerto Rican Section and served 
on its New York State Committee. Roman was one of six members of 
the POC interrogated by this committee in New York in November 
1959 in connection with an investigation into Communist activities 
among the Puerto Ricans in New York City and Puerto Rico. In 
June 19()2, the committee received testimony from an FBI undercover 
informant in the Cleveland Communist Party who had attended the 
founding POC convention and various local POC meetings as a "spy" 
for the orthodox Connnunists. The informant, Julia Brown, was 
impressed by the frankness with which POC leaders preached forceful 
and violent overthrow of the U.S. Government. When the com- 
mittee interrogated a Cleveland POC member at the hearing, it met 
the same response as that given by POC'ers from New York City — 
invocation of the fifth amendment against possible self-incrimination. 
Since September 1958, the POC has published a monthly newspaper, 
Marxist-Leninist Vanguard, which intemperately berates the leader- 
ship of the CPUSA for being "a bunch of revisionist-bureaucrats," 
cowards, opportunists, and "State Department stooges." The POC 
has unfairly charged the orthodox Communist leadership with taking 
to heart propaganda about a "peaceful, parliamentary, constitutional 
transition to socialism" in the United States which was developed 
under the pressure of prosecutions for violating the Smith Act pro- 
visions against forceful overthrow of the Government. Orthodox 
Communists, according to the POC, also have been duped or intimi- 
dated into overestimating the strength of the capitalist enemy. And 
because of timidity and opportunism, the "united front" work of 
orthodox Communists within non-Communist groups does not serve 
the intended purpose of expanding Communist influence, as much as 
it helps maintain a non-Communist system in the United States. 


POC has prided itself on being a stickler for Communist "prin- 
ciples" which — allegedly unlike the CPUS A — it will not barter for 
"momentary and illusory 'advantages' " in the trade union movement, 
political parties, and the courts. The splinter organization has scorned 
the orthodox Communist tactic of working within capitalist political 
parties. ("We reject this theory" of a "peaceful, parliamentary and 
constitutional transition to socialism in the United States," and "no 
parliament has ever transformed a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie 
into a dictatorship of the proletariat." ^) 

POC publications have also called for more militant actions by rank- 
and-file trade unionists in America in defiance of their union officials, 
who are generally considered guihy of "collusion" with the employers. 

Deriding leaders of the CPUSA for enjoying high-priced homes, 
cars, and other luxuries and making a bid for the college crowd, the 
POC has described itself as "a revolutionary organization of American 
■workers," whose practical activities are concentrated among unskilled 
workers, among "the most exploited and the most oppressed." POC 
members are described as mainly "proletarians, Negro, white and 
Puerto Ricans" living in industrial centers of the Nation. 

Acknowledging that "the ground will not be cleared" for reconsti- 
tution of a true Communist Party in the United States "by theory 
alone," the POC has announced that it is "extending our work to the 
field of day-to-day programmatic struggle on issues." The organiza- 
tion stated that it would lead and participate in campaigns on such 
subjects as unemployment benefits, low-cost housing, civil riglits, and 
police brutality. It frankly declared that its "main purpose" in. 
helping the "masses" fight for such "immediate needs" is to instill in 
them a "class consciousness," "to help in choosing tb.e path of struggle 
as against the line of least resistance," and to prepare them for a final 
goal of communism.*' 

POC'ers decided to conduct their agitational activities through 
"committees of struggle" in local neighborhoods or unions. They 
boasted of establishing "closest united front" or cooperative relation- 
ships with Puerto Rican and Negro nationalist groups on the basis 
of their "common struggle against U.S. imperialism." (POC actively 
agitates in favor of independence for Puerto Rico and, like most 
Communist groups to the left of the CPUSA, it has retained the for- 
mer CPUSA line initiated by Stalin, which holds that Negroes in a 
southern "Black Belt" in the United States constitute an "oppressed 
nation." The splinter organization preaches that Negroes in tlie South 
will solve their problems not by seeking integration, but by forcing 
the "imperialist" American Government to grant them the right, 
as a "nation," to determine their own destiny. It also has extolled 
"militant armed struggle" by Negroes in the South and attacked the 
policy of nonviolence as a "sell-out," "capitulationist philosophy" 
■which stifles and curtails the militant mood of the Negro masses 
{Vanguard, December 1963-January 1964).) 

» Vanguard, September 195S, p. 2 ; November 1958. p. 4. 

« Ibid., August 1959, p. 7 ; December 19Cl-Jaiuiar.v 1962. p. 3. 

POC has also referred to Vanguard articles on "the struggles of the American people" 
and I'OC's participation in them as part of its "campaign to educate the masses in a 
revolutionary spirit." {Vanguard, September 1963, p. 3.) 


On its fifth anniversary, POC described its past activities as fol- 

Struggles against police brutality in New York, Philadel- 
phia, and Chicago, for equal rights for the Negro and Puerto 
Rican national minorities, struggles for housing and the un- 
employed on tlie West Coast, for the unemployed in Cleve- 
land, for Welfare in Chicago, for trade union democracy and 
militancy — these testify to the total immersion of POC in 
the life of the workino; class. 


In leaflets, open-air meetings, protest meetings. Vanguard 
distributions, and united front activities, POC has assidu- 
ously and relentlessly tried to expose the criminal U.S. rul- 
ing class.'' 


More specifically, POC'ers have distributed leaflets on New York 
streets in behalf of improved sanitation in Harlem, organized picket 
lines, handed out leaflets, and collected signatures in protest against 
allegedly unjust murder convictions ("frame-ups") in New York and 
Chicago; sponsored repeated street meetings and literature distribu- 
tions against instances of so-called police brutality in New York and 
Philadelphia; picketed United Nations headquarters in behalf of a 
pro-Communist Congolese Premier and Communist Cuba; and sent 
its delegates to the Nation's Capital to participate in street demonstra- 
tions in behalf of independence for Puerto Rico. In the course of 
constant agitation on the streets of our major cities, POC'ers have, 
from time to time, clashed with local police forces. The organization 
has invariably pointed to its members' conflicts with law-enforcement 
authorities as evidence that the splinter group contains the "real" Com- 
munists in America. 

The Vanguard of October-November 1963 declared that "POC 
comrades are harassed and jailed" in Philadelphia, while members 
of other Communist groups are given freedom to spread their "pseudo- 
radical" propaganda. The publication focused attention on the recent 
police detention of a Philadelphia POC member who was already 
under indictment on charges of inciting to riot while participating in 
so-called mass struggles back in 1962. A trial based on the 1962 
indictment is still pending. The Vanguard has also exploited the ar- 
rest of five POC youths on disorderly conduct charges while conduct- 
ing a street demonstration and leaflet distribution in New York's 
Times Square following the unsuccessful Cuban invasion in April 1961. 
(The charges were subsequently dismissed when the case came to trial, 
and the POC publication announced that one of the reasons a convic- 
tion was not forthcoming was the militant behavior of the POC mem- 
bers. "Our POC youths never denied being Communists before the 
cops, the D.A. or the judge, unlike the cowards in the [IJeadership of 
the so-called Communist Party * * *" (Fa^ip'war^^, April-May 1961).) 

POC propaganda was, initially, respectful of both the Soviet and 
Chniese Communist leaders. Vanguard became a vehicle for Chinese 
Communist pronouncements on "correct" Communist theory and prac- 
tices as soon as the splinter publication made its appearance in the fall 
of 1958, but the Chinese Communists at that time were publicly critical 

■^ Ibid., September 1963, p. 3. 


of only Yugoslav Communist deviations. As Sino-Soviet relations 
deteriorated,^ POC began bitterly denouncing Nikita Khrushchev as 
a weak-kneed opportunist, who had betrayed revolutionary Marxist- 
Leninist principles. It decided, on second thought, that Stalin wasn't 
really as bad as Khrushchev depicted him. And it promoted the Chi- 
nese Communists as the rightful leaders of the international Commu- 
nist movement. POC enthusiasm for the Chinese Communist position 
was expressed in such terms as : 

the revolutionary center of the world has shifted to the east, 
from Moscow to Peking 


Today POC stands as part of a great revolutionary army, 
embracing the communists of China, Korea, Albania, Viet- 
nam, Indonesia, Japan, New Zealand, Malaya, and Burma 

4s H: H< 

We are but a small platoon in this mighty army * * *. 

iti ilt * * ^' 

Long Live the glorious tradition of Marx, Engels, Lenin, 
Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung ! ° 

In addition to publicizing the views of the Chinese Communists in 
the columns of the Vanguard, POC has also advertised that it has re- 
printed various Chinese Communist writings in separate pamphlets in 
the English and Spanish language and that the literature can be 
obtained from the POC without cost. 

After a Communist regime was imposed upon Cuba, POC became 
a defender of the Cuban revolution as well. In addition to agitation 
on the streets, the splinter group publicized Fidel Castro's more mili- 
tant statements. Vanguard for March- April 19G3, for example, em- 
phasized that the Cuban dictator had praised revolutionists in Cuba, 
Algeria, and South Vietnam for relying on the "correct tactics" of 
combat rather than some concept of "peaceful transition" to socialism. 
The POC publication also quoted Castro's opinion that it is the "duty" 
of leaders and revolutionary organizations to learn "how to lead the 
masses to revolution," how to "hurl the masses into combat." In the 
POC view, in fact, Communist Cuba is outranked in importance only 
by Communist China : 

How do we view the present lineup of forces? In our 
opinion, China, as the strongest state in the world, when con- 
sidered in all its aspects, is the base of the revolutionary 
movement. Cuba is the main outpost, its spearhead.^° 

POC reiterates its confidence in a worldwide Communist victory 
"and not somewhere off in the distant future, either." It has issued 
such ominous warnings as the following : 

The end may come through a revolutionary explosion in 
the colonial world or it could be, yes, it well could be, precipi- 
tated by China getting the atom bomb, and as a result releas- 

8 The POC said that : "When It became obvious, after the 22nfl Conpress of the CPSU 
JConimunlst Party of the Soviet Union, in October lOfil], that Khrushchev — not Tito — 
•was tlie head of world revisionism, POC turned ita fire directly on him." {Vanyuard, 
September 1903, p. 3) 

» Vnnriuiird, October-November 1963, pp. 1, 2 ; September 1963, p. 4. 

« Ibid., March-AprU 1963. 


ing the world-wide revolutionary energies that Nikita Khru- 
shchev, Tito, Gus Hall and company have helped to contain 
with their revisionism and opportunism," 

Regarding this country, the organization has adopted the line that 
the deepening "crisis of imperialism" is "today developing towards 
a revolutionary situation in the United States, and * * * this 
is the key that we must seize hold of." After Castro's rise to power, 
the splinter group proclaimed that "the success of the Cuban revolution 
proves that the working masses can win here too," ^^ 

POC has admitted holding consultations with the Hammer & Steel 
group of Massachusetts and achieving a "growing unity of view" with 
that organization. A "common program of action" announced in June 
of 1962 was concretely expressed in the joint issuance of a leaflet opi)03- 
ing U,S. intervention to halt Communist expansion in Southeast Asia. 
However, POC has registered contempt for what it described as 
appeals for "unity on the left" from leaders of the orthodox Com- 
munist Party and Trotskyist organizations. It has preferred to stage 
its own public affairs on such hallowed Communist occasions as May 
Day and the anniversary of the October revolution in Russia, 
Orthodox Communists, Trotskyists, and even the new Peking-oriented 
Progressive Labor Movement have been denounced by POC as 

The POC reported that members of the Communist Party initially 
participated in a Jo Ann Santiago Defense Committee, which in 
1960 protested deportation proceedings against a foreign-born mem- 
ber of the POC. The orthodox Communists proposed that the cam- 
paign omit any mention that Communists were under attack and they 
also urged admission of Trotskyists to the defense committee. When 
these propositions were rejected by POC'ers, the orthodox Commu- 
nists allegedly disappeared from the scene. Orthodox Communists 
have also been accused by POC of virtually sabotaging effective aid in 
the Santiago case by the Communist-front American Committee for 
Protection of Foreign Born.^^ 

Hammer & Steel Group 

The Provisional Organizing Committee for a Marxist-Leninist 
Communist Party (POC), in announcing conferences with the 
Hammer & Steel group on possible unity of action, described the latter 
as "constituting the main body of the former leadership of the CPUSA 
of New England." 

POC had printed articles against the CPUSA circulated by the 
Hammer & Steel group as early as November 1961, but the new or- 
ganization did not begin advertising its activities in the leftwing 
press until April 1962. Its first advertisement, appearing in the 
National Guardian of April 2, 1962, reproduced the contents of a 
leaflet the group had been distributing in Boston, demanding with- 
drawal of U.S. support from the Communist-besieged South 
Vietnamese Government. Hammer & Steel appealed for funds to 

" IbUl. 

" Vanguard, January 1961, "Cuba's Revolution Aids Interests of U.S. Workers." 

"The episode was related by Jo Ann Santiago herself In the Vanguard for May 1960. 

The article was written from Cuba, where Jose and Jo Ann Santiago sought asylum after 

their efforts against the deportation proceedings were unsuccessful. 


continue with such activities and listed its address as P.O. Box 101, 
Mattapan Station, Boston, Mass. 

This post office box, the only known address of the Ck)mmunist 
splinter organization, is registered in the name of Homer Chase. 
Later that same year, the box also became the mailing address for a 
monthly Hammer d; /Steel Newsletter. Although Hammer & Steel 
literature has failed to identify any of the individuals connected with 
the new Communist operation, the Communist Party, U.S.A., in the 
spring of 1963 identified Homer Chase as editor of the Hainmer & 
Steel Newsletter and supplied the additional information that he had 
been expelled from the orthodox party 2 years earlier. 

Homer Chase appeared as a witness before this committee on 
November 21, 1961, in the course of hearings on the structure and 
organization of the Communist Party of the United States. He was 
questioned regarding the reasons for his ouster from the top office 
(organizer) of the New England District of the CPUSA and from the 
party's national committee — disciplinary actions which had been com- 
pleted by January 1961. Communist Party documents entered into 
the hearing record showed Chase was charged with actively opposing 
orthodox Communist strategies in favor of "ultra-left" tactics. Al- 
though he refused to describe his relationships with the Communist 
Party on grounds of possible self-incrimination, Chase was frank 
in stating his views that Stalin was a "humanist" unjustly attacked 
by Khrushchev and that the "outstanding Marxist-Leninist" Avas the 
Chinese Communist boss, Mao Tse-tung. 

Tlie avowed aim of Hammer & Steel is to help organize a Marxist- 
Leninist (Communist) Party in the United States "whicli bases its 
line on the teachings of Lenin, Stalin and Mao Tse-tung" {Tlammer 
(& Steel Neiosletter, January 1963). Soviet dictator Khrushchev has 
betrayed the revolutionary spirit of Marxism-Leninism, Hammer & 
Steel's publications charge, while leaders of the orthodox CPUSA 
have "abandoned revolutionary theory and practice" and, "from fear 
of revolution," degenerated into support of counterrevolution 
{Newsletters, November 1962, May 1963). 

Hammer & Steel has brashly called upon true Marxist-Leninists in 
tlie United States to send communications to the Soviet Communist 
Party's Central Committee in Moscow wishing it "success in the defeat 
of the revisionist clique headed by Khrushchev." ^* It has been ex- 
tremely active in the distribution of Chinese Communist writings 
dealing with Chinese differences with the Soviet and United States 
Communist Parties. It has circulated, often without charge, such 
pamplilets from Peking as A Cominent on the Statement of the Com- 
munist Party of the U.S.A., A Proposal Concerning the General Line 
of The Communist International Movement, and On the Question 
of Stalin. It has itself published another Chinese Communist dia- 
tribe in a pamphlet titled Which Path — Cowardice or the Teaching 
of Mao Tse-tung? Hammer & Steel advertised in its April 1963 
Newsletter that it had "just received — The Albanian position — in 
English — 10 different pamphlets on ten different subjects," which were 
available to anyone paying a mailing cost of $1.50. 

As til is report earlier pointed out, Hammer & Steel was singled out 
for attack by the Soviet Communist Party in July 1963 as an example 

^* Hammer A Steel Newsletter, November 1962. 


of "renegades" in non-Commnnist countries who are receiving sup- 
port from the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. The Com- 
munist Party, U.S.A., has also felt compelled to warn Moscow-oriented 
Communists throughout the world regarding the work of Hammer & 
Steel. The warning took the form of a letter from the CPUSA to 
the editors of World Marxist Review^ a magazine published in Czech- 
oslovakia and circulated internationally in many languages to keep 
the party-faithful in all lands apprised of important developments in 
the international Communist movement (from a Soviet rather than 
a Chinese Communist point of view). The letter from the CPUSA, 
appearing in the March 1963 issue, declared at the outset that the 
Hammer & Steel publication, edited by Homer Chase, "has been sent 
around the world from the U.S." Chase's expulsion from the ortho- 
dox party was described, and the "renegade" was then charged with 
various sins such as "openly fighting the C.P.U.S.A. through the bour- 
geois press" and receiving support from "unsavory sources," not fur- 
ther identified. The CPUSA "suggested" that the information it 
supplied be given to responsible party workers and editors and that 
Chase and his publication be considered "provocateurs." The letter 
also contained the following brief warning about propaganda issued 
by a second Communist splinter organization in the United States: 

Tliere is another such publication called Progressive Labor 
edited by Milt Kosen, expelled from the C.P.U.S.A. that is 
being circulated internationally. 

Hammer & Steel and the Progressive Labor Movement were at- 
tacked again in the lead article of the January 1964 issue of World 
Marxist Review. The article dealt with a new "extremely serious 
danger" to international Communist unity resulting from Communist 
deviationists operating under a "cover of leftist pseudo-revolutionary 
slogans." Such elements operated both in "concealed forms" and 
overtly as "splinter groups," the journal noted. In addition to identi- 
fying some of the splinter groups active in various non-Communist 
countries, the Communist magazine made innuendo-filled reference 
to the apparent "substantial material means" of such groups : 

In some countries small but vociferous factionalist groupings 
have emerged and are engaged in disruptive activities. Tliey 
include such anti-party groups as the Progressive Labor, 
Hammer and Steel and others in the USA, consisting of 
renegades and adventurist elements rooting for a "new 
Marxist party" * * *. 

■1% SfS sp 3p ^» 

The fact that these small breakaway groups often have at 
their disposal substantial material means and are able to 
publish factionalist literature affords food for thought. 

It is very distressing to Marxists when they read that these 
splitters are hailed by the Chinese press as true Communists 
and revolutionaries, while whole parties and their leaders are 
smeared as revisionists and accomplices, and sometimes even 
as direct agents, of imperialism. 

Hammer & Steel representatives, as previously noted, have conferred 
TTith POC members on common views and common actions with some 
success. Hammer & Steel itself has confessed that repeated efforts 


to hold similar discussions with the Brooklyn-based Pro^essive Labor 
Movement have been rejected. The Boston organization will have 
nothing to do with Trotskyist groupings. 

Hammer & Steel literature makes no reference to practical activities 
by H&S supporters other than those involving the distribution of 
printed propaganda. It does, however, provide clues to the "correct" 
policies which the group expects a new and genuine Communist party 
to follow. For example, Hammer & Steel has announced firm opposi- 
tion to Communists working within major political parties, which it 
views as supporting a government which is the "leading enemy of all 
progressive mankind." The Cuban revolution should be emulated by 
other Latin Americans and by the Negro people of the United States, 
who should be armed and fight for state power for the "oppressed 
Negro nation" in the South, according to Hammer & Steel propaganda. 

Progressive Labor Movement 

The appearance of the monthly publication Progressive Labor in 
January 19G2 heralded public agitation by another Communist group. 
According to a later issue of the new publication, more than 50 dele- 
gates from Progressive Labor groups in 11 cities met in all-day 
conference at a New York City hotel on July 1, 1962, and formed a 
nationwide organization. 

This so-called Progressive Labor Movement avowed that its imm.e- 
diate tasks were to develop a program and a corps of leaders for the 
eventual launching of a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist (Communist) 
Party. A report adopted by the July conference declared : 

The socialist revolution in the U.S. will be born from the 
union of a revolutionary program and dedicated revolu- 
tionary groups. Each — program and personnel — is essential 
to the marriage if a revolutionary family is to grow.^^ 

The editors of Progressive Lahor were Milton Rosen and Mortimer 
Scheer, who emerged from the July 1, 1902, conference as chairman 
and vice chairman, respectively, of a national coordinating committee 
directing the work of the Progressive Labor Movement. By 19G3, the 
organization had initiated a second publication, the Marxist Leninist 
Quarterly, with Rosen and Scheer as editors. In the summer of that 
year, the editorship of Progressive Lahor was turned over to Fred 

The mailing address of both publications is G.P.O. Box 808 in 
Brooklyn, N.Y. The top officer of the Progressive Labor Movement, 
Milton Rosen, is a Brooklynite and former official in the New York 
State apparatus of the CPUSA. 

As in the case of the POC, the Progressive Labor Movement grew 
out of a faction v.ithin the orthodox Communist Party. Rosen had 
been a member of the New York State Committee of the CPUSA and 
its State labor secretary. Mortimer Scheer, of Buffalo, N.Y., was a 
member of the same State committee and chairman of the Erie 
County organization of the party. When the two men began publish- 
ing Progressive Lahor after being expelled from the CPUSA, 

^Progressive Lahor, July-August 1962, p. 5. 


orthodox Communist publications publicized the activities which had 
led to tlieir expulsion and that of their followers. 

Rosen and Scheer were described as having been organizers of active 
opposition to party strategies within the party ever since the Decem- 
ber 1959 national party convention. Condemnation by the national 
committee and loss of party offices in August 1961 allegedly failed to 
deter Rosen from "secret factional activities." which included con- 
ducting meetings and recruiting members to the faction from other 
areas of the country. The CPUSA noted that the Rosen group had 
admitted at a party hearing to holding a faction meeting on December 
2-3, 1961. The expulsion of Rosen and three other comrades was 
announced in The Worker of January 7, 1962; the ousting of Scheer 
and five others in the Buffalo area had been reoorted in 2'he Worker 
of December 31, 1961.'"^ 

Altliough it has predicted that the Progressive Labor Movement 
"will fare no better than "other dogmatic sects which split from 
the Party," the CPUSA has, nevertheless, taken pains to explain the 
error in the Progressive Labor Movement's ways to orthodox Commu- 
nists in the United States in addition to alerting Communists of other 
lands to the unorthodox nature of the Progressive Labor Movement 
activity. As previously noted, the CPUSA letter to the World Marx- 
ist Revlev) denouncing the Hammer & Steel publication called atten- 
tion to Progressive Labor, which allegedly was being "circulated 

Publications of the Progressive Labor Movement register sympathy 
for tlie Chinese Communist viewpoint on matters in dispute with the 
Soviet Communist leadership. The monthly Progressive Lahor has 
expressed pride that a full text of one of its editorials in behalf of 
Chinese Communist policy had been reprinted by People'^s Daily, the 
leading newspaper in Communist China. The publication has also 
referred readers to an American importing firm for supplies of official 
Cliinese Communist policy statements in the English language. Pro- 
gressive Labor Movement has expressed confidence that Communist 
China will be the world's greatest power in several decades. At the 
same time, the organization has expressed concern that divisions in the 
world Communist movement could lead to non-Communist advances, 
and its criticisms of the Soviet leadership have been couched in such 
moderate language that they have drawn ridicule from the frenetically 
pro-Cliinese Hammer & Steel. 

Moderation, however, is not a feature of Progressive Labor state- 
ments regarding the methods by which it proposes to help bring com- 
munism to power in the United States. Progressive Labor Movement 
Chairman Milton Rosen declared: 

The emergence of the Progressive Labor Movement is an 
important sign that U.S. imperialism was and is unable to 
destroy tlie drive for a revolutionary socialist movement in 
this country. * * * It is our aim to encourage a program of an 

"Tlie expulsions of Rosen n-nd Scheer from the CPUSA and their subsequent role in 
the Prosrrossive Lnbor Movement were rilscnsspfl nt some lencth In The Worker of January 
28. 10fi2. p. 5. and Political Affnirn of February 19G2, pp. 50-64. 

Rosen npponred as n witness before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee on 
October 10. 1000, and Invoked his flflh amendment prlvllepe apalnst self-incrimination In 
response to questions onncernine his role within the New York State ortraniz.Ttion of the 
CPUSA. Scheer Invoked Ills constitutional privileges and refused to discuss his activities 
In the Comnmnist Pnrtv du''incr public hparings by the Committee on Un-American 
Activities in Buffalo, N.Y., on October 1, 1957. 


intermediate character for every phase of American life — 
a program that will develop sharp class struggle * * *, We in- 
tend to Hnd out how to elevate every daily struggle of the 
people into revolutionary will. It is our intent to help build 
a mass revolutionary party. It is our belief that the objec- 
tive conditions exist in our country and on a world scene for 
such a development. We will encourage every revolutionary 
or militant tendency among the people. * * * i^ 

Progressive Labor Movement has maintained that "serious people" 
cannot accept some Communists' ideas that "revolution is no longer 
possible or desirable or necessary, especially in the advanced count ries," 
M'here parliamentary systems provide a vehicle for evolutionary 
change.^^ And Milton Rosen has harangued college students as 
follows : 

We American Communists * * * must maintain the outlook 
of smashing the ruling party. 


American radicals (the socialists) do not have a violent 
outlook. History has shown that it is the ruling class that 
resorts to violence. The workers, however, must be prepared 
for violence out of self defense.^" 

Progressive Labor Movement publications indicate that members of 
this splinter group have been attempting to carry out an 
ambitious action program in apparent implementation of the organi- 
zation's pledge to encourage revolutionary and militant tendencies 
among the American population. A report adopted by the July 19G2 
conference, allegedly creating a national Progressive Labor organiza- 
tion, listed the formation of Progressive Labor clubs, Marxist study 
circles, and "class-conscious single-issue organizations" as the most 
important organizational activities in the innnediate future. 

By the summer of 19G2, the movement already claimed 1,200 "paid 
readers" of its monthly Progressive Labor and said it was operating 
Progressive Labor clubs in New York City ; Buffalo ; Philadelphia and 
Williamsport, Pa.; San Francisco; and unnamed localities in Massa- 
chusetts, North Carolina, and Georgia. A Progressive Labor Club 
was formed at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the 
summer of 19G2, but it disbanded in 1963. A Progressive Labor Stu- 
dent Club was started at Columbia University in November 1962, and 
by late 1963 the activities of a chapter of Progressive Labor at City 
College of New York were being publicized. In 1963 letters were being 
sent out in the name of a New York Progressive Labor Student 
Club, exploring possibilities of a national conference to set up a 
student organization with a "revolutionary student program." In 
addition, three street addresses on New York City's West Side, Lower 
East Side, and in Harlem are advertised as public neighborhood 
centers of the Progressive Labor Movement. 

"Single-issue organizations," through which Progressive Labor 
Movement apparently seeks to arouse the militancy of the "masses," 

" Marxist Leninist Quarterly, vol. 1, No. 2, 1963, p. 65. 

"Ibid., pp. 23-25. 

" Speech of Milton Rosen before New Left Club at University of North Carolina, Decem- 
ber 3, 1962, reported in uuiverslty newspaper, The Daily Tar Heel, of December 5, 1962, 
and reprinted in Progressive Labor of January 1963. 


have taken such forms as the Philadelphia and Williamsport Commit- 
tees for a Six-hour Day with Eight Hours' Pay. These committees 
are headed respectively by Joe Dougher, variously described as 
national chairman and national organizational secretary of the Pro- 
gressive Labor Movement and former member of the national commit- 
tee of the orthodox Commmiist Party, and Paul Ault, president of the 
Williamsport Progressive Labor Club. Both men have also allegedly 
been active in conferences aimed at setting up committees and coun- 
cils to end unemployment. 

Progressive Labor forces have manned picket lines and conducted 
street meetings on a variety of issues. They have picketed United Na- 
tions headquarters and distributed leaflets demanding a U.N. resolu- 
tion to "compel" the U.S. Government to help the unemployed. They 
have joined picket lines set up by striking unions. (The Progressive 
Labor Movement "program" with respect to the trade union move- 
ment calls for the formation of rank-and-file union committees which 
will fight more militantly for labor demands, regardless of decisions 
made by union leaders. Because the AFL-CIO leadership is allegedly 
a conhrmed collaborator of big business. Progressive Labor Movement 
also promotes the establishment of a second federation of labor, in- 
cluding the Teamsters and Communist-dominated unions ousted from 
the CIO.) Progressive Labor Movement claimed it was the only 
"left" organization on the streets of New York City during the crucial 
days of the Cuban crisis in October 19G2. The organization had issued 
leaflets and conducted several street meetings in opposition to the U.S. 
blockade of Communist Cuba. Later that same year. Progressive 
Labor Movement took credit for distributing thousands of leaflets 
against civil defense drills in schools. 

During 1963, Progressive Labor Movement picketed the late Presi- 
dent Keiniedy, allegedly in behalf of civil rights. (The Progressive 
Labor Movement has scoffed at nonviolent civil rights movements; 
amiounced its support for the concept of "armed self-defense" by the 
Negro people; and called for defense of the Black Muslims on the 
ground that their demand for a separate state cannot be achieved un- 
der capitalism and is thus a "revolutionary demand.") Progressive 
Labor Movement also distributed handbills calling for street demon- 
strations against alleged instances of police brutality. The organiza- 
tion tried to gather the signatures of 5,000 registered voters by Sep- 
tember 13, 1903, in order to put a "Progressive Labor Party" candidate 
on the ballot for New York City councilman at large from Manhattan. 
Although its efi'orts, which allegedly included the distribution of more 
than 100,000 pieces of literature in 2 months, were unsuccessful. Pro- 
gressive Labor Movement reported as a side benefit an increase in 
the organization's membership. (Progressive Labor Movement 
opposes work within the Democratic and Republican "war parties" and 
endorses any steps toward a third party.) 

When Milton Eosen was active in the CPUSA, he protested that the 
orthodox Communist tactic of covertly infiltrating non-Communist 
groups and causes brought no public recognition of Communist work, 
and he advocated bringing party leaders and programs more into the 
public eye {Political Affairs, November 1959). 

Rosen's report to the founding conference of a national Progressive 
Labor organization stressed that a fundamental prerequisite to form- 
ing a new Commmiist party was developing forces "capable — among 


other things — of bringing Pro^-essive Labor activities into the public 
spotlight." From this viewpoint, the most successful activity during 
the past year was a 2-month visit to Cuba undertaken by a 59-member 
U.S. "student" delegation in defiance of U.S. regulations prohibiting 
such travel. 

Committee investigations, which led to public hearings on May 23 
and September 12 and 13, 1963, showed that youthful members of the 
Progressive Labor Movement had played a leading role in organizing 
the trip to Cuba and in supervising the delegation during its travels 
there in July and August of 1963. Witnesses interrogated during 
these hearings included five members of the Progressive Labor Move- 
ment who had made the trip. Their testimony and other evidence 
showing how Progressive Laborites openly and deliberately defied the 
U.S. Government on the Cuban travel issue are summarized in another 
section of this annual report.^" 

The sojourn of the U.S. student delegation in Cuba — featured by 
an unremitting stream of propaganda statements from the "students" — 
was widely publicized, as was the subsequent prosecution of two Pro- 
gressive Laborites for conspiracy to violate U.S. travel control laws. 
The movement obtained additional public attention when Progressive 
Labor supporters created so much disorder during this committee's 
Cuban travel hearings that the proceedings had to be suspended tem- 
porarily while shouting, scuffling demonstrators were forcibly ejected 
from the hearing chamber. Members of the student delegation to 
Cuba, meanwhile, lectured on their trip before audiences of young 
people from the East to the West Coast, and a student committee for 
travel to Cuba, chiefly manned by Progressive Laborites, an- 
nounced it would continue to defy U.S. travel laws by recruiting 500 
delegates for a trip to Cuba in the summer of 1964. 

Progressive Labor Movem.ent publications maintained that the stu- 
dent travelers to Cuba had shown the world "how to fight against an 
oppressive state machinery." Although "courage" and "boldness" 
were important elements in their "success," the organization declared, 
a key element "in the eyes of the world" was their forthright declara- 
tion' of their political opinions. "Those who were members of the 
Progressive T^bor Movement said so and said why," the Progressive 
Labor issue for October-November 1963 noted. 

The splinter group claimed that congressional and Federal grand 
jury investigations and Federal indictments following the unauthor- 
ized student trip to Cuba resulted in "increased interest from the pub- 
lic, and increased membership for the Progressive Labor Movement." 
Chairman Rosen told the press in September of 1963 that his move- 
ment had grown to 1.000 members located in 60 to 70 clubs across 
the country and that 6,500 persons read the monthly Progressive Labor. 

Unlike POC and Hammer & Steel, the Progressive Labor Move- 
ment's disagreements with the Trotskyists and orthodox Communists 
have not prevented the Progressive Labor Movement from cooperating 
with them in agitational activity. Progressive Labor Movement and 
Trotskyist groups have been represented on the same picket 
line on various occasions and on the same speakers' platform 

^ Seo pp. 30-84. hearings on Violations of State Department Travel Regulations and Pro- 
Castro Propaganda Activities in the United States. 


at more than one public meeting, agitating on such subjects as 
support for the Cuban revokition or Puerto Rican independence. 
Progressive Labor Movement has announced a desire to work with 
all left groups for nonenforcement and repeal of the Internal Security 
Act, under which tlie CPUSA is now being prosecuted. The organiza- 
tion also has stated it will refuse to engage in any "fratricidal war" 
with the CPUSA, the Trotskyists, or any other "socialist" group. 

Workers World Party 

Trotslr^ist groups which have worked with the Progressive Labor 
Movement include the Workers World Party. 

The latter organization, for example, publicly supported the afore- 
mentioned project of sending a delegation of young people to Cuba 
in the summer of 19G3 in defiance of U.S. travel regulations. The 
Workers World Party boasted that its own supporters, as well as those 
of Progressive Labor, were among the demonstrators whose behavior 
was so unruly that they had to be ejected from the House Caucus Room 
in which this committee held hearings on the subject of Cuban travel 
on September 12 and 13, 1963. When a public rally was held 2 days 
later in New York City's Town Hall to present the views of the student 
delegation to Cuba, however, more than 100 persons recruited from 
the ranks of the Workers World Party, the Progressive Labor Move- 
ment, and the Socialist Workers Party, acting as a "united front 
defense guard," ejected potential hecklers before proceedings got 
underway, and otherwise "assured an orderly meeting." ^^ 

The Workers World group of Trotskyists emerged into public view 
in ]\farch 1959 with the first issue of a semimonthly publication, Work- 
ers World. The publication listed Vincent Copeland as its editor and 
tlie location of its editorial offices as 4G West 21st Street in New York 

A statement of principles in the first issue of Workers World \ftis 
issued in the name of five former members of the National Committee 
of the Socialist Workers Party. They included the editor, Vincent 
Copeland, and Sam Marcy, also known as Sam Ballan, who was iden- 
tified in later issues of Workers World as being chairman of the 
Workers World Party. 

Workers World subsequently publicized activities of branches of the 
Workers World Party located in New York City, Buffalo, Los An- 
geles, and Seattle. The party's first street demonstration in New York 
on November 14, 1959, brought out 70 pickets, and its first public meet- 
ing in New York on February 20, 1960, addressed by Sam Marcy, re- 
portedly attracted an audience of 130 persons to hear about the organi- 
zation's efforts to build a "proletarian revolutionary party" in the 
United States. 

The Workers World was founded by former members of the 
Socialist Workers Party who had walked out of the SWP in February 
1959, under the leadership of Sam Marcy, because the old-line Trot- 
skyist organization was not sufficiently revolutionary in its outlook. 
The first statement of principles by the Workers World group declared 
that: "After years of patient and loyal effort to keep the SWP [So- 
cialist Workers Party] on a course of principled revolutionary poli- 

«i Workers World, September 27, 1963, pp. 1, 3, 4. 


tics * * * we are forced to break into the arena of open conflict for the 
leadership of the revolutionary working class movement." " 

Like other Communist splinter groups, Workers World forces refer 
to themselves as the genuine Communists whose goal is to clarify "rev- 
olutionary ideas'' in preparation for organizing "a genuine Marxist- 
Leninist [Conmiunist] party." They dispose of their competitors in 
language such as the following which appeared in the first Workers 
World editorial of March 1959 : 

We are living in an epoch of convulsions and catastrophes. 
It is characterized by a race between imperialist wars and 
proletarian revolutions. * * * 


Marxism has always taught that social convulsions, catas- 
trophes, war and revolutions are * * * inevitable qualitative 
changes after * * * years if not decades of "peaceful" 
development and sharpening of irrepressible class antag- 

Our task is to prepare the masses for these eventualities, 
not to sing them to sleep with pacifist lullabies. * * * 

Today, all the other socialist and communist groups show 
an abhorrence and dread of the oncoming world strug- 
gle. * * * 

All the more is it necessary to have a party which will call 
a spade a spade * * *.^^ 

Soviet Communists under Khrushchev's leadersliip, according to 
Workers World, have put forward illusions regarding "a peaceful 
road to Socialism, voluntary disarmament by the imperialist states 
and peaceful co-existence with them for an indefinite period." They 
have "dumped Leninist theory overboard" because : 

Lenin taught a certain theory of the state. He taught the 
necessity for the forcible overthrow of capitalism no matter 
how big a parliamentary majority the workers parties would 
obtain. (He explained the inevitable armed resistance of 
the capitalist class to any peaceful expropriation of them- 
selves by the majority.)^* 

Regarding the Communist conquest of power in the United States, 
Workers World has relied on innuendo, in spite of its vows to call a 
spade a spade. The public statement of principles issued by Workers 
World leaders in March 1959 dealt with the subject only indirectly via 
a denunciation of Socialist Workers Party policy : 

while the SWP [Socialist Workers Party] majority has been 
most vociferous * * * about the "political revolution" in the 
Soviet bloc, they have been soft pedaling the idea of prole- 
tarian revolution at home in capitalist America. The 

23 The history and policies of the Socialist Workers Party were outlined In this commit- 
tee's report on Communist and Trotskyist Activity Within the Greater Los Angeles Chap- 
ter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, released November 2, 1962. That report called 
attention to increased activity and influence of the Trotskvlst organization in recent 
years and its "united front" actions with the Communist Party, U.S.A., despite ideological 

23 Workers World, March 1959, pp. 1, 2. 

'^ Ibid., August 11 , 1961, p. 4 ; April 1959, p. 6. 

36-584—64 3 


teachings of Lenin and Trotslvy on the seizure of po%Yer by 
the proletariat have more and more been shelved in favor of 
the parliamentary road to socialism.^^ 

The Workers World group was less ambiguous in a little-publicized 
"Final Statement" it had issued Febraary 12, 1959. In the course of 
outlining the "great issues" which divided the dissidents from the 
majority in the SWP and led to a decision to start a new party, this 
document flatlj'' asserted : 

We reject the bourgeois democratic illusion of the constitu- 
tional road to power. And we want to prepare for the revolu- 
tionary overthrow of American capitalism. * * * 

Workers World propaganda has maintained that there will be a 
"Avorld-wide" imperialist war directed against the Soviet Union and 
China "if there are no more successful revolutions in the rest of the 
world" ; at the same time it has expressed confidence that "the revolu- 
tions ivill be successful." "World war, according to Workers World 
elements, can therefore be avoided, not through disarmament (which 
is "impossible") and not in a "pacifist" way, but in "a revolutionary 
way." ^^ 

From its inception, the Trotskyist splinter organization has sup- 
ported policies of the Chinese Communists under attack by the Soviet 
Communist leadership and circulated the Chinese Communist views 
through the pages of Workei^s World, as well as through separate 
printed pamphlets. The Workers World describes the Chinese Com- 
munist Party as the leader of the "revolutionary elements" in the in- 
ternational Communist movement. And the Chinese Communists 
are even credited with providing the movement with "an accurate 
Marxist-Leninist analysis of world reality today." ^" 

Workers World has publicized and supported revolutionary situa- 
tions around the globe, from Vietnam to Cuba, and the Workers World 
Party has taken to the streets to agitate on such issues. The Trot- 
skyist group has been particularly active in support of the Cuban 
revolution, the "example and message" of which keeps "echoing 
around the world" {Workers Worlds September 13, 1963) . Chairman 
Sam Marcy and other members of the Workers World Party were 
forcibly ousted from the United Nations headquarters building in 
New York on January 4, 1961, for participating in a demonstration 
in the visitors' gallery. The demonstrators had greeted the United 
States delegate's speech on the breaking of diplomatic relations witli 
Cuba with shouts of "Viva Castro" and "Down with Wall Street Im- 

^ Ibid., March 1959, p. 7. 

^ Ibid., .Tanuarv l.S. 1961, p. 2 ; March 24. 1961, p. 2. 

^ Ibid., Decemlier 7. 1962, p. 1 and .lanuary 25. 1963. p. 4. 

In its putilicit.v in behalf of Chinese Communist policies. TTorAer.s Worhl minimized 
differences with the Chinese Communist leaders resulting from the fact that the local group 
avowedly reveres the former Soviet Communist leader Leon Trotsky, while the Chinese 
Communists ve?ierate Trotslcy's bitterest foe. Joseph Stalin. The Chinese Coninui- 
nists have charged Khrushchev vrith slandering Joseph Stalin and with trying to negate 
the late Soviet dictator's true role as a "great proletarian revolutionary" whose merits 
outweighed his faults. The Chinese have also defended Stalin's purge of Trotskyists in 
the Soviet Union. 

Whereas the Socialist Workers Party has denounced the Chinese Communists for thus 
trying to "rehabilitate" Stalin, the Workers World group has responded by acausing the 
Socialist Workers Party of fainthearted support for Communist China. The yVorVers 
World has even found some good words to say about the man who has always been an 
anathema to Trotskyist movements. Workers World declared on December 22, 1961. 
that Khrushchev's de-Stalinizatlon campaign was a fraud and, anyway, Stalin had played 
a "dual role" in the Communist movement and should be credited with defending "the 
gains of the proletarian revolution." 


perialism.-' The Workers World Party also sponsored "Hands Off 
Cuba" meetings in support of the Communist government of Cuba. 
Another issue on which the Workers World Party has taken to the 
streets is Puerto Rican independence. 

Domestically, Workers World propaganda has concentrated on civil 
rights issues. The publication, which has expressed "solidarity" with 
Negro nationalist groups, has incessantly appealed for the formation 
in the North and South of armed "civil rights" defense guards which 
are "organized, drilled and trained in the use of arms" {Woi^kers 
World, May 26, 1961) . The Trotskyist publication has also appealed 
for funds to buy rifles for southern "freedom fighters." 

In the field of politics, the Workers World has opposed orthodox 
Communist policy of working within the major political parties and, 
instead, has advocated organizing for independent political activity 
"by the methods of class struggle and mass action." On the trade 
union front. Workers World has attacked union leaders for repressing 
the militancy of the workers, has urged the organization of workers' 
committees in defiance of union leaders, and the formation of militant 
mass demonstrations by unemployed workers. The Wo7'kers World 
solution for the steel strike in 1959 and 1960 was a general strike by all 
American labor. 

As previously noted, the Workers World Party has cooperated with 
the Progressive Labor Movement on various occasions. It has also 
pledged "all out solidarity" with the Communist Party of the United 
States in its fight against enforcement of the Internal Security Act 
and it has appealed for funds for the party's legal defense. 

Significance of the Growth of Communist Splinter Groups 

The operations of an increasing number of competitive Communist 
organizations have created a number of problems for the Communist 
Party, U.S.A. The party has complained about iiaving to expend 
effort combating attacks from these groups at a time when its leaders 
are being prosecuted under the Internal Security Act by the U.S. 
Government and when, because of this, it has ordered its members to 
operate from more concealed or "underground" positions. 

One of the party's problems is to prevent defection of its own 
members to the new groups. These groups have been founded largely 
by former members of tlie orthodox party who left it or were expelled 
because they were unwilling to go along with its policies. Initially, 
in building their membership, these groups naturally tended not so 
much to recruit among non-Communist Americans, as to seek su])port 
from already-convinced Marxists-Leninists (i.e., members of the 
orthodox Communist Party, for the most part) . There is no question 
but that the main Coimnunist Party has lost some of its more fanatical 
members to the new organizations. 

The CPUSA has also had to fight against any weakening of the 
loyalties of those members remaining in its ranks. The party has 
traditionally operated as a paramilitary organization in which the 
rank and file are expected to carry out instructions from their leaders 
with lockstep precision. The average Communist is not supposed to 
question the correctness of the party program which he helps to carry 
out. A variety of party disciplinary bodies helps the comrades hew 


to a line Avhich has been handed down from a dictatorial clique of 
Communists in the U.S.S.R. 

In the zealous performance of party tasks, many U.S. Communists 
are, of course, further fortified by the Communist "faith." Their 
united, disciplined forces are leading struggles which will inevitably 
result in a worldwide Communist society assuring peace and plenty 
for all mankind, according to Communist teachings. Communists 
allegedly are able to understand the past, present, and future develop- 
ment of society because they practice a "scientific socialism." Tliis 
"science" is also supposed to guide them into taking the proper actions 
to reach their goal. 

When various Communist parties argue in behalf of different courses 
of action while ostensibly applying the same scientific socialist prin- 
ciples, some orthodox Communists are likely to discover that there 
must be fallacies in Communist teachings and question the authority 
of Soviet and U.S. Communist leaders. The CPUSA has felt 
compelled to issue a considerable amount of literature defending its 
made-in-Moscow positions against the criticisms of dissident Com- 
munists here and abroad. Like the Soviet Commmiists, the U.S. 
Communist leaders have sought to preserve their traditional authority 
over Communist believers by treating their competitors as impostors. 

The concern of orthodox Communist leaders over retaining the 
wholehearted support of their members was implicit in the following 
recent warning to party comrades by the party's general secretary, 
Gus Hall: 

If any comrade has ideas that there are competing trends 
of Marxism-Leninism, such a comrade will not fight for the 
party. We cannot accept such a concept. There can be only 
one science of Marxism-Leninism, only one scientific 

That science cannot be correctly represented by two par- 
ties and two policies in a single country. There are oppor- 
tunistic swings from the correct path of that science. There 
can be differences in tactics, as the science is applied and as 
it develops, but there cannot be two varieties of that 
science. * * * 28 

The new Communist groups also have created problems for the 
party outside its immediate ranks. The dissident organizations 
include individuals experienced in the operation of Communist fronts 
and in the infiltration of "people's" organizations as a result of their 
past affiliation with the CPUSA. It is therefore not surprising to 
find that orthodox Communists have recently had to contend with 
dissident Communists for power and influence within certain Com- 
mmiist fronts and organizations of non-Communists. 

This competition from the "left," however, may very well stimu- 
late orthodox Communists to more vigorous and militant activities. 
CPUSA leaders have indicated dismay that radicals outside orthodox 
ranks must be credited with more "successful" activity in certain areas 
than the party could achieve. Gus Hall's recent warning to Com- 
munists against straying into the camp of the dissident "leftists" was 

2s Section of extended report by Gus Hall to leading Communist Party personnel delivered 
In October 1963 and printed In The Worker, November 17, 1963, pp. 5. 9. 


significantly coupled with a plea for more "militancy" on the part of 
the orthodox comrades : 

There is need for some clarification of the concepts of "mili- 
tancy" and "Leftism." Of course, they are not the same. Mil- 
itancy must be developed and Leftism must be fought. * * * 
We need to give more attention to the role of militancy as 
a feature of our work, and we need to fight against an easy- 
going, non-mobilizing routinism which has appeared in our 
ranks. * * * 29 

There is no question that this Nation's problems of internal security 
have been aggravated by the mushrooming of Communist organiza- 
tions professing a more militant and genuinely revolutionary outlook 
than the Communist Party, U.S.A. 

A number of these new Communist groups, as well as the older 
Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, have been boasting of their 
ability to attract young people into their ranks. The previously cited 
episode, in which a large "student" delegation deliberately defied LT.S. 
travel regulations with respect to Cuba, indicates that these extremists 
have had some success in exploiting the immaturity of youth for sub- 
versive, Communist ends. 

Another aspect of the activity of the groups which should not be 
overlooked is the increased possibility of Communist-instigated vio- 
lence if the belligerent line of such organizations finds a substantial 
number of sympathizers among the American population, whether 
youthful or adult. 

The expanding, organized activities of Communists whose Mecca 
is Peking rather than Moscow call for increased alertness and study 
by both law-enforcement and lawmaking agencies. 

28 Ibid. 




(Testimony of Maud Russell) 

By resolution of August 2, 1962, the committee embarked upon a 
series of hearings relating to the necessity for, or advisability of, 
recommending amendments to the Foreign Agents Registration Act 
and for the purpose of exercising the committee's legislative over- 
sig:ht functions in appraisii;g the administration of the act. The com- 
mittee particularly directed its attention to the activities of members 
and affiliates of the Communist Party engaged in the conduct of 
propaganda on behalf of foreign Communist governments — an area 
in which court decisions have raised questions as to the true test of 
the agency relationship within the meaning of the act. 

The initial hearings of the committee on November 14, 1962, in- 
volved two organizations, the Medical Aid to Cuba Committee and 
the Friends of British Guiana. Hearings were continued on March 6, 
1963, when the committee received the testimony of Maud Russell, 
publisher of the Far East Reporter^ who has been actively engaged for 
many years as a speaker and publisher, principally upon the subject 
of Red China. 

Maud Russell was identified as a "secret" member of the Communist 
Party at the national level by former FBI undercover operative 
Armando Penha in testimony before this committee on March 19, 
1958. Mr. Penha also testified that Miss Russell was a writer for Far 
Eastern publications whose "influence extends from border to border" 
and whose primary objective "is recognition of China, speaking always 
in terms of peace and trade with the East and West." 

In her testimony before the committee on March 6, Miss Russell 
invoked the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, 
refusing to affirm or deny the testimony of Armando Penha. She 
also invoked the fifth amendment in refusing to answer questions 
pertaining to past or present Communist Party membership. 

Miss Russell's activities had most recently come to the attention 
of the committee in May 1962, when it received the testimonv of Chi- 
chou Huang, a professor who had defected from Red China a short 
time prior thereto, 

Mr, Huang, in 1945, had received a scholarship from the Yunnan 
Provincial Government of Nationalist China for study in the United 
States. He was a student in this country from 1945 to 1949, He first 
entered Johns Hopkins University as a premedical student, but trans- 
ferred to the University of Maryland after one semester. In the latter 
part of 1948, he decided to return to China to join the Communist 
forces which then controlled the northern part of the country, 



Huang sought the assistance and advice of a Dr. Frederick A. 
Blossom, an employee of the Library of Congress, whom Mr. Huang 
had met while attending a lecture by Scott Nearing, a former member 
of the Communist Party who is still active in Commmiist fronts and 
causes. Dr. Blossom suggested that Huang contact Maud Russell and 
arranged a meeting in his Washington, D.C,, office so that Mr. Huang 
could discuss the matter with her. 

Mr. Huang testified on May 24, 1962, that at that meetmg Maud 
Russell had suggested that he contact a Chinese newspaper, the Hua 
Shang Pao, that is, the Chinese Commercial Daily ^ in Hong Kong, 
where he would receive information that would put him in contact 
with Communist guerrillas in North China. 

In her appearance before the committee on March 6, 1963, Miss 
Russell testified that she had in fact met with Mr. Huang in the offices 
of Dr. Blossom and "very faintly" recollected her conversation with 
him. Wlien asked whether she had specifically referred Mr. Huang 
to the Chinese Com/mercial Daily ^ she replied that she did not recall, 
but did not "think" that she had referred him to any specific news- 
paper. She said she was "pretty sure" she had told Mr. Huang that 
if he went to Hong Kong he could get the information he wanted 
from newspapers there. 

Maud Russell was a resident of China for 26 years, from 1917 to 
1943, where she served on the staff of the China branch of the Young 
Women's Christian Association. 

Since her return to the United States, Miss Russell has frequently 
appeared as a speaker at affairs sponsored by Communist-front orga- 
nizations and as a lecturer at Communist Party schools on both the 
East and West Coasts. 

Maud Russell was the executive director of the Committee for a 
Democratic Far Eastern Policy, serving in that capacity from 1946 
until the dissolution of this Communist-front organization in 1952. 
She was also a frequent contributor of articles to its official organ, the 
Far East Spotlight. 

When the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy was dis- 
solved and the Far East Spotlight ceased publication, a new publica- 
tion on the Far East was established with Maud Russell as pub- 
lisher. This publication, the Far East Reporter^ is an obvious 
propaganda organ for Communist China. It claims to make "avail- 
able significant facts and analj^ses contributed by competent writers on 
the Far East." The "significant facts" consistently defend, praise, and 
promote the Commmiist government of Red China, branding as 
"fantasies" or "obvious fakes" reports of persecution, oppression, and 
starvation made by those who have been fortunate enough to escape 
the Red Chinese tyranny. The "competent writers" include such 
identified Communists as Anna Louise Strong, Israel Epstein, Susan 
Warren, Helen Travis, and Miss Russell herself. 

Miss Russell admitted as "obvious" that she was the publisher of 
the Far East Reporter and agreed that a report in the magazine that 
she had served on the staff of the Young Women's Christian Associ- 
ation in China for 26 years, from 1917 to 1943, was correct. She con- 
ceded that after her return here she served as the executive director 
of the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy, cited as Com- 
munist by Attorney General Tom Clark in 1949. She also admitted 


that she was the major defense witness for this organization in pro- 
ceedings before the Subversive Activities Control Board, held for the 
purpose of determining whether it should be ordered to register with 
the Attorney General as a Communist-front organization. The re- 
spondent claimed that the organization had been dissolved on Au- 
gust 1, 1952.^ She denied tliat the Far East Reporter, of which 
she is the publisher, was created to fill the void which occurred when 
the Far East Spotlight ceased publication. 

It was pointed out to Miss Russell that certain persons who had 
recently written articles for, or w^hose articles have been distributed 
by, the Fa,r East Reporter — Israel Epstein, Elsie Fairfax-Chplmeley, 
and Anna Louise Strong — had all been active in the Committee for 
a Democratic Far Eastern Policy and had also contributed to pub- 
lications of the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR). It was also 
pointed out to Miss Russell that the Senate Internal Security Sub- 
committee, after its investigation of the IPR, had reported that Israel 
Epstein and Anna Louise Strong had been identified in its hearings 
as members of the Communist Party and as persons who had colla- 
borated with Soviet intelligence agents — and that Elsie Fairfax- 
Cholmeley had been the subject of governmental action involving 
loyalty or national security. In addition. Miss Russell was reminded 
that the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee had found the IPR, 
with which these persons had been affiliated, to be an instrument of 
Communist policy, propaganda, and military intelligence ; to be con- 
trolled by staff members who were either identified Communists or 
pro-Communists; and to have the aim of orienting American Far 
Eastern policy toward Communist objectives. 

Miss Russell denied knowing any of the above-named contributors 
to her publication as Communists. 

The witness chose to avail herself of the fifth amendment priv- 
ilege, however, when asked if she knew Susan Warren to be a Com- 
munist. Miss Warren, a recent contributor to the Far East Reporter^ 
Avas a delegate to the New York State Convention of the Communist 
Political Association in August 1945 and thereafter an instructor at 
the Communist Party's now defunct Jefferson School of Social 

The committee introduced an exhibit which summarized part of 
Miss Russell's speaking itinerary over the prior 2 years. The witness 
agreed that the account was accurate, admitting that on all occasions 
she had devoted her talks to the subject of Red China. Although Miss 
Russell insisted that she "reported the facts," she conceded that the 
"facts" were "favorable" to the Red Chinese regime and that she 
believed the regime was good for the Chinese people. 

^Herbert Brownell. Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Petitioner v. The Com- 
mittee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy, Respondent, Docket No. 113-53, before the 
Subversive Activities Control Board. The Attorney General filed a petition with the 
Board on April 22, 1953. for an order requiring respondent to register as a Communist- 
front organization as required by the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950. Service of 
the petition was made upon Maud Russell, former executive director of respondent. An 
appearance was subsequently entered by David Rein as counsel for Maud Russell only, and 
motions to dismiss the petition and to quash service thereof were filed with the Board, 
alleging that respondent went out of existence in August 1952 and was nonexistent at the 
time of the filing and service of the petition. Testimony was taken on the motion, and 
the hearing examiner issued his report finding the named organization to have been non- 
existent at the time the petition was filed and recommended to the Board that the petition 
be dismissed. This recommendation was adopted by the Board, one member dissenting. 
The Board did not pass upon or reach the merits or substance of the Attorney General a 
petition, but relied solely upon the mentioned technical ground for dismissal. 


The committee's exhibit of Miss Riisseirs speaking itinerary was 
compiled from a series of notices about her activities carried in the 
Communist press. 

When asked in what way these publications came into possession 
of knowledge of her speaking itinerary, slie testified that she paid 
for advertisements in them. The witness conceded that she did not 
place such advertisements in any non-Communist publication, but 
confined herself exclusively to the People" s World and National 

She denied having any knowledge of the Communist Party affilia- 
tions of Dorothy Hayes, who arranged her Chicago speaking dates 
between May and June 1961, or of Dr. J. C. Coleman, who arranged 
her Los Angeles speaking dates in October 1962. These two indi- 
viduals, whom Miss Kussell conceded knowing over a period of years, 
have been identified as members of the Communist Party during exec- 
utive hearings held by this committee. 

In early 1959, Maud Russell applied for and was issued a United 
States passport for travel to Great Britain, Scandinavia, France, the 
U.S.S.R., India, and Japan. 

Documents introduced at the hearing confirm that she also visited 
Eed China during that year, despite State Department regulations 
which prohibit such travel. Several of the announcements of her 
talks published in the Communist press, for example, stated that in 
1959 she had spent -3 months traveling 10,000 miles through Red 
China's rural and urban areas. 

In addition, the Far East Reporter subsequently reproduced four 
photographs of Miss Russell, which it reported had been taken in 
Shanghai, Tientsin, and other parts of China in 1959. An account 
of her trip was also reported in a Far East Reporter pamphlet entitled 
Neiu People in Neio China. In a review of this pamphlet, the Com- 
munist monthly magazine, Neio World Review^ of April 1960 stated : 

Maud Russell makes you share the pleasure and excitement 
of her return to China last year for a visit of three months. 

It was a profoundly stirring China she saw in her lengthy 
travels throughout the country, and she describes vividly 
many revealing aspects of the dynamic life she observed. 

A^Hien the committee asked Miss Russell if she had visited Com- 
munist China in 1959, she invoked the fifth amendment i>rivilege 
against self-incrimination. She invoked the same privilege when 
asked whether she had made any prearrangements with Communists 
in the United States or abroad for her entry into Communist China ; 
whether she had met any high-ranking Chinese Communist officials ; 
whether she was a guest of the Chinese Government ; and whether she 
had conferred with any officials of that Communist government and 
agreed to serve as a propagandist for Red China in the United States. 

^^^len asked from whom she had obtained the slides of life in Com- 
munist China, which she had displayed during a recent talk in Balti- 
more, Md., Miss Russell invoked the fifth amendment, but specifically 
denied obtaining them from Edwin S. Smith, who is registered under 
the Foreign Agents Registration Act as the U.S. agent of the China 
Photo Service of Peking, China, an agency of the Red Chinese Gov- 


ernment. She declared that she has never registered as an agent of 
Red China and was not acting for a "foreign principal." 

Although Maud Russell has for years paraded as an authority on 
China, has been billed as a "noted speaker on the Far East,'' and told 
the committee that Red China should have nuclear weapons, she 
repeatedly refused to answer committee questions concerning the 
Soviet-Red Chinese dispute regarding basic Communist policy toward 
the United States and the rest of the free world. (The Communist 
Party, U.S.A., is backing the Soviet Commmiist Party in its widely 
publicized arguments with the Chinese party over methods which 
should be employed by the international Commimist movement in 
pursuit of a world Communist empire. The Chinese Communists, 
who are urging more militant and revolutionary tactics by the world's 
Communists, have been accused by Soviet Commmiists of lacking 
faith in any victory for communism without armed struggle and of 
ignoring the consequences of modern war and the use of nuclear 

Miss Russell invoked the fifth amendment in response to one ques- 
tion regarding these basic Communist policies which involve the 
security and possibly the very survival of the United States. In re- 
sponse' to others, she said she did not want to get into a discussion 
of this "theoretical thing * * * this is a whole new field of rela- 
tionships between the Communist parties, and I don't want to get 
into that question." She stated that she had been studying the Sino- 
Soviet differences, but did not have full knowledge and understanding 
of the subject. 


One of the major subjects which concerned the conmiittee during 
4 dnjs of executive hearings in Los Angeles, Calif., in April 1962 
was the changes that had taken place in the organization, strategy, and 
leadership of the Southern California District of the Communist 
Party since the last committee hearings in Los Angeles, held in Feb- 
ruary 1959. 

Several reorganizations of the party apparatus — the latest of which 
was designed to provide more effective concealment of Communist 
Party oj)erators — were explored during the committee's interroga- 
tion of various local party functionaries. The committee also pro- 
duced an array of exhibits at the hearings. Most of them were party 
documents, circulated at party conventions and similar secret con- 
claves, which spelled out current Comunist Party strategies in minute 

The testimony of 29 witnesses who were interrograted during these 
executive hearings on various aspects of party activity in the Southern 
California District was printed and released on July 31, 1963, under 
the title " 'United Front' Technique of the Southern California Dis- 
trict of the Communist Party." The testimony was accompanied by a 
committee report bearing the same title. The report summarized the 
results of the committee's staff investigations which led to the hear- 

2 Spp pp 93_9(5 of this rpport for details of the Report on "United Front" Technique 
of the Southern California District of the Communist Party. 


PARTS 1-4 

On January 3, 1961, the United States severed diplomatic and 
consular relations with Cuba. The immediate but not the sole cause 
of this action was Castro's demand that the United States reduce its 
embassy and consulate personnel in Havana to 11 persons. Referring 
to this demand in his announcement of the break in relations, Presi- 
dent Eisenhower stated : 

This miusual action * * * can have no other purpose than 
to render impossible the conduct of normal diplomatic re- 
lations with that Government. 

This calculated action on the part of the Castro Govern- 
ment is only the latest of a long series of harassments, baseless 
accusations, and vilification. There is a limit to what the 
United States in self-respect can endure. That limit has now 
been reached. * * * 

On January 16, 1961, the Department of State barred U.S. citizens 
from traveling to Cuba unless they had passports specifically endorsed 
for such travel by the Department. Some months later, it came to the 
attention of the Committee on Un-American Activities that American 
citizens with Communist Party and pro-Communist backgrounds were 
secretly traveling to Cuba— usually via Mexico— in violation of this 
ban. An investigation was initiated which led to the holding of 10 
days of public hearings in 1963. These hearings were held in Wash- 
ington, D.C., on May 6, 7, and 23, August 5, September 12 and 13, 
October 16, and November 18, 1963, and in Los Angeles, Calif., on 
July 1 and 2, 1963. A total of 42 witnesses testified in these hearings. 

The legislative purposes of the hearings were to determine the 
need (1) for tightening laws regulating foreign travel of U.S. citi- 
zens and (2) for broadening the definition of persons required to 
register with the Attorney General under the Foreign Agents Regis- 
tration Act of 1938. 

Mat 6 Hearing 

On May 6, 1963, a subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American 
Activities held the first in a series of hearings on the subjects of viola- 
tions of State Department travel regulations and pro-Castro propa- 
ganda activities in the United States. 

The subcommittee w^as composed of Representatives Edwin E. Wil- 
lis (chairman), William M. Tuck, and August E. Johansen. Also in 
attendance at the hearings at various times were Representatives Joe 
R. Pool, Donald C. Bruce, Henry C. Schadeberg, and John M. 

Following is the text of the opening statement read by Mr. Willis, 
the subcommittee chairman : 

The subcommittee is convened to conduct hearings upon the 
subjects of inquiry and for the legislative purposes set forth 
in the committee resolution adopted April 24, 1963. I offer 
this resolution for the record. It reads as follows : 

"BE IT RESOLVED, that hearings by the Committee on 
Un-American Activities or a subcommittee thereof, be held 


in Washington, D.C., or at sucli other place or places as the 
Chairman may determine, on such date or dates as the Chair- 
man may designate, relating to (a) Communist propaganda 
activities in the United States conducted in support of the 
Communist regime in Cuba, or for the purpose of advancing 
the policies and objectives of the world Communist movement 
in Latin America generally, (b) the activities of United States 
citizens acting on behalf of, or in the interest of, foreign Com- 
munist principals, and (c) foreign travel undertaken by 
United States citizens in connection with such activities and 
in violation of State Department travel regulations, for the 
following legislative purposes : 

"1. To provide factual information to aid Congress in the 
disposition of presently pending legislation (including, but 
not limited to Sections 709 and 712 of H.K. 958), or in the 
proposal of remedial legislation, in fulfillment of the direc- 
tions contained in the mandate to the Committee by House 
Resolution 5 of January 9, 1963, and Public Law 601 of the 
79th Congress. 

"2. The execution, by the administrative agencies con- 
cerned, of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, travel 
control laws (particularly Title 8 U.S.C. 1185), and regula- 
tions issued pursuant thereto, to assist the House in apprais- 
ing the administration of such laws and regulations. 

"3. Consideration of the advisability of amending Title 22 
U.S.C. 611, by extending the definition of the terms 'foreign 
principal' and 'agent of a foreign principal' so as to re- 
move any doubt as to the true test of the agency relationship 
or its application to activities within the intent of Congress 
as expressed in the Act, 

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the hearings may 
include any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Com- 
mittee which it, or any subcommittee thereof, appointed to 
conduct these hearings, may designate." 

On December 16, 1950, over 12 years ago, the President of 
the United States proclaimed the existence of a national 
emergency (64 Stat. A454). Declaring that "recent events 
in Korea and elsewhere constitute a grave threat to the peace 
of the world," that "world conquest by Commmiist imperi- 
alism is the goal of the forces of aggression that have been 
loosed upon the world," and reminding the people of the 
United States that "if the goal of Communist imperialism 
were to be achieved, the people of this countrj^ would no 
longer enjoy the full, rich life they have with God's help 
built for themselves and their children," President Truman 
summoned "all citizens to make united effort for the security 
and well-being of our beloved country and to place its needs 
foremost in thought and action that the full moral and ma- 
terial strength of the Nation may be readied for the dangers 
w^hich threaten us." 

The President then declared : 

"I summon all citizens to be loyal to the principles upon 
which our Nation is founded, to keep faith with our friends 


and allies, and to be firm in our devotion to the peaceful pur- 
poses for which the United Nations was founded." 

This proclamation has not been altered or repealed by suc- 
ceeding Presidents. We need not be reminded that this emer- 
gency continues and the peril has grown in urgency. 

Primarily because of U.S. military action — and at a cost of 
150,000 U.S. casualties — the forces of world communism did 
not succeed in conquering South Korea. But by one means or 
another since that time, they have gained control of North 
Vietnam ; have become a coequal element with neutralists and 
anti-Communists in the government of Laos ; seized Tibet and, 
with genocidal intent, suppressed resistance to their totali- 
tarian rule there; and have also invaded India and occupied 
part of its territory. Today, they are carrying on open war- 
fare in South Vietnam to topple the government of that coun- 
try and have launched a civil war in Laos. Communist influ- 
ence in Africa and Latin America has been extended, and 
some 2 years ago a Communist regime was established not in 
some far-off continent but in Cuba, 90 miles from our shores. 

Last Monday, Castro, the Cuban Communist dictator, was 
lavishly hailed and welcomed in Moscow and, in the words of 
Khrushchev, described as the "envoy" of the first Communist 
revolution on the American continent, a "beacon" to all Latin 
America. In response, Castro affectionately attributed to the 
Soviet Union the continuing success of his movement. 

The Communist-led rebellion against the Batista govern- 
ment initially gained acceptance here disguised as a "liberal" 
revolution. Well-intentioned people, both here and in Cuba, 
were led to support it. Consequently, Castro successfully 
seized power in January 1959. The tiiie character of this 
revolution quickly appeared in numerous acts of hostility 
committed against the United States and other non-Com- 
munist governments of Latin America. On January 3, 1961, 
the United States withdrew recognition of Castro's regime. 
Any doubt as to the course upon which Cuba was embarked 
was finally dispelled in December 1962 by Castro's frank 
admission of his allegiance to the Communist cause. He said, 
"I am a Marxist-Leninist and will be one until the day I die.'' 

Under the protection and assistance of the Soviet Union, 
Castro's future was indefinitely secured. The efforts of the 
Communist Party of Cuba and its American comrades are 
synchronized through the jMoscow leadership of the world 
Communist movement. To assist in maintaining this Latin 
American spearhead in the Western Hemisphere, the Com- 
munist Party, U.S.A., at its last national convention held in 
New York City in December 1959, adopted as a main political 
resolution its "Hands Off Cuba" policy and called for an end 
to all "interference" in the affairs of Latin American coun- 
tries. In other words, the basic Communist propaganda and 
agitation effort, enjoined as a directive upon American Com- 
munists, was to assure the continued existence of a Com- 
munist Cuba. 

It is now apparent that Cuba was established as an advance 
Communist base in this hemisphere, intended to supply the 


inspiration, propaganda, training, communications, and tech- 
nical assistance to revolutionary groups in the whole of Latin 
America and — more ominously — to provide an outpost for 
the Soviet Union, from which it may more conveniently and 
effectively direct its activities against the United States. 

As pointed out by Central Intelligence Agency Director 
John McCone in his appearance before the House Committee 
on Foreign Affairs February 19th last: 

"The Cuban effort at present is far more serious than the 
hastily organized and ill-conceived raids that the bearded vet- 
erans of the Sierra Maestra led into such Central American 
countries as Panama, Haiti, Nicaragua, and the Dominican 
Republic during the first eight or nine months Castro was in 

"Today, the Cuban effort is far more sophisticated, more 
covert, and more deadly. In its professional tradecraft, it 
shows guidance and training by experienced Communist ad- 
visers from the Soviet bloc, including veteran Spanish Com- 

Mr. McCone further stated that approximately 1,500 per- 
sons went to Cuba during the year 19G2 from other Latin 
American countries to receive ideological indoctrination and 
guerrilla warfare training. He pointed out that some courses 
offered last as long as a year and include intensive training 
in sabotage, espionage, and psychological warfare and that 
these "visitors" to Cuba serve also as couriers for Soviet 
communications and the financing of the Communist effort in 
various countries. 

This liaison with Cuba, however, is not merely conducted 
by Communist Party members and others of the Latin Amer- 
ican countries. Despite the presently existing ban on travel 
to Cuba, despite the proclamation of national emergency sum- 
moning all citizens of the United States to be loyal to the 
principles upon which our Nation is founded, a substantial 
number of U.S. citizens continue to conduct a liaison with 
Cuba on belialf of promoting the Communist Cuban regime. 

To control this traffic between the United States and Cuba, 
the Department of State announced on January 16, 1961, a 
modification of the travel control regulations, prohibiting 
travel to Cuba by any citizen of the United States, or any per- 
son owing allegiance to the United States, unless he bears a 
passport validated by the Secretary of State for travel to 
Cuba (22 CFR Pt. 53.3, as amended) . These regulations are 
based upon the security provisions of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act of 1952, regulating travel of citizens and 
aliens during war or national emergency, and empowering the 
President to impose restrictions and prohibitions, in addition 
to those provided bv the applicable section of the Act (8 
U.S.C. 1185)._ ^ 

The regulations now proclaimed by the President require 
no passport for travel in the areas of North, Central, or South 
America, Avith the exception of Cuba. However, although 
travel to North, Central, or South America (excluding Cuba) 


generally requires no passport, this does not apply to U.S. 
citizens who travel to Cuba via countries of this hemisphere 
or any country for which a passport is required. 

It is interesting to note that the Special Consultative Com- 
mittee on Security of the Organization of American States, on 
February 20, 1963, offered an advisory document recommend- 
ing to member states a general prohibition of travel to Cuba 
except for those who have valid rea^sons, such as those of a 
humanitarian nature, and to require a travel document for 
e rery person who crosses an international border. 

Despite the general ban on travel to Cuba unless a vali- 
dated passport is obtained for such travel, Chairman Walter 
recently pointed out in a committee press release that the 
committee's investigation has determined that some 100 
American citizens have traveled to Cuba in violation of these 
regulations. Committee investigations initiated in July of 
1962 disclose that travel to Cuba and other Communist coun- 
tries_ by United States citizens, both authorized and unau- 
thorized, appeared to create a serious security problem, 
suggesting deficiencies in the law or its achninistration, in 
relation to travel control laws and regulations, and also with 
regard to the Foreign Agents Eegistration Act of 1938. 
Propaganda and other assistance was clearly being rendered 
to the Communist cause in Cuba and throughout Latin Amer- 
ica by United States citizens. 

On January 9, 1963, the chairman of this committee intro- 
duced H.R. 958, which was referred to the Committee on 
Un-i\jnerican Activities. Sections 709 and 712 of H.R. 958, 
dealing with passport security and travel control and restric- 
tions on the issuance and use of passports, are directed par- 
ticularly toward the travel of persons associated with 
subversive organizations and with subversive objectives or 
aims. This problem has for some time occupied the atten- 
tion of this cormnittee, and hearings from time to time have 
been conducted in relation to it in an attempt to provide 
factual information as a basis for solution to these grave 

Other bills have been introduced in the House in an effort 
to resolve these difficulties, including H.R. 5320 introduced 
by Mr. Cramer and H.R. 5683 introduced by Mr. Walter, 
which are broader in application and have been referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary. Pursuant to its mandate of 
Congressto conduct investigations that will aid the Congress 
in disposition of necessary remedial legislation, it is believed 
that the present investigation of the Committee on Un- 
Arnerican Activities, relating to Communist propaganda 
activities, will be helpful in the disposition of these bills. 
Moreover, hearings fixed by the present resolution of the 
committee will also assist the Congress in obtaining additional 
information with respect to other bills referred 1:o the com- 
mittee, including but not limited to, H.R. 475, a proposed 
amendment to the Internal Security Act of 1950, which pro- 
vides penalties for becoming or remaining a member of Com- 
munist-action organizations. 



The first witness before the subcommittee on May 6 was Fred 
Jerome, 24, an unemployed writer of New York City and the son of 
V. J. Jerome, a long-time Communist Party official. Fred Jerome 
testified that he had made trips to Cuba in February, October, and 
December of 1960. He was in Cuba when the United States severed 
diplomatic relations with that country on January 3, 1961, and, ac- 
cording to his testimony, remained in Cuba until approximately April 

Mr. Jerome said he had not been aware that after January 16, 
1961, the State Department required a passport or entrance permit 
for persons returning to the United States from Cuba. He testified 
that after the severance of diplomatic relations he did not register 
with the Swiss Embassy, which has served U.S. interests in Cuba 
since that time. Neither, he said, did he make application at the 
Swiss Embassy in Havana for a passport or entrance permit before 
returning to the United States in April 1961. 

With regard to his most recent trip to Cuba in December 1960, Mr. 
Jerome testified that he had not made the journey on the advice or at 
the request of any Communist functionary. He told the subcommit- 
tee he had paid his own fare and made his own travel arrangements 
for the trip. 

Mr. Jerome refused, however, on various grounds, including the 
fifth amendment, to say whether he was on the payroll of the Com- 
munist Party at the time he went to Cuba in December 1960 and 
whether he had received any information, matter, or thing in Cuba 
which he was requested to impart or deliver in the U.S. to persons 
known to him to be members of the Communist Party. 

The witness denied that he had visited Cuba for the purpose of 
acquiring information or material with which to serve more effec- 
tively in the United States as a propagandist for the Communist 
regime of Fidel Castro. He declined, however, to state the reason why 
he had visited Cuba. 

In response to a question by the conmiittee counsel, Mr. Jerome 
said he had not registered, or made application for registration, with 
the Attorney General under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 

The witness refused, on his previously stated grounds, to say 
whether at the age of 14 he had been a member of the Labor Youth 
League which, on February 15, 1955, the Subversive Activities Control 
Board had found to be a Communist-front organization. He also 
refused to acknowledge that, for a period of time prior to 1958, he had 
contributed articles on youth activities to the Communist Daily Work- 
er newspaper and declined to say if he had been under the discipline 
of the Communist Party at the time. 

On his previously stated grounds, Mr, Jerome declined to say 
whether he had attended the Communist-controlled Fifth World 
Youth Festival at Warsaw, Poland, July 31 to August 14, 1955. He 
admitted he had been issued a U.S. passport on June 13, 1955, and that 
on the application for the passport he had listed only England and 
France as countries he intended to visit and had stated his travel wa;S 
for sightseeing purposes. He acknowledged that the passport Le 
received contained a prohibition against travel to Communist Poland. 

36-584—64 4 


He denied that the prmcipal purpose for which he had applied for 
the passport was to attend the Fifth World Youth Festival. He in- 
voked the fifth amendment and other reasons, however, in declining 
to say whether he had used an alias at that Youth Festival. 

Mr. Jerome declined to affirm or deny committee information that 
in 1957, under the alias of "Walter Hirsch," he had served as the 
East Coast recruiting agent for the U.S. Youth Festival Committee 
for the Sixth World Youth Festival held in Moscow from July 28 to 
August 11, 1957. He also refused, on the grounds of the fifth amend- 
ment and other reasons, to admit that in 1957, in the capacity of 
recruiter for the U.S. Youth Festival Committee, he had applied for a 
post office box under the name of "Walter Hirsch'' and that the names 
of Fred Jerome and Jacob Rosen had been listed on the application for 
the box as references for "Walter Hirsch." 

The witness declined to answer when asked if he knew Jacob Rosen ; 
if he had attended City College of New York with Rosen ; if he knew 
Jacob Rosen to be a Communist Party member; if he knew Rosen had 
been so identified before this committee on February 3, 1960 ; and if 
he knew Rosen had invoked the fifth amendment when asked by the 
committee on the same day whether he belonged to the Communist 

Mr. Jerome admitted that on January 23, 1957, he again had ap- 
plied for a U.S. passport, but he refused to say if he had done so for 
the purpose of attending the Sixth World Youth Festival in Moscow. 
He admitted that the application in cpestion was denied by the State 

He also refused, on his previously stated grounds, to say whether 
at the time of his testimony on May 6, 1963, he was a member of the 
Communist Pta'ty. 


The second witness on May 6 was Elizabeth Sutherland Martinez, 
a swiior editor for the Simon and Schuster publishing house in New 
York City, who used the name "Elizabeth Sutherland" for profes- 
sional purposes. She is a native of Washington, D.C., and a 1946 
graduate of Swarthmore College. 

Miss Sutherland testified that in the spring or summer of 1961 she 
applied for a U.S. passport under the name of Elizabeth Sutherland 
]\Iartinez, the name appearing on her birth certificate. She ob- 
tained a passport validated for one round trip to Cuba to begin Aug- 
ust 10, 1961, and to end not later than September 10, 1961. She actu- 
ally departed by air from Miami to Cuba about the middle of August 
1961, she told the subcommittee. 

Miss Sutherland testified that the purpose of the trip, as she had 
informed the State Department, was to obtain material to write an 
article on new Cuban films for the magazine Fihn Quarterly^ spon- 
sored by the University of California. 

While in Cuba, Miss Sutherland said, she visited the Cuban Writers 
and Artists Congress, held in Havana August 18-23, 1961, as an un- 
official observer "probably each of the days." She said she saw less than 
half a dozen other Americans in attendance at the congress. She 
"declined," without citing any legal reason for doing so, to identify 
the "few" Americans she said she had seen at the congress. 


The witness was asked if while in Cuba she had seen a number of 
Americans whose names she was given by the committee counsel. 
She denied having seen some of them and claimed not to have known 
others. The only American she admitted having seen in Cuba was 
Leroy McLucas, a free-lance photographer who, according to the 
witness, '"was there legally." 

Miss Sutherland admitted tliat part of the expenses of her stay in 
Cuba had been absorbed by the Cuban Government. She said that 
when she attempted to pay for the meals and lodging she had re- 
ceived at Havana Libre Hotel, she was informed there would be 
no charge for them. 

She denied having had prior knowledge that her meals and lodging 
would be free at the Havana Libre. She further denied her priv- 
ileged treatment had led to an understanding that upon her return 
to the United States she would disseminate propaganda favorable to 
the Castro regime. 

Miss Sutherland testified she had not registered with the Attorney 
General as a foreign agent as defined by the Foreign Agents Registra- 
tion Act of 1938 because, she said, she was neither a foreign agent nor 
a lobbyist. Although uncertain of the exact date, she nevertheless 
acknowledged that sometime during the winter of 1961 she had de- 
livered a report on "Cuba's Congress of Writers & Artists" at Adelphi 
Hall in New York City at a meeting and panel discussion sponsored 
by the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. The meeting was held, ac- 
cording to announcements, on December 4, 1961, nearly 3 months after 
her return to the United States. The event was advertised by the 
FFCC in the Communist Worker of November 28. 1961, and the pro- 
Communist National Guardian of December 4, 1961. 

The witness admitted having spoken on the above occasion at the 
request of the chairman of the FFCC. She testified she had been a 
member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in 1961 and 1962 and 
severed relations with it only because she had neglected to pay her 
dues. Miss Sutherland acknowledged having made other speeches 
for the FFCC. 

The subcommittee questioned Miss Sutherland at length about her 
association with photographer Leroy McLucas, the one American she 
admitted by name as having seen in Cuba during her visit there. 

Miss Sutherland told the subcommittee that she had first met Mr. 
McLucas socially in about the middle of 1960. She later saw some 
of his photographs and was favorably impressed by them. 

The witness said it had been her idea for Mr. McLucas to go to 
Cuba and make photographs for a pictorial book Miss Sutherland 
had in mind for possible publication. Mr. McLucas did not have a 
formal contract with Simon and Schuster for the photography proj- 
ect in Cuba, she testified; it had been an informal arrangement be- 
tween Mr. McLucas and her, under which he was to pay his own 
expenses for the trip. 

Committee counsel introduced evidence that on July 13, 1961, 
Mr. McLucas both filed for and received a U.S. passport from 
the New York Passport Office of the State Department. On his 
application for this passport, Mr. McLucas indicated that England 
was the only country he intended to visit and that he expected to de- 
part from New York on his trip about July 20, 1961. 


Miss Sutherland told the subcommittee she could not recall the 
precise date on which she learned that ]\Ir. McLucas had received 
a passport. She denied, however, having known that he both ap- 
plied for and received it on the same date and that he had stated on 
his application that England was his only destination. 

Nevertheless, Miss Sutherland admitted that on July 14, 1961, on 
Simon and Schuster stationery, she had written a letter "To AA^iom 
It May Concern,-' in which she stated that Mr. McLucas had been 
given a photographic assigmnent in Cuba. 

Further evidence introduced by the subcommittee showed that on 
the same date, July 14, 1961, Mr. McLucas enclosed the "To Whom 
It May Concern" letter written by Miss Sutherland with one he 
forwarded to the New York Passport Office of the State Department, 
in which he asked that his passport be validated for travel to Cuba 
on July 21, 1961. Miss Sutherland said she recalled that on July 21, 
1961, the New York Passport Office rejected Mr. McLucas' request 
for permission to travel to Cuba, but on July 24, 1961, the State De- 
partment in Washington reversed the action of its New York office 
and validated Mr. McLucas' passport for visitation to Cuba until De- 
cember 31, 1961. Miss Sutherland testified that her "To Whom It May 
Concern" letter had been responsible for the validation of Mr. Mc- 
Lucas's passport for travel to Cuba. 

Information obtained by the committee indicated that although Mr. 
McLucas had initially asked permission to travel to Cuba on July 21, 
1961, he did not actually arrive there until September 3, 1961. Miss 
Sutherland said she could provide no reason why Mr. McLucas had 
delayed his trip. 

The photographer remained in Cuba beyond the December 31, 1961, 
expiration date of his State Department-approved visit. On January 
4, 1962, he sent a letter from the Hotel Presidente in Havana to the 
State Department in Washington, requesting an extension of his stay 
in Cuba for 3 or 4 months to complete his photographic activities. 

The committee learned further that approximately 1 month later, 
on February 5, 1962, Mr. McLucas formally applied for a validation 
extension through the Swiss Embassy in Cuba, which was handling 
U.S. affairs there. The Swiss official Avho received Mr. McLucas' 
application was concerned about the American's strong political con- 
victions, which were not only favorable to the Castro Cuban Govern- 
ment but hostile to the United States, his own country. 

The Swiss official was so disturbed by Mr. McLucas' unusual atti- 
tude that, instead of issuing a new passport, as he could have, he 
forwarded the application with a precautionary note about the ap- 
plicant's views to the U.S. Department of State for final decision. 
Despite the Swiss Embassy's warning, the State Department approved 
Mr. McLucas' application for a new passport and so notified the Swiss 
Embassy in Cuba on February 23, 1962. On March 30, 1962, how- 
ever, the Swiss Embassy informed Washington that McLucas had 
rejected the passport and indicated he no longer planned to return to 
the United States. 

Nevertheless, Mr. McLucas did eventually return to the United 
States and, according to Miss Sutherland, about a year after he had 
gone to Cuba, brought photographs he had taken in Cuba to her 
New York office. 


Miss Sutherland testified that in the fall or early winter of 1962 
she had attended a public showing by Mr. McLucas of a movie film 
he had made in Cuba. The event took place in a building in New 
York City, Miss Sutherland said, but she could not recall its ad- 
dress. She also acknowledged having seen Mr. McLucas about 2 
months prior to the date of her testimony before the subcommittee. 

The Committee on Un-American Activities was unable to locate 
Mr. McLucas to subpena him for the May 6 and 7 hearings. 

The witness was questioned about her associations with the now 
defunct Medical Aid to Cuba Committee, which had been the subject 
of hearings by the Committee on Un-American Activities in November 
1962 and which committee counsel said the record showed to be Com- 
munist controlled. 

Miss Sutherland acknowledged that, in an appeal for f mids adver- 
tised in the New York Times of November 13, 1962, by the Medical 
Aid to Cuba Committee, her name had been identified as the person 
to whom checks should be made payable. She stated she had not 
received the checks herself, because they had been sent to the office 
address of MACC, where she went to endorse them. 

She denied having participated in the formation of the MACC, 
but testified she had known Melitta del Villar, the founder, since 
the summer of 1962. Miss Sutherland acknowledged having been 
acquainted with Sidney J. Gluck and Dr. Louis Miller, MACC leaders 
with histories of Communist activities, but denied having had a close 
working relationship with them in that organization. She also denied 
having known about the Communist backgrounds of Mr. Gluck and 
Dr. Miller at the time she became a sponsor of the Medical Aid to 
Cuba Committee. She said she had become affiliated w^ith the MACC 
after receiving a mimeographed invitation from the group to attend 
one of its functions and after meeting and being favorably impressed 
with its chairman, Mrs. del Villar. 

In the course of her testimony, Miss Sutherland acknowledged 
that she had been a signer of an ad which appeared in the pro- 
Communist National Guardian on July 16, 1962, and which appealed 
to Great Britain to grant asylum to the late Dr. Robert A. Soblen, 
who had jumped bail and fled the United States after being convicted 
of spying agamst this comitry. 


The final witness heard by the subcommittee on May 6, 1963, was 
Conrad J. Lynn of Pomona, N.Y., an attorney with offices in New 
York City. Mr. Lynn is a member of the National Executive Com- 
mittee of the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee and defense coun- 
sel for Robert F. Williams, an NAACP leader who fled to Cuba to 
avoid prosecution on kidnaping charges lodged against him in con- 
nection with a racial disturbance which occurred in Monroe, N.C., in 
August 1961. 

Mr. Lynn acknowledged to the subcommittee that he had been a 
member of the Young Communist League from 1928 to 1931 and a 
member of the Communist Party from 1934 until expelled in February 

He said he and his family visited Cuba in the summer of 1960, about 
5 months before the breaking of U.S. -Cuban diplomatic relations. 


About January 16, 1962, according to Mr. Lynn's testimony, he re- 
ceived U.S. passport validation for another trip to Cuba and, on 
February 2, 1962, flew to Cuba for the purpose of interviewing Rob- 
ert F. Williams. The witness said he remained in Cuba until Febru- 
ary 6 or 7, 1962, when he made a return flight to the United States by 
way of Newfoundland and Montreal, Canada. 

In addition to Mr. Williams, Mr. Lynn recalled seeing only two 
Americans, Mrs. Azalena Johnson and Gerald Manuel Quinn, while 
in Cuba. He said the latter two had witnessed events in Monroe, 
N.C., which led to the kidnaping trial in which he was engaged. He 
said he did not know if Mr. Williams, Mrs. Jolmson, and Mr. Quinn 
had possessed passports validated for travel to Cuba at the time or 
times of their arrival there. 

In response to a question about what route Mr. Williams had taken 
to Cuba, Mr. Lynn replied, "Well, we reconstituted the underground 
railroad, and he got out through Canada." He said the "we" he re- 
ferred to were friends of Robert Williams, none of wdiom was known 
to him (the witness) to be a member of the Communist Party. 

The witness confirmed that, as advertised in the pro-Communist 
National Gu^ardian of April 9, 1962, he had made an address on Cuba, 
under sponsorship of the West Side Committee for Friendly Relations 
With Cuba, at the Beacon Hotel in New York City on April 26, 1962. 

Mr. Lynn acknowledged that earlier, on September 28, 1961, under 
sponsorship of the same group, he had appeared on a platform in New 
York with Mrs. del Villar and delivered a speech on the subject of 
Cuba. Reportedly, on this occasion, Mr. Lynn, in discussing the trip 
his family had made to Cuba in 1960, said that in Cuba for the first 
time he and his family knew w^hat it meant to walk down the street "as 
a free man" and that, by keeping the light of the Cuban revolution 
aloft, the destiny of all the masses would be advanced. The witness 
acknowledged to the subcommittee that this could well have been a 
completely accurate report of what he said at that time. 

The witness testified he had never registered or applied for registra- 
tion with the Attorney General as a foreign agent under the Foreign 
Agents Registration Act of 1938. 

The witness was asked if he had participated in recent years with a 
number of persons in activities described by the committee comisel 
as Communist. Mr. Lynn admitted his participation, but disagreed 
with the characterization of some of the people and activities as being 
Communist, despite their having been formally identified or officially 
designated as such. 

May 7 Hearing 

testimony of leo huberman 

The first witness at the subcommittee's public hearings on JNIay 7, 
1963, was Leo Huberman, coeditor of the leftist Monthly Review 
magazine, which is described on its cover as "An Independent Socialist 
Magazine." Mr. Huberman said he had traveled to Cuba twice in 
1960^ — before the U.S. broke diplomatic relations with Cuba and again 
on April 14, 1961, for about a 10-day stay, 4 months after the diplo- 
matic break. On the occasion of the 1961 trip, he testified, his passport 
had been validated for travel to Cuba. 


Mr. Huberman acknowledged that between 1960 and February 1963, 
Monthly Review had published numerous articles favorable to the 
Castro regime in Cuba, including a by-lined article of excerpts from a 
speech made by Fidel Castro. This article was printed as a result of 
a prior discussion by Mr. Huberman with the bearded dictator about 
the publication of such material. Another article in Monthly Review 
consisted of questions submitted by INIr. Huberman and answers to 
them supplied by Che Guevara, an international Communist func- 
tionary who occupies a high place in the Castro government. 

The witness affirmed that the Monthly Review Press, of vrhich he 
is co-owner, had published a pro-Castro book entitled The Second 
Revolution in Cuha^ by Joseph Parker Morray, a correspondent for 
the National Guardian newspaper. 

Mr. Huberman, who described himself as "a Marxist and a Social- 
ist" at a committee hearing in 1962, admitted that on two of his three 
visits to Cuba since Castro's rise to power his hotel expenses and the 
cost of his travel throughout the island had been paid by the Cuban 

Mr. Huberman insisted, however, that lie is not a propagandist for 


The final witness at the subcoirmiittee's public hearings on May 
7 was Edward Walter Shaw, the iSIidwest representative of the notori- 
ously pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Throughout his ap- 
pearance, Mr. Shaw invoked numerous reasons, including the fifth 
amendment, for evading practically all questions put to him, except 
those involving basic information about liis education and back- 
ground. Nevertheless, committee information brought out at tlie 
hearing showed that on March 9, 1961, Mr. Shaw applied for a United 
States passport to visit several Latin American countries, specifically 
Venezuela and Chile. In his application, the witness stated that he 
expected to depart from Miami in June 1961 and remain abroad for 
2 months. A passport, with no validation for travel to Cuba, was 
issued to Mr. Shaw on March 13, 1961. 

On September 18, 1961, according to information acquired by the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, Mr. Shaw departed from 
Mexico City for Havana, Cuba. While in Cuba, he applied at the 
]\Iexican Embassy in Havana for a Mexican Tourist Card. Mexican 
Tourist Card No. 2798249 was issued to him on September 26, 1961 : 
and on October 13, 1961, he used it to return to Mexico City from 

According to announcements in The Worker and National Guard- 
ian. Ed Shaw, with the use of color slides taken by him in Cuba, 
spoke on the subject of Cuba at meetings in Detroit on November 27, 
1961; in Chicago on December 8, 1961; and in New York on Janu- 
ary 15, 1962. In each instance, the event was sponsored by a group 
affiliated with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. 

Witness Shaw declined, for numerous reasons including the fifth 
amendment, to state whether he had ever belonged to the Communist 
Party of the United States or the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party. 

At the conclusion of the May 7 public hearings, the chairman sug- 
gested to the committee counsel that the case of Edward Shaw's travel 


to Cuba, apparently without proper passport validation, be referred 
to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution under the 
Inmiigration and Nationality Act of 1952. 

I^Iay 23 Hearing 
testimony of vincent theodore lee 

The first witness before the subcommittee on May 23, 1963, was 
Vincent Theodore Lee, national director of the Fair Play for Cuba 
Committee. A native of New York City, Mr. Lee testified that he 
had received an elementary school education in New York City and 
2 years of vocational training in Florida, where he learned the wood- 
working trade. He invoked the fifth amendment on questions per- 
taining to nearly all other subjects, however, including both past and 
present employment. 

Despite the lack of cooperation from the witness, the following 
facts about Mr. Lee, obtained through a preliminary investigation 
by the Committee on Un-American Activities, were entered into the 
record of the hearings by committee counsel : 

On April 3^ 1961, Vincent Lee completed a State Department pass- 
port application in which he stated his intention of touring Mexico, 
Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua for a period of about 3 months 
beginning in June 1961, although no passport requirement existed for 
travel between the United States and the above-mentioned countries. 
On April 6, 1961, he received the requested passport from the State 
Department's Miami, Fla., office. (Mr. Lee declined to tell the subcom- 
mittee whether he had made the tour.) 

On July 19, 1962, Lee wrote a letter to the State Department re- 
questing that his passport be validated for a visit to Cuba between 
August 30 and November 30, 1962. In the letter, he indicated he 
would make the trip as a free-lance journalist for the North American 
Newspaper Alliance and as a radio reporter for Radio Station WBAI 
in New York City. 

Enclosed with Mr. Lee's July 19, 1962, letter to the State Depart- 
ment was a letter from Richard M. Elman, public affairs director for 
Station WBAI, who supported Lee's request for permission to travel 
to Cuba. Mr. Elman wrote that Lee had volunteered to go to Cuba 
and obtain tape recorded interviews with Fidel Castro and Ernesto 
"Che" Guevara, in accordance with questions prepared in advance bv 
the staff of Station WBAI. 

Not enclosed with Lee's July 19, 1962, letter, however, was aii}'^ sup- 
porting evidence that he had been given an assignment by the North 
American Newspaper Alliance. (On May 16, 1963, the editor of the 
North American Newspaper Alliance wrote the Committee on Un- 
American Activities that he had never previously heard of Mr. Lee 
or any arrangements between Lee and NANA.) 

On July 26, 1962, the Department of State validated Lee's passport 
for travel to, and stay in, Cuba, not to extend beyond December 30, 

Mr. Lee departed from New York on December 26, 1962, just 4 days 
before the validation expired, and traveled to Cuba where he stayed 
for almost a month, returning to the United States on January 22, 
1963. (Mr. Lee declined to tell the subcommittee whether his hotel 


accommodations had been provided free of charge by the Cuban Gov- 
ernment, as had been done for other pro-Castro visitors in the past.) 

Both before and after his trip to Cuba, Mr. Lee on numerous occa- 
sions lectured, exhibited color films, and disseminated pamphlets on 
the subject of Cuba under the auspices of the Fair Play for Cuba 
Committee. (Mr. Lee declined, under the fifth amendment, to tell 
the subcommittee whether, as national director of the Fair Play for 
Cuba Committee, he had received compensation directly or indirectly 
from the Castro regime.) 

On April 6, 1963, Lee addressed a Los Angeles, Calif., meeting 
which had been arranged by the Greater Los Angeles Chapter of the 
Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Another speaker on the same program 
was Helen Travis, an identified member of the Communist Party, who 
told the audience that the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was working 
strongly to educate the American people about Cuba and the need to 
aid the Castro government. She has since been indicted on two counts 
for illegally traveling to Cuba. 

Mr. Lee invoked the fifth amendment, as he had on almost all other 
questions, when asked if he had registered with the Justice Depart- 
ment as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act 
of 1938. 

At the conclusion of the interrogation of Mr. Lee, Subcommittee 
Chairman Willis, after consulting the other members, requested 
the counsel for the subcommittee to send a copy of the transcript of 
Mr. Lee's testimony along with exhibits pertaining to him, to the 
Department of Justice as a step toward possible prosecution. 


The second witness on May 23 was Anatol Isaac Schlosser, 26, a 
graduate of New York University, from which he also received a 
master's degree in English literature and drama. Citing the fifth 
amendment and numerous other reasons, Mr. Schlosser refused to re- 
veal his employment and declined to answer most of the questions 
asked him by the subcommittee. 

A preliminary investigation by the Committee on Un-American 
Activities had disclosed that the witness obtained a U.S. passport in 
1958 and, on June 8, 1962, applied for a renewal of the passport for 
the purpose, he stated, of visiting England, France, Holland, and 
Italy. The renewed passport. No. C-44149, was issued on June 11, 

Mr. Schlosser declined to tell the subcommittee whether he had at 
any time asked the State Department for validation of his passport 
for travel to Cuba. He denied that he had visited Cuba subsequent 
to June 8, 1962, but refused, on the grounds previously stated, to say 
whether he had traveled elsewhere outside the United States after that 

In November and December 1962, according to information acquired 
by the Committee on Un-American Activities, Anatol Schlosser was 
a frequent spokesman for the newly formed Ad Hoc Student Com- 
mittee for Travel to Cuba. Tlie apparent purpose of the group was 
the organizing of a trip to Cuba, without validated passports, by 
U.S. college students and other youths in violation of a State Depart- 
ment regulation prohibiting such travel. As the spokesman for the 


prospective travelers, Mr. Schlosser reportedly said "the obstacles set 
in the way by the State Department constitute a further violation of 
the rights of all U.S. citizens" and that "students of the United States 
ought to go see with their own eyes how the Cuban people live and 
work.-' He implied that the U.S. newspapers had not reported the 
truth about the Cuban revolution. 

Additional information acquired by the committee, and introduced 
into the record of the hearings, was a report attributed to Schlosser 
on December 12, 1962, that 80 or more students were planning to de- 
part for Cuba by wa;^ of Montreal, Canada, later that month. Also 
introduced by committee counsel was a copy of a State Depart- 
ment press release of December 13, 1962, which warned U.S. 
students that willful violation of travel regulations pertaining to 
Cuba was punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. The subcom- 
mittee also produced evidence that Schlosser subsequently said pub- 
licly that he expected a number of youths and students to defy the 
State Depart,ment by making the planned, unauthorized trip. 

On the basis of the fiftli amenchnent, as well as the other reasons 
he had previously cited, Mr. Schlosser declined to answer any ques- 
tions about the Ad Hoc Student Committee for Travel to Cuba or 
his activities and associations with it. He also declined to acknowl- 
edge that the planned trip to Cuba was canceled because, on December 
22, 1962, the Canadian Government announced that it would not allow 
Canada to be used as a place of departure for U.S. students traveling 
illegally to Cuba. 

I'he witness continued to invoke the fifth amendment when asked 
(1) if he had been correctly quoted by a January 1963 publication 
to the effect that the trip had not been canceled, only postponed until 
the summer of 1963, (2) if infomiation acquired by the Committee 
on Un-American Activities that the Ad Hoc Student Committee for 
Travel to Cuba had been replaced by the Permanent Student Com- 
mittee for Travel to Cuba was correct, and (3) if the witness' home 
also served as the location of the office of the successor organization. 

Mr. Schlosser also declined to say whether he had been in touch 
with the Cuban mission at the United Nations or the Czechoslovakian 
Embassy, which has been handling Cuban affairs in this country 
since the United States severed relations with Cuba in 1961. 

On September 27, 1963, Schlosser was indicted, with three other 
leaders of the Pennanent Student Committee for Travel to Cuba— 
Levi Lee Laub, Phillip Abbott Luce, and Stefan Martinot, all wit- 
nesses before this committee in these hearings (see following pages) — 
on charges of conspiring illegally to organize and promote a trip to 
Cuba in violation of U.S. travel laws. Unlike the other three, Schlos- 
ser, who did not make the trip to Cuba with the group, was not in- 
dicted for illegal travel to Cuba. 


The final witness at the subcommittee's public hearings on May 23 
was Stefan Martinot, 23, a 1962 graduate of Antioch College, Ohio, 
who had pursued postgraduate work at Columbia University until 
April 10, 1963. He said he was a machine operator in a shop located 
in New York City. 


Mr. Martinot acknowledged he had obtained a U.S. passport in 
1958, applied for its renewal on October 22, 1962, and received it 
the next day. He further confirmed that in the application for re- 
newal of his passport he had indicated the intent to travel to France, 
although he had not subsequently made a trip to France. He ad- 
mitted that at the time he applied for the renewal of his passport 
for travel to France, he also had in mind making a later application 
for validation of the renewed passport for travel to Cuba. The record 
shows that he asked for such validation on November 2, 1962, just a 
few days after receiving the new passport. The request was denied by 
the State Department on the groimd Martinot had not indicated any 
emergency requirement to be in Cuba, and thus no exception to the 
limited-travel-t-o-Cuba policy could be made in his case. 

The witness told the subcommittee he had been at the founding 
meeting of the Ad Hoc Student Committee for Travel to Cuba on 
October 14, 1962, and that it had remained as such until the end of 
December 1962, wiien its name was changed to the Permanent Student 
Committee for Travel to Cuba. Mr. Martinot refused, on numerous 
grounds, excluding the self-incrimination clause of the fifth amend- 
ment, to provide the address of the location of the late-December 
1962 meeting at which the name change of the organization occurred. 
He said he would not testify about individuals other than himself or 
respond to questions about subjects the answers to which would reveal 
activities of persons other than himself. 

The witness acknowledged he had been one .of the organizers of an 
avowed Marxist-Leninist group called the Columbia [University] 
Progressive Labor Student Club on the campus of Columbia Uni- 
versity in November 1962. He also admitted that the organization 
was affiliated with a group called Progressive Labor, which, accord- 
ing to information obtained by committee investigation, was formed 
in or about January 1962 by Milton Rosen and Mortimer Scheer, both 
of whom had been expelled from the Communist Party in the fall of 

Mr. Martinot, while claiming not to have been a Communist Party 
member liimself, refused to say if he had been brought into the Pro- 
gressive Labor organization by a person known to him to be a member 
of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Martinot admitted to the subcommittee that he had been a 
spokesman for the Ad Hoc Student Committee for Travel to Cuba 
and that, as such, in December 1962 he had continued to advocate 
unauthorized travel to Cuba by students, even after the State Depart- 
ment had warned against it and the Canadian Government had 
refused to permit U.S. students to travel to Cuba by way of Canada. 

The witness testified that when he talked to students about the 
planned trip to Cuba he always pointed out that, although he and his 
committee felt the prohibition was unconstitutional, there was a 
State Department prohibition against such travel and those who went 
to Cuba would probably have to face the consequences of having 
broken a law. He said the 80-odd students who attempted to go to 
Cuba during the Christmas holidays in 1962 had been required to 
send a letter to the Ad Hoc Student Committee for Travel to Cuba, 
stating they knew about the ban on travel to Cuba without a validated 
passport, the State Department warning against making an unauthor- 
ized trip, and the possible consequences for doing so. 


Wlien asked additional questions about the previously mentioned 
Columbia Progressive Labor Student Club, Mr. Martinot said an 
application for a charter for the organization was filed in March 
1963 and granted by Columbia University shortly thereafter. The 
stated purpose of the group at the time of the charter application, the 
witness said, was "to spread socialist ideas on the campus through 
leaflets and any other activities." He claimed that some of his pub- 
licly stated ideas about what the purposes of the organization should 
be were more radical than those of the organization itself. He ad- 
mitted, for example, having said during the planning stages of the 
group in November 1962, "The aim would be for the working class, 
j)eople who don't have a stake in ownership or management, to seize 
political control of the state." 

Mr. Martinot told the subcommittee there were approximately 
70 to 75 members of the Permanent Student Committee for Travel to 
Cuba and tliat they still planned to make the trip which had been post- 
])oned the previous December. He said concrete plans had not been 
made as of the time of his testimony. He refused, for his previously 
cited reasons, to say whether he had held preliminary discussions 
with Levi Lee Laub, Milton Rosen, or Mortimer Scheer in connection 
with rescheduling the student trip to Cuba. He said he had not held 
such discussions with Vincent Theodore Lee, national director of the 
Fair Play for Cuba Committee. 

The witness said the money for defraying the cost of the operations 
of the Permanent Student Committee for Travel to Cuba and its pre- 
decessor gi'oup had been raised through a $10 deposit by each of the 
students who planned to go to Cuba. He said no money had come 
to the organization either from the Cuban Government or from the 
Fair Play for Cuba Committee. 

He admitted, however, that prior to the scheduled Christmas 1962 
trip to Cuba his group had received an invitation from the Cuban 
Federation of University Students to be the latter group's guests while 
in Cuba. Also, he said, the Cuban Federation of University Students 
had offered the use of a Cuban plane for transporting the U.S. stu- 
dents from Toronto, Canada, to Cuba and back again. 

Mr. Martinot said he assumed the same offers would be made to the 
LT.S. students by the Cuban student group when plans were completed 
for the second attempt at making an unauthorized trip to Cuba. 

July 1 Hearing 

The same subcommittee met in Los Angeles, Calif., on July 1, 1963, 
to continue for 2 davs the series of public hearings begun in Washing- 
ton, D.C., on May 6, 1963. 


The first scheduled witness on July 1 was Mrs. Helen Travis. Be- 
fore she was sworn, however, her attorney moved that the subpena 
served upon her by the committee on June 19 be withdrawn because 
on June 26, 1963, Mrs. Travis had been indicted by the U.S. District 
Court in Southern California on two counts of making trips to Cuba 
by way of Mexico without a proper passport, in violation of regula- 


tions issued under the immigration laws (sec. 1185(b), Title 8, U.S. 
Code) . 

The subcommittee acted favorably on the motion, and Mrs. Travis 
was excused as a witness. 


The first sworn witness before the subcommittee on July 1 was Mrs. 
Rose Schorr Rosenberg, an attorney with offices m Los Angeles. 

On January 24, 1952, former Connnunist Party member A. Mar- 
burg Yerkes, in testimony before this committee, stated that he had 
known Mrs, Rosenberg, in the late forties, to be a member of the pro- 
fessional unit of the Communist Party in Los Angeles. 

Mrs. Rosenberg cited the fifth amendment, among other reasons, in 
refusmg to tell the subcommittee if Mr. Yerkes' testimony about her 
had been correct. 

According to the committee's preliminary investigation, Mrs. Rosen- 
berg, on January 28, 1960, applied for and obtained renewal of a 
U.S. passport which had been issued her many years earlier. In her 
application for renewal, she listed Denmark, Sweden, England, 
France, Italy, and Israel as countries she planned to visit over a 
period of approximately 2 years. 

Mrs. Rosenberg refused on numerous grounds, including the fifth 
amendment, to say whether the renewed passport was still in her 

She refused on the same grounds to confirm or deny the commit- 
tee's information that in April and May of 1962, in the company of 
another Los Angeles attorney, Jean Kidwell Pestana, she had visited 
Cuba without first obtaining special passport validation to do so, 
as had been required by the State Department since January 16, 
1961. Mrs. Rosenberg likewise declined to confirm or deny that, 
as advertised in the People's World of June 2, 1962, and the National 
Guardmn of June 4, 1962, she and Mrs. Pestana had shown slides 
and talked about their trip to Cuba at a meeting sponsored by the 
Los Angeles Committee for Medical Aid to Cuba on June 6, 1962. 
Mrs. Rosenberg declined to tell the subcommittee what disposition had 
been made of the reported $1 ''donated" by each of the estimated 
200 persons who attended the event. 

Mrs. Rosenberg also invoked the fifth amendment and other reasons 
for refusing to say whether she had understood the JMedical Aid to 
Cuba Committee to be a Communist created and controlled enter- 
prise; whether she was a member of the Greater Los Angeles Chapter 
of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee; whether she held member- 
ship in the Women Strike for Peace and the National Lawyers Guild ; 
whether she had been a member of the Communist Party and had, upon 
return to the U.S. from Cuba in 1962, engaged in pro-Cuban speak- 
ing activities while under the discipline of the Communist Party. 


The next witness was Robert Eugene Randolph, holder of a 
master's degree in economics from the University of California and 
a resident of Sacramento, Calif. 


Mv. Tiandolph cited the fifth amendment and other reasons in 
declininir to conlirm or deny the committee's information that in 
the forties he had belonged to the American Youth for Democracy, 
successor organization to the Young Communist League, and in 
the fifties to the Labor Youth League, officially cited by Federal 
authorities as a Communist organization. 

Mr. Randolph declined for the reasons cited above to answer nearly 
all questions put to him by the subcommittee. 

Thus, he neither confirmed nor denied the committee's information 
that on January 6, 1961, he applied for and received a U.S. passport ; 
that, in his application for the passport, he had informed the State 
Department he intended to take a pleasure trip to England, France, 
and Sweden ; that he attended the Mexican Peace Conference in 
Mexico City from March 5 to March 8, 1961; that, without having 
obtained State Department validation of his passport for travel 
to Cuba, he and his wife, Valeda Bryant Randolph, departed from 
Mexico on March 13, 1961, for a visit to Cuba as guests of the Com- 
munist Cuban Govermnent. 

Citing the reasons previously stated, the witness continued to refuse 
to reply affirmatively or negatively when queried by the committee 
counsel about his activities after his return from Cuba in 1961. Ac- 
cording to infonnation uncovered by a preliminary investigation, Mr. 
Randolph delivered an "eyewitness" report on Cuba and Latin 
America at a meeting held in Oakland, Calif., on May 19, 1961, and 
told his audience that he had been in Cuba from March 13 until April 3 
of that year. The chairman of the May 19 meeting was Paul Heide, 
identified as a member of the Communist Party in testimony given 
before this committee in 1953. Mr. Randolph also declined to tell 
the subcommittee whether he knew Mr. Heide to be a Communist 
Party member. 

Mr. Randolph declined to state whether he and his wife had 
appeared at the Palo Alto L^nitarian Church on May 28, 1961, and 
given a color-slide talk on Cuba, as announced in the Palo Alto 
Times of May 24, 1961 ; whether the Fair Play for Cuba Committee 
had made arransi:ements for this meeting and w^hether he belonged to 
the Bay Area Fair Play for Cuba Committee; whether, under his 
own by-line, he had written a pro-Castro article wliich appeared 
in the June 1961 issue of The IWeral de/mocY-at magazine; whether 
he had received any compensation, directly or indirectly, from the 
Cuban Government with the understanding he would participate in 
activities supporting the Communist regime of Cuba : whether he had 
registered with the Attorney General under the Foreign Agents 
Registration Act: whether, in the summer of 1962, he had attended 
lioth the Communist-staged World Peace Congress in Moscow and 
the Communist-sponsored Eighth "World Conference Against Atomic 
and Hydrogen Bombs and for Prevention of Nuclear War in Tokyo, 
r]apan; and whether he had told the conference in Japan that he 
was opposed to the stationing of U.S. troops in any foreign countr}'. 


The next witness on July 1 was Mr. Randolph's wife, Valeda 
Bryant Randolph. 


Mrs. Randolph was asked questions similar to those put to lier 
husband, and she proved to be equally uncooperative in her responses. 
She invoked the fifth amendment and other reasons for refusing 
to confirm or deny that she had been issued U.S. passport No. B- 
094577 on January 9, 1961, and, without passport validation for such 
travel, had gone to Cuba on March 13, 1961, as a guest of the Cuban 
Government. Mrs. Randolph declined to say if there had been any 
agreement between her and representatives of the Cuban Govern- 
ment to the effect that, in exchange for her privileged treatment in 
Cuba, she would return to the United States and engage in activ- 
ities to influence the American public on matters of interest to the 
Communist i-egime in Cuba. 

On the previously specified grounds, the witness refused to say 
if, upon her return to the U.S., she had delivered a series of talks 
cm Cuba, including five in California within a 48-hour period in 
May 1961. 

Mrs. Randolph also invoked the fifth amendment and other reasons 
for declining to respond when asked if she had received compensation 
from the Fair Play for Cuba Committee or any political party, group, 
or person associated with any foreign interest. She also declined to 
say whether she belonged to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee; 
whether she had been a member of the Commmiist Party on October 7, 
1950, when she entertained at a rally for the California Labor School, 
a Federally cited Communist institution ; and whether she was then, 
at the time of the hearing, a member of the Communist Party. 


George Waegell of Elk Grove, Calif., was also questioned by the 
subcommittee at its public session in Los Angeles on the morning of 
July 1, 1963. In 1951, Mr. Waegell was convicted and sentenced to 
prison for failure to comply with Selective Service regidations. 

Mr. Waegell invoked a number of reasons, including the fifth 
amendment, for refusing to respond to questions pertaining to com- 
mittee information that, without possession of a U.S. passport, he 
had entered ]\Iexico in early March 1961 ; had applied at the Cuban 
consulate in Mexico for a visa to Cuba, which was issued after a 
3-week delay; had entered Cuba, where he was jailed for a short 
period and then released; and had attended, as a LLS. delegate, a 
conference of the Communist-controlled International Union of 
Students (lUS) at Havana in late May and early June 1961. He 
also declined to tell the subcommittee whether he was j^resent at those 
sessions of the conference when delegates, according to a dispatch by 
the Soviet news agency Tass, unanimously passed a resolution of sup- 
port for a proposal to set up an international students brigade to fight 
any "aggression" against Cuba and when, according to Peking radio, 
they passed a resolution condemning U.S. "imperialism against 
Cuba." He further declined to say whether he would be willing to 
fight for Cuba. 

The witness continued to invoke the fifth amendment, among other 
reasons, when asked if he had returned to the U.S. from Cuba in 
July 1961 and displayed colored slides and talked on the subject of 
Cuba early in 1962 in California at an affair sponsored by a student 
Fair Plaj' for Cuba group. 



Joseph Abram Shapiro of Fairfax, Calif., a University of Califor- 
nia student, also appeared before the subcommittee on July 1. 

According to the committee's investigation, Mr. Shapiro applied for 
a U.S. passport at San Francisco on March 28, 1961, for the alleged 
purpose of taking a 2-month trip to Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, 
and other Latin and Central American countries, beginning about 
July 1, 19G1. Passport No. B-065057, bearing no endorsement for 
travel to Cuba, was issued to Mr. Shapiro on March 29, 1961. On 
September 1, 1961, Mr. Shapiro flew from Mexico City to Cuba on 
Cubana airlines flight No. 465. He invoked the first and fifth amend- 
ments in refusing to confirm or deny the above information. 

Mr. Shapiro also invoked the first and fifth amendments when 
asked if he had intended to visit Cuba at the time he applied for his 
passport and if, at the time of application, he had known that specific 
passport endorsement for travel to Cuba was required. 

He also declined to confirm or deny committee information that he 
had attended the Communist-dominated Eighth World Youth Festi- 
val at Helsinki, Finland, in the summer of 1962. 


The next witness was Jon Joseph Read, a graduate of the Univer- 
sity of California. He had been subpenaed after the committee's 
investigation disclosed the following : 

Jon Eead was issued U.S. passport No. 681992 at San Francisco on 
December 12, 1957, for an alleged 1-year visit to Australia. This pass- 
port had not been renewed or endorsed specifically for travel to Cuba 
when, on INIay 14, 1962, Mr. Read departed from Mexico City on 
Cubana airlines flight 465 to Havana. He returned to Mexico City 
from Cuba via Cubana airlines flight 464 on June 18, 1962. 

On August 22, 1962, Mr. Read applied for another U.S. passport 
declaring an intention of touring Western Europe. On August 23, 
1962, he was issued passport No. C-607458, which was not endorsed 
for travel to Cuba. 

The Worker of September 11, 1962, announced that on September 
17, 1962, Jon Read, "just back from Havana," would speak at Adelphi 
Hall in New York City. 

On April 15, 1963, Mr. Read was elected to the Executive Board of 
the Bay Area Fair Play for Cuba Committee. And, according to a 
flier distributed by the Militant Labor Forum of Oakland, Calif., an 
organization affiliated with the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, 
Read delivered a "Cuba-Eyewitness Report," including the showing 
of color slides, on "his visit — summer 1962" at a meeting sponsored by 
the forum on April 19, 1963. 

Mr. Read invoked the first and fifth amendments in refusing to 
answer any subcommittee questions concerning the activities described 
in the preceding four paragraphs. 

Citing the same reason. Read declined to answer when asked if 
he had actually intended to go to Cuba at the time he applied for a 
passport on August 22, 1962 ; if the "just back from Havana" refer- 
ence to him in The Worker of September 11, 1962, had referred to his 
visit there in May and June 1962, or whether it referred to another trip 


to Cuba subsequent to his receipt of a new passport on August 23, 
1962 ; if arrangements for his speech at Adelphi Hall had been made 
by anyone known or believed by him to be a Communist Party mem- 
ber or by representatives of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee ; and 
if the expenses for his May-June 1962 visit to Cuba had been assumed 
by persons other than himself. 

Mrs. Irene Paull was the next witness called to testify. She in- 
formed the cliairman that she had had to change counsel and had not 
had an opportunity to discuss her case with the new one. She re- 
quested that her appearance be postponed until the second day of the 
hearings. The chairman granted her request. 


The next witness was Karl Vladimer Weichinger of Los Angeles. 
Mr. Yfeichinger, a preliminary investigation revealed, attended the 
University of Chicago for a 3-year period ending in January 1952. 
While there, he had been a member of the Communist Party. Later 
he became active in the Los Angeles area chapter of the previously 
mentioned Labor Youth League, until that organization folded in 
1957. The witness cited the first and fifth amendments in refusing 
to answer questions by the subcommittee about the above information. 

Mr. Weichinger also declined to confirm or deny the committee's 
information that, without a passport specifically endorsed for such 
travel, he had gone to Cuba with his wife in December 1961 and re- 
turned to the U.S. on January 22, 1962. He further declined to say 
if, at the time of his testimony before the subcommittee, he was a 
member of the Comnnunist Party. 


The last witness questioned by the subcommittee on July 1 was 
Mrs. Jovita Lopez Weichinger, wife of the preceding witness. She 
likewise invoked the first and fifth amendments rather than confirm 
or deny that, without a passport validated for travel to Cuba, she had 
in fact traveled to Cuba in December 1961. She also declined to say 
whether, at the time of her trip to Cuba, she was aware that such a 
trip, without specific passport validation for it, was contrary to the 
laws of the LTnited States. 

July 2 Hearing 

Mrs. Jean Kidwell Pestana and Frank S. Pestana, respectively, 
were the first witnesses called when the subcommittee met at 9 :30 a.m. 
on July 2, but failed to respond to their names. They later appeared. 


Mrs. Irene Paull of San Francisco, a longtime writer for Com- 
munist publications, was called next by the subcommittee. Accord- 
ing to information possessed by the committee, Mrs. Paull had been 
the organizer of the Young Communist League in Minnesota in the 
late thirties and chairman of the Communist Party in Duluth, Minn., 
in the forties. 

36-58*— 64 5 


Preliminary committee investigation also revealed that on Octo- 
ber 27, 1960, Mrs. Paull applied for renewal of U.S. passport No. 
1728249, which had been issued to her by the State Department 
in 1959. In the renewal application, she said she intended to travel 
to Italy, Egypt, Israel, France, and England, beginning the trip on 
approximately December 1, 1960. 

On January 8, 1961, Mrs. Paull departed from New York City 
on a British Overseas Airways flight to Jamaica. She entered Cuba 
on January 18, 1961, and remained there until March 6 of that year. 

Pro-Cormnunist articles on Cuba appeared under Mrs. Paull's name 
in the Communist People's World of January 28 and February 25, 

On April 23, 1961, according to an announcement which appeared 
in the PeopWs World of the day before, she was one of three speakers 
''recently returned from Cuba" who addressed a meeting sponsored 
by the Unitarian Action for Social Justice in San Francisco. Also, 
the name "Irene Paull" appeared in the Palo Alto Times of April 25, 
1961, as a signer of a petition to President Kennedy by the Student 
Ad Hoc Committee Against U.S. Intervention in Cuba and Palo Alto 
Fair Play for Cuba Committee, protesting U.S. policies toward Cuba. 

Mrs. Paull cited the fifth amendment and numerous other reasons 
for refusing to affirm or deny the above facts as they were presented 
to her by the committee counsel. 

She also declined to tell the subcommittee whether, prior to her 
entry into Cuba, she had known the United States had broken diplo- 
matic relations with Cuba on January 3, 1961, and the State Depart- 
ment had adopted a regulation on January 16, 1961, requiring specific 
passport endorsement for travel by Americans to that country. She 
declined to affirm or deny that, as reported in the Peopled World of 
September 29, 1962, she had attended the World Conference Against 
Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs held in Tokyo, Japan, in August" 1962. 

Mrs. Paull refused for the same reasons to say whether, at the time 
of her testimony before the subcommittee on July 2, 1963, she was a 
member of the Communist Party. 

At the conclusion of Mrs. Paull's testimony, the subcommittee again 
called Mr. and Mrs. Pestana. They claimed that their attorney was 
unable to appear at that time and that they were, therefore, not repre- 
sented by counsel as they were entitled to be. The chairman excused 
them with instructions that they were to try to obtain counsel and 
return to the hearing with a report on their progress after the noon 


The next witness was John Allen Johnson, also known as Allen 
Johnson, of San Anselmo, Calif. Mr. Johnson repeatedly invoked the 
first and fifth amendments, rather than affirm or contest the follow- 
ing information about him compiled by the Committee on Un-Amer- 
ican Activities : 

On April 17, 1951, Mr. Johnson made application at San Fran- 
ciso, Calif., for a U.S. passport, supposedly for the purpose of 
making a 1 -month tour of England and France. He revealed no 
plan to visit the U.S.S.R. Passport No. 27712 was issued to him 
the next day. 


On June 5, 1952, according to an announcement in the People's 
^Yorld of June 4, 1952, Allen Johnson spoke at the previously men- 
tioned California Labor School about his firsthand impressions of 
the Soviet Union, based on a visit he had made there the year before. 

Also, in 1952, Mr. Johnson was expelled from the AFL Carpenters 
Union because of alleged membership in the Commimist Party. 

When Charles David Blodgett appeared before the Committee on 
Un-American Activities on December 3, 1953, he testified that he 
had been a member of the Communist Party in Alameda County, 
Calif., from 1946 until 1950. Mr. Blodgett said that during this 
period he had attended meetings of the political affairs committee of 
the Alameda County Communist Party which were also attended by 
Allen Johnson, then employed by the AFL Carpenters Union. 

On November 14, 1960, Mr. Johnson applied for a U.S. passport 
at San Francisco, supposedly for a 1-year visit, beginning approxi- 
mately February 1, 1961, to England, France, and Sweden. Passport 
No.^ 2426303 was issued to him on November 17, 1960. It was never 
validated for travel to Cuba. 

Mr. Johnson and his wife, Margaret Frances, entered Mexico on 
February 18, 1961. With expenses paid by the Cuban Government, 
they departed by ship on April 7, 1961, for a trip to Havana. On 
April 28, 1961, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson established a residence at No. 
41-15 Avenida la Buntillo, Havana, Cuba. 

In the People's World of December 30, 1961, there appeared an 
item under the title of "A Letter From Havana — Invasion Threat 
Shadows a Banner Year." The letter was printed over the name of 
Allen Johnson. The People^s World commented that Johnson at 
that time was working in Cuba and circulating a newsletter. 

In addition to invoking the first and fifth amendments when 
questioned about the activities described above, Mr. Johnson declined 
for the same reasons to say if, at any time after January 16, 1961, 
he had sought passport validation for travel to Cuba; if he had 
remained in Cuba from April 1961 until the spring of 1963 ; how he 
had supported himself while in Cuba ; whether he had received finan- 
cial assistance from the Cuban Government while he was in Cuba; 
and whether he was, at the time of his testimony, or had been in the 
past, a member of the Communist Party. 


Mrs. Margaret Frances Johnson, wife of Allen Johnson, was the 
final witness before the subcommittee during the morning session on 
July 2, 1963. 

According to the committee's information, Mrs. Jolinson was a 
member of tlie Communist Party in the El Cerrito area of California 
as early as 1943. On October 29, 1950, the Oakland Tribune reported 
that Mrs. Johnson, who had been a schoolteacher for 314 years, 
announced that she would neither sign a State-required loyalty oath 
nor resign from her teaching position. She reportedly said she 
hoped to challenge the constitutionality of the loyalty oath law in 
the courts. 

In 1951, according to the March 23 issue of the People's World 
of that year, Mrs. Johnson was a candidate for director on the Oak- 
land board of education. 


On November 17, 1960, Mrs. Johnson received a passport as a result 
of an application tiled 3 days earlier, similar to the one filed by her 
husband. In 1961, without having her passport validated for travel 
to Cuba, Mrs. Johnson accompanied her husband on a trip there, where 
she evidently remained until the spring of 1963. 

Mrs. Johnson invoked the first and fifth amendments to all sub- 
committee queries about the above-described activities. She likewise 
declined to answer questions about past and present membership in the 
Communist Party. 

Wlien the subcommittee convened for the afternoon session on July 
2, Mr. and Mrs. Pestana again claimed not to have been able to engage 
counsel. Chairman Willis informed them that their subpenas were 
being continued and instructed them to appear before the subcommit- 
tee in the Caucus Eoom of the Old House Office Building, Washington, 
D.C., at 10 a.m. on July 10, 1963. 


The subcommittee's final witness on July 2 was Miss Harriett 
Buliai, a Los xVngeles attorney. 

On January 14, 1960, Miss Buhai applied for a passport at the Los 
Angeles Passport Agency of the State Department, indicating a plan 
to take a pleasure trip to Denmark, Switzerland, France, England, 
and Italy for a period of 3 or 4 months, with a tentative departure 
date of February 15, 1960. Passport No. 1845770 was issued to Miss 
Buhai on January 15, 1960, 

On December 26, 1962, she applied for renewal of the passpost for 
a combination business and pleasure trip to Brazil and other coun- 
tries, beginning approximately January 7, 1963. 

According to information obtained on a preliminary committee in- 
vestigation, Miss Buhai traveled from Mexico to Cuba on or about 
August 31, 1962, in the company of Helen Travis, Nestor Otto Bravo, 
and Eustasia Sokolowski Madrigal. Miss Buhai's passport had not 
been validated for travel to Cuba. 

On October 26, 1957, the People's World reported that Miss Buhai 
had stated before the State Bar Examiners of California in 1955 that 
she had been a member of the Communist Party 11 years earlier, but 
had resigned. 

The January 9, 1960, People's World published an account of an 
election held by the Hollywood-Beverly Hills Chapter of the National 
Lawyers Guild at which Miss Buhai was elected to the chapter's 
executive board. Of the 15 persons named as having been elected to 
chapter offices in that account, 7 have been identified as members of 
the Communist Party in testimony before this committee. 

Miss Buhai invoked the fifth amendment and other reasons for 
refusing to answer subcommittee questions about the above matters. 
She also declined to affirm or deny whether she had organized the Los 
Angeles chapter of the Medical Aid to Cuba Committee, of which 
Helen Travis became secretary. Miss Buhai continued her declina- 
tions when asked if she knew Miss Travis to be, or to have been, a 
Communist Party member; if she had organized the Los Angeles 
Medical Aid to Cuba group as a result of instructions from Dr. Louis 
Miller, medical director for the national MACC; whether she knew 
Dr. INIiller, who, according to testimony before this committee in 1951, 


had attended enlarged meetings of tlie National Committee of the 
Commmiist Party in the 1940's; if fmids had been raised and for- 
warded to the New York Medical Aid group by the Los Angeles 
group ; if she and fellow attorney, Jean Kidwell Pestana, as reported 
by the Daily News of Whittier, Calif., on June 21, 1963, had shown 
slides and lectured on the subject of Cuba at a meeting sponsored by 
the "Women Strike for Peace at the Unitarian Center in Whittier; 
and if she, at the time of her testimony or in the past, had been a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party. 

August 5 Hearing 

Mr. and Mrs. Frank Pestana testified at public hearings held by the 
subcommittee in Washington, D.C., on August 5, 1963, after having 
been granted two continuances by the committee on their claim of 
unavailability of counsel and a heavy calendar of legal work to which 
they were committed during the month of July. These continuances 
were in addition to those granted in Los Angeles.^ Joseph North, a 
correspondent for The Worker and other Communist publications, also 
testified on the same day. 


Mrs. Jean Kidwell Pestana, who in 1952 had been identified in testi- 
mony before this committee as having been a member of a lawyers' 
group within the Communist Party in the late forties, was the first 
witness. She repeatedly invoked the fifth amendment and other rea- 
sons for refusing to answer questions concerning the following infor- 
mation obtained by the committee through a preliminary investiga- 
tion : 

On January 15, 1960, Mrs. Pestana applied for a U.S. passport at 
Los Angeles, stating her intention of taking a 3- or 4-inonth pleasure 
trip to Sweden, Norway, England, Denmark, France, and Italy. She 
was issued passport No. 1899805 on January 28, 1960. 

Without having had that passport validated for travel to Cuba by 
the State Department, Mrs. Pestana, in the company of Mrs. Rose 
Rosenberg, flew via Cubana airlines from Mexico to Cuba in early 
April 1962. She returned to the United States the following month. 

According to announcements in the People''s World of June 2. 1962, 
and the National Guardian of June 4, 1962, Mrs. Pestana and Mrs. 
Rosenberg gave a report on their 1-month visit to Cuba at a meet- 
ing of the Los Angeles Committee for Medical Aid to Cuba on 
June 6, 1962. 

On March 10, 1963, Mrs. Pestana and her husband appeared at 
the Long Beach Unitarian Church and showed slides purporting to 
demonstrate conditions in Cuba prior to and after Castro's coming 
to power. At this meeting (although she declined to expound upon 
it for the subcommittee) Mrs. Pestana allegedly said : "I have been in 
many socialist countries, but the fastest progress has been in Cuba." 
Also, in answer to a question from the audience, she admitted having 
been in Cuba in May 1962 as a guest of the Cuban Government. 

A flier circulated in Los Angeles in the spring of 1963 advertised 
a special event, "Be An Eye Witness in Cuba," scheduled for April 21, 

3 See pp. 52, 54. 


1963, at the First Unitarian Church. According to the flier, Frank 
Pestana and Jean Kidwell (her maiden and professional name) Pes- 
tana were to present "Cuba Today in Pictures" at the church's College 
Center for an audience of college-age persons only. 

On June 21, 1963, as reported in the next day's Daily News of 
Whittier, Calif., Mrs Pestana lectured on Cuba during an appear- 
ance with Miss Harriett Buhai, who operated a slide projector, before 
a Women Strike for Peace meeting in Whittier. On that occasion, 
Mrs. Pestana said that during her tour of Cuba in 1962 she had been 
accompanied by a friend and an official Cuban interpreter. She de- 
clined to tell the subcommittee whether that friend had been Kose 
Rosenberg and whether she knew either Mrs. Rosenberg or Miss 
Buhai to be a member of the Communist Party. 

Mrs. Pestana told the subcommittee she had not received compensa- 
tion in any manner from the Cuban Government. Yet she invoked 
the fifth amendment, among other reasons, for declining to answer 
when asked if she had understood, while receiving benefits as the 
guest of the Cuban Government during her visit to Cuba, that she was 
to lecture favorably about the Castro regime upon her return to the 
United States. 

She admitted she had not registered with the Department of Justice 
as a foreign agent, and denied being one. She denied participating 
in pro-Castro activities while under the discipline of the Communist 
Party with a view toward carrying out party objectives. 

She invoked the fifth amendment and other reasons for refusing 
to say whether she was presently a member of the Communist Party. 


Frank S. Pestana, husband of the previous witness and also an 
attorney with offices in Los Angeles, was next to testify before the 
subcommitee on August 5. A native of Portugal, Mr. Pestana became 
a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1937. At hearings conducted by the 
Committee on Un-American Activities in 1952, three witnesses identi- 
fied him as a member of a lawyers' cell within the Commmiist Party. 

Mr. Pestana invoked the fifth amendment and other reasons for 
refusing to say before the subcommittee on August 5 whether he 
had been a Communist Party member, as so identified in 1952, and if 
he had continued to be a member of the party since that time. 

Committee investigation conducted prior to Mr. Pestana's being 
subpenaed to testify in these hearings revealed that on April 20, 1959, 
he applied for renewal of a U.S. passport issued him in 1956. In his 
application for renewal, he said he intended to travel to Portugal, 
Spain, and Italy over a period of about 3 weeks for the purposes of 
business and visiting relatives. He listed April 27, 1959, as the ap- 
proximate date of departure. On April 24, 1959, he received renewal 
of passport No. 134222. 

Mr. ^ Pestana invoked the fifth amendment and other reasons in 
declining to tell the subcommittee if he had actually departed on a 
trip to Portugal, Spain, or Italy on or about April 27, 1959. He 
continued to decline to answer when asked questions about the fol- 
lowing information developed by the committee's investigation : 

Mr. Pestana served as an American delegate at the 10th anniver- 
sary session of the Soviet-staged World Peace Council held in Stock- 


holm, Sweden, on May 8-13, 1959. On December 20, 1959, at the 
First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles, he was given a reception by 
the Reverend and Mrs. Stephen H. Fritchman, who had been fellow 
delegates to the World Peace Council meeting in Stockholm. Accord- 
ing to the church's newsletter announcement of the reception, Mr. 
Pestana lectured and showed slides on the subject of China. 

On May 4, 1961, according to a preceding flier annomicement, Mr. 
Pestana presented an illustrated talk, entitled "Six Weeks in Com- 
munist China," at a meeting sponsored by the Santa Barbara [Calif.] 
Friends of KPFK. The flier contained the additional information 
that he had traveled 10,000 miles over the Chinese mainland as the 
guest of a Chinese classmate at the University of California. 

Mr. Pestana invoked his previous reasons in declining to tell the 
subcommittee if, when he applied for renewal of his passport in 
April 1959 for an alleged trip to Italy, Spain, and Portugal, he 
had actually intended to travel to the World Peace Council session 
at Stockholm and then to visit Red China. 

He declined to say whether, as annoimced in a flier circulated in 
Los Angeles in the spring of 1963, he had participated in a "Be 
an Eye Witness m Cuba" program at the First Unitarian Church on 
April 21, 1963. He declined also to say if the flier had been correct 
in stating that he had taken an extensive tour of Cuba in May 1962. 

Neither would the witness confirm or deny the subcommittee's 
information that he had addressed a meeting at the Long Beach 
Unitarian Church on March 10, 1963, at which time he stated (1) he 
had gone to Cuba in 1961 with 40 other couples and (2) he had 
been in Communist China recently. He cited his previous reasons 
for refusing to say whether he at any time had possessed a passport 
validated for travel to Red China; whether he had received any 
direct or indirect compensation from the Cuban or Chinese Govern- 
ments for his lecturing activities ; and whether, in his talks on Com- 
munist Cuba and Red China, his purpose had been to influence 
the U.S. public with respect to the policies of the governments of 
those foreign countries. 


The final witness at the subcommittee's hearings on August 5 was 
Joseph North, a correspondent for The Worker and a writer for 
many other Communist publications in this country for more than 
a quarter of a century. He has been identified as a member of the 
Communist Party on a number of occasions by witnesses before the 
Committee on Un-American Activities. 

On January 27, 1960, Mr. North filed an application for a U.S. 
passport, stating his intention to visit Britain, Italy, Czechoslovakia, 
Soviet Russia, and France over a period of about 3 months, beginning 
approximately March 1960. Passport No. 1871124 was issued on 
February 1, 1960. 

Mr. North subsequently traveled to France, Italy, the Soviet 
Union, and Czechoslovakia, returning to the U.S. with his passport 
apparently in good order on September 15, 1960. 

On December 16, 1960, according to an entry made on his passport 
by Cuban authorities, he arrived in Cuba. 


The witness invoked the fifth amendment and other reasons in 
refusing to tell the subcommittee if he had known that on January 16, 
1961, the State Department issued a regulation banning travel to 
Cuba unless the traveler was in possession of a passport specifically 
endorsed by the Department for such a trip. 

During the months of January, March, April, May, and August, 
1961, The Worker published articles by-lined by Mr. North and 
datelined Havana. 

An exit visa on his passport showed that Mr. North departed from 
Cuba on August 12, 1961, although he declined to tell the subcom- 
mittee whether he had returned to the U.S. or traveled elsewhere at 
that time. In any event, The Worker of August 27, 1961, carried 
another article from Cuba by Mr. North, indicating that he had 
returned to Cuba by that date. Additional North articles datelined 
Havana appeared in The Worker in the months of September, No- 
vember, and December, 1961, and in every month of 1962 except March 
and July. 

North's passport contained an entry of his arrival in Czechoslo- 
vakia on December 14, 1962, and an entry of departure from that 
Iron Curtain country on January 31, 1963, the same date on wliich 
his arrival in the U.S. was noted. 

Upon arrival from Czechoslovakia at the New York International 
Airport, his passport was lifted by representatives of the U.S. 
Immigration and Naturalization Service. This resulted from a 
request for such action, at the first opportmiity, made by the State 
Department's Passport Office in Washington on May 4, 1962, 
based on information that Mr. North had traveled to and from Cuba 
since January 16, 1961, without proper passport validation to do so. 

Mr. North invoked the fifth amendment and his other previously 
cited reasons for refusing to tell the subcommittee whether, at any 
time after the significant date of January 16, 1961, he had applied for 
or received passport validation for travel to Cuba; if at any time 
during 1961 or 1962 he had delivered any message or communica- 
tion from anyone in tliG United States known to him to be a Com- 
munist to persons in Cuba associated with the Castro government; 
and if he had delivered any message or communication from any 
person in Cuba known to him to be a Communist to anyone in the 
United States known to him to be a Communist. 

At the conclusion of the August 5 hearings. Chairman Willis 
instructed the committee stajff to forward a record of the day's 
proceedings to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution 
of the three witnesses for violation of passport requirements relating 
to travel to Cuba. 

September 12 Hearing 

The committee's hearings on violations of State Department regu- 
lations banning travel to Cuba without specially validated passports 
were continued in Washington, D.C., on September 12 and 13, 1963. 
On these dates the subcommittee heard 6 of the 58 U.S. students and 
youths who spent nearly 2 months in Cuba during the summer of 
1963 despite specific and repeated State Department warnings that 
their unauthorized trip could result in fines and imprisonment. 



The first witness was Barry Hoffman, a 26-year-old realtor of 
Brookline, Mass. Hoffman testified he had made the trip as an 
observer of the student group only after informing both the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency of the 
purpose of his participation. 

Following is a summary of Mr, Hoffman's testimony : 

In December 1962 Hoffman read articles in several Boston news- 
papers about a group of so-called U.S. students who planned to travel 
to Cuba. He telephoned Anatol Schlosser in New York City and ex- 
pressed an interest in the trip. Schlosser had been described by the 
newspapers as a spokesman for the student group's organizing 

Hoffman received a letter, dated December 14, 1962, from Schlosser, 
who said he had just been notified by the State Department that will- 
ful violation of the travel ban was punishable by a $5,000 fine and/ 
or imprisonment of not more than 5 years. Schlosser added, how- 
ever, that this was not going to deter the group from making the 
trip and he hoped Hoffman would join them. 

After receiving Schlosser's letter, Hoffman contacted representa- 
tives of the FBI and the CIA and notified them of the purpose of his 
association with the student group. He also offered to cooperate in 
any way he could with these agencies. 

The trip to Cuba, scheduled for December 1962, was postponed 
when the Canadian Government refused to allow the U.S. "students" 
to currj out their plan to be picked up in Canada by a Cuban 

Hoffman exchanged several more telephone calls with Schlosser 
before receiving a letter from him dated May 15, 1963, in which it 
was stated the trip had been rescheduled for July. An application 
blank and a memorandum explaining possible legal difficulties which 
might result for those making the trip were enclosed with the letter. 
The letter also informed Hoffman that a representative of the Perma- 
nent Student Committee for Travel to Cuba (the organizational name 
of the group) would be in Boston soon. 

Hoffman returned his completed application to the student com- 
mittee along with the requested $10 deposit. 

In a letter dated June 15, 1963, Levi Laub of the Permanent Stu- 
dent Committee for Travel to Cuba notified Hoffman that arrange- 
ments for the latter's taking part in the trip had been made. Laub 
said Hoffman should be in New York City by "the 24th" and asked 
that he get in touch with the PSCTC immediately at telephone num- 
ber GK 7-8396, New York City. 

Hoffman was away from home at the time Laub's letter arrived and 
did not see it until some days later. He had not replied to it when, 
on the morning of June 24, he received a telephone call from Laub, 
who said Hoffman would have to be in New York that afternoon if he 
were going on the trip to Cuba. 

Hoffman flew to New York on the afternoon of June 24 and tele- 
phoned the PSCTC office. He was instructed to go to the apartment 
of Miss Ellen Shallit. There he was introduced to Salvatore Cucchi- 
ari, who, he was told, would be his group leader during the trip. At 
this time, Hoffman also paid the $90 balance due on the total $100 cost 


of his participation in the trip. He subsequently learned that some of 
those "who went to Cuba did not pay anything. 

The next morning, as instructed, Hoffman returned to Miss Shallit's 
apartment, where he was informed by Cucchiari the trip would begin 
that afternoon. Hoffman was also told, along with others who inet at 
Miss Shallit's apartment on June 25, to proceed to the East Side Ter- 
niinal m New York City to receive flight tickets and further informa- 
tion. Younger persons were advised to dress in older style clothes so 
that they would not look like students when they arrived at the air- 
port. The people who met at Miss Shallit's apartment were in- 
structed to leave the building in small groups so as not to attract 
undue attention. 

_ At the East Side Terminal, Hoffman was surprised to receive flight 
rickets to London and Paris. He had assumed that the trip would 
somehow be made to Cuba through Canada. 

Hoffinan and the "students" he jomed at the airport departed for 
London on a BOAC plane. 

When Hoffman left New York, he and all of the others in his group 
possessed U.S. passports, as far as he knew, but none of them was 
validated for travel to Cuba. At London the plane was met by an 
American official, who warned the passengers of possible prosecution 
for traveling to Cuba without proper authorization. 

Li Paris, Hoffman's group was joined by another group which had 
flown there from New York on a KLM plane by way of Amsterdam. 

Although the so-called students were split into three separate 
groups and stayed overnight in three different hotels in Paris, they 
had dinner together. They were informed at this time by Levi Laub 
that they would go to Czechoslovakia, which they did the day 
after their arrival in Paris. 

Upon arrival at Prague on a Czech plane, the American passengers 
were once again greeted by an American official, who repeated the 
warnmg issued at the London stop. On this occasion, manv of the 
students rudely walked away from the official while he was addressing 

Czech visas were given Hoffman and the other students at Prague, 
although Hoffman had not applied for one anywhere en route. Czech 
officials examined the passports of the U.S. students, but made no 
entries in them. 

From Prague, the American travelers were taken on a 4-hour bus 
ride to Carlsbad, Czechoslovakia, where they stayed for 2 days at the 
Grand Hotel Moscow. Several group meetings were held, during 
which plans for the stay in Cuba were discussed. At one such meet- 
ing, the students were addressed and congratulated on having defied 
their Government by the Cuban Ambassador to Czechoslovakia. 

While in Czechoslovakia, the students were instructed by Levi Laub 
not to show their passports to any Cuban official when tJiey arrived 
in Cuba. Hoffman believed this instruction was given in the hope 
that if the passports were technically "not used" in Cuba, the students 
might be protected against charges of improper use of their passports. 

In Czechoslovakia, the students were joined by Vickie Ortiz, who 
had apparently arrived in Prague ahead of the main group. Miss 
Ortiz possessed both a U.S. and Mexican passport. It was agreed, 
therefore, that she would be the first to leave the plane at stopovers 


during the balance of the trip to Cuba, If any authorities lifted 
either of her passports, she would still have another one and, mean- 
while, the other students would have been alerted to try to protect 
their passports. 

Before the students departed from Czechoslovakia, they were 
issued "slip visas" (pieces of paper with entry visas stamped on 
them) by the Cuban consulate in Prague for their entry into Cuba. 
Again, no entry was made in their passports. 

From Czechoslovakia the Americans were flown on a Cuban air- 
plane to Ireland, Newfoundland, and thence to Havana, Cuba, where 
they arrived on June 30. There each student surrendered his "slip 
visa" and filled out a "landing card," requesting such general infor- 
mation as name, address, occupation, and passport number. The stu- 
dents supplied their passport numbers, as requested, but were careful 
not to show their passports to Cuban officials. 

They were interviewed and photographed by a large contingent 
of the Cuban press at the Havana airport. Then they were quartered 
at the Hotel Riviera in the Cuban capital. 

Their first evening in Cuba, the students were greeted by repre- 
sentatives of the Cuban Institute for Friendship Among the Peoples, 
the group in charge of them throughout their stay. The nest day 
they membersof the Cuban Federation of University Students, 
which was supposedly paying their expenses. Mr. Hoffman had 
serious doubts that the Cuban student organization was paying these 
expenses because of the high cost of the air travel alone. His guess 
was that the cost of the entire trip had to have been underwritten by 
the Cuban Government. 

About the third day the Americans were in Cuba, Fidel Castro 
appeared at a resort hotel they were visiting. He played ping-pong 
with some of the students for nearly 3 hours. After the ping-pong 
games were over, the students gathered around Castro and began ask- 
ing him questions about Cuba. He brushed them off by saying that 
he had to return to the affairs of State. 

Also, early in the visit to Cuba, Castro went skin diving with Levi 
Laub and two other members of the American student group. 

Day after day during their stay in Cuba, the students were taken 
on "organized" and "guided" tours from one end of the island to the 
other. They visited apartment projects, factories, schools, beaches, 
etc. The tours were not compulsory, however, and, as membei-s of a 
very privileged group, those students who wished to remain behind 
and roam around Havana were free to do so. 

Although the students, through the guided tours, did travel exten- 
sively across Cuba, they still were able to see only what their hosts 
wanted them to see. Hoffman, for instance, repeatedly asked to be 
shown the La Cabana Prison in Havana and the Isle of Pines, where 
political prisoners are kept. Each time he requested permission to 
visit these places, his Cuban hosts would indicate that approval was 
forthcoming, but it never came. 

One day Hoffman walked up to a prison in Havana and asked if 
he might talk to counterrevolutionaries detained there. He caused 
quite a bit of comm.otion among the guards, but could not gain 

Ploffman asked to visit Soviet military bases. "Sure, sure," was the 
reply from Cuban officials, but that is where his request ended. 


Hoffman observed many Russians in Cuba. Often they were seen 
riding in Soviet or Czech made military vehicles. They were sim- 
ilarly dressed, altliough never seen in military uniforms. There 
was no doubt in Hoffman's mind, however, about their being military 

On one occasion, Hoffman saw a dozen uniformed Chinese military 
officers, but he did not see any Chinese being moved about in truck 

Diplomats and other representatives of foreign Conmiunist coun- 
tries and interests in Cuba went all out to woo and indoctrinate the 
visiting U.S. students. In fact, the students received a far greater 
volume of Communist books, pamphlets, and other propaganda ma- 
terial than they could ever have hoped tx3 bring home with them. 
They were told by Cuban officials just to put the material in boxes 
marked with their names and addresses and it would be sent to 
their homes. 

The students were in contact with other Americans in Cuba. The 
group was addressed on a number of occasions by Robert Williams (a 
fugitive from a kidnaping charge which grew out of a racial incident 
in North Carolina several years ago) . 

The students met members of a group of Americans called the 
North American Friends of Cuba. Most of them worked for the 
Cuban Government. At least one of them also admitted being a 
member of the Cuban mdlitia. 

Despite the students' public declarations that the purpose of their 
trip was to see for themselves what was going on in Cuba, Levi Laub 
indicated otherwise when he addressed the group at one time in Cuba. 
Laub said that the real purpose of the trip was to "break" the travel 

Before the students wound up their visit in Cuba, a continuation 
committee was formed to plan future trips to that country. The day 
before the students left Cuba, a Cuban official told the continuation 
committee members that their trip to Cuba had been very important 
to Cuba and Cuban foreign policy. He expressed the opinion and the 
hope that, if the students succeeded in breaking the U.S. travel ban, 
it would be difficult for other countries to impose one against Cuba. 

The same Cuban official encouraged the returning LT.S. students 
to send other Americans to Cuba. Earlier, Fidel Castro had sug- 
gested to Levi Laub that if the U.S. Government attempted to prose- 
cute the students when they returned home, additional students 
should be sent to Cuba while the first group was being prosecuted. 

Also prior to their departure from Cuba, the students were briefed 
by their own leaders on how to deal with LT.S. customs and immigra- 
tion officers, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Committee 
on Un-American Activities. 

One of the leaders, Phillip Luce, an employee of the Emergency 
Civil Liberties Committee,* informed the students that upon return- 
ing home they could obtain legal advice from the ECLC, the Ameri- 
can Civil Liberties Union, and the National Committee To Abolish 
the Un-American Activities Committee. Luce also said members of 
the ECLC would represent the students "without fee" if they were 

* This orsranization was citpri as a Commnnist front by both the House Committee on 
Un-American Activities and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee in 1958 and 1956. 


prosecuted, but that there would be expenses of about $6,000 that 
would have to be raised by defense committees organized to help the 

Hoffman learned the CAiban Government had made a film of the 
students' visit to Cuba and that the film was going to be smuggled 
into the United States at a later date. In the United States the 
students were to combine showings of the film with lectures on Cuba 
to raise money for their defense. 

The U.S. students departed by air from Cuba on August 26, 1963, 
for the return trip home by way of Madrid, Spain. When the plane 
made a refueling stop at Bermuda, however, Hoffman left the group 
and flew directlj^ to New York at his own expense. 

At the subcommittee's hearings on September 12, Hoffman was 
asked to identify those students who had traveled to Cuba and who 
were also members of the Progressive Labor Movement, an ultrarevo- 
lutionary Communist splinter group. At an earlier hearing the sub- 
committee had learned that members of Progressive Labor had 
played a leading role in organizing the unauthorized ti'ip to Cuba. 
According to Hoffman, the knov>-n Progressive Labor members who 
made the trip were Levi Laub, Salvatore Cucchiari, Vickie Ortiz, 
Ellen Shallit, Rhoden Smith, Wendie Nakashima, John Salter, 
Larry Phelps, Stefan Martinet, Eleanor Goldstein, Catherine Pren- 
sky, and Mark Tishman. Tishman, according to Hoffman, said 
he joined the Progressive Labor Movement only to be able to make the 
trip to Cuba and that he subsequently resigned. 

Asked by the subcommittee to name the leaders of the students 
with whom he traveled to Cuba, Hoffman named Le^a Laub as the 
unquestioned head of the group, inasmuch as Anatol Schlosser had 
not made the trip. Hoffman said Laub informed the other students 
during the trip that he had been in Cuba the previous February or 
March making arrangements for their visit. 

Hoffman said that another leader was Phillip Luce, who headed 
the students' press committee. While in Cuba, Luce kept in con- 
tact with Clark Foreman, the director of the Emergency Civil 
Liberties Committee, about reaction to the trip in the United States. 

Other leaders in the group were Ellen Shallit, Salvatore Cucchiari, 
Stefan Martinot, Larry Phelps, and Wendie Nakashima. 

Mr. Hoffman concluded that the trip of the U.S. students to Cuba, 
which received tremendous play in the Cuban press, had been a great 
propaganda victory for the Castro regime. 

Hoffman also emphasized his conclusion that the persons with 
whom he had traveled to Cuba were not typical American students. 
Their ages ranged from 18 to 33, he told the subcommittee, and some 
of them were not students at all. Most of them had made up their 
minds favorably about Communist Cuba long before they arrived 
there, the witness said. 

He described for the subcommittee an occasion in Cuba when a 
Communist group from Vietnam showed the U.S. "students" a film 
of military operations in that Asian country. "\^nien a scene appeared 
in which an American airplane was shot down, a great cheer went up 
from the "students." 

Hoffman again emphasized that they were not typical American 



The next witness heard in public session on September 12 vras Levi 
Lee Laub of New York City. Laub was unemployed at the time 
of his testimony, he said, and still considered himself a college 
student, inasmuch as he planned to return to Columbia College to 
complete two examinations required for his bachelor of arts degree. 

Committee counsel introduced a photostatic copy of a passport 
application which Laub had filed with the State Department's New 
York City office on January 29, 1963, in which he had stated that he 
intended to depart for a vacation in Mexico on February 1, 1963. 

Laub testified he was issued a passport after filing this application, 
but invoked the fifth amendment when asked if he had truthfully 
reflected his travel plans in the application. He admitted, however, 
that he had not at any time after receiving the passport applied 
for specific endorsement of it for travel to Cuba. He declined on 
constitutional grounds to say whether in February and March 1963, 
or at any time after January 29, 1963, he had traveled to Cuba 
through Mexico. 

The witness freely acknowledged he had arrived in Cuba with the 
group of U.S. students on June 30, 1963, and remained there until 
August 25. Asked, if on the occasion of this trip, his passport had con- 
tained a notation authorizing travel to Cuba in accordance with ex- 
isting travel laws and regulations, Laub claimed no such laws or regu- 
lations existed. He claimed the requirement for specific passport en- 
dorsement for travel to Cuba was a matter of State Department 
policy, not a matter of law or regulation. 

The chairman read to the witness the following portion of a State 
Department document published December 13, 1962, more than 6 
months before the student group departed for Cuba : 

The Department warns all concerned that travel to Cuba by 
a U.S. citizen without a passport specifically validated by the 
Department of State for that purpose constitutes a violation 
of the Travel Control Law and Regulations. (Title 8 U.S. 
Code Sec. 1185 : Title 22 Code of Federal Regulations, Sec. 
53.3). A wilful violation of the law is punishable by fine 
and/or imprisonment. 

Levi Laub admitted having been one of the leaders of the meeting 
in New York City on October 14, 1962, at which the Ad Hoc Student 
Committee for Travel to Cuba was organized. He invoked the fifth 
amendment and other reasons, however, for refusing to say whether 
he, Stefan Martinot, and Anatol Schlosser had been appointed by 
Milton Rosen and Mortimer Scheer, leaders of the Progressive Labor 
Movement, to form the Ad Hoc Student Committee for Travel to 

The witness also admitted having attended another meeting in 
New York in December 1962, when the Permanent Student Committee 
for Travel to Cuba was created. 

Laub testified that, as a representative of the Permanent Committee, 
he had visited the University of California, San Francisco State Col- 
lege, Stanford University, the University of Chicago, the University of 
Wisconsin, the University of Michigan, Brooklyn College, City Col- 
lege of New York, and Columbia College to promote the trip to 


Cuba and recruit students to take part in it. He said his travel 
expenses were paid from funds raised primarily at benefit parties held 
in New York City by the Permanent Committee, He said he knew of 
no financial contributions made to the Permanent Committee by any 
outside organization. 

The witness, who willingly testified that the student trip had been 
made to Cuba, repeatedly invoked the fifth amendment and other 
reasons for refusing to answer questions about certain preparatory 
activities in which he had engaged. He accordingly declined to 
confirm or deny the committee's information that he had negotiated 
with both the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the KLM 
Royal Dutch Airlines for flying two groups of students from New 
York to Paris, Laub declined to discuss the committee's information 
that it was he who had reserved and picked up the tickets for the 
students from these two airlines. He also declined to explain why, 
as the committee's investigation revealed, he had given several different 
personal New York addresses during his dealings with BOAC and 

The witness continued to invoke the fifth amendment and other 
reasons in refusing to say who made the payments for the BOAC 
and KLM tickets. Although the tickets were reserved and picked 
up in New York, the committee's investigation disclosed that the 
money for them was actually paid at the BOAC and KLM offices 
in Ottawa, Canada, by "Mr. J, Jacobs" and "Mr. Jacob," respectively. 
On June 10 and 11, 1963, the investigation revealed, Jacobs, or a person 
using that name, had made deposits totaling $22,739,20 in U.S. cur- 
rency with BOAC's Ottawa office, and on the latter date the same 
individual had deposited $13,436.80 in U.S. currency with KLM's 
office in Ottawa, 

Laub declined to tell the subcommittee if he knew Jacobs, if he knew 
Jacobs to be an American citizen, and if he knew why Jacobs had thus 
far failed to collect in excess of $6,700 in refunds from IQjM and 
BOAC for deposits over and above the cost of the tickets actually 
used for the trip to Cuba, 

The witness insisted that all of the expenses connected with the 
students' visit to Cuba were paid by the Cuban Federation of Univer- 
sity Students, but he supplied no other details on the matter, 

Laub admitted that during the latter part of the visit to Cuba there 
came a time when some of the group wished to remain longer and 
others did not. In this connection, he acknowledged he had urged the 
students to do together whatever they decided to do, so they would re- 
turn to the United States as a group. In this way, he had contended, 
the group would have a gi-eater impact upon the possible breaking of 
the State Department ban on travel to Cuba. 

The witness testified that he was, and had been for 11 months, a 
member of t?ie Progressive Labor Movement. 

Laub reluctantly admitted that on April 28, 1961, he had demon- 
strated against, and refused to take part in, a civil defense shelter drill 
in New York City, which resulted in his being convicted and fined 
for violation of the New York civil defense law. 

The wntness was then excused, and the subcommittee recessed until 
the following morning. 


September 18 Hearing 
testimony of phillip a. luce 

The first witness on September 13, 1963, was Phillip Abbott Luce. 
26, holder of a master's degree in political science from Ohio State 
University and an associate editor of Rights, an organ published by 
the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee of New York City. Luce 
was one of the leaders of the group of U.S. ''students" who made the 
unauthorized trip to Cuba during the summer of 1963. 

In response to a series of questions about some of his activities prior 
to the formation of tlie American group which visited Cuba, Luce 
testified as follows: 

As an employee of the ECLC, he had spoken to student groups on 
numerous college campuses. 

He had written book reviews for the National Guardian newspaper 
and the Communist Party's magazine, Mainstream. He told the sub- 
committee he hadn't known the latter was a Communist Party pub- 

He spoke at a community forum in New York at which Benjamin 
Davis was also a speaker, but claimed he didn't know Davis was the 
national secretary of the Conunmiist Party. 

The witness said he did not attend either of the meetings at which 
the Ad Hoc Committee and the Permanent Student Committee for 
Travel to Cuba were formed. 

Luce testified that he did not know who "J. Jacobs" was. He said 
that prior to the subcommittee's hearings he had had no knowledge of 
any arrangement whereby the students' flight tickets had been pur- 
chased by a "J. Jacobs." Neither, he told the subcommittee, had he 
made any arrangements with Levi Laub by which Luce's name would 
be given the British Overseas Airways Corporation as a person wlio 
could be contacted about the trip to Cuba in Laub's absence. 

The witness stated that he had not been instructed by the Emergency 
Civil Liberties Committee to assume a leadership role within the 
group which traveled to Cuba. During his participation in that trip, 
Luce said, he had been on leave without pay from his ECLC position. 

Luce acknowledged that in the spring of 1963 he had requested and 
received a U.S. passport from the State Department. He admitted 
he had the Cuban trip in mind at the time he med his passport applica- 
tion, even though he had said in that application that he only intended 
to visit France, England, and "other countries." He also confirmed 
the subcommittee's information that he subsequently had not requested 
the Department of State to endorse his passport for travel to Cuba. 

Luce testified that he had not discussed the purposes of the trip with 
either Leonard Boudin or Victor Rabinowitz prior to the group's 
departure. Lawyers Boudin and Rabinowitz are prominent members 
of the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, who have identified 
themselves in litigation before U.S. courts as representing the legal in- 
terests of Fidel Castro in the United States. 

The witness told the subcommittee that near the end of his stay in 
Cuba, at the request of the "students," he had cabled the director of the 
Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, asking the aid of ECLC in 
any legal matters concerning criminal actions or passports in which 
the students might become involved. 


Luce insisted that lie had broken no law when he traveled to Cuba. 
He claimed the only prohibition against traveling to Cuba without 
specific passport endorsement to do so exists in the form of a State 
Department public notice, not a law. He said, further, that even 
if there were such a law, he would consider it his duty to break it. 


The subcommittee's final three witnesses on September 13 were heard 
during a public session in the afternoon. The first of these was 
Wendie Suzuko Nakashima Eosen, a student on leave of absence from 
the City College of New York and the wife of Jacob Rosen. 

Inasmuch as the witness had used her maiden name during her Cuban 
travel and expressed no preference for either name in her interroga- 
tion, she was addressed by both her maiden and married names. 

Miss Nakashima acknowledged the correctness of the following 
background information about her which had been obtained by the 
committee's investigation : 

On May 3, 1960, while a member of the Students for a Sane Nuclear 
Policy at CCNY, she refused to take part in a civil defense air raid 
drill. Later in 1960, prior to the existence of restrictions on travel to 
Cuba, Miss Nakashima visited Cuba for about 3 months, during which 
time she worked in the Sierra Maestra Momitain area. A "couple 
of years ago,'' in the words of the witness, she was a member of Ad- 
vance, an organization described as a Communist front by the U.S. 
Attorney General in a petition to the Subversive Activities Control 
Board on January 10, 1963. On June 5, 1962, she filed a passport 
application, in which she stated it was her intention to travel to Eng- 
land, France, and Italy — then in July and August 1962, she used the 
passport to travel to the Cormnunist-run Eighth World Youth Festival 
at Helsinki, Finland. 

Miss Nakashima told the subcommittee she had not listed Helsinki, 
Finland, on her passport application because she felt there might be 
an attempt to delay or prevent her from going there. 

The witness said that she had been in attendance at the meeting 
during which the Ad Hoc Student Committee for Travel to Cuba was 
organized in the fall of 1962, but invoked the fifth amendment when 
asked if either Milton Rosen or Mortimer Scheer, expelled Commu- 
nist Party members who organized the Progressive Labor Movement, 
had been present on that occasion. 

Miss Nakasliima acknowledged she had not at any time subsequent 
to receipt of her passport in June 1962 requested the State Department 
to validate it specifically for travel to Cuba. She claimed there was no 
law in existence requiring such validation. 

She did not contest the subcommittee's information that she had 
departed from New York on June 25, 1963, and traveled to Cuba on 
BOAC and Cubana airlines via London, Paris, and Prague. She 
testified that she had participated in many press interviews during her 
stay in Cuba. 

In reply to questions about the use of her passport, she testified only 
that she had exhibited it to foreign immigration officials in London and 
Paris on the way to Cuba and to U.S. immigration officials when she 
returned to the LTnited States. 

36-584— «4 6 


During her testimony, Miss Nakashima said that she was no longer 
a member of Advance and had at no time been a member of the Com- 
mmiist Party. 


The next witness was Catherine Jo Prensky, 20, formerly a student 
at the University of Wisconsin, but enrolled in the City College of 
New York at the time of her appearance before the subcommittee. 

According to information obtained through a preliminary investiga- 
tion, Miss Prensky applied for a U.S. passport at the State Depart- 
ment's office in New York City on April 24, 1962, setting forth a plan 
to travel as a tourist to England, France, Switzerland, Italy, and Fin- 
land. She acknowledged to the subcommittee that she had used the 
passport to attend the Eighth World Youth Festival at Helsinki, 
Finland, from July 29 through August 6, 1962. 

Miss Prensky admitted that, without having requested validation of 
her passport for travel to Cuba, she nevertheless had traveled there 
in June 1963 by way of New York, Amsterdam, Paris, and Prague. 
She told the subcommittee her passport had been lifted temporarily 
by a Dutch official in Amsterdam and was not returned until after an 
official from the U.S. Embassy in Holland had spoken to her. 

She recalled having exhibited her passport in Paris, but said she 
could not remember whether, in Prague, she had received a Cuban visa 
bearing her passport number. 

Miss Prensky affirmed that she belonged to a Progressive Labor 
Student Club. 


The day's final witness was Larry Wilford Phelps, an miemployed 
1963 graduate of the University of North Carolina. He was another 
of the so-called students who made the unauthorized trip to Cuba dur- 
ing the summer of 1963. 

Phelps testified that he had been one of the organizers of the Pro- 
gressive Labor Club at the University of North Carolina in July or 
August 1962. He admitted having participated in an all-day confer- 
ence of the Progressive Labor Movement on July 1, 1962, at the Hotel 
Diplomat in New York City, which was attended by more than 50 
delegates from widely scattered Progressive Labor groups throughout 
the country. He invoked the self-incrimination clause of the fifth 
amendment, however, when asked if he had had prior discussion about 
the formation of a Progressive Labor Club at the University of North 
Carolina with Jacob Rosen, an identified Communist who had been a 
frequent visitor to the university campus. 

Phelps testified that, in a passport application filed with the Depart- 
ment of State on December 7, 1962, he had said he intended to visit 
"England and maybe France." He strongly implied to the subcom- 
mittee that, at the time he filed the application, he had intended to 
travel to Cuba, but that he deliberately did not state tliis because he 
knew he would be refused permission if he did. 

The witness affirmed the subcommittee's information that he had 
at no time, after receiving his passport in December 1962, requested 
that it be validated for travel to Cuba. 

Phelps told the subcommittee he had no knowledge of how payment 
was made to KLM and BOAC airlines for the flight tickets used by 


the students on their unauthorized trip to Cuba in June 1963. He 
stated further he did not know the identity of "J. Jacobs." 

October 16 Hearing 

A subcommittee, composed of Kepresentatives Joe E. Pool, chair- 
man, of Texas ; Kichard H. Ichord, of Missouri ; and August E. Johan- 
sen, of Michigan, continued hearings on the subject of unauthorized 
travel of U.S. citizens to Cuba at a public session in Washington, D.C., 
on October 16, 1963. On this occasion, the subcommittee was particu- 
larly interested in establishing the true identity of one "Jay" or "J." 
"Jacob" or "Jacobs," who had been mentioned in earlier hearings as 
the purchaser of air travel tickets used by the U.S. students who 
traveled to Cuba by way of Prague, Czechoslovakia, in the sunmier 
of 1963. 


The first witness to appear at the subcommittee's morning session 
was Arnold Indenbaum, for 10 years a brakeman on the New York 
Central Railroad until furloughed from his job on September 2, 1963. 

Mr. Indenbaum invoked the fifth amendment and other constitu- 
tional reasons in declining to say whether he was aware that a person 
using the names "Jacob" and "Jacobs" on June 10 and 11, 1963, 
had deposited more than $36,000 at the Ottawa, Canada, offices 
of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the KLM Royal 
Dutch Airlines for flight reservations to Paris, France. He also de- 
clined, for the same reasons, to tell the subcommittee if he was aware 
that a person using a North Carolina driver's license to identify him- 
self as "Jay Jacobs" had collected refunds on unused flight tickets 
from the New York City offices of BO AC and KLM in late August 

He declined to answer when asked if he had ever used or been 
known by the name of "Jay Jacob" or "Jay Jacobs." 

At this point Mr. Indenbaum was instructed to stand aside tem- 
porarily while the subcommittee heard other witnesses. 


Miss June Gard, an employee in KLM's main New York City 
office, testified that Levi Laub had visited that office on at least five 
occasions to make arrangements for the flight of a group of U.S. 
students to Paris by way of Amsterdam in Jime 1963. 

Miss Gard said that in June 1963 she had received a telephone call 
from the KLM office in Ottawa and talked to a man who identified 
himself as "Mr. Jacob." He told her he was at the Ottawa KLM 
office to pay for tickets which had been reserved for a group of stu- 
dents by Levi Laub at KLM's New York office. 

The witness also testified that shortly after the students departed 
from New York for Cuba on June 25, she received a telephone call 
from a person identifying himself as "Mr. Jacob," who asked that 
a refund for unused KLM tickets he had purchased be sent to his 
bank account. When she asked for his bank account number, he said 
he had several and would call her back. She also requested that he 


come to the KLM office in person and present identification of 

It was not until about August 26, Miss Gard testified, that a man 
who introduced himself as "Mr. Jacob" and produced a driver's li- 
cense bearing his photograph as identification came to her office and 
applied for a refund from KLM. 

I^iiss Gard said that the man who had identified himself as "Mr. Jay 
Jacob" and Arnold Indenbaum, the preceding witness, were one and 
the same person. 


Peter Gumpert, a graduate student at the University of North 
Carolina, testified that he had met a person he knew only as "Arnie" 
or "Arnold" on July 25, 1963, when the latter spent the night at the 
Chapel Hill, N.C., residence where he (Gumpert) shared a room 
with Nicholas Bateson, another graduate student at the university. 
He said he had not known Indenbaum by the name of "Jacob" or 
"Jacobs" while the latter was in Chapel Hill. (Bateson, according to 
subcommittee information of which Mr. Gumpert said he was not 
aware, had played a leadership role in the formation of a student 
Progressive Labor organization at Chapel Hill.) 

Mr, Gumpert told the subcommittee he had been introduced to 
Jacob Rosen by Mr. Bateson in late 1962 or early 1963. The witness 
said no information had been brought to his attention, however, con- 
cerning Rosen's affiliation with any Communist group. He said he 
may have learned from Mr. Bateson that Mr. Rosen was connected 
with Progressive Labor. 

Mr. Gumpert testified that he was not a member of either Progres- 
sive Labor or the New Left Club, a group which preceded the Pro- 
gressive Labor organization at Chapel Hill. 

He told the subcommittee that on July 26, 1963, he had obtained a 
rented automobile for Mr. Indenbaum, who needed a vehicle with 
which to take an examination for a North Carolina driver's license. 
That same day, said the witness, he drove Indenbaum to Carrboro, 
N.C., where Indenbaum completed the required tests. Mr. Gumpert 
said he Avaited outside while Indenbaum took his examination in the 
driver examiner's office and did not accompany Indenbaum during the 
latter's road test. He did, however, drive the visitor back to Chapel 
Hill, after which he did not see him again until the hearing. 

A short time after Mr. Indenbaum's visit, according to the witness, 
Mr. Gumpert and Mr. Bateson ceased to share the same residence, each 
moving to a new location. 


The next witness was Durane U. Sherman, license examiner for the 
North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles. He testified that on 
July 26, 1963, he had received and processed an "Application for 
Nortli Carolina Driver's License" submitted and signed in his pres- 
ence by "Jay Jacobs." The man identifying himself as Mr. Jacobs 
told liim that he had not previously been licensed to operate a motor 
vehicle in North Carolina or any other State, said the witness. 

Mr. Sherman said that after "Jacobs" completed the required 
examinations, he collected a fee from the applicant and gave him a 


receipt which could have served as a temporary license for a period 
up to 30 days. Mr. Sherman testified that he forwarded the applica- 
tion to the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles in Raleigh, N.C., from 
which the permanent license would have been sent directly to the 
applicant at Bateson's post office box, the address "Jacobs'' gave on 
the application. 

Committee counsel introduced the North Carolina driver's license 
application of "Jay Jacobs," bearing stamped number 1230513, iden- 
tified as such by Mr. Sherman. The witness testified that, under 
nonnal operating procedures, that number would be the number of the 
permanent license issued to "Jacobs" by the Department of Motor 
Vehicles at Raleigh.^ 

Mr. Sherman told the subcommittee that Arnold Indenbaimi, the 
first person who had appeared on the witness stand, was the man who 
had represented himself as "Jay Jacobs" when he was examined for a 
driver's license in North Carolina on July 26, 1963. 


The next witness was Nicholas Bateson, an employee of the Univer- 
sity of North Carolina who had immigrated to the United States from 
his native England in 1958, the year after his graduation from Oxford. 
Mr. Bateson said he had not applied for U.S. citizenship. 

Mr. Bateson invoked the fixfth amendment when asked if he knew 
Arnold Indenbaum; whether Indenbaum had visited him on July 
25-26, 1963, and discussed the need for obtaining a North Carolina 
driver's license; and whether he had been informed by Indenbaum 
that he would represent himself as "Jay Jacobs" for the purpose of 
acquiring the license. 

According to the subcommittee's information, a North Carolina 
driver's license was issued to "Jay Jacobs" on July 29, 1963, and 
mailed to Nicholas Bateson's post office box. 

Mr. Bateson declined to answer for the same reason when asked 
if he had involved Peter Gumpert in helping Indenbaum obtain a 
license under the name of "Jay Jacobs" without Gumpert's knowl- 
edge of the scheme and whether he knew that Indenbaum had intended 
to pose as "Jacobs" for the purpose of receiving refunds from KLM 
and BOAC. 

Mr. Bateson said a report in the University of North Carolina 
student newspaper. Daily Tar Heel, of November 29, 1962, which had 
indicated he planned to accompany a student group to Cuba in 
December 1962 was erroneous. 

He invoked the fifth amendment when asked whether he had been 
one of the organizers of the Progressive Labor Club at the University 
of North Carolina, but said he had no knowledge that the club had 
recruited and organized students for travel to Cuba. 

The witness cited both the first and fifth amendm-ents in declining 
to say whether he knew Larry Wilford Phelps to be a member of 
the Progressive Labor group at Chapel Plill. In explanation of his 
refusal to answer, Bateson admitted being what he called a "guest" 
member of the Progressive Labor Club and said he felt bound to "the 

"Documents introduced later in the iiearings revealed that the license Indenbaum sub- 
sequently used to identify himself as "Jay Jacobs" was numbered 1230513. 


rules of this club, and one of the rules of this club is that one is under 
a very solemn and sacred honor not to discuss the names of other 
people who are also on the political left." 

He continued to cite the fifth amendment when asked about sub- 
committee evidence that the Progressive Labor Club was not recog- 
nized by the University of North Carolina and was, therefore, barred 
from using the university's facilities for meetings. 

Mr. Bateson refused, again claiming fifth amendment privileges, to 
confirm or deny a Daily Tar Heel story of September 25, 1962, that 
he had granted it an interview as a "spokesman" for the Progressive 
Labor Club. For the same reasons, he declined to say how the Pro- 
gressive Labor Club was organized at Chapel Hill; to identify the 
individual from the national office of Progressive Labor with whom 
he conferred in regard to the formation of a Chapel Hill branch ; to 
state whether he had been in attendance at the national organizational 
meeting of the Progressive Labor Movement on July 1, 1962; and 
whether, in comiection with the formation of the Chapel Hill Progres- 
sive Labor Club, he had conferred with Jacob Eosen, Milton Rosen, 
or Mortimer Scheer. 

Counsel was requested by the chairman to refer a copy of the tran- 
script of Mr. Bateson's testimony to the Bureau of Immigration and 
Naturalization for appropriate review. 


Miss June Gard was recalled by the subcommittee to elaborate 
upon her earlier testimony. She said that in her capacity as an 
employee of KLM's New York office she had received two tele- 
phone calls from a person or persons identifying themselves as "Jay 
Jacobs." The first call was received from Canada in mid-June in 
connection with the payment in Ottawa of money for flight tickets 
for the students. The second telephone call, she explained, was ap- 
parently a local one (made in New York) and concerned a request 
for a refund for tickets which had been purchased but not used. The 
second call was received several days after the June 25 departure of 
the students on their roundabout trip to Cuba. 

Miss Gard testified that the man who later came to the KLM office 
in New York and identified himself to her as "Jay Jacob" was the 
same person who had been the first witness before the subcommittee 
that morning (Indenbaum). 


The first witness during the afternoon session was Miss Brunhilde 
Linke, a ticket agent for the KLM Eoyal Dutch Airlines office at 609 
Fifth Avenue, New York City. She told the subcommittee that in 
the last week of August a person representing himself as "Mr. 
Jacobs," accompanied by another man, came to the KLM ticket office 
to check on a refund request that had already been initiated. He 
presented a letter from the KLM refund department, she said, which 
had instructed him either to come to the office himself to collect the 
refund or to authorize someone else to do so. IVIiss Linke said this 
man also presented as identification a driver's license with his picture 
on it, made out to either "Jay" or "J." Jacobs. 


Miss Linke said no company official in a position to autliorize the 
signing of a refund check was present on that occasion, so "Jacobs" 
was asked to return the following morning, which he did. She 
told the subcomjnittee that tlie refund check was then given to 
"Jacobs" by the KLM ticket office manager, Mr. van der Jagt. 

Miss Linke testified that the day's first witness, Arnold Inden- 
baum, was the person previously known to her as "Jay Jacobs," the 
man who had received the KLM refund check from Mr. van der Jagt. 


Edward R. O'Neill, ticket counter manager of the British Overseas 
Airways Corporation's office at 530 Fifth Avenue, New York City, 
was the next person heard by the subcommittee. From records in his 
possession subpenaed for the hearing, Mr. O'Neill testified that the 
Ottawa BOAC office had telephoned the New York office on June 10 
and 11, 1963, advising that it had received deposits of $5,000 and 
$17,739.20, respectively, from a Mr. "J. Jacobs." The deposits, accord- 
ing to BOAC records, were to hold 60 seats for travel from New York 
to London to Paris. Reservations for these seats, Mr. O'Neill told 
the subcommittee, had initially been requested by Mr. Levi Laub in 
]\Lay, and the deposit on them was supposed to have been made on 
June 6. On Saturday, June 8, however, according to the witness, a 
person identifying himself as Levi Laub had telephoned BOAC's 
New York office from Canada and explained that he was not able to 
make the deposit in Montreal on that date because the BOAC office 
there was closed. 

Mr. O'Neill also testified that on June 13, 1963, Mr. Laub came to 
the BOAC office in New York with a Miss V. Ortiz, who purchased 
a ticket for herself and another for "A. Indenbaum," for a BOAC 
New York-London-Paris flight departing June 16, with an open 
return date. The Indenbaum ticket had previously been reserved 
mider a "no-name" booking, the witness explained. 

Committee counsel recalled for the record that on September 12, 
1963, witness Bariy Hoffman had testified that the students who de- 
parted from New York for Cuba on June 25 were joined in Prague, 
Czechoslovakia, by a girl named Victoria Ortiz. 

Counsel presented to Mr. O'Neill, for identification, a copy of a 
document dated August 26, 1963, signed by "Jay Jacobs," acknowledg- 
ing receipt of a BOAC check nmnbered D000149, in the amount of 
$4,134.40. Tlie witness said "Mr. Jacobs" had signed this receipt in 
his presence on the date indicated at tlie time he gave the alleged Mr. 
Jacobs a refund check for unused tickets. Mr. O'Neill told the sub- 
committee he had first established "Mr. Jacobs' " identity from North 
Carolina driver's license number 1230513, which he noted on the re- 
fund receipt "Jacobs" had signed. The witness also identified a can- 
celed check shown him by the subcommittee as the one he had signed 
and given "Mr. Jacobs" on August 26, 1963. 

Mr, O'Neill further testified that the person with whom he had 
dealt as "Jay Jacobs" was the same person who had testified before the 
subcommittee earlier in the day under the name of Indenbaum. 



David Perham, an employee of the First National City Bank of 
New York, testified that on August 27, 1963, a person identifying 
himself as "Jay Jacob" had appeared at the bank's branch office at 
640 Fifth Avenue to cash check No. 6001, made payable to him, in 
the amount of $2,067.20, by the KLM Eoyal Dutch Airlines. Mr. 
Perham, who was the branch officer in charge of approving checks 
up to $250 on that occasion, said he took both the check and "Mr. 
Jacobs' " driver's license to another bank official who was authorized 
to approve the cashing of checks in higher amounts. The check 
was approved by the other official and returned to "Mr. Jacob" 
by Mr. Perham, who noted on the back of the check that "Mr. 
Jacob's" identification had been established by a North Carolina 
driver's license. Mr. Perham said "Mr. Jacob" endorsed the che<?k 
in his presence. 

Mr. Perham testified that the person who had negotiated the check 
at his bank, payable to "Jay Jacob," was the same man who had 
been identified and had previously testified at the subcommittee hear- 
ing as Arnold Indenbamu. 


Harold J. E. Gesell, chief of the Veterans' Administration's Iden- 
tification and Detection Division and expert examiner of question- 
able documents, was the next witness heard by the subcommittee. 
On October 8, 1963, the Committee on Un-American Activities had 
submitted to Mr. Gesell for examination four documents bearing 
the signature of "Jay Jacobs." They were: (1) a BO AC check, 
D000149, dated August 26, 1963, endorsed by "Jay Jacobs"; (2) a 
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines check, dated August 27, 1963, endorsed by 
"Jay Jacobs" ; (3) a receipt, dated August 26, 1963, on a BO AC letter- 
head, signed by "Jay Jacobs"; and (4) the application for a North 
Carolina driver's license signed by "Jay Jacobs." 

After testifying in detail as to the reasons for his findings and 
conclusion, Mr. Gesell said that, in his opinion, the "Jay Jacobs" sig- 
natures had been written by the same person in all four instances. 


Arnold Indebaum was then recalled for further interrogation. He 
invoked the fifth amendment in response to all questions concern- 
ing the other witnesses' testimony about his activities under the name 
of "Jacob" or "Jacobs." 

In addition, he declined for the same reason to admit that it 
was not he who, identifying himself as "Jay Jacobs" and a friend 
of Levi Laub, had teleplioned the New York KLM office from the 
KIjM office in Ottawa, Canada, stating he had deposited money with 
KLM's Ottawa agent for the purchase of flight tickets to Paris. 

Mr. Indenbaum also invoked the fifth amendment when asked if 
he had gone to North Carolina and obtained a driver's license under 
the name of "Jay Jacobs" in order to establish identification with 
which he could collect refunds on unused airline tickets purchased 
under that fictitious name. 


At this point in the proceedings, committee coimsel introduced an 
affidavit from H. J. van der Jagt, ticket manager of the KLM Royal 
Dutch Airlines office in New York City, who was out of the country 
and unable to appear at the hearings. In this statement, Mr. van der 
Jagt said he had given a KLM refmid check, dated August 27, 1963, 
in the amount of $2,067.20 to a person w^ho presented a North Carolina 
driver's license in identifying himself as "Jay Jacobs," the purchaser 
of unused flight tickets. Mr. Indenbaum declined, for the same rea- 
son, an invitation to say if there was any inaccuracy in Mr. van der 
Jagt'S affidavit. 

Repeatedly citing the fifth amendment, the witness refused to dis- 
cuss his acquaintanceship with Nicholas Bateson; to confirm or deny 
that, when he applied for a driver's license in North Carolina and 
claimed never to have been a licensed operator, he actually possessed 
a valid New York chauffeur's license ; to say if he had been aware of 
arrangements made by Levi Laub for travel to Ottawa, Canada, via 
Trans Canadian Air Lines on June 8, 1963, two days prior to the 
date when deposits were made in that city for ticket purchases from 
KLM and BOAC; to testify whether he had flown via BOAC to 
Paris with Vickie Ortiz in mid-June 1963 to make arrangements 
for the reception of Cuba-bound U.S. student groups which arrived 
at the French capital later that month ; to explain the source of the 
funds deposited at the KLM and BOAC offices in Ottawa; and to 
reveal what disposition had been made of the more than $6,000 in 
refunds he had obtained under the names of "Jacob" and "Jacobs" 
from the KLM and BOAC in New York City. 

Mr. Indenbaum continued to invoke the fifth amendment in declin- 
ing to answer questions pertaining to the following subcommittee in- 
formation concerning his background : 

In the New York City primary on August 22, 1950, xlrnold Inden- 
baiun was elected a delegate from the 21st Assembly District to the 
Second Judicial District Convention of the American Labor Party 

In the fall of 1951, Indenbaum's name appeared on an American 
Labor Party petition as a candidate for membership on the ALP's 
County Cornmittee for Kings County, New York. Heading the ticket 
on which he ran was a well-known Communist, Clifford T. McAvoy, 
who sought the presidency of the City Council of New York. 

The witness again invoked the fifth amendment when asked if he 
had been advised to seek office in the American Labor Party by anyone 
known to him to be a member of the Communist Party. 

The committee counsel pointed out for the record that the New 
York City section of the American Labor Party was cited as subversive 
by the Special Committee on Un-American Activities in 1944 and the 
Senate Internal Security Subcommittee in 1956. 

Mr. Indenbaum, for the same reason, refused to acknowledge hav- 
ing filed with the State Department in 1959 a passport application on 
which he failed to answer questions pertaining to past and present 
membership in the Communist Party. He likewise declined to in- 
form the subcommittee whether he had been a Communist Party mem- 
ber at the time he filed the application for n passport in 1959, during 
the time he was a candidate for the ALP CouTitv Committee in 1951. 
or when he was a delecrate to the ALP convention in I*.)50. 


Invoking the fifth amendment, the witness also refused to say 
whether at the time of his testimony he was a member of the Progres- 
sive Labor Movement. 

November 18 Hearing 

Public hearings on violations of State Department travel regula- 
tions and pro- Castro propaganda activities in the United States were 
continued in Washington, D.C., on November 18, 1963, by a subcom- 
mittee composed of Representatives Richard H. Ichord, of Missouri, 
chairman; George F. Senner, Jr., of Arizona; and August E. Johan- 
sen, of Michigan. Of primary interest to the subconunittee were 
the activities of Mr. and Mrs. John R. Glenn, a young couple who 
had traveled to Cuba with the group of 58 students in June 1963, 
but who did not return to the United States until about 6 weeks after 
most of the others had returned at the end of August. 


The first witness was Harold G. Wilkes, a warehouse supervisor 
for a manufacturing company in Bloomington, Ind. Pie said that 
for a 9-month period, beginning about the middle of August 1962, 
he had rented an apartment in his home to a Mr. and Mrs. Glenn, who 
answered an advertisement he had placed in a local newspaper. 

Mr. Wilkes said the apartment occupied by the Glenns was located 
directly beneath his kitchen and dining room. He explained that 
the same heating ducts and a common forced-air register served both 
living areas, making it possible for him, while in his own quarters, to 
overhear conversations taking place in the apartm.ent below. 

The witness testified that the Glenns had received numerous visitors 
and that by January 1963 regular meetings were held in their apart- 
ment. He said he hadn't become particularly concerned about the 
nature of the meetings prior to one w^hich was held in mid-March 
1963. On that occasion, Mr. Wilkes told the subcommittee, a group 
referred to as the "YSA" was addressed by an instructor identified 
only as "a comrade from New York." 

Mr. Wilkes recalled that the New Yorker addressed members of 
the ,<]:roup as "comrades" and urged them to remain faithful to the 
YSA, which the witness later learned was the Young Socialist Alliance. 
He testified that the speaker called our present form of government 
an "imperialistic, capitalistic system" and stated it was only a matter 
of time before the system would be replaced through the efforts of 
the YSA and other groups. 

The witness told the subcommittee that the meetings, held about 
once a month, continued until the latter part of May 1963. He 
said the gatherings in the Glenns' apartment had been attended by 
groups of from 7 to 15 persons. He recalled that, in addition to John 
and IMarcia Glenn, some of the participants had been Ralph Levitt, 
Jim Bingham, Tom Morgan, Bill and Paulann Groninger, Jack and 
Betsy Barnes, and Don and Polly Smith. 

Informntion developed by committee investigation of the persons 
named by Mr. Wilkes was entered intx) the record of the hearings, as 
follows : 

Ralph Levitt was the president of the Yoimg Socialist Alliance at 
the University of Indiana in Bloomington, Ind., in 1962. During 


the period 1961-63 he was associated with the Fair Play for Cuba 
Student Council at the university and was the original lessee of the 
Bloomington post office box used by that organization. 

James Bingham was treasurer and later chairman of the Fair 
Play for Cuba Student Council at the University of Indiana in 1961 
and 1962. In 1962 and at least part of 1963 he was secretary of the 
Young Socialist Alliance at the university. 

Thomas G. Morgan has held offices in both the Young Socialist Alli- 
ance and the Fair Play for Cuba Student Council at the University of 

Levitt, Bingham, and Morgan have been indicted for conspiring to 
overthrow the Government of the State of Indiana, in violation of 
an Indiana statute. 

Paulann and William Groninger, husband and wife, are members 
of the Young Socialist Alliance. Paulann Groninger is also secre- 
tary of the Committee to Aid the Bloomington Students (the in- 
dicted threesome) . 

Jack Barnes is or was a student at Northwestern University and 
is an organizer for the Young Socialist Alliance in the Midwest. 

According to the testimony of Mr. Wilkes, Marcia Glenn was the 
corresponding secretary for the Young Socialist Alliance. He said 
he became aware of this fact in May 1963, when he overheard Mrs. 
Glenn asking James Bingham whether she should resign as corre- 
sponding secretary, because of adverse local publicity the YSA was 

At this point in the hearing, committee comisel introduced 13 pub- 
lications which Mr. Wilkes had foimd in the Glenns' apartment and 
recently delivered to the Committee on Un-American Activities. The 
witness described them as samples of quantities of such material he 
had observed in the apartment on an occasion when he entered it to 
do some repair work. 

Nine of the samples were products of Pioneer Publishers, 116 Uni- 
versity Place, New York City, the same address maintained by the 
Socialist Workers Party and the Young Socialist Alliance of New 
York City. (In 1948 the Socialist Workers Party was cited as sub- 
versive and Communist by the Attorney General of the United States 
and as a dissident Communist group by the Committee on Un-Ameri- 
can Activities.) 

The titles of some of the sample pamphlets were: Trotskyism mid 
the Cuban Revolution — An Ansiver to Hoy^ In Defense of the Guhan 
Revolution: An Answer to the State Department and Theodore 
Draper^ The Theory of the Cuban Revolution, and The Socialist 
Workers Party, all written by Joseph Hansen, secretary to Leon 
Trotsky until the latter was assassinated by Stalinist agents in Mexico 
in 1940. ^ 

Another pamphlet was entitled WJfS Manifesto of the Fourth 
International Against Wall Street and the Kremlin, published bv 
the Workers Press for the Canadian Section of the Revolutionary 
Workers Party. 

Still another item Mr. Wilkes had obtained as a sample from the 
Glenns' apartment was a song sheet, entitled "Revolutionary and 
Workers' Songs," which contain verses of the "Internationale," "The 
Red Flag," and "Solidarity." 


Mr. Wilkes told the subcommittee he had seen four stacks, each 
o or 4 feet high, of pamphlets in the Gienns' apartment. He said 
he had also seen copies of The Militant (official organ of the Socialist 
Workers Party), the Young Socialist Forum newspaper, and what 
appeared to be a YSA constitution or charter. 

The witness testified that in the Gienns' apartment he had oliser^'ed 
a bulletin board which displayed a Cuban flag, a post office M^anted 
poster for a person named "Williams," and newspaper clippings about 
Communist and socialist victories in the United States. He said 
there had been a mimeograph machine in the apartment from time 
to time. 


The next witness was John R. Glenn, 3-1, who maintained a post 
office box in Bloomington, Ind., where he formerly resided, but said 
he had been staying with his wife's parents "since we got back from 
Cuba.'" Mr. Glenn related the following information about his edu- 
cational and employment background. 

He was graduated from high school in Huntington, Ind., in 1947 
and worked in A-arious laboring and administrative capacities for 
the Erie Railroad until he entered the University of California at Los 
Angeles in January 1949. He transferred to the University of Indi- 
ana in September 1950, but went into the U.S. Air Force before 
completing a semester. 

While in the service, Glenn received training in the Russian lan- 
guage at Syracuse Universit}' and became a Russian ling-uist for Air 
Force Intelligence, with security clearance for secret, top secret, and 
cryptographic information. Meanwhile, he continued his regular 
college studies through night school and correspondence courses. 
By June of 1953, he had completed all but 6 months of the academic 
work necessary for college graduation and became eligible to partici- 
pate in a unique Air Force program that would permit him to earn 
his degree. Under this program, members of the Air Force who re- 
quired only 6 months of studies in order to qualify for a college 
degree could be assigned to temporary duty at appropriate schools to 
complete the necessary courses. Thus Glenn, while still receiving 
regular military service pay, including food and housing allowances, 
returned to full-time studies at the University of Indiana where he 
obtained a degree in business administra,tion in January 1954. 

He then resumed active duty with Air Force Intelligence for 2 
more years, including 16 months overseas, before being discharged 
in January 1956, after reaching the rank of staff sergeant. 

Following his separation from the service, Glenn again enrolled 
at the University of Indiana to do graduate work in economics and 
completed all but two papers necessary for obtaining his master's 
degree in this field. 

In the fall of 1957, Glenn entered Indiana University Law School 
as a student. At the same time he taught introductory economics at 
the university. 

During the summer of 1958, he visited the Soviet Union, Czecho- 
slovakia, and Poland for about 40 days as a guide for the Tom Mau- 
pintour Associates, an American travel agency. The next summer 
he toured the same countries, plus Yugoslavia and Rumania, in a 
similar' capacity for another travel organization. 


Early in 1961, Glenn received his degree from the Indiana Uni- 
versity Law School and subsequently was admitted to the Indiana 

The witness admitted that in April 1961 he had participated in 
a protest demonstration against the attempted invasion of Cuba.'* 

In response to interrogation by the subcommittee, Glenn freely 
acknowledged the following facts which had been developed through 
committee investigation : 

On October 23, 1961, at Bloomington, Ind., he filed a passport 
application with the Department of State, listing Cuba as a country 
he intended to visit. In a letter from the State Department, dated 
November 7, 1961, he was notified that his request for a passport was 

On November 14, 1961, Glenn sent a letter to the Cuban Embassy 
in Ottawa, Canada, in wliich he requested a visa for Cuba. In a 
reply, dated November 21, 1961, the Charge d' Affaires of the Em- 
bassy informed liim that, as an American citizen, he would have to 
apply for a Cuban visa at the Czech Embassy in Washington, which 
was handling Cuba's business in the United States. He was also ad- 
vised in the same communication that it would be necessary for him 
to have passport validation by the U.S. State Department in order 
to travel to Cuba. 

Glenn told the subcommittee he contacted the Czech Embassy 
in Washington, but was informed by an official there that his request 
for a Cuban visa would have to be forwarded to Cuba, inasmuch 
as the Embassy was not empowered to grant it. The Czech diplomat 
told Glenn, however, that he had heard Americans could readily 
obtain Cuban visas from the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City. 

The witness also confirmed information obtained through an investi- 
gation by the committee that he had traveled to Mexico in the spring 
of 1962 in an unsuccessful attempt to get a Cuban visa. Glemi said he 
learned in Mexico that in order for him to obtain a visa, someone then 
in Cuba would have to recoimnend to the Cuban State Department 
that he be given one. Accordingly, Glenn told the subcommittee, he 
sent a telegram from Mexico to George Shriver, a friend and a leader 
of the Indiana University Fair Play for Cuba Student Council. He 
asked Shriver to write Robert Williams, who had fled to Cuba to avoid 
prosecution by U.S. authorities, to see if Williams could initiate action 
to obtain a visa for Glenn. Glenn testified that Shriver knew Wil- 
liams, whom Glenn, had met only once in Bloomington. 

The witness said he received a return wire addressed to "Jack Glenn, 
care of the Cuban Embassy to Mexico," which said : "Letter sent to 
Williams. Keep in touch. Venceremos" (a Cuban revolutionary slo- 
gan meaning "We shall conquer"). The message was signed "G.S.," 
making it appear to have been sent by George Shriver. Glenn said 
he later found out the telegram had been sent by two other friends, 
flames Bingham and Ralph Levitt, after Shriver procrastinated in 
contacting Williams. 

In any event, Glenn was not successful in getting to Cuba from 
Mexico in the spring of 1962, according to his testimony. He claimed 
to have paid his own expenses for the trip to Mexico, 

* Bay of Pigs invasion on April 17, 1961, by Cuban exiles. 


Glenn testified that during the Cuban crisis, an Ad Hoc Committee 
to Oppose U.S. Aggi-ession was created by the Fair Play for Cuba 
Student Council and the Young Socialist Alliance at the University 
of Indiana, even though the YSA had not yet been recognized by 
the university at that time. He said that on October 24, 19G2, the 
ad hoc committee held a protest march against the United States- 
imposed blockade of Cuba. The witness said that, although he sup- 
ported the march, he did not participate because he had just opened 
his law office in Bloomington and "that would not have been too smart 
a thing to do, of course." 

It was at about this time, the fall of 1962, Glenn told the subcom- 
mittee, that he joined the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. He had 
been a sympathizer of the group much earlier, he said. He admitted 
liaving written a letter printed in an Indiana University publication, 
dated February 10, 1962, in which he said that "the people in Fair 
Play are willing to argue to anyone who will listen that our govern- 
ment and our press are lying through their teeth [about Cuba] ." 

Glenn said that he and his wife were frequent listeners to Kadio 
Havana and from this source, in December 1962, first heard about a 
trip to Cuba bemg planned by a group of U.S. students. The Glenns 
were interested in the trip, but the Cuban radio had failed to say by 
whom it was being organized in the United States. Accordingly, the 
Glenns wrote inquiries about it to both the Cuban mission to the 
United Nations and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. He told the 
subcommittee they did not receive a reply directly from either of these 
groups, but one or both of them had apparently forwarded the inquiry 
to the Ad Hoc Student Committee for Travel to Cuba, from which the 
Glenns did receive correspondence containing the desired informa- 

The witness admitted that, without having applied for U.S. valida- 
tion, he traveled to Cuba with the group of alleged students who 
departed from New York on a BOAC plane on June 25, 1963. 

Glenn acknowledged the accuracy of the subcommittee's informa- 
tion that on the return trip, after arriving in Spain with the main 
body of U.S. "students" on August 26, 1963, he left the group and 
traveled to Morocco. He said that after he and his wife had learned 
they could stay abroad for a while, they had decided to travel to 
Algeria to observe the political developments there, which were sup- 
posed to be similar to what they had witnessed in Cuba. 

Glenn told the subcommittee that he and his wife requested their 
parents to send money for them to Algiers and that they planned to 
travel in Western Europe as long as the money lasted. 

When the Glenns arrived in Morocco from Spain, the witness testi- 
fied, they received an entry permit to Algeria from the Algerian Gov- 
ernment. While hitchhiking their way to Algeria, however, they 
were arrested by the Moroccan police and ordered deported to Spain 
as undesirables. He said he learned from both the American consul 
in Rabat, Morocco, and the Moroccan police that the deportation was 
ordered by the United States Government. 

On the voyage back to Spain, according to Glenn, he and his wife 
threw their Spain-to-U.S. flight tickets, which had been purchased 
by the Cuban Government, into the Mediterranean Sea. They de- 
cided to do this, he said, because they were being returned to the 


United States unwillingly and wanted the U.S., not Cuba, to bear 
the cost of the transportation under those circumstances. 

On October 15, 19G3, according to investigation by the committee, 
Glenn reported to the American Embassy in Madrid, Spain, that he 
and his wife did not have tickets for return transportation to the 
United States. The Embassy purchased tickets for them, and they 
were flown to the United States on an Iberian Air Lines plane. 

Mr. Glenn told the subcommittee he did not know w^ho purchased 
the tickets on which they were actually transported home. He said 
he had told Iberian Air Lines, however, not to use "our right" to the 
transportation which had been purchased as a gift by the Cuban 
Government. He said he informed Iberian representatives that the 
transportation gift from Cuba was "our property" and was not to be 
used to transport the Glenns "against our express will." 

During the course of his appearance before the subcommittee, Mr. 
Glemi was questioned on a variety of additional matters. A summary 
of certain of his responses follows : 

John Glenn and a student named Jack Marsh were living at the same 
apartment address in Bloomington at the time Glenn applied for a 
U.S. passport for travel to Cuba in October 1961. Glenn was respon- 
sible for Marsh's initial interest in Cuba, which led to the latter's 
joining both the Young Socialist Alliance and the Fair Play for Cuba 
Committee. (According to investigation by the committee. Marsh 
rented a post office box for the YSA in Bloomington, Ind., on Septem- 
ber 20, 1962.) 

Ralph I^vitt attended meetings of the Young Socialist Alliance held 
in the apartment of John and Marcia Glenn, rented from Harold 
Wilkes in Bloomington. James Bingham and William and Paulann 
Groninger were others who had visited the Glenns' apartment on dif- 
ferent occasions, probably including meetings of the Young Socialist 
Alliance and the Committee to Aid the Bloomington Students. Mrs. 
Glenn was a member of the latter group. Mr. Glenn believed Mrs. 
Groninger was the secretary of the Committee to Aid the Blooming- 
ton Students as well as a member of the Young Socialist Alliance. 
Continuing with a summary of Mr. Glenn's testimony : 
He was never a member of the Young Socialist Alliance or the 
Socialist Workers Party. Nevertheless, he accepted the Trotskyist 
viewpoint and cooperated with, and worked for the benefit of, the 
YSA and the Fair Play for Cuba Student Council. Glenn was not 
always in agreement with the Young Socialist Alliance and the 
Socialist Workers Party. He said he had disagreed with their op- 
position to the student trip to Cuba and their thinking that it was 
unnecessary for persons to have to visit Cuba in order to understand 
the revolution transpiring there. 

When Glenn was asked if he had made his apartment in Blooming- 
ton available for YSA meetings and traveled to Cuba for the purposes 
of supporting the Cuban revolution, he replied : 

Yes, I do support the Cuban revolution. * * * i support 
the Cuban revolution and I will defend it. 

Glenn related incidents of the frequent jailing of Trotsky ists in 
Cuba. He said the Soviet Union had tried to force Castro to smash 
the Cuban Trotskyists in order to receive aid from the U.S.S.R. The 
witness stated that, although Castro had refused to smash the Trot- 


skyists, Cuban authorities did pick them up for a few liours at a time, 
or overnight, without ever filing charges against tliem. Glenn said 
this did not stop the Trotslryists from supporting the Cuban revolu- 
tion : 

They realize Cuba has to have Russian aid. If little 

things like this have to happen they feel it is no reason to 

stop the revolution. 

Glenn attempted to justify mass executions in Cuba by saying all 
of the victims "were murderers under the Batista regime," and they 
''had the blood of Cuban people on their hands — 20,000 of them." 
He acknowledged, however, the same type of charge was made by 
the Communist regime in the Soviet Union to justifj' mass liquida- 
tions in the 1930's. 


The final witness was Marcia Haag Glenn, wife of Jolin R. Glenn. 
A native of New York City, she was graduated from Cranford High 
School in Cranford, N.J., in the spring of 1957 and entered the 
University of Indiana the following fall. She remained at the uni- 
versity as a student or employee, and sometimes in both capacities 
simultaneously, until 1962. Her employment included positions in 
the Chemistry and History Departments of the university. She also 
was engaged in a Latin American studies program at the University 
of Indiana as she worked towai'd her master's degree. 

jMrs. Glenn confirmed the subcommittee's information that, mider 
the name of Marcia Haag, on December 18, 1962, while in Blooming- 
ton, Ind., she had filed for a U.S. passport, which she received on 
December 21, 1962. She acknowledged that on the passport applica- 
tion she had listed Venezuela, Colombia, and Peru as countries to be 
visited and indicated December 24 or 25, 1962, as the probable date 
of departure. She told the subcommittee she had been aware of the 
possibility that she might take part in a "student" trip to Cuba tenta- 
tively scheduled to depart in December 1962, but did not list Cuba on 
her passport application because she was dubious that the trip would 
take place. 

She admitted, nevertheless, that she had not subsequently traveled 
to Venezuela, Colombia, or Peru and that she had traveled to Cuba 
at a later date. 

]Mrs. Glenn was queried about a news story which appeared in the 
July 6, 1963, issue of Sierra Maestra^ a Cuban newspaper, and which 
identified her as an American student who had visited Cuba's "Hall 
of Martyrs." She said she had been improperly quoted in the story 
and proceeded to tell the subcommittee wliat had occurred at that time. 

She said she had visited the Hall of Martyrs in Santiago and that 
during the visit she and her husband were sitting riglit behind a 
group of Cuban women whose sons had lost their lives in the revolu- 
tion. Mrs. Glenn told the subcommittee that this was a very emo- 
tional experience which made her cry. She stated that at this point 
an American student stood up and said the Americans were to blame 
for the loss of a lot of Cuban lives, because the Americans had initi- 
ated the fighting against the Cuban people. Mrs. Glenn told the sub- 
committee she agreed with the statement. 


Wlien the Sierra Maestra story of the incident appeared, it attrib- 
uted to Mrs. Glenn these words : "We shall do what is possible when we 
return to our country to initiate a socialist revolution." Mrs. Glenn 
testified that she had not made that statement at that time. How- 
ever, she informed the subcommittee, she subscribed to the goal and 
objective of seehig a socialist revolution in America. 

In response to questions concerning meetings which had taken place 
in the apartment the Glenns rented from Harold Wilkes in Bloom- 
ington, Mrs. Glenn testified that the Young Socialist Alliance had met 
there only once, and that had been in January. Other meetings, she 
said, were held b}^ the defense committee for the three students who 
had been indicted at Bloomington. Meetings of the defense commit- 
tee, she stated, were attended both by persons who were and were not 
members of the YS A. 

She said Ralph Levitt and James E. Bingham, two of the three in- 
dicted YSA leaders, were usually in attendance at meetings held in the 
Glenns' apartment. She said further that Levitt, Bingham, and 
Thomas G. Morgan, the third YSA leader under indictment, were all 
personal friends and had been in the apartment on many occasions. 
_ The witness was questioned about a meeting which Mr. Wilkes tes- 
tified^ had been held in the Glenns' apartment in mid-March 1963 by 
the YSA, at which time the group was addressed by a "comrade" from 
New York. Mrs. Glenn said "this gentleman" had stayed in the apart- 
ment and was present for several social gatherings, "but these were 
not meetings." She said the New Yorker was a YSA member and 
she thought he was the secretary of the organization. 

Mrs. Glenn admitted that Jack Barnes, Midwest organizer for the 
Young Socialist Alliance, had attended meetings held in her apart- 
ment by the defense committee for the three indicted students. 

Mrs. Glenn denied she had been the recording secretary of the 
Young Socialist Alliance in Bloomington or that she was presently 
a member of the group. She admitted having been a YSA member 
from January until June, in 1963, but said she had resigned because 
the YSA had a policy of "not permitting" its members to go on the 
student trip to Cuba. She said she had learned of this policy from 
the national secretary of the YSA. 

She said she had talked to no one from the Socialist Workers 
Party concerning her participation in the trip to Cuba. 

Mrs. Glenn said the YSA's attitude on the student trip notwith- 
standing, there was no doubt the YSA supports the Cuban revolution. 

She admitted having belonged to, and performed services for, the 
Fair Play for Cuba Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee to Oppose 
U.S. Aggression, the latter being organized for a one-time demonstra- 
tion against the U.S. blockade of Cuba in October 1962. She said the 
latter group had met once in her apartment prior to its protest demon- 
stration, after which it went out of existence. The ad hoc group, 
Mrs. Glenn testified, included students from the Fair Play for Cuba 
Committee, the Young Socialist Alliance, the National Association for 
the Advancement of Colored People, and the Young People's Socialist 

Mrs. Glenn denied that an undated statement by the Ad Hoc Com- 
mittee to Oppose U.S. Aggression had been reproduced on a mimeo- 
graph in her apartment. She admitted she had participated in the 
demonstration on October 24, 1962, during which time the statement 

36-584—64 7 


was distributed, "we oppose united states threat to world peace" 
was the heading of the ad hoc group's statement, which accepted the 
words of Fidel Castro against those of the President of the United 
States, when it said : 

Premier Castro has stated that there are no "offensive" 
weapons in Cuba. This indicates there is no immediate threat 
to the United States. 

Mrs. Glenn admitted she had made no request for State Depart- 
ment validation of her passport for travel to Cuba before going 
to Cuba with the alleged student group in the summer of 1963. 

She testified that her support of a socialist revolution in the 
United States would not include forceful overthrow of the 



(Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade) 

On July 29, 1963, a subcommittee of the Com.mittee on Un-American 
Activities held a public hearing in Washington, D.C., on the activ- 
ities of the Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in soliciting, 
from tlie American public, funds and materials which, it claimed, 
would be used to assist families imprisoned in Spain because they had 
taken part in strikes in the spring of 1962. 

Through this hearing, the committee hoped to develop information 
which would assist it in determining whether remedial legislation was 
needed to obtain a more candid disclosure of the purposes and objec- 
tives of solicitations conducted by Communist-oriented organizations 
in the United States for the benefit of foreign persons, parties, or 
interests. The committee was also considering the advisability of 
amending the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 to extend the 
definition of the term "agent of a foreign principal" so as more effec- 
tively to accomplish the purposes of the act. 

Background of the Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade 

The Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade (VALB) has been 
cited as a Communist-front organization by the Special Committee 
on Un-American Activities in 1944 and by the permanent com- 
mittee in 1946. In 1947, it was included on the U.S. Attorney Gen- 
eral's list of "subversive and Communist" organizations. On Decem- 
ber 21, 1955, after extensive hearings, the Subversive Activities Con- 
trol Board found the VALB to be a Communist-front organization 
within the meaning of the Internal Security Act of 1950 and issued 
an order for it to register as such with the Attorney General. The 
order of the Board was upheld on December 17, 1963, by the Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia. 

Spain was a highly important nation from the viewpoint of inter- 
national communism in 1936. It was a West European nation in 
which a Communist Party actually participated in the government. 
In addition, its sphere of influence embraced Latin America. Com- 
munists thus considered Spain an instrument for countering United 
States influence and advancing communism in that area. 


Following the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War in July 1936, the 
Communist Party of the United States, operating as a section of the 
Communist International, engaged in recruiting, equipping, and 
transporting about 3,000 Americans, the majority of whom were party 
members, to fight under Communist discipline on the Loyalist side 
in the civil war. They served in a so-called Abraham Lincoln Brigade 
in Spain. 

The Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade was created in ac- 
cordance with directives issued by the Politburo of the U.S. Com- 
munist Party, beginning in late 1937, in anticipation of the return of 
the American veterans from Spain. The directives grew out of a 
series of Politburo meetings attended by representatives of the Com- 
intern, particularly Fred Brown of the staff of Gerhart Eisler, then 
chief Comintern representative in the United States. 

The SACB found that the "principal objective and major purpose 
was for the VALB to be an integral part of the CPUSA apparatus, 
a dynamic, symbolic force to advance Marxism-Leninism and Com- 
munist influence in the United States, particularly by keeping alive 
the struggle for a Communist victory in Spain as the back door to 
Latin America and at the same time providing a yomig, vigorous 
group of men to carry out Party programs." ^ 

Since its formation, the VALB has naturally concentrated its activi- 
ties on matters related to Spain. Beyond this, however, it has under- 
taken numerous activities designed to further Communist objectives 
in other foreign policy areas and also with regard to domestic issues. 

The VALB's Principal Officer 

Moe (Mosess) Fisliman, the sole witness in the committee's hearing 
of July 29, 1963, has been the executive secretary of the VALB since 
1950. As such, he has been the organization's principal operating 
officer, handling its finances as well as most other organizational 

During his testimony, Moe Fishman invoked the constitutional 
privilege afforded him under the fifth amendment more than 100 
times in refusing to answer questions regarding past or present mem- 
bership in the Communist Party, his official position in the Vx\LB, the 
organizational structure and activities of the VALB, and other ques- 
tions pertinent to the inquiry. 

Mr. Fishman's membership in the Communist Party is a matter of 
public record. The Daily Worker of January 11, 1943, in an article 
entitled, "Chelsea Communists — Community Patriots," praised Mr. 
Fishman as a Spanish veteran and "chairman" of the West Side Vil- 
lage Club of the Communist Party in New York City. In its 1955 de- 
cision the Subversive Activities Control Board found that Fishman 
was one of the principal officials of the VALB who was concur- 
rently a Communist Party "functionary." ^ 

The VALB Campaign Exploiting Spanish Strikes 

Preliminary investigation by the committee indicated that, under 
the guise of assisting "political prisoners" and "striking workers," 

■^ Subversive Activities Control Board, Docliet No. 10&-53, Report and Order, December 
21, 1955. p. 21. 
«Ibid., p. 33 


the VALB had sought financial and other contributions from United 
States citizens for the purpose of assistmg the Communist under- 
gromid movement in Spain. 

The January 24, 1963, issue of the National Guardian and the Feb- 
ruary 3, 1963, issue of The 'Worker carried identical advertisements 
in which the Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade appealed to 
the public on behalf of the "wives and children" of men then in 
prison in Spain "because they dared to take part in the great strikes 
of 1962." The ads urged readers to make these families their concern 
and declared that "it is natural that they should turn to us for help, 
because we've been helping Franco's prisoners and their families for 
years." The ads also provided a coupon to be mailed by readers 
desiring details and promised that the VALB would put the reader 
in "direct contact with a Spanish family." Those willing to contribute 
funds were advised to make checks payable to "M. Fishman, Sec- 

Mr. Fishman refused, on fifth amendment grounds, to answer any 
committee questions regarding his role in this VALB appeal. 

Six letters which the VALB had mailed to persons who had re- 
sponded to its advertisements — each one containing the name and ad- 
dress of a different Spanish family — were introduced in the hearing 
record. They were form letters on VALB stationery, signed by Moe 
Fishman. Each one advised the addressee to forward "good used 
clothing for men, women, and children'" to the person in Spain whose 
name and address was typed at the bottom of the letter. The persons 
thus designated to receive such aid were: Teresa Carvajal de Andres, 
Matilda Morales Arcos, Encarnacion Nunez Velanos, Sofia Castro 
Martinez, Ana Hernandez Hernandez, and Eulogia del Castillo 

Committee counsel disclosed that all these indivj.luals represented 
families of persons who had been imprisoned for Connnunist activ- 
ities at various times since the Spanish Civil War. Only one of the 
six had a family member who v/as actually imprisoned during the 
strikes in Spain in the spring of 1962 — and that individual had been 
imprisoned for activity in Communist cells as well as for strike activ- 
ity." Moreover, he had been released from prison 2 months before 
the VALB first advertised for aid to families of imprisoned Spanish 
strikers. All of the others had family members who had been im 

Erisoned for Coimnunist activity prior to the 1962 strikes. The 
usband of one had been released from jail 16 years earlier and 
was not even residing in Spain at the time of VALI) activity in behalf 
of his f amilv. 

Information on Spanish Families Not Publicized by VALB 

Terei^a Carvajal de Andres is the wife of Angel Larroca Garcia, 
who served as a lieutenant in the Loyalist Army during the Spanish 
Civil War and was condemned to death because of his participation 
in the assassination of clergy in the Convent of Grinon at Toledo 

X Tlie Spanish Criminal Code provides that strikes by laborers (and combinations or 
C'!i!ppirnci('s by management intended to paralyze -work) are punishable as sedition. In 
nddition. the Communist Party is outlawed in Spain : membership in it is punishable by 
prison terms of from 2 to 20 years ; and sentences of 20 to 30 years can be given for 
asgravating circumstances such as an individual's participation in Communist "agitation" 
cells, in Communist conferences, or in the leadership of the party. 


when returning from the siege of the Alcazar, His sentence was 
commuted to 30 years' imprisonment and later to 20 years. He was 
released in 1946. At the time the VALB ads were published Larroca 
was not even a residence of Spain, to say nothing of being a captive in 
one of its prisons. He was living and working legally in Germany. 

Matilde Morales Arcos is the wife of Jose Cansinos Palma, detained 
in May 1962 for being an active member of the Communist Party in 
Spain in charge of Communist cells and working in the spring strikes 
of 1962. He was released from prison, however, on January 9, 1963. 

Encamacion Nunez Velanos is the wife of Ramon Martinez Marti- 
nez, convicted and imprisoned by Spanish authorities for Commmiist 
activities on July 5, 1960 — long before the 1962 strikes. He is still in 

Sof,a Castro Martinez is the wife of Rafael Lopez Barranco, im- 
prisoned in July 1960 — long before the 1962 strikes — for his activitj^ 
in the local committee of the Commimist Party in Spain. He was 
released on March 3, 1963. 

Ana Hernandez Hernandez is the wife of Jose Barranco Escavia, 
imprisoned in April 1961 — a year before the strikes — for a term of 
5 years foi- being a member of the local committee of the Commmiist 
Party in Higueron. 

Eulogia del Castillo Villarruhia is a widow. She was a militant 
Communist during the Spanish Civil War and was imprisoned at the 
war's end for participation in the desecration of the church in Casas- 
buenas and for the robbing and sacking of private homes. She was 
later released. 

Her son, Alejandro Heredero del Castillo, was an active member 
of the Communist Party and president of the Armed Militia Com- 
mittee on Casasbuenas during the civil war. He, too, was imprisoned 
after the war, but was released in 1946, whereupon he resumed Com- 
munist Party activities, acting as a liaison between the Communist 
guerrillas and the National Committee of the Communist Party in 
Spain. He is presently serving a 30-year prison term for his partic- 
ipation in the conspiracy which resulted in the explosion of the 
ammunition dumps of Alcala de Henares.^° He was permitted to visit 
his mother, under guard, in Casasbuenas on ISIarch 15, 1963. 

Investigation into the backgi'ound of Ana Salvador ]Martin and 
Maria Paz Roda Zarabozo, two other persons in Spain proposed as 
recipients of relief in VALB letters, was not completed at the time 
of the hearing. The committee lias since learned that : 

Ana^ Salvador Martin is a widow who has been arrested on several 
occasions on cliarges of harboring Communist Party members sought 
by Spanish authorities. Her son, Gregorio Valero Salvador, has been 
in prison in Spain since 1944, when he was arrested for working in 
underground Communist Party activities. 

Maria Paz Roda Zarahozo is the wife of Aladino Cuervo Rodriguez, 
a member of the Spanish Communist Party charged with being di- 
rectly responsible for an underground organization operating in north- 
ern Spain. He has been in prison since February 1960. In 1937, 
during the Spanish Civil War, Senora Roda, then a child, was sent 
to live in the Soviet Union. She reportedly married her now im- 

^o Explosion occurred In September 1947 according to the Encyclopedia Britawnica, Book 
of the Year: 1948 (events of 1947), p. 692. 


prisoned Spanish Communist husband while living there. She re- 
turned to Spain in 195^ 

FiSHMAN Denies Fraud 

 Mr, Fishman was questioned extensively regarding each Spanish 
family recommended for relief by the VALB. He took refuge in 
the first and fifth amendments when asked if he was the autlior 
of the form letters and if he had actually mailed them in response to 
inquiries received from readers of the VALB advertisements. He 
also declined to reveal the source from which the names of the Spanish 
families were obtained and the extent of his personal knowledge re- 
garding the background of the families. Asked why he failed to 
indicate either in his advertisements or in his letters the fact that the 
intended recipients of aid were actually families of persons imprisoned 
because of Communist activities, Mr. Fishman again invoked the 
same constitutional privileges. 

When committee counsel asked Mr. Fishman whether or not he was 
engaged in a fraud upon the public of the United States, the witness 
nevertheless responded, "No, dehnitely not." 

Counsel asked Mr. Fishman whether it was a fact that the immediate 
objective of the VALB in its present f mid-raising and other activities, 
is to assist in strengthening the Communist miderground in Spain and, 
also to that end, to obtain the release of imprisoned Communists. In 
response to this question, Mr. Fishman stated that he had no such 
knowledge or belief. 

Mr. Fishman further stated that he was unaware that high-ranking 
Communist Party officials have supported the Spanish Government's 
claim that the 1962 strikes in Spain were led and inspired by Commu- 
nists. At this point, an article appearing in the January 1963 issue of 
World Blarxist Review^ an official organ of the world Communist 
movement, was introduced in evidence. The article, entitled "Com- 
munists on Trial in Spain," was written by Sebastian Sapirain, a 
member of the Central Commitee of the Communist Party of Spain. 

Sapirain wrote, in part : 

Last spring Spain saw one of the biggest strike movements 
in the history of the working class of our country. The 
strikes * * * embraced some 26 provinces * * *. Although 
at first a struggle for wage demands, the political character 
of the strikes soon became apparent. 

Then, referring to the scale of the strikes, Sapirain said : 

This is mainly due to the persevering work conducted by the 
Communist Party. 

In the article, Sapirain quoted with approval a statement made by 
Ramon Ormazabal Tife [incorrectly spelled "Tito" by Sapirain], 
a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of 
Spain, when the latter was arrested on June 14, 1962, in Biscay, to- 
gether with several other Commimists. Ramon Ormazabal Tife 
stated : 

I declare that the Communist Party assumes the responsi- 
bility for the recent big strikes in Euzkadi * * * and 
throughout Spain. 


Some of JVIr. Fishman's Past AcTnvrriES 

Mr. Fishman invoked the first and fifth amendments when the 
committee asked him whether he had ever been in Spain and whether 
he served in the International Brigade in the Spanish Civil War from 
1937 to 1938. 

A copy of Mr. Fishman's passport application, dated March 31, 
1937, was introduced in evidence. According to that Ttpplication, Mr. 
Fishman swore that he intended to use a U.S. passport for 3 months 
for the purpose of visiting relatives in England, France, and Poland. 
Appended to the application was an affidavit signed by Mr. Fishman 
whicli certified that he did not intend to use his passport for travel to 

Mr. Fisliman, when questioned by the committee, declined to state 
whether, at the time he swore to the application, he actually intended 
to travel to Spain to serve the Communist cause in the International 
Brigade, rather than to visit relatives in other countries. 

Mr. Fishman was shown a copy of another passport application, 
dated March 16, 1961, bearing the signature of Mosess Fishman, to- 
gether with an attached statement signed by the witness. Mr. Fish- 
man's statement appended to his application stated : 

I fought in the International Brigade which was part of 
the Spanish Republican Army for parts of 1937 and 1938 but 
I did not take an oath of allegiance to the Spanish Govern- 
ment nor did I participate in their electoral activities or 

The witness refused to affirm or deny that he was the Mosess Fish- 
man who had signed the 1961 passport application and the statement 
attached thereto, or that he had falsely certified on his application the 
purpose and place of his intended visit, as revealed in an article en- 
titled "The Abraham Lincoln Brigade Revisited," written by Brock 
Brower and published in the March 1962 issue of Esquire magazine. 

This article, based on an interview with Moe Fishman, reported 
that Fishman had told Brower that in 1961 he had actually traveled 
to Communist East Germany to attend the meeting of the Anti- 
Fascist Committee of the East German Democratic Rep)ublic. He 
reportedly met some of his associates from the International Brigade 
during this visit and heard repeated in Gemian the farewell speech 
to the International Brigades originally given in Spanish by "La 
Pasionaria" (Dolores Ibarruri, a member of the Central Committee 
of the Spanish Communist Party) at the close of the Spanish Civil 

Brock Brower had also quoted the witness as making the following 
statement with respect to the VALB : 

I'm the organization. There's no other thing. If there's 
something to decide, I talk it over with the guys, and then 
decide what I'm going to do. Cockeyed, but that's the way 
it is. 

Although he first denied having any communication with "La 
Pasionaria" since 1961, he subsequently invoked his constitutional 
privileges when asked by the committee whether he had corresponded 
with her to solicit a message she had sent to a VALB rally held in 
'New York City in the spring of 1962. 


Committee counsel asked Mr. Fishman if in 1946, while he 
was in charge of a warehouse of the Joint Anti-Fascist Eefugee 
Committee, he had helped divert to the Spanish Communist under- 
ground clothing and other items collected by JAFRC ostensibly for 
the relief of needy pei-sons in Spain. In its report and order on 
the VALB, the Subversive Activities Control Board made reference 
to testimony from an individual who had "assisted Moe Fishman in 
packing materials and supplies which ostensibly were going to those 
suffering in Spain from Franco's regime but which were actually 
being sent to the Communist underground in Spain." 

According to the. SACB report, Fisliman had "stated this aid was 
necessary because the underground was at that time increasing its 
activities and greatly needed supplies." 

Mr. Fishman refused to discuss with the committee his role with 
the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, but denied the existence 
of "any fraud" in connection with JAFRC's collection activities. 

Testimony Referred to Department of Justice 

The Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade has perpetrated a 
cruel deception upon the American public by promoting "relief" for 
families of imprisoned Spanish strikers and then sending to those 
generous enough to respond to its advertisements the names of families 
whose troubles with the Spanish law stem from Communist rather 
than labor activities. 

The past activities of the Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade 
and its executive secretary, Moe Fishman, in behalf of communism 
lead the committee to conclude that the basic purpose of their newest 
project is to strengthen the Communist underground movement in 

Commimists perpetually seek to advance their objectives by cloaking 
themselves with a false mantle of humanitarianism. The committee 
believes that in this instance, however, the "front" for the Communist 
Party known as the Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade may 
have put itself into the position of violating Federal statutes against 
mail fraud and other types of fraudulent representations (specifically 
sections 1001 and 134l'of Title 18 of the United States Code). 

The committee has accordingly forwarded to the Department of 
Justice the testimony of Moses's Fishman and other evidence it has 
gathered for such action as may be appropriate after a review of the 
case by that agency. 


(Testimony of Vladislaw Stepanovich Tarasov) 

The Committee on Un-American Activities met in public session on 
September 19, 1963, in Washington, D.C., to hear firsthand the reasons 
Vladislaw Stepanovich Tarasov, a Russian seaman, swam to freedom 
in the harbor at Calcutta, India, in November 1962. 

Tarasov was born in the Ukranian Republic of the Soviet Union on 
June 25, 1938. In 1954, after completing 7 years of general schooling, 
he joined the Komsomol (Young Communist League) because he 
wanted to continue his education. Most of the better, advanced schools 
were all but closed to young people who did not belong to the Kom- 


somol. Despite Tarasov's one-time membership in the Komsomol, 
however, he never actually became a member of the Communist Party 
of the Soviet Union. 

In 1956, at the conclusion of 2 years' training at a nautical school in 
Yenotayevsk, Tarasov began working as a crewman on Soviet fish- 
ing vessels in the Caspian Sea. He soon began to doubt the economic 
advantages of being employed in a Communist state when he realized 
that his pay, because of the state-manipulated wage-price structure in 
the U.S.S.R., represented less buying power than that received by sea- 
men who had performed the same duties 4 and 6 years earlier. 

Young Tarasov also learned about the Russian seamen's unnecessary 
exposure to danger because everything in the Soviet Union has to be 
done according to top-echelon Communist planning. Ships in the 
Caspian fishing fleet were forced to go to sea at fixed times, regardless 
of their state of repair. A captain of an unsea worthy ship would 
have lost his position if he had refused to sail when scheduled to do 
so by the plan "from above." Tarasov learned that the Soviet Union 
loses about 10 vessels a year in the Caspian Sea because of neglected 
maintenance and unsafe navigation procedures. 

The seamen's union, like everything else in the Soviet Union, is con- 
trolled by the Communist Party and cannot protect or promote the 
interests of Russian sailors. Rather, the union serves as a vehicle by 
which the Communist Party imposes its will upon the seamen. On 
one occassion when Tarasov protested conditions on his ship, he was 
transferred to a much less desirable job on a different vessel. 

From 1959 to 1962, Tarasov studied electro-mechanical energy at 
the Kherson Nautical School. During this period he married and 
became tlie father of a son. He was not able to obtain an apartment 
for his family, however, so he stayed at the school during the week 
and visited his wife and child at her parents' overcrowded dwelling on 

In 1961 and 1962, Tarasov began listening to Voice of America 
broadcasts and reading copies of America, the U.S. magazine which 
is distributed in the Soviet Union under a cultural exchange agree- 
ment. From these sources and Russian translations of certain Ameri- 
can books, he became convinced that the United States offered free- 
dom and opportunity to the individual. 

Also in 1962, Tarasov returned to sea duty on an oceangoing tanker. 
He had already given much thought to the possibility of defecting 
to the free world if the opportunity arose, but it was not without 
certain reservations. He had been told that Soviet defectors experi- 
enced unfriendly receptions and extreme hardships in the West. He 
was also concerned about countermeasures that might be taken against 
his relatives if he defected. He reasoned that this latter concern was 
groundless, however, because he had left his parents' home in 1954 
and had never had a normally close family relationship with his wife 
and child. Thus, he did not believe Soviet authorities would hold 
his relatives accountable for his actions. 

Tarasov put all reservations about defecting out of his mind once 
and for all after having an ominous run-in with a political commissar 
at sea. 

A political commissar, who is always a Communist Party member, 
is assigned to every Soviet ship to keep an eye on crew members and in- 
docfrinate them with party propaganda. Tarasov, during his voyage 


to India in late 1962, had utilized every conceivable excuse to avoid 
attending the boring, but compulsory, political meetings conducted 
aboard the tanker by the commissar. "V^Hien Tarasov returned to his 
ship's quarters on one occasion, he found the political commissar rum- 
maging through liis personal effects, including notes he had written. 
The intruder said he now understood why Tarasov had missed so 
many political meetings and implied that he would never again be per- 
mitted to engage in foreign travel on Soviet ships. Tarasov realized 
he would have to escape when the tanker arrived in India, or probably 
forfeit the opportunity to do so forever. 

On the night of November 25, 1962, when the Russian tanker was 
anchored in the harbor at Calcutta, Tarasov escaped through a port- 
hole and swam to a nearby American ship. He asked the captain of 
the American ship for asylum. 

In an attempt to prevent his defection, the Soviet consul in Calcutta 
falsely accused Tarasov of having stolen 700 rubles immediately 
before escaping from the tanker and appealed to Indian authorities 
to arrest and hold him for extradiction to the U.S.S.R. On Novem- 
ber 28, 1962, Indian authorities boarded the American ship and arrested 
the defector after Soviet officials had promised to produce witnesses 
to the alleged theft. Tarasov was held in a Calcutta jail. 

The Soviet authorities, realizing that theft in Indian territorial 
waters was not a ground for extradition, later dropped the charge. 
Accordingly, the prisoner was released on January 10, 1963. He was 
immediately rearrested, however, on a new Soviet charge that he had 
committed the alleged robbery aboard the Russian tanker while it was 
in international waters. Again, Soviet officials promised to produce 
evidence in support of the charges against Tarasov. 

When the Soviets not only failed to satisfy an Indian court that 
Tarasov was guilty of their charges, but other evidence convinced the 
court that documents introduced as evidence against Tarasov by Soviet 
authorities were fabricated, he was released permanently. 

After a thorough screening by U.S. security officers, Tarasov was 
permitted to come to the United States where he hopes eventually to 
become a citizen. 

Vladislaw Tarasov also made the following interesting observations 
when he appeared before the Committee on Un-American Activities: 

1. Churches are permitted to function in the Soviet Union, although 
they are attended mostly by older persons in rural parts of the 

2. Most of the crimes that occur in the Soviet Union are not reported 
in the Soviet press. 

3. Privileges enjoyed by its members, not ideology, are what attract 
most people to the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. 

4. There is widespread unhappiness among the Russian people con- 
cerning constant pressure exerted upon them by the Communist ap- 
paratus, which appears to exist for no other purpose than to exert such 

5. Many, many Russians would like to defect to the West, but few 
of them ever have the opportunity to do so. 




Communists have inaugurated new security measures to prevent 
disclosure of their connections witli the Communist Party. At tlie 
same time they have intensified their eiforts to infiltrate legitimate, 
non-Communist organizations, the committee warned in a report re- 
leased July 31, 1963. 

The committee report, titled " 'United Front' Technique of the 
Southern California District of the Communist Party,'' presented 
facts derived from extensive investigations and executive hearings 
conducted by the committee in the southern California area during 
the preceding year. Related testimony of 29 witnesses who had been 
interrogated in the closed committee sessions was made public at the 
time the report was issued. 

Part of what the Communists call their "united front" work is their 
infiltration of community organizations, focusing on politcal and re- 
ligious groups as well as others, in order to develop Communist in- 
fluence among the non-Communist members to the point where the 
entire organization is persuaded to pursue policies and activities serv- 
ing Communist objectives. The report revealed that intensified efforts 
along this line had been ordered by the national leadership of the 
Communist Party, U.S.A., which had taken its cue, in turn, from pro- 
nouncements of Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev. 

New subterfuges to provide more effective concealment of Commu- 
nist Party operations were adopted following a decision by the United 
States Supreme Court on June 5, 1961, upholding a Subversive Activi- 
ties Control Board order that the Communist Party register with the 
U.S. Attorney General. The Court decision rendered the Communist 
Party liable to criminal penalties under the Internal Security Act if 
it failed to file a registration statement, including the identity of the 
party's officers and members. It also paved the way for Justice De- 
partment enforcement of other sections of the Internal Security Act 
which require party officers to register the required data with the 
Attorney General if the party organization itself fails to comply with 
the law, and individual members to register themselves if the party and 
officers fail to do so. 

The Communist Party has adamantly refused to comply with any 
provisions of the statute, which is aimed at disclosure of party activi- 
ties in the United States rather than outright prohibition of them. 
The committee report noted the irony in the fact that Communist re- 
sponses to enforcement of the disclosure statute have included a Com- 
munist Party effort to bury its organizational apparatus deeper 



The committee observed that there is every reason to believe that 
the new security measures adopted in the Southern California District 
had been concurrently introduced in the party apparatus throughout 
the Nation. It also noted that, since Communists every^Yhere in this 
country are under instructions to make "united front" work their No. 
1 task, its revelations of how Communists in the southern California 
area have intensified their work within non-Communist groups, while 
operating from increasingly concealed party positions, should be in- 
structive to all concerned with the problem of Commimist subversion 
within the United States. 

In the Southern California District of the Communist Party, party 
security was strengthened by dissolution of the 30-member district 
committee and the 10-man district executive committee which had 
supervised party operations in California's nine southernmost coun- 
ties. The 20 subordinate "section" organizations of the party (and 
their corresponding section officers) were also eliminated. These 
measures drastically reduced the number of party conferences being 
held and also technically freed many party members from their 
responsibilities as district and section leaders. 

To facilitate uninterrupted party fimctioning under the new secu- 
rity arrangements, four of the district executive board members were 
designated to carry on the supervisory role of the board "unofficially." 
Coordinating councils were created to fill the void existing between 
rank-and-file Communists and their district leaders as a result of the 
dissolution of the intermediate "section" organizations. A coordinat- 
ing council, the committee found, was composed of the chairmen of 
four Communist Party clubs who met irregularly with a district offi- 
cial of the party, such as Executive Secretary Ben Dobbs. Dobbs, 
meanwhile, ceased advertising his specific leadership position and 
frequently referred to himself by the vague term, "Marxist." 

The application of "united front" techniques by southern California 
Communists was traced back to the 17th National Convention of the 
Communist Party, held in New York City in December 1959. The 
main resolution of that convention, declaring united front work the 
"main task" for Communists, was echoed by Southern California 
District Communist functionaries assembled in a district convention 
the following month, January 1960. Methods of achieving "united 
front" relationships with non-Communists and other party objectives 
were discussed in numerous party documents circulated at" sessions of 
the Southern California District convention. Copies of these docu- 
ments, encompassing more than 130 printed pages, were obtained by 
the committee and reproduced in an appendix to the conunittee's 

Party leaders had issued detailed instructions to party members on 
how to proceed after becoming part of "organizations of the people- 
in unions or in communities." Communists were told to try to win 
reputations as good fighters for the programs of the organizations, 
and then to induce the organization to take action in l^ehalf of certain 
issues. Wlien the opportunity presented itself. Communists vrere 
also expected to promote the Communist viewpoint on various subjects 
and also to recruit new members and sympathizers for the party. 

The committee report quoted from speeches, reports, and resolutions 
of the Southern California District convention to demonstrate the 
broad range of organizations designated as targets for Communist 


infiltrators. These documents made specific reference to trade miions, 
particularly AFL-CIO unions; ix)litical parties (in which category 
Democratic clubs and organizations of Young Democrats received 
repeated emphasis) ; churches and church gi'oups; youth organiza- 
tions; Jewish community organizations and associations^ formed by 
various nationality groups ; organizations dealing with racial and civil 
rights problems ; pacifist and peace organizations ; and even competing 
Marxist groups. 

Committee investigations disclosed that, under prodding from the 
party's national leadership, Communist infiltration of local "peace" 
organizations had been stepped up to the point where such groups 
constituted one of the principal targets of current Communist "united 
front" operations. The report stated that the vigor with which Com- 
munists have gone all out in exploiting "peace" issues was demonstrated 
b}' their support of two groups formed in Los Angeles in the fall of 
1961 — Women Strike for Peace and Help Establish Lasting Peace 
(HELP). Photographs of local Communists participating in picket 
lines organized by WSP and HELP were reproduced in the commit- 
tee repcTrt, which warned that this evidence of Communist efforts to 
attach themselves to the organizations should not, in itself, be construed 
as a finding that either of the peace groups operated as a Communist- 
front organization. 

One section of the report described Communist Party strategy 
toward youth. It listed various issues on which Communists were 
instructed to agitate in order to appeal to young people. In addition 
to penetrating non-Communist youth organizations, young Commu- 
nists in the southern California area were active in a number of left- 
wing youth organizations, which the party expected would produce 
young recruits for the Communist movement. 

The committee report detailed the results of its investigations into 
a number of such youth organizations : the Independent Student Un- 
ion, which functioned in Los Angeles from early 1960 until early 1962 ; 
the Los Angeles Co-ordinating Committee for New Horizons for 
Youth ; Los Angeles Progressive Youth Organizing Committee ; and 
the Walter Reception Committee, all of which functioned for rela- 
tively brief periods in 1961 or 1962; also the avoAvedly Marxist- 
oriented Los Angeles Youth for Peace and Socialism, the most re- 
cently created group, which made its public appearance in April 1962. 

The committee declared that the last-named organization was one 
of a growing number of openly leftist youth groups whose formation 
had been encouraged by the Communist Party's national youth direc- 
tor. The committee also reported that the Communist Party has 
already gained a number of new recniits from the ranks of Los Angeles 
Youth for Peace and Socialism. 

The Communist Party had actually created and completely con- 
trolled another youth organization functioning in the period 1961-62 
under the name "Los Angeles Festival Committee," according to the 
report. The main function of this Communist enterprise was the 
recruitment of delegates to the Communist-dominated Eighth World 
Youth Festival held in Helsinki, Finland, July 29-August 6, 1962. 

The activities of several Communist-controlled front organizations 
aimed at enlisting support from non-Communist adults in the Los 
Angeles area were also described in the committee's report. The 
Constitutional Liberties Information Center, for example, which had 


been formed in Los Angeles in 1961, was shown to be a facade for 
"propaganda and fund-raising activities on behalf of the Communist 
Party" and to have been managed continuously by "individuals with 
records of activity in the Communist Party itself." The propaganda 
line of CLIC focused on opposition to prosecution of Communists 
for refusing to comply with the Internal Security Act and on de- 
mands for repeal of this law and the Smith Act. 

The most recent campaigns conducted by the Los Angeles Com- 
mittee for Protection of Foreign Born were also set forth in the 
committee report, which deplored the fact that the organization con- 
tinued to do a thriving business in fighting deportations of alien 
Communists and lobbying against legislation in the same field, despite 
repeated findings by Federal agencies that it operates as a front for 
the Communist Party, U.S.A. 

Many of the top officials of the Southern California District of 
the Communist Party were named in the committee's report, which 
also identified many lesser Communist Party personalities in the 
course of describing their functions during or after the district con- 
vention held November 20, 1959, and January 31, 1960. Many of 
these individuals had been interrogated by the committee during 
its executive hearings in Los Angeles April 24—27, 1962, at which 
time they invariably invoked the fifth amendment rather than re- 
spond to committee questions regarding Communist Party activity. 

The committee report also drew attention to evidence, based on 
the district convention proceedings, that Communist officials gathered 
at local conventions are not actually trusted to make policy decisions 
and cannot even freely select their own representatives to higher 
party bodies which deal with policy matters. Party documents were 
quoted showing that a district convention was a rubber-stamp as- 
sembly, limited to discussing how to best carry out policies imposed 
by the national party hierarchy. 

The committee also noted that certain internal party disputes, 
aired at the convention, were settled arbitrarily in keeping with the 
totalitarian, Soviet-style form of the party's organization. One dis- 
pute had involved the right of district party personnel to vote in 
local convention for their representatives on the party's national 
committee. Ignoring protests from local party organizations, the 
national leadership had transferred all elections to national office to 
national party conventions, whose proceedings are closely controlled 
by a clique of national leaders. 

Highhanded treatment of local Communists by the party's na- 
tional leadership was also demonstrated in the report's account of 
disputes regarding the type of news to be reported in the West Coast 
Connnunist newspaper, the People's World, and regarding changes in 
the Communist Party line on the subject of the Negro population of 
the United States. 


Volume II, 1946-1950 

This documented reference volume, published by the committee as 
the second of a series, traces important developments in the World 
Communist Movement during the critical postwar period 1946-1950. 


Representative Edwin E. Willis, conniiittee chairman, stated in the 
foreword to Volume II of the chronology' : • '^ ' -' 

We must face the fact that many more people dream of 
world conquest today than did in the days of Caesar, Genghis 
Khan, Napoleon — or even Stalin. These people are orga- 
nized in the World Communist Movement, with affiliated 
Communist parties in over 90 nations. Khrushchev claims 
a formal membership of 40 million persons in this interna- 
tional conspiratorial organization. Many, many more mil- 
lions are fellow travelers, sympathizers, and collaborators 
with the movement. 

These are the people who are today trying to destroy all 
free governments and impose on the entire world a so-called 
dictatorship of the proletariat. Backed by the political, eco- 
nomic, and military might of the 20-or-so nations they con- 
trol, they obviously comprise a formidable force and a very 
real threat to freedom everywhere. 


The facts — what the Communists have been saying and 
doing for the past 100 years — must be readily available to 
our leaders and policymakers, both in and out of Govern- 
ment. This is the basic, minimum knowledge required for 
victory. And this, basically, is why the Committee on 
Un-American Activities has undertaken the publication of 
this chronology of the World Communist Movement. 

In capsule form, as succinctly as possible, it gives the 
needed facts about communism from its beginnings to the 
present time. Past Communist actions and statements make 
clear the goals of communism, its strategy and tactics. Past 
Communist actions and statements are also important clues 
to present and future Communist policy and strategy. 

"What is past is prologue." What the Communists have 
been and done, and what they are and are doing today, is 
prologue to what they will be and do tomorrow. For this 
reason, the committee' believes that the chronology will be an 
invaluable reference work to Members of the Congress and 
to all those, in and out of Government, who will play a part 
in determining whether communism or freedom will prevail. 

The chronology does not purport to be a definitive work on the 
-subject of Communist history. Its brief references to Soviet and other 
Communist activities in the past are intended to remind Americans 
of truths about communism they cannot a [lord to forget and to stimu- 
late further study of the events described. The chronology discloses 
the strategy and tactics of numerous Communist parties operating 
within and without the Sino-SoAaet bloc, reveals their changeable 
membership figures, and records their advances and setbacks in the 
immediate postwar period. 

The chronology demonstrates how often the aggressive policies 
dictated from the Soviet Union by Joseph Stalin brought Coiinnmiist 
forces into violent conflict with the forces of freedom in all parts of 
the fflobe. The reference work recalls the Communist takeover of 
Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland (as well as the subsequent 


course of those nations as Soviet satellites). It reminds one of the 
Communist guerrilla warfare which plagued Greece, as well as Indo- 
china, Indonesia, Burma, IVIalaya, and the Philippine Islands during 
the immediate post-World War II years — armed struggles which cul- 
minated in this period in the North Korean invasion of South Korea 
in June of 1950 and the entrance of Chinese Communist "volunteers" 
into the conflict. Meanwhile, the declaration by the Chinese Commu- 
nists of a "People's Kepublic" on the China mainland in October 1949, 
several months prior to a definitive victory over Chinese Nationalist 
forces, signified a substantial advance toward the Communists' goal 
of subjugating all of the peoples of this earth. 

At this time. Communists employed a wide range of strategy and 
tactics in an efi'ort to seize power throughout the world. In addition 
to armed struggles, the clironology records their efforts to bring about 
the collapse of non-Communist governments in France, Italy, and 
various Latin American countries by instigating general strikes and 
other violent mass demonstrations. The infamous blockade of Berliri 
in the years 1948-1949, was another attempt to break down the re- 
sistance of the free world, short of war. 

Disclosures of Soviet espionage efforts were numerous in the im- 
mediate postwar years, beginning in 1946 with investigations by a 
Canadian commission into Soviet espionage efforts in Canada and the 
conviction of Canadian Communist, Fred Rose, that same year for his 
participation in such spy activity. 

An interim report released by the Committee on Un-American Ac- 
tivities in August 1948 summarized testimony disclosing how Com- 
munist espionage activities had involved highly placed individuals in 
the United States Government. The report concluded: 

It is now definitely established that during the late war 
and since then, there have been numerous Communist espio- 
nage rings at work in our executive agencies which have 
worked with and through the American Communist Party 
and its agents to relay to Russia vital information essential 
to our national defense and security. Russian Communists 
have worked hand in hand with American Communists in 
these espionage activities. 

The public learned of the dual role played by Alger Hiss as a State 
Dej^artment official and member of an underground Connnunist cell 
and by other Government employees in similar "cells.'' These were 
followed by revelations of the spy role of British atomic scientist, 
Klaus Fuchs, and of additional American espionage agents such as 
David Greenglass and Harry Gold^ — all of whom received prison 
sentences for their traitorous activities. 

The Communists' unremitting propaganda activities are also dealt 
"with in the chronology, which recounts their efforts in behalf of a 
worldwide campaign of "peace" propaganda at the very time when 
Communists were taking up arms in comitry after country contrary to 
their own peace slogans. 

Statements by American Communists echoing the prevailing Mos- 
cow line that the United States Government was pursuing a course of 
aggression and war against an allegedly peace-loving socialist camp 
of nations are quoted in the chronology. That the American Govern- 
ment and public refused to be persuaded by the party's professions of 


loyal and peaceful intentions was illustrated by the conviction of the 
party's highest national officers in 1949 for conspiracy to violate Smith 
Act provisions against forceful overthrow of the Government. 

Attention is also drawn to testimony by FBI Director J. Edgar 
Hoover before a Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations in February 
1950, to the effect that the Communist Party of the United States could 
then rely on 54,174 enrolled members and 10 times that many sympa- 
thizers. Mr. Hoover had also disclosed that 48 percent of the party's 
membership had infiltrated this Nation's basic industries, where they 
were in a favorable position for sabotage of our defense efforts in a 
time of national emergency. 

Volume I of the chronology had covered developments in the World 
Communist Movement from 1818 to 1945, inclusive. This second vol- 
ume traces major events from 1946 through 1950. Subsequent vol- 
umes will cover the movement through the end of 1957. An index to 
the entire chronology will be published by the committee at the com- 
pletion of the series. 

Both the chronology and index were prepared by Dr. Joseph G. 
"VVlielan, analyst in Soviet and East European Affairs, Foreign Affairs 
Division, Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress, in con- 
sultation with Dr. Sergius Yakobson, senior specialist in Russian Af- 
fairs of the Library's Legislative Reference Service, and with the 
research staff of the Committee on Un-American Activities. 

36-584-64 8 


(John Santo's Own Story) 

On March 1, 4, and 5, 1963, the Committee on Un-American Activi- 
ties conducted a staff consultation with John Santo, a native Hun- 
garian, who had been a Communist in both the United States and in 
Hungary for a total of 28 years. He was a militant, frontline Com- 
munist in the United States from 1928 until 1949. 

Born on May 13, 1908, in Hungary, Santo graduated froin a Hun- 
garian commercial high school in 1927. In the fall of that year he 
came to the United States for the purpose of furthering his education. 
The following year he joined the Communist Party. 

During the next 20 years, Santo was a prominent Communist 
activist, sei-ving in various important party assignments, including 
those of section organizer in the borough of the Bronx of the city of 
New York, member of the District Bureau of the State Committee of 
the Ohio District, and member of the Trade Union Commission for 
the State of New York. He was also general secretary of the Trans- 
port Workers Union of America (CIO), a major labor union then 
largely controlled by the Communist conspiracy, and served as its na- 
tional director from 1934 to 1948. 

Santo left the United States under a deportation order in June 1949 
and accepted an invitation of the Hungarian Communist government 
and the Hungarian Workers' (Communist) Party to return to his 
homeland. His stay there, however, was disappointing. Completely 
disillusioned with communism and particularly life in Communist 
Hungary, Santo fled that country during the afteniiath of the 
Hungarian revolution of October 1956 and sought temporary asylum 
in Austria. Upon arriving in Vienna, Santo applied for entry to the 
United States, claiming that he had abandoned and abjured the Com- 
munist cause. After convincing U.S. Government officials of his 
sincerity and trustworthiness, Santo was admitted to the United States 
in January 1963 by the Attorney General under provisions of the 
so-called Fair Share Act of July 14, 1960. 

Santo was a zealous, hard-core party member. According to his 
own testimony : 

Like many other Communists in the United States, I was 
considered by the Communist Party of the United States — 
and also considered myself — a professional revolutionary, 
one who dedicated his life to the overthrow of the capitalistic 
system of society and government, establishing in its stead 
a society based on the collective, state ownership of all the 
means of production under the leadership and guidance of 
the vanguard of the working class— the Communist Party. 



It took the Federal Government almost a decade to deport Santo. 
In 1941 he was charged with being an alien residing illegally in this 
country and engaging in subversive activity designed to contribute to 
the overthrow of the Government. The fight the Communist Party 
and Santo carried on against the attempt of the U.S. Government to 
deport him is reflected in hundreds of pages of legal records, as well 
as ni reams of Communist propaganda. The Communist Party, aided 
by the American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born and 
Santo himself, used the constitutional due process of law to its limits. 
The "John Santo Defense Committee," organized by the Communist 
Party, collected upward of $100,000 to prevent Santo's deportation. 

The first warrant of arrest in Santo's case was issued on October 7, 
1941, and deportation hearings commenced the veiy next day. Evi- 
dence introduced in the proceedings established that he had been an 
active member of the Communist Party since at least 1932 and closely 
associated with Communist-dominated organizations since 1928. A 
series of long-drawn-out proceedings and appeals was finally com- 
pleted with the issuance of a final warrant of deportation on October 
11, 1948. 

Beginning in 1947, Santo received numerous messages from Hun- 
gary inviting him to return to that country. These messages advised 
him to visit the Ambassador of the Hungarian People's Kepublic, 
Endre Sik, in Washington, D.C. While visiting Ambassador Sik 
in the spring of 1949, Santo received confirmation from the Am- 
bassador that his return to Hungary would be both welcomed and 
desired. However, ximbassador Sik advised Santo to secure the ap- 
proval of the American Communist Party leadership prior to travel- 
ing to Hungary. 

Permission to return to Hungary was gained through the person 
of Joseph Peters,^ then a member of the staff of the Central Commit- 
tee of the Communist Party of the United States. Through Peters, 
Santo applied for a decision of the Secretariat of the Central Com- 
mittee of the American Communist Party. Several days later, Petei"S 
told Santo that his travel was approved and invited him to a party 
to be held in a private home in the Bronx, where leading Hungarian- 
American Communists — Louis Weinstock,^ James Lustig,^ John Lau- 

1 When Whittaker Chambers testified before the committee in August 1948 and revealed 
his own associations with a Communist underRround apparatus within Government agencies 
in Washington, D.C, during the period 1934-37, he identified J. Peters as his superior 
and the "head of the underground section" of the Communist Party of the United States. 
Chambers said it was Peters who had assigned him to liaison and other duties with the 
party's underground in the Nation's Capital and had introduced him to Alger Hiss and 
other Communists worljing in the Federal Government. 

A man of manv aliases, Peters was born Alexander Goldberger in Hungary. In the 
late 1920's he held responsible posts on a number of Communist publications in the United 
States and eventually became a national party functionary. He was the author of The 
Communint Party — A Manual on Orgunization, which served as a basic tool for Communist 
organizers after its publication in 1935. Peters was interrogated by this committee on 
Aug. 30, 1948, but refused to answer pertinent questions on grounds of possible self- 
incrimination. When faced with the prospects of being deported, he departed from the 
United States voluntarily in 1949. , , . ^, ■„ . ^ ■,-,  tr 

2 Louis Weinstock was, for many years, a key officer of the AFL Painters Union. He 
has also served on the Communist Party's National Board and has been known as Mr. 
May Day" because, for years, he organized its May Day celebrations in New York City. 
He was tried, convicted, and served a 3-year sentence for violation of the Smith Act. 
He preceded .Tames Lustig as business manager of the Daily Worker, being appointed to 
the post in February 1960, and also replaced Lustig in this position when Lustig resigned 
in the fall of 1962. Weinstock is 1 of 10 top U.S. Communist Party leaders against 
whom proceedings have recentlv been held by the Subversive Activities Control Board for 
the purpose of compelling registration under the Internal Security Act of 1950. 

3. Tames Lustig was born in Budapest, Hungary, in 1902, came to the United States m 
1921, and became a citizen in 1928, In 1931 he ran for alderman in Bronx, N.Y., on the 
Communist Partv ticket. Lustig was, for many years, a top official of District 4 of the 
Communist-controlled United Electricr.l, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UL). 
In 1961 and 1962 he served as business manager of the official Communist Party news- 


tner,* and their wives, together with Ambassador Sik, would be 
present. During the party, Ambassador Sik presented Santo a Hun- 
garian passport into which the Ambassador inserted Santo's photo- 
graph and affixed his official seal. The Hungarian Ambassador then 
placed his signature on the visa, thereby fully validating Santo's 
travel documents for return to Hungary. 

Santo left the United States on June 10, 1949, and traveled to 
Amsterdam by steamship. He then flew to Prague where he took a 
flight directly to Budapest. Upon arriving in Budapest, Santo was 
met by Moses Simon, a Hungarian Communist, whose name was 
given to Santo by the aforementioned J. Peters as Santo's initial 
contact in Hungary. Simon had previously resided for a time in the 
United States and had returned to Hungary following the close of 
World War H. In addition to receiving a post of importance in 
Budapest, Simon was unofficially assigned as the guide and host of 
American Communist visitors to Hungary. 

Among various Communist officials introduced to Santo were Antal 
Apro, general secretary of the Hungarian Trade Union Center, and 
Karoly Kiss, chairman of the Control Conmiission of the Hungarian 
Communist Party. Antal Apro expressed his desire to place Santo 
in the Hungarian trade union movement doing anti-American propa- 
ganda work through the medium of trade union journals. Subse- 
quent to numerous detailed discussions with Karoly Kiss regarding 
Santo's past history, Santo was admitted into the Communist Party 
of Hungary, officially designated as the Hungarian Workers' Party. 
It is interesting to note that, in accepting Santo as a member, the 
Hungarian Communist Party recognized his 21-year membership in 
the American Communist Party. 

Despite his anxiety to secure employment, Santo had not been 
offered a job by early fall of 1949. In an effort to alleviate his pre- 
dicament, he wrote directly to Matyas Rakosi, general secretary of 
the Hungarian Workers' Party. Santo called attention to the fact 
that, having recently returned to Hungary, he was still in an un- 
employed status. Rakosi immediately summoned Santo to his office, 
where a lengthy interview took place. According to Santo's testi- 
mony, Rakosi "displayed an amazing knowledge of the leading po- 
litical figures in the United States and a superior knowledge of the 
leading personalities in the American trade union movement." 

Rakosi was chiefly interested in Santo's personal opinions, particu- 
larly Santo's feelings regarding certain American Hungarian Com- 
munists whom Rakosi characterized as being undercover agents of 
the FBI. However, Rakosi's accusations against these Communists 
were, for the most part, insincere. It was merely Rakosi's way of 
testing Santo's knowledge and wisdom. During the interview, Rakosi 
brought up the case of Laszlo Rajk, Minister of Interior and assistant 
general secretary of the Hungarian Workers' Party, who was accused 
of plotting to murder key officials of the party, including Rakosi 
himself. Rajk and certain other Hungarian leaders were subse- 

paper. The Worker. Several times Identified as a member of the Communist Party by- 
witnesses who have testified before this committee, Liistip has served a prison term for 
contempt of Consress. growing out of his appearance before this committee in 194fi. 

* John Lantner broke with the Communist Party in 1950 and has since been a Govern- 
ment witness in a number of Smith Act trials and other security proceedings, in addition 
to testifying before this committee. Lautner held various important posts in the party 
prior to his break, including that of head of the New York State Control or Review 


quently executed after a "trial" at which all "confessed'" to their part 
for committiiii^ alleged crimes against the Rakosi regime. 

Within a month or two following his interview with Rakosi, Santo 
was assigned by the Hungarian Workers' Party to a position in the 
Ministry of Light Industry. As a result of various organizational 
changes made in that Ministry, Santo was appointed chief of the Di- 
vision of Meat Industry of the newly formed Ministry of Food. Santo 
held this position from 1953 until his defection from Hungary in 
1956. He testified that "every position and every job, down to the 
lowest," in Hungary was controlled by the Hmigarian Commmiist 

Santo provided the committee with significant information regard- 
ing the economic situation in Hungary during the late 1940's and 
early 1950's. In April 1949, when the first 5-year plan for economic 
development was instituted, 80 percent of the Hungarian industry 
and commerce was nationalized. Santo attended a secret Communist 
meeting on December 30, 1949, at which Erno Gero, a top official of 
the I-Iungarian Communist Party, announced the decision of the cen- 
tral committee of the party to move the Hungarian economy to a 
higher stage through the nationalization of all enterprises employing 
over 10 people, thereby raising the socialized sector of the economy 
to 90 percent. In describing this rally and the events that followed, 
Santo stated : 

The meeting had all the earmarks of a putsch, inasmuch as 
Gero denounced these small storekeepers and artisans as being 
the most nefarious enemies of socialism, who were responsi- 
ble for black marketeering, speculation, and whose activity 
endangered the value of the forint, unit of Hmigarian cur- 

The bloodthirsty tone, reminding one of the leader of a 
lynch mob, made a very peculiar impression upon me, who 
expected and had previously experienced at important party 
gatherings in the United States a sober, unemotional, busi- 
nesslike tone, only to find myself before the speaker of the 
evening, who not only screeched and ranted, but actually did 
an Indian dance. 

I couldn't help but think that Comrade Gero was the son of 
the owner of a textile factory, similarly, all other top Hun- 
garian Communist leaders came from bourgeois families, 
Rakosi himself being the son of a grocer. 

Evidently through the person of Gero they were declaring 
war to the death on that social stratum from which they 

After his report, the machine went into operation and some 
thousands of those present were given slips with names and 
addresses of enterprises which were nationalized and of which 
the holder of that particular paper became the director. 

The whole operation was motorized, and within miniites 
everybody was on their way, in the darkness of the evening 
and in the night. In Budapest immediately, and in the 
provinces in a few hours, the new directors assumed their 
prerogative as agents of the government and operators of 
that particular enterprise. 


In the meat industrj^, as the subsequent days proved 
tlirough the move, all private enterprise =^ * * were taken 
into state possession. * * * 

The owner was given a piece of paper which entitled him 
to compensation for the expropriated property. Actually, 
however, I don't remember one instance of anybody getting 
a red cent for all that was taken from him. 

As a matter of fact, within a few days, the Treasury De- 
partment went to work examining every such nationalized 
shop or store, and through the medium of back taxes and pen- 
alties for failure of appropriate taxes — the "right" amount of 
taxes — the personal individual property, clothing, and furni- 
ture of those involved was taken away from them. 

*4* •J' ^i* •i^ 

•J* ^* *^ ^^ 

As far as benefits and advantages are concerned from this 
last major stop in nationalization, perhaps it looked good on 
paper reports rendered to IMoscow, that as far as industry 
and trade were concerned, they were a hundred percent state 
owned, and the leaders of the Hungarian Communists have 
again proved long before the other satellites did so that they 
were the most aggressive copiers of the Soviet Union. 

As the first 5-year plan developed, cheating and thievery became 
everyday occurrences in practically all segments of Hungarian society. 
Despite the number of arrests w^hich took place among the workers, 
it continued unabated. According to the witness, thievery slowly 
reached the higher ranks, including factory directors and divi- 
sion chiefs. Moreover, due to excessive governmental production 
quotas imposed upon the Ministry of Food, as well as other industries, 
shortcuts, deceptions, and tricks were resorted to in a concerted effort 
to meet these demands. 

Santo indicated that the trade unions in Hungary had no real life 
or meaning from the viewpoint of the traditional Western trade union- 
ist. They performed none of the functions for the workers that trade 
unions in the United States and other free nations do. He stated 
that : 

The trade unions exist in Communist countries because of 
the natural desire of industrial vrorkers to have an organiza- 
tion for the protection of their craft and industry. To sat- 
isfy this natural inclination and aspiration and tradition of 
the workers, trade unions are allowed to exist. 

Furthermore, these trade unions play not only a negative 
role insofar as making impossible the organization and carry- 
ing through of strikes, or movements for shorter hours, better 
wages, improved working conditions, but they are also the 
second line of propaganda organization, following in the 
footsteps of the Communist Party itself. 

As Lenin said of trade unions under communism: "Trade 
unions are our best schools of communism," and certainly one 
of their major functions was the turning out of propagandists 
and functionaries for the various aspects of Communist life. 


Santo's testimony also included significant information pertaining 
to the status of workers in Communist Hungary as compared with 
those in tliis comitry or other free nations. Accordmg to Santo : 

The workers of Hungary had to learn, like everybody living 
under the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat, that it 
was a terrible fraud perpetrated on them since, in fact, it was 
a dictatorship against the proletariat. 

The Communist government does away with the capitalists 
and the landowners in the first stage after coming to power. 
Numerically speaking, of course, these are usually a small 
minority. The middle class, those who are affluent, are shoved 
down with the proletariat. But the real sharp edge of the 
so-called dictatorship of the proletariat is directed against the 
proletariat itself, because they are the overwhelming major- 
ity, a majority whose numbers increase from day to day by 
virtue of the wiping out of the small business and by the in- 
dustrialization of the country. 

The working class under the so-called dictatorship of the 
proletariat must leam four things in the negative sense : To 
see nothing, to hear nothing, to say nothing, and above all, 
not to think. A thinking worker is cursed by the worst of 
possible afflictions, and that is why most workers in Hungary, 
notwithstanding the fact that the price of liquor was sky- 
high — a bottle of the cheapest rum being the equivalent of 
3 days' pay — nevertheless had to have their shot of rum be- 
fore going to work, and their quota of wine or rum upon 
quitting work. 

As to the positive features that the worker had to acquire 
in order to survive, that was work — merciless, never-ending, 
unsanitary, sweated, speeded-up — on the job on which he was 
employed. That was the life and the tragedy of the Hun- 
garian worker during the years that I lived there. 

Rationing in Hungary was terminated at the end of 1951 with great 
fanfare. At the same time, however, the Communist Party announced 
the institution of new prices of all major commodities. Santo testified 
that the end of rationing and the establishment of new prices actually 
amounted to a 25-percent decrease in the standard of living, even 
though rents, utilities, and carfare remained stationary. In citing 
specific examples of the inflationary Hungarian economy subsequent 
to the end of rationing, the witness stated : 

Those items which were supplied and could best be pur- 
chased only on the free market, such as vegetables, fruits, and 
other agricultural products, increased in price from 200 to 
300 percent. 

As to the purchasing power of the wage earned by the 
workers, a few items of illustration would show the situation 
around 1953. 

To purchase three eggs, the worker had to spend an hour's 
pay, calculated at a high fulfillment of his norm. 

A shirt of the most ordinary cotton variety equaled 1 week's 

To purchase a pair of shoes, the workingman had to spend 
2 weeks of his pay. * * * A pound of coffee, 1 week's pay. 


Santo ^ave the committee a vivid account of life in Hnno;aiy during 
the Korean war. In addition to the hardsliip resulting from the 
reduction in living standards, terror tactics were accelerated against 
leading political personalities, political parties, and whole classes of 
people. The Korean war was pictured in the press as an aggression on 
the part of American imperialism, and reports from the battle zone 
attested to the so-called germ warfare carried on by the American 
troops against the "helpless"' North Koreans. 

Santo learned in 1956 that there were 180,000 Hungarians in con- 
centration camps, representing about 10 percent of the working popu- 
lation. Moreover, the witness revealed that, due to overcrowded jails, 
"additional tens of thousands" who were sentenced to prison had to go 
home and wait until called to start serving their terms. He further 
revealed that : 

Members of the Communist Party were usually sent to 
camps on charges of being spies. Others, for theft, quite a 
lot for being Kulaks — rich peasants — who were allegedly 
engaged in sabotage; for attempting to cross tlie border and 
flee to the West; for paying for abortion of an unwanted 
child ; and innumerable other reasons. 

Besides concentration camps, there also began and devel- 
oped mass deportation from Budapest of members of the 
middle class of the old regime, for the purpose of freeing 
their apartments, and using them in out-of-the-way places 
as labor forces on construction jobs. 

^ 4: ^ if: ^ 

Other such deportees — called class enemies of tlie regime — 
were deported to various villages where they had to live in 
pig sties. The only work they could possibly get was that 
of watching geese graze. 

One of these deported persons whom Santo knew personally from 
the United States was Rose Weinstock, wife of the aforementioned 
Communist leader, Louis Weinstock. She first visited Hungary in 
1948 as head of the U.S. Hungarian delegation to the Second Congress 
of the Women's International Democratic Federation, an international 
Communist front. In describing this case, Santo stated : 

Around 1952 — as she related to me — because of certain in- 
compatibility with her husband, she decided to accept the 
invitation extended in 1948, and together with her then 12- 
year-old daughter returned to Hungary. For a few months, 
she lived in Budapest at her own expense, a forlorn soul. 
Then herself and her daughter were seized by the secret 
police and deported to a faraway village where they had to 
live, having as their home a cowshed. 

Nobody knew the charges against her. The secret police 
simply picked them up and deported them. She only knew 
that it was forbidden for her to return to Budapest. 

Wlien Mrs. Weinstock was permitted to return to Budapest a year 
or so later, she visited Santo for the purpose of soliciting his advice 
regarding whether she should remain in Hungary. Santo suggested 


that Mrs. Weinstock contact the American consulate and petition 
for the renewal of her then expired passport. Mrs. Weinstock's pass- 
port was subsequently renew^ed and she returned to the United States. 
Despite Mrs. Weinstock's treatment while residing in Hungary, she 
later wrote an article in the Communist Daily Worker praising the 
Communist Government of Hungary and condemning the revolution 
of 1956. 

The witness said that the death of Stalin in March 1953 was "im- 
mediately followed by further tightening of the screws in the eco- 
nomic, political, and social life of Hungary * * *." In July 1953, 
Imre Nagy, one of the relatively unknown leaders of the Hungarian 
Communist Party, replaced Rakosi as the Prime Minister of Hungary. 
Santo briefly described what he termed "incomprehensive and un- 
explained changes" which existed under the Nagy regime : 

After the terrible 4 years of 1950-53, it seemed somehow 
as though laughter came back to Hungary. The plates on 
the table were beginning to have some food on them. There 
was a literary ferment, with critical articles and plays. Some- 
thing unfathomable, elusive, yet real, began to sweep the 

^ ^ ;{: % ^ 

The deportees were beginning to come back to Budapest. 
They received back — some of them — their apartments. The 
concentration camps began to open up their gates, and tens 
of thousands of people returned. 

But above all, in the party, first whispered and gossiped, 
and then openly, discussions began. 

This process, of course, was tremendously accelerated by 
the secret speech of Khrushchev at the 20th Congress of the 
Bolshevik Party of the Soviet Union in 1956, in which he 
exposed Stalin as a tyrant, a criminal, and a coward. 

Testimony of Santo also indicated that during the premiership of 
Nagy there was a mai'ked decrease in police terror and wages were 
increased by 15 percent. 

Santo, however, pointed out that the growing confusion reached new 
heights in Hungary when, as a result of Russian intervention, Nagy 
was removed as Prime Minister in the spring of 1955 and was replaced 
by "a young nonentity" by the name of Andras Hegedus. Charging 
that the country had been endangered by the rightwing deviationism 
of Nagy, Hegedus reversed all the reforms initiated by Nagy with 
the "vociferous and bloodthirsty" backing of Rakosi. As a result 
of these developments, Santo stated, an intellectual turmoil de- 
veloped in the country. Due to his complete isolation from con- 
tact with the Hungarian population, he was much slower to become 
aware of the new political situation than others. 

Not only was Nagy expelled from the Hungarian Communist 
Party, but he was discharged from his post as university professor 
and from the Plungarian Academy of Sciences. Santo said that 
Nagy was "one of the greatest experts on Hungarian agriculture" 
and became a "legendary name" among the peasantry of Hungary. 
Nagy had served as the Minister of Agriculture following World 
War II and was "responsible for the law that distributed the large 
landed estates, of which some hundreds of thousands of Hungarian 


landless peasants each received a few acres of land." Santo charac- 
terized Nagy as a Communist, but foremost, a Hungarian patriot. 
In addition to the expulsion of Nagy, frameups involving other 
Hungarian Communists had a decided effect upon Santo's faith in 
communism. Among these cases were the brutal torture, imprison- 
ment, and subsequent release of Janos Kadar, a Hungarian Com- 
munist Party official; the exoneration, public exhumation, and re- 
burial of Lazlo Rajk (executed Hungarian Communist leader) ; and 
the imprisonment and subsequent release of Lajos (Louis) Bebrits,^ 
who had recruited Santo into the American Conununist Party in 
1928. According to Santo's own words: 

The story of Kadar, of Bebrits, affected me as a psycho- 
logical sleclge hammer. I felt myself dissolving, breaking 
up, morally, mentally, intellectually. A thirst arose in my 
soul to crawl away in shame, in disgust, in despair. 

On July 14, 1956, a most significant event occurred involving steel- 
workersof Czepel Island, an industrial center in Budapest. Santo, 
in describing the situation as "an unheard of event," said: 

The steelworkers issued an ultimatum demanding an increase 
in wages. Five days later, Rakosi resigned as general sec- 
retary of the Communist Party, an event which shook the 
country like an earthquake. Even though the publicly is- 
sued statement referred to the ill health of Eakosi as the 
major reason for his resignation, adding only a few words of 
self-criticism concernhig past mistakes, nevertheless, his 
toppling from the Olympian heights of power, prestige, 
simply accelerated the process of dissolution of the most 
important asset of Communist rule : the monolithic, all-inclu- 
sive, total unity of the Communist Party. Everywhere signs 
of the breaking up of the tenacious fiber of Communist dedi- 
cation were to be seen. 

Santo brought out the fact tliat the Russians, disturbed over the 
increasing personal power of Rakosi, had actually intervened and 
forced his resignation during a meeting of the Political Committee 
of the Hungarian Communist Party. The Central Committee of 
the Hungarian Communist Party subsequently approved the "resig- 
nation" of Rakosi and appointed Erno Gero, a long-time Hungarian 
Communist official, as the party's general secretary, 

Santo provided the committee with a vivid, first-hand account of 
the Hungarian revolution. The following are excerpts taken from 
his testimony regarding this violent period in Hungarian history: 

During the development of the Hungarian revolution, there 
were many concrete examples of the complete unity of the 
Hungarian people, members of the Communist Party and 
those who were not, indicating their complete abhorrence of 
that system of society which they were determined to break 

6 Louis Bebrits, editor of the U.S. Hungarian lanpuage Communist newspaper, Vj Elore, 
■was a witness before the Special ( Committee To Investigate Coniiiuinist Activities 
In the United States on Sept. 27. 19;-;0. Santo testified that Bebrits, former Hungarian 
Minister of Railroads and Transport, "was deported from the United States to the Soviet 
Union In the • * » mSO's as the result of being subpenaed by the Fish committee where, 
as it was then the party line, upon being questioned, he maintained proudly his belief la 
the necessity, advisability, and unavoidal)ility of using force and violence for the purpose 
of the overthrow of the Government of the United States." 


up. Old Bolsheviks and young university students of work- 
ing-class backgrounds, as well as the intellectuals, the women, 
the members of the armed forces, all were agreed on one 
thing: the necessity of breaking up the system of falsehood 
and exploitation of the people of Hungary, as carried on 
under the leadership of the Hmigarian Communist Party. 

H: ii: ^ ^ * 

The last straw, the one that broke the camel's back as far 
as I myself was concerned, in respect to my affiliation and 
loyalty to communism, was the role played by the armed forces 
of the Soviet Union m the crushing of the Hungarian rev- 

I have seen innocent blood shed without any pretext or 
provocation at all. I recall, for instance, that during the 
second attack by the Russian Red Army forces, tanks were 
patrolling the streets simply for the purpose of terrorizing 
the population into submission. Bread was scarce, and a 
line formed before a bakery to purchase bread. One of the 
Russian tanks pulled into position and shelled that breadline, 
killing mercilessly women who simply wanted to assure a loaf 
of bread for their families. 

Perhaps I ought to add here that in all the demonstrations 
and Communist activities of my life in the United States, 
including 3 years of service as a soldier during World War II, 
I never saw anything resembling this wanton brutality and 
unprovoked destruction of innocent human life. 

This was war against the unarmed womenfolk of Budapest, 
designed to terrorize the population into submission, into 
unquestioning, blind, subservient obedience. 

4: 4: * * 4: 

Volumes hnve been written in every language about the 
tragedy of the brave, hot-blooded, fiercely liberty-loving 
Hungarians who wrote a glorious page in the history of man- 
kind by raising high their banner of revolt against Hunga- 
rian Communist tyranny, supported by the Russian Red 
Army. Two hundred thousand men and women and chil- 
dren ultimately were killed, driven out, or left Hungary 
when that struggle was lost. 

Personally, for me, the revolution brought a revelation of 
the indomitable spirit of human beings and the ultimate 
failure of the crushing of the spirit of man by Communist 
or other totalitarian tyranny. It was crushed, but it re- 
mains the hope of the world, and that spark of revolt will 
never die. 

Santo was under active surveillance by the Communist secret 
police during most of his 7-year stay in Hungary. However, it was 
not until the Hungarian revolution that he learned of the identity 
of the secret police agent who was assigned the taslc of watching and 
reporting on him. With particular reference to Communist secret 
police activities, Santo testified: 

Through the years, of course, I learned that the secret 
l^olice had agents everywhere. * * * 

* * * * * 


The invisible government in all Communist countries is the 
organ of terror, the secret police. It consists of the most 
devoted, leading strata of the members of the Communist 
Party, of insignihcant rank-and-file Communists, and in- 
numerable other human beings who, while not members of 
the Communist Party, are compelled to serve in one capacity 
or another the orders of the secret police. The actual power 
of the government was not even the million-strong member- 
ship of the Workers' Party of Hungary, or of their various 
unit secretaries, district secretaries, Central Committee mem- 
bers, or those constituting the Political Bureau; the real 
power was in the hands of the one who could push the but- 
ton, thus instructing and mobilizing the secret service forces 
for the carrying through of his orders. 


It cleared up, to some extent, also the mystery of Eliza- 
beth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers, whose disclosures 
in 1947 and 1948, prior to my departure for Hungary, sinipiy 
didn't make sense to me. Seven years of Hungarian living 
in the so-called land of the proletarian dictator and People's 
Democratic Hungary made me learu an awful lot. There 
were spies ; most everybody was a spy, everywhere could be 
spies, and nobody * * * ought to underestimate the role, the 
importance, the worldwide net of paid, bribed terrorists 
and '^ * * dedicated agents and professional sadists that 
constitute the Communist underground secret police net. 

In discussing the reasons for his defection from communism, Santo 
stated : 

Basically, my break with communism can't be adduced to 
one factor alone, such as the Hungarian revolution of 1956, 
which o:ave me the opportunity to liee Hungary and comnm- 
nism. if it is desired to put the answer in a nutshell, it is the 
contradiction between the shining beauty of the theory of 
conmmnism and what it is in practice as a bestial, corrupt, 
retrogressive way of life, as a system of government of false 
morality, perverted ethics, wasteful economy, and politics of 
horror and torture for the working people. 


However, it is one thing to live in the United States and 
to look from afar upon communism being built in the Soviet 
Union, and another thing to live in a country such as Hun- 
gary ruled by the Conununist Party under a so-called dic- 
tatorship of the proletariat. 

The 7 years of my life in "People's Democratic" Hun- 
gary from 1949 to 195(5 laid bare for me as nothing else could, 
the inhumanity, the antihumanity, the lawlessness, the com- 
plete lack of any moral and ethical standard of that system 
of society. 


Searching bacK as to the reasons why I originally joined 
the Communist i arty, I think it is fair to say that 1 was 


motivated by the basic principles of the Christian-Judeo 
civilization, of the brotherhood of mankind, living in peace 
and well-being upon this earth. 

As a goodly portion of all members of young generations 
do, I felt pity and compassion for those who lived miserable 
lives of poverty, of ignorance, of exploitation, and of dis- 

The witness told the committee that he is not now a member of the 
Communist Party and that he has not been a member since 1956. 

Santo, in response to committee questioning, said that Communist 
parties of the world are not political parties in the usual, accepted 
meaning of the word. He characterized these Communist parties as 
"national components of a worldwide apparatus, a tool whose manip- 
ulators are in the Kremlin." 

The witness made the following comments with respect to the nature 
of communism : 

_ It is not a religion, because wdiile dogmatic, its dogmas are 
like the shifting sands, or more properly like the devil quoting 
the Bible. It could be more aptly considered a faith, because 
besides the body of theory, dogma, besides rational thinking 
at the end of which the Communist has answers — even if they 
are false— -to all questions concerning politics, sociology, econ- 
omy, ethics, morality, philosophy, or even biology, beyond all 
of that, a Communist must also have a mystical faith. This 
mystical faith must be of a very primitive nature, centering 
upon, on one hand, one individual, the Marx, the Lenin, the 
Stalin, the Rakosi, the Khrushchev, or some one individual, 
pretty much like the savages must liave supreme faith in tlieir 
tribal chief, who is all-wise, infallible, and incorporates in 
himself all earthly and heavenly virtues. 

This faith has another arm in the belief in the collective 
ownership of the means of production as the end-all and cure- 
all of all ailments of society. 

It is rny belief that, while all comparisons have certain 
shortcomings, communism can be compared to addiction much 
more than to religion or faith. The Communist philosopliy 
provides the same escape for people who desire something 
else tlian what they have, who are in some manner unfulfilled 
in their life, in their fainily, in their love, for people who are 
ambitious and_ find no quick outlet for energies — they might 
turn to morphine, cocaine, or they might join the Communist 

Living in a country where there was absolutely no private property 
provided Santo with an opportunity to discover the fallacies of the 
Hungarian economy. He found that the Communist system was in 
"no way superior to the society which is based on the private owner- 
ship of property." In comparing life under communism with life 
in a free society, Santo said that the "collective ownership of the means 
of production, coupled with a dictatorship, is not superior to a system 
of government based on free private property, available to all as a 
result of hard labor — hard, dedicated, talented labor — which is prop- 
erly managed under a free government." 


Upon fleeing Hungary in November 1956, Santo immediately con- 
tacted an American newspaper correspondent in Vienna for the pur- 
pose of making a public statement indicating his complete break with 
both the Communist Party and communism in all of its aspects. Sub- 
sequent to the publication of Santo's story on November 24, 1956, he 
was visited by various representatives of the U.S. Government. Also, 
about that same time, Santo expressed a desire to return to the United 
States and applied for reentry. 

The final chapter of the John Santo case was summarized by Mr. 
Francis E. Walter, the late chairman of this committee, in the preface 
to the printed transcript of Santo's consultation. 

Mr. Walter said in part : 

Many people, many good Americans then in Vienna, were 
convinced of Santo's sincerity. The Church World Service, 
an organization dedicated to rendering assistance to refugees 
all over the world, took Santo under its protective wing and 
secured temporary' employment for him in Austria, first as an 
interpreter and then as a teacher of the English lanjriifige- 
The great humanitarian, a dedicated social worker, the late 
Roland Elliott, director of the Church World Service's 
refugee activities, with whom I had the privilege of being 
associated for well over a decade in displaced persons and 
refugee work, turned to me requesting that I intercede with 
immigration authorities and obtain their agreement to Santo's 
entry to the United States as a refugee. I was reluctant to 
do so at first and I suggested that more time should be allowed 
to pass before Santo's sincerity and trustworthiness could be 

In 1958, while I attended one of the sessions of the Inter- 
governmental Committee for European Migration, Mr. Elliott 
brought Santo to Geneva, Switzerland. My conversation 
with Mr. Santo lasted for several hours and I was impressed 
by what he told me. He retraced the history of his youth in 
the United States where he had arrived from Hungary at the 
age of 19, attempted to study at Chicago, 111., dropped out 
of school after a very short time and soon attracted the atten- 
tion of Communist organizers, whom he joined voluntarily 
and with oreat enthusiasm. He then proceeded to tell the 
storv of his exile from the United States and his experiences 
in Hungary. 

Although the ring of sincerity was quite apparent in San- 
to's story as first told to me, an extensive review of Snnto's 
activities in tlip ITnitpd States and a stndv of records of inter- 
rogations conducted by American officials in Austria caused 
me to defer action in Santo's behalf. One important element 
of this decision was my conviction that Santo's return to 
the United States, if it were to occur, m.ust be in full com- 
pliance with the law — and the law, the Immigration and Na- 
tionality Act. states that a former Communist is not eligible 
to enter the United States until he demonstrates that "since 
the termination of such membership or affiliation such alien is 
and has been for at least 5 years prior to the date of the appli- 
cation for admission actively opposed to the doctrine, pro- 


gram, principles and ideology of such party" (Communist 
Party or a Coimnunist-dominated organization) (Sec. 212 
(a) (28) (I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act). 

My second conversation with Santo took place again in 
Geneva on April 8, 1962, in the presence of the then member 
of the House Committee on the Judiciary, Representative 
James F. Battin, of Montana. The interview again lasted 
several hours. Without prodding and questioning, Santo 
reviewed what he called "my Communist life" and expressed 
what to me sounded like an urgent desire to tell his story 
"to whoever should listen to it in America" — to use his own 
words. He was still living in Vienna, engaged at the time 
with an Austrian partner in the importation of goods from 
the United States. He was recognized as a refugee by the 
Austrian authorities and by the United Nations High Com- 
missioner. He was a stateless person and used as identifi- 
cation a travel document which is issued under the auspices 
of the High Commissioner to a person in such status. 

In conclusion of our conversation I told Santo that I in- 
tended to consult with the proper authorities in Washington 
and that after the statutory 5 years of his disassociation from 
the Coimmniist Party had lapsed at the end of 1962, 1 believed 
I would present his case to the Attorney General of the United 
States who is vested with discretionary power to admit refu- 
gees on parole pursuant to the so-called Fair Share Act. 

In January 1963, after the Protestant Episcopal Church, 
acting through the Church World Seivice, provided the neces- 
sary sponsorship affidavit, John Santo entered the United 

The Committee on Un-American Activities believes that 
Santo's own story is a unique document of paramount im- 
portance. It is primarily designed to educate and provide 
food for thought for those who may still, even at this late 
hour, not be fully aware of the devious ways in which the 
Communist conspiracy works in the United States under the 
direction of foreign powers and the inhuman, tyrannical ap- 
plication of the Communist doctrine in those unhappy lands 
which this conspiracy has been permitted to capture. 

There are, I am sure, more "Santos" in the United States, 
busily continuing the work which John Santo was doing here 
between 1928 and 1949. The study of John Santo's story 
might make it easier for an attentive reader to recognize and 
unmask them. John Santo's story might also clarify the 
minds of some, young and old, who have been misguided, 
blinded, or duped by open and hidden Communists into fol- 
lowing their evil doctrine and assisting them in the achieve- 
ment of their evil aims. 



The collection of public source material in the field of subversive 
activities which the committee has built up over a period of 25 years 
is the fovmdation of the specialized reference service the committee 
provides for Members of Congress. It is also consulted constantly by 
committee staff members and representatives of governmental investi- 
gative agencies for source and lead material. 

During the past year, special emphasis has been placed on the acqui- 
sition and processing of new material in order to make the records not 
only as complete but as current as possible. In addition, a new report 
form was adopted in order to present the information developed in a 
briefer, more readable form, while at the same time incorporating all 
data in the most accurate manner possible. 

The committee's Reference Section handled inquiries at the rate of 
about 400 per month during 1963, with the number of requests almost 
equally divided between Members of Congress and staff members. 
The names of approximately 8,200 individuals and 4,200 organizations 
and publications were checked against conmiittee indices in answermg 
these reqiiests. The tens of thousands of references developed were 
examined in their original sources, and about 3,800 reports were 
prepared in answer to these requests. 

Reference services rendered to staff members are so varied that mean- 
ingful statistics on them are difficult to compile. In 1963, however, 
1,375 reports were written for staff members and fully three times as 
many reference questions of a more limited nature were answered. 
Almost 7,000 exhibits were located and reproduced for use in connec- 
tion with committee hearmgs and investigations, and loans of material 
averaged between 50 and 60 items per week. 

Investigative agencies of the Government's executive branch con- 
tmued, as in years past, to send designated representatives to check 
the committee's records for information related to their security in- 
vestigations. These agents, although limited in number because of 
very restricted work space, came from 25 different agencies and made 
close to 2,000 visits, fully 80% of which covered a full working day. 
Requests from State and local government agencies which were re- 
ferred to the Reference Section were relatively few in number and 
were handled in much the same manner as those from Members of 





THE YEAR 1963 

During the year 1963, the Committee on Un-American Activities 
distributed a total of 252,465 copies of its publications to Members of 
Congress, Government agencies, and to private individuals and 

At the beginning of the year, it had on hand 143,380 copies of publi- 
cations printed in previous years. In addition, it received from the 
Government Printing Office 38,525 copies of hearings held in 1962 but 
not printed until 1963 ; 99,000 reprints of publications issued prior t-o 
1963; 29,125 copies of 1963 publications; and 42,000 copies of commit- 
tee documents returned from the Folding Room.^ These figures add 
up to a total of 352,030 copies of committee publications on hand or 
received during the year. 

Following is a list of publications released by the committee during 
the first session of the 88th Congress : 


U.S. Communist Party Assistance to Foreign Conmimiist Govern- 
ments (Testimony of Maud Russell) , March 6, 1963. 
"United Front" Teclmique of the Southern California District of 

the Communist Party, April 24r-27, 1962. 
Violations of State Department Travel Regulations and Pro-Castro 

Propaganda Activities in the United States, Part 1, May 6, 7, and 

23, 1963. 
Violations of State Department Travel Regulations and Pro-Castro 

Propaganda Activities m the United States, Part 2, July 1 and 2 

and August 5, 1963, 
U.S. Communist Party Assistance to Foreign Communist Parties 

(Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade), July 29, 1963. 
Violations of State Department Travel Regulations and Pro-Castro 

Propaganda Activities in the United States, Part 3, September 12 

and 13, 1963. 
Defection of a Russian Seaman (Testimony of Vladislaw Stepano- 

vich Tarasov) , September 19, 1963. 
Violations of State Department Travel Regulations and Pro-Castro 

Propaganda Activities in the United Nations, Part 4, October 16 

and November 18, 1963. 

i Guide to Subversive Organizations and Publications and Volumes 1 and 2 of Facts on 




"United Front" Teclinique of the Southern California District of the 
Communist Party, Report and Appendix, House Eeport No. 631. 
Released July 31, 1963. 

Amending the Internal Security Act of 1950 To Provide for Maximum 
Personnel Security in the National Security Agency, Report No. 
108, 88th Congress (to accompany H.R. 950), March 13, 1963. 

World Conimimist Movement: Selective Chronology 1818-1957, Vol- 
ume II, 1946-50. 

Annual Report for the Year 1963. 


A Commimist in a "Workers' Paradise" (John Santo's Own Storv). 
March 1, 4, and 5, 1963. 



During the year 1963, the committee made no recommendations to 
the House of Eepresentatives for contempt citations of any witness 
who had appeared before it. 


On June 17, 1963, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision reversed 
the contempt conviction of Edv)aid YeUln who, on the basis of the 
first amendment, had refused to answer questions of a subcommittee 
of this committee in Gary, Ind., on February 10, 1958. The major- 
ity opinion was written by Chief Justice Warren. Justice White dis- 
sented, joined by Justices Clark, Harlan, and Stewart. 

Yellin was subpenaed and appeared, together Avith a number of 
other witnesses, at public hearings in Gary, Ind., on the subject of 
Communist Party activities in basic industry, particularly "coloniza- 
tion" in the steel industry. In originally discussing the purpose for 
calling Yellin, the committee had decided that its rule with respect 
to executive sessions was not applicable because it had reliable infor- 
mation that Yellin was "a known Communist." After the subcom- 
mittee (including the late Chairman Walter) and the general counsel 
had already left Washington for Gary to conduct the hearings, Yellin's 
attorneys sent to Washington a telegram addressed to the committee's 
general counsel asking for an executive session so that his client 
would not be exposed to publicity. The staif director in Washing- 
ton sent a telegram denying this request. Testimony indicated that 
the action of the staff director had not been expressly authorized by 
the committee. 

The Supreme Court stated that the committee Avas bound by its 
OAvn rules and noted that the then committee Rule IV required \hat 
a Avitness be first interrogated in executiA^e session if a majority of the 
committee or subcommittee "believes" that public interrogation 
"might endanger national security or unjustly injure his reputation, 
or the reputation of other individuals."^ The Court then held (1) 
that it did not appear that the committee particularly considered the 
issue whether, under Rule IV, Yellin's OAvn reputation would be "un- 
justly injured" AA^hen it made its initial determination to call Yel- 
lin in public session, and (2) that the committee's failure to act upon 
Yellin's later express request by telegram for an executive session 
was a failure to exercise the discretion imposed upon the committee 
(as distinguished from its staff) by its rule. In so holding, the Court 
stated that Yellin's "only remedy" for protecting his reputation was 

1 Committee Rule IV was chaujjed in 1961 mailing danger to national security the only 
criterion. House Rule XI 26 (m). however, is still in effect and is similar in some respects 
to the old committee Rule IV. 



to refuse to answer, and for that refusal he could not be held in 

The minority disagreed with the Court's interpretation of the evi- 
dence and the applicable law. The dissenters pointed out that Yel- 
lin had not refused to answer on the ground that the session was 
public and that the record showed that the committee had consid- 
ered all the criteria of Rule IV, including that of "unjust injury" 
to Yellin's reputation, when it first decided to call him in public 
rather than executive session. They pointed out that Yellin was a 
known Communist and that the committee had sworn testimony to 
that effect. There was, therefore, in the view of the four dissenting 
Justices, no "unjust injury" to the reputation of Yellin in the failure 
of the connnittee to reconsider the issue in response to his last-minute 


In a contempt proceeding from the Senate Internal Security Sub- 
connnittee, the United States Court of Appeals of the District of 
Columbia, on December 30, 1963, reversed the conviction - of Robert 
Shelton ^ in a decision of great importance to this and all other con- 
gressional committees. A three- judge panel of the court (Judges 
Wright and Washingion, with Miller dissenting) held that, under the 
Senate resolution creating the subcommittee, a subpena can be author- 
ized only by action of the full committee (or subcommittee) and that 
a subpena authorized by its chairman alone is invalid. In so doing, 
the panel distmguished between the authonty for and the issuance of 
a subpena. This decision is applicable to all committees and subcom- 
mittees of both Houses of Congress.* The decision is contrary to the 
established practice of the committees of Congress to permit their 
committee chairmen to authorize, as well as to issue, subpenas; and 
thus the decision appears to disregard the doctrine that Congress' 
construction of its own rules is entitled to great weight.^ 

While the decision might well be criticized for its narrow con- 
struction of existing congressional subpena power, its underlying 
premise seems completely erroneous ; that an invalid subpena affords to 
a witness on the stand a defense for refusal to answer pertinent ques- 
tions. The second branch of the contempt statute, mider which Shel- 
ton's prosecution was brought, does not require or contemplate a sub- 

- An earlier conviction for the same contempt was reversed by the United States Supreme 
Court on May 21, 1962, sub nom. Russell vs. United States, 369 U.S. 749, in a 5-4 decision 
requiring for the first time that contempt indictments allege the precise subject under 
inquiry. ... 

3 Shelton, a copy editor of the AT etc York Times, had been convicted in the district court 
for refusing, in January 1956, to answer whether he was then a member of the Com- 
munist Partv and whether he had ever had a conversation with an employee of that paper 
believed by the subcommittee to be a member of the Communist Party engaged in party 
activities in the Typographical Union. Shelton's refusals to answer were based upon the 
first amendment. 

^The panel construed the grant of subpena power contained in S. Res. 366 (81st 
Congress) which, it noted, followed the language of section 134(a) of the Legislative Re- 
organization Act of 1946. That act is the codification of the subpena power for all stand- 
ing committees of the Senate and for the House Committee on Un-American Activities (the 
only House committee to which it gives subpena power). Similar language is used in the 
grant of subpena power by the Rules of the House to the only other House committees 
having such power by rule, namely. Appropriations and Government Operations. The 
grant of subpena power in the Reorganization Act reads in pertinent part: 

"Each standing committee of the Senate, including any subcommittee of any such 
committee, is authorized * * * to require by subpena or otherwise the attendance of such 
witnesses * • • as it deems advisable." § 134(a). 

6 "» *  To place upon the standing rules of the [Congress] a constructon different 
from that adopted by the [Congress] *  • Is a serious and delicate exercise of judicial 
power." United States v. Smith, 286 U.S. 6, 48 (1932). 


peiia or summons.^ Therefore, the validity of a subpena, if there be 
a subpena, is irrelevant. It was so held in Sinclair v. United States^ 
279 U.S. 263 (1929), and in United States v. Josephson, 165 F. 2d 82 
(CCA. 2, 1947), cert, denied, 333 U.S. 838.^ 

The Attorney General was requested by the Senate Internal Se- 
curity Subcommittee and by this committee to seek review of this 
panel's decision in the Shelton case by petition for rehearing before the 
full bench of the United States Court of Appeals and for hearing by 
the United States Supreme Court. The Attorney General declined 
to take either of these appellate procedures, and this decision is now 
the law in the District of Columbia. 


John T. Gojach^ in Washington, D.C., was retried,^ convicted, and on 
December 13, 1963, was sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment and $200 
fine. Gojack, an international vice president of the United Electrical, 
Radio and ^Machine Workers of America, had refused to answer ques- 
tions of a subcommittee conducting hearings on Communist Party 
infiltration in the field of labor in February and March 1955. Gojack 
contended that the hearings lacked legislative purj^ose and that the 
questions violated his first amendment rights. He has appealed his 
conviction to the United States Court of Appeals. 

Frank Grumman and Bernard Silber were retried ^ in Washington, 
D.C., in November 1963, and their cases were under advisement by 
Judge Luther Youngdahl at year end. Both were members of the 
American Communications Association, Grumman being employed by 
Western Union and Silber by RCA Communications, Inc. They re- 
fused to answer questions in a hearing conducted by the committee in 
1957 into Communist Party infiltration in the communications indus- 
try, asserting, principally, first amendment rights and lack of legis- 
lative purpose. 

The reindictment of Loim Earl Hartma.n^ the conviction on the first 
indictment having been reversed by the United States Supreme Court 
on June 25, 1962, on the authority of the Russell case, was dismissed by 
the District Court for the Northern District of California on June 19, 
1963. This dismissal was on teclinical grounds involving the statute 
of limitations in connection with reindictment after reversal, under 18 
U.S.C. 3288. Hartman had refused, on June 19, 1957, to answer ques- 
tions in a hearing in San Francisco on Communist Party activities in 
the professions. 

Tlie contempt indictments against Victor Mah's, Alfred James Sam- 
ter, and Rohert Lehrer in the United States District Court in Ham- 
mond, Ind., were dismissed on the authority of Yellin vs. United 

« "Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either 
House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry 
before either JHouse, * * * or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes 
default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question 
under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, * * *." [Emphasis added.] 
2 U.S.C. § 192. 

' "The indictment being sufficient and properly based upon the second branch of the 
statute, the next issiie is whether there was enough evidence to support the verdict. In 
this connection it is to be noted, and the appellant rightly concedes, that at least as re- 
gards the second branch of the statute whether or not his appearance before the sub- 
committee was in response to a lawful subpena lawfully served is immaterial." Id. S(5. 

* An earlier conviction for the same contempt was reversed by the United States Supreme 
Court, 8ut>. nom. Russell v. United States, supra. 

» Their earlier convictions were reversed in June 1962 by the United States Supreme 
Court on authority of Russell v. United States, supra. 


States^ supra, for which decision they had been held in abeyance 
by the trial court. They were called in the same hearinos as was 

The case against Harvey 0'' Connor for refusing to respond to a sub- 
pena of the committee to attend a hearing in Newark, N.J., on Septem- 
ber 5, 1958, on the subject of Communist Party activities in the New- 
ark area, is still pending in the United States District Court in that 

As of the end of 1963, it had not been determined by the Depart- 
ment of Justice whether to reindict Martin Popper. The conviction of 
Popper for refusing, in Washington, D.C., in 1959, to answer questions 
as to his Communist Party membership at times when he applied for 
and traveled under United States passports was reversed by the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on July 5, 1962, 
on authority of the Russell case referred to above. Popper is a lawyer 
licensed to practice in the courts of New York and before the United 
States Supreme Court. He was one of the founders of the National 
Lawyers Guild and has remained prominent in its leadership. 

At the end of 1963, the new indictment against Norton Anthony Rus- 
sell was awaiting trial in Washington, D.C. He had refused to answer 
questions about himself and others in hearings on Coimnunist Party 
activit}^ in the Dayton- Yellow Springs (Ohio) area, held in Wash- 
ington in November 1955. His earlier conviction for this was reversed 
by the Supreme Court in 1962, as noted above. 

The case of Sidney Turoff was pending, at the end of 1963, in the 
United States District Court in Buffalo, N.Y., after reversal by the 
Second Circuit Court of Appeals on June 26, 1961. Turoff was in- 
dicted for refusing to answer questions at a hearing on Communist 
Party activity in th^ Buffalo area on October 1, 1957. His retrial was 
continued awaiting the decisions of the Russell and Yellin cases in the 
United States Supreme Court and the retrials of certain cases in 
Washington, D.C. 


The rules of the House and the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1946, in establishing the House Committee on Un-American Activi- 
ties, have directed the committee to make investigations of subversive 
propaganda activities in the United States, whether of a domestic or 
foreign origin, that attack the principle of the form of government 
guaranteed by our Constitution and to investigate all other questions 
in relation thereto that would aid the Congress in any necessary 
remedial legislation. A duty was further imposed to make a report 
to the House of the results of any such investigation, together with 
such recommendations as it deems advisable. Pursuant to this man- 
date, the committee makes the following recommendations : 


It is recommended that legislation be adopted to make punishable 
as a Federal olfense the unlawful killing of the President or Vice 
President of the United States. 

Title 18, United States Code, sections 1111, 1112, and 1113, respec- 
tively, make murder, manslaughter, the attempt to commit murder 
or manslaughter. Federal crimes only when committed within "the spe- 
cial maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States." This 
special jurisdiction is defined in section 7 of Title 18, United States 
Code, and generally includes the waters within the admiralty and 
maritime jurisdiction of the United States (high seas and navigable 
waters) and lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States 
and under its exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction. 

]\Iurder or manslaughter of the President or Vice President would 
also be pmiishable under Federal law if committed while aboard an 
aircraft in flight in interstate or foreign commerce (49 U.S.C, sec. 

In addition, wrecking a train, or its facilities and appurtenances 
used in interstate or foreign commerce, resulting in the death of any 
person (including, of course, the President or Vice President) is a 
Federal offense punishable under section 1991, 18 United States Code. 

Apart from these statutes, the only provision of law making nmrder 
or manslaughter committed within the jurisdiction of any State pun- 
ishable as a Federal crime is section 1114 of Title 18, U.S.C. This 
section, however, is limited to the killing of certain officers and em- 
ployees of the United States, principally law enforcement officers, 
while engaged in the performance of official duties or on account of 


the performance of official duties. It applies only to categories of 
employees specifically listed in the section, such as: Federal judges, 
U.S. attorneys, marshals and deputy marshals, employees of the FBI, 
Justice Department, Secret Service, Narcotics and Customs Bureaus, 
Internal Revenue and National Park Services, postal inspectors, im- 
migration officers. Coast Guardsmen, and persons carrying out certain 
assignments for the Agriculture and Interior Departments or the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

The committee believes it a matter of importance to the national 
security that the unlawful killing of the President or Vice President 
be made punishable as a Federal offense, even though such act is com- 
mitted within the jurisdiction of one of the States. Certainly, from 
the constitutional and various other viewpoints, the President and 
Vice President are more important personages than the Federal officers 
listed in section 1114, Title 18, mentioned above, and their deaths have 
far greater impact on the national security and welfare. The 
reasons which support section 1114, therefore, sustain the pres- 
ent recommendation. 

Additional reasons are suggested by the circumstances surrounding 
the November 22, 1963, assassination of President Kennedy by the 
accused, Lee Harvey Oswald, a self-confessed Marxist. They are also 
suggested by the overall context of the present world situation. 

According to the precepts and dogma of communism, "peace-loving 
socialist" (i.e. Communist) forces are waging an irreconcilable straggle 
against "imperialist capitalists" led by the United States. Commu- 
nists are taught that they must work for the destruction of all non- 
Communist governments and that victoiy will surely be theirs because 
the so-called laws of history make a Communist world society abso- 
lutely inevitable. 

The Congi'ess has found : 

Tliere exists a world Communist movement which, in its 
origins, its development, and its present practice, is a world- 
wide revolutionaiy movement whose purpose it is, by 
treachery, deceit, infiltration into other groups (govern- 
mental and otherwise), espionage, sabotage, terrorism, and 
any other means deemed necessary, to establish a Communist 
totalitarian dictatorship in the countries throughout the 
world through the medium of a world-wide Commmiist 

"Within the United States, the world Communist movement is spear- 
lieaded by the Communist Party of the United States, a group op- 
erating under the control of the Soviet Union.^ Other Communist 
groups of notable strength in the United States, generally described as 
Marxist-Leninist or Marxist (and usually having international ties), 
although following independent disciplines, are dedicated to the same 
basic views and objectives and often operate in concert with the Com- 
munist Party. 

1 Internal Security Act of 1950, sec. 2(1). 

2 After receiving volnminous evidence, the Subversive Activities Control Board pro- 
nounced the Communist Party of the United States to be a disciplined organization oper- 
ating in this Nation under Soviet Union control -with the objective of installing a Soviet- 
style dictatorship In the United States. This finding was sustained by the United States 
Supreme Court in Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control 
Board, 367 U.S. 1 (1961). 


The objective of all these groups is the overthrow of the United 
States Government with a view toward supplanting it with a Soviet- 
style or "proletarian" dictatorship. Together they swell the tide of 
activity directed toward this end. The basic doctrines of these groups 
teach violence, revolutionary action, and involve the adherents in an 
emotional atmosphere of fixed, intense hatred of non-Communist gov- 
ernments and those who constitute their leadership. Tons of propa- 
ganda to this effect are disseminated among them, and among non- 
Communists in the United States as well, by such groups and also 
outside it — by groups in the Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba, and 
numerous Cormnunist parties and groups throughout the world. 

The fact that an admitted Marxist with a variety of Communist as- 
sociations and ties stands accused of assassinating the President of the 
United States created a deep stir and frantic reaction within the Com- 
munist movement. Leaders of Communist groups hastened to disas- 
sociate themselves from the actions of Oswald and were quick to claim 
that Marx and Lenin — and they themselves — rejected "such acts of vio- 
lence and terror." Even today, the Soviet Union and the U.S. Com- 
munist Party persist in promoting the claim that the President was 
assassinated by some as yet undiscovered "rightist" or that Oswald was 
"an informer and provocateur for the FBI or some other intelligence 
agency of the U.S. Government." ^ 

The fact of the matter is that Lenin admonished all Communists : 
"We have never rejected terror on principle, nor can we do so." * 

Lenin made this statement in the course of a criticism of certain 
Russian revolutionaries who had supported recent attempts on the life 
of a Tsarist government official and a church dignitary and who were 
forecasting a reign of "Red terror." He wanted it understood, how- 
ever, tha.t his objections to assassinations were based on his opinion that 
they were "inopportmie and inexpedient" under "present circum- 
stances." Successful overthrow of the Tsarist government, Lenin 
stated at this time (1901), depended upon the creation of a "central 
revolutionary organisation" to lead the discontented masses. "De- 
parture of the most energetic revolutionaries to take up the work of 
terror," he said, would impede efforts to establish such an organiza- 
tion. He went on to say : 

Terror is a form of military operation that may be usefully 
applied, or may even be essential in certain moments of the 
battle, mider certain conditions * * * We would not for one 
moment assert that individual strokes of heroism are of no 
importance at all. But it is our duty to utter a strong warn- 
ing against devoting all attention to terror, against regard- 
ing it as the princl'pal method of struggle, as so many at the 
present time are inclined to do. [Emphasis supplied.] ^ 

Years later, on October 25, 1916, in commenting on the assassination 
of the Austrian Prime Minister by the Austrian Socialist, Friedrich 

3 Herbert Aptheker, leading U.S. Communist Party theoretician, writing in the Party's 
monthly, Political Affairs, February 1964, p. 52. 

* Lenin, "Where to Begin?" (May 1901), Selected Works, (New York: International 
Publishers, 1943), vol. II. 

s Ibid. 


Adler, Lenin was much more specific in stating his view of political 
assassinations : 

As for the political evaluation of the act, we, of course, 
remain in our old conviction, confirmed by the experience of 
a decade, that individual terroristic acts are a purposeless 
form of political struggle.^ 

Lenin once again took pains, however, to show that he was not 
against assassinations, per se : 

"Killing is no murder," wrote our old Ishra ^ about as- 
sassinations. We are not at all against political murders * * * 
but from the point of view of revolutionary tactics, indi- 
vidual acts are purposeless and harmful. * * * Only in 
direct, immediate connection with a mass movement could 
or should individual terrorist acts be of use. * * * [Empha- 
sis Lenin's.] 

* * * It would have been good if there had been found some 
leftist group which would have published in Vienna a broad- 
side * * * which would have justified Adler's act morally 
(Killing is no murder), but which would have explained to 
the workers that it is not terrorism that is needed but a sys- 
tematic, continuous, self-sacrificing work of revolutionary 
propaganda, agitation, etc. * * * § 

What is the real Communist view of assassmations ? 

"Killing is no murder * * *. We are not at all against political 

Wliat really mattered to Lenin — and matters to Communists today ? 
The "political evaluation of the act." That is what counts — the Com- 
munist evaluation of whether or not the assassination is useful to 
their cause. 

When Lenin wrote "Where To Begin?" he was mainly concerned 
with the lack of a "central revolutionary organization" (i.e. Commu- 
nist Party) to exploit unrest in Russia which had been manifested in 
recent student demonstrations. Under the prevailing circumstances, 
he considered individual acts of terror diversionary, "inopportune 
and inexpedient." But he clearly implied that under different con- 
ditions they would be important "individual strokes of heroism." 

Moreover, since Lenin's time, the Communists have made it clear 
that their "political evaluation of the act" is such that they do not limit 
Lenin's principle (the utility of assassinations) to the conditions pre- 
scribed in a general way in "Where to Begin ?" 

Was the assassination of President Kennedy an expedient, useful 
act from the Communist viewpoint ? We can hardly expect to learn 
the answer to this question from the only persons in positions to really 
know the truth, the leaders of the principal Communist camps. What 
we have seen, conflicts : professed regret in Moscow, open jubilation 
in Peking. 

AVhether the assassination of President Kennedy was an individual 
act or the work of a conspiracy (the committee takes no position on 

^ Lenin, Letter to Franz Koritschoner, Sochineniya (Works) (3d ed. ; Moscow: Parti- 
tnoe Izdatelstvo (Party Publishing House)), vol. XXIX (1933), pp. 311-313. 

■^ A newspaper which was established by Lenin and his friends in Germany in 1900 and 
Illegally, distributed within Russia. 

* Lenin, letter to Franz Koritschoner, op. cit. 


this question), it is clear that Communist adherents, in whom ideas of 
violence, disloyalty, and hatred are daily inculcated by the propaganda 
organs of the Commmiist movement and the statements of its leaders, 
camiot be expected always to miderstand or act ux^on the refinements 
of Communist dogma or directives or judgments as to the expediency 
of a particular act at any given moment. Because hate is so large an 
element in Communist doctrme and propaganda, it is reasonable to 
conclude that Oswald's close association with the Commmiist move- 
ment and readmg of its propaganda organs markedly mtluenced his 
conduct. Oswald was mvoived in the U.S. Coimnmiist agitation- 
propaganda effort, leading the attempted organization of a Fair Play 
for Cuba Committee chapter m Dallas — and the Commimist propa- 
ganda he read portrayed the President as the leader of that govern- 
ment deemed by Conununists to be their principal enemy. 


" Ou September 9, 1963, just a few months before the assassination of President Ken- 
nedy, the Miami Herald published the following dispatch from Havana, Cuba, which, in 
the light of subsequent events, assumes great significance, particularly in view of Oswald's 
role in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee : 

•'Havana. — Prime Minister Fidel Castro said Sunday 'U.S. leaders' would be in danger if 
they helped in any attempt to do away with leaders of Cuba. 

"Bitterly denouncing what he called recent U.S. promoted raids on Cuban territory. 
Castro said : 

•' 'We are prepared to fight them and answer in kind. U.S. leaders should think that if 
they are aiding terrorist plans to eliminate Cuban leaders, they themselves will not be 

"The bitterest Castro attack yet on President Kennedy was made early Sunday morning 
in a rambling, informal post-midnight dissertation following a reception at the Brazilian 

" 'Kennedy is the Batista of his times . . . and the most opportunistic American 
President of all times,' Castro said. 

"Fulgencio Batista was the Cuban dictator ousted by Castro's revolution 

!',^^,*^ ^'"'^^<^. States, Castro said, 'is fighting a battle against us they cannot win ' 

Kennedy is a cretin,' Castro asserted, 'and a member of an oligarchic family that 
controls several important posts in the government. For instance, one brother is a senator 
and another, attorney general . . . and there are no more Kennedy officials because 
there are no more brothers.' 

"Castro also disclosed that Cuba has not yet made up its mind about signing the limited 
nuclear test ban treaty drawn up last month in Moscow. 

"A recent dispatch from Moscow indicated the Kussians themselves have been puzzled 
by Cuba s silence in connection with the treaty. Speculation there was that Castro was 
holding out for more Soviet economic aid and threatening to cast his lot with the Red 

"The prime minister did not explain which points in the treaty were being given most 
consideration. But he said : j e & 

" ' We are taking into account the current v.orld situation, which of course involves the 
Caribbean situation which has been deteriorating in the last few days due to piratical 
attacks by the United States against the Cuban people.' 
2 "He accused the United States of carrying out 'double-crossing and shifting policies.' 

'' 'The United States is always ready to negotiate and make promises which later it will 
not honor. This has happened to promises made during the October crisis Thev have 
been broken as can be seen with new attacks. But I warn this is leading to a very 
dangerous situation that could lead to a worse crisis than October's ' 

"Castro said recent sea and air raids on Cuban industry had done no damage to speak 
of. and said Cubans knew 'the hand of the United States and its Latin American puppet 
governments, particularly Guatemala, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua, are behind those attacks ' 

•'He, said he was not worried by economic problems or any other problems jUthoS^ 
there is a certain disorganization which we are correcting." " cuLiiuuga 

betepMn''mrnd*^*'°* "^^^'^^ demonstrates Castro's view on the utilization of terror should 
In November 1962. less than a month after the Cuban missile crisis, the FBI arre-^ted 
five pro-Castro Cubans in New York City. Two of them were attached to the Cuban 
mission to the United Nations. Another had recently arrived in the United States on a 
m^iraccredUatTon *" '''^' """^ ^""^ °'''''°°' ^"* ^^^ °°* ^^^ ^'"^ Irant^ offlcllf dipV 
<-,• J"^^ /y^ .^^^ weapons, explosives, and incendiary devices in their possession at the 
*f ^rete*|s^r^l^ pef ^#/«als*o^^to^-^ 
rt^oZ-nat^Tal^d'^e^eng^ate'^rL^ll "^^^ '°^"^^"^ ^^^^'^^^ -"'^ co#sp*i'r!n"^g 't"o 'S/^cl 

lefT tho TTn^-to^ Q'^^i'^ protest from the Department of State, the two so called diplomats 
left the United States and returned to Cuba. The other three were not tried h t were 
exchanged in April 1963 for Americans held by Castro ' 

,r.\V^^T}^^}^ J'^t''^}^^^^ of these Cubans were official representatives of the Castro resime 
tn t'i^i.Unit^'d Nations, there can be little doubt but that their conspiracy to sabotag<^ind 
bles^n^.- ^^'*'^' *^^* '^°''^'^ probably have killed a number of pe^ople^hadSro's 


In the recommendations for amendment of Title 18, U.S. Code, to 
give Federal jurisdiction in the offenses set forth, the committee finally 
observes that, where acts of violence involve Marxist movements, all 
facts can be developed only with the assistance or use of Federal agen- 
cies. These movements are largely national and international in scope 
and frequently involve foreign governments, groups, or organizations. 
State officers do not have the facilities or means to develop all facts 
surrounding the commission of an offense in which such individuals are 
involved. The direction by President Johnson to the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation (rather than to the Dallas Police Department or the 
Texas Department of Public Safety) and the creation of a special 
national commission to ascertain the facts surrounding the assassina- 
tion of President Kennedy would seem to make this clear. Moreover, 
bringing the commission of the offense within the jurisdiction of the 
United States also avoids a conflict of investigative jurisdiction, places 
responsibility in the Federal authorities, and thus avoids any deterio- 
ration of the investigative process. For all these reasons the committee 
recommends legislative action. 


It is recommended that legislation be adopted explicitly authorizing 
the President to regulate travel by United States citizens to specific 
areas or countries, at such times as he finds that the national interest 
requires such action, and making the violation of such restraints pun- 
ishable as an offense against the United States. 

The need for such legislation appeared as a result of intensive investi- 
gation and a series of hearings undertaken by this committee in 1963 
concemmg the pro-Castro and Communist propaganda activities of 
a substantial number of United States citizens who had traveled to 
Cuba during the previous 2 years apparently in contravention of law 
and regulations. (See Violatio7is of State Department Travel Regu- 
lations and Pro-Castro Propaganda Activities in the United States^ 
parts 1, 2, 3, and 4, Hearings before the Committee on Un-American 
Activities, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963.) 

This committee recommendation is not based on the belief that the 
President of the United States does not possess power to impose general 
prohibitions or restrictions on the travel of Americans to or within 
certain areas of the world. Rather, it is based primarily on evidence, 
developed in the committee's above-mentioned hearings, that there is 
need to strengthen the existing law (Section 1185(b), Title 8, U.S.C.) 
making violations of Presidential travel restrictions a pmiishable 

The President's power to regulate travel to specific areas under cer- 
tain conditions derives from his implied constitutional duty to conduct 
the foreign affairs of the United States and from his position as the 
chief executor of the activities of the Federal Government in the field 
of international relations and for the defense of the Nation and the 
prevention of war. This power has been repeatedly claimed and exer- 
cised by the President in the course of our history. 

Although the President has frequently exercised the power to impose 
area restraints on travel, this power had not been tested in the courts 
or made the subject of judicial determination until recently. In three 
noteworthy cases decided by the United States Court of Appeals for 


the District of Columbia Circuit during the last few years, the Federal 
judiciary has had occasion to pass upon the constitutionality of the 
exercise' of this power. In these cases — Worthy v. Herter^ 270 F. 2d 
905, decided June 9, 1959; Frank v. Herter, 269 F. 2d 245, decided 
July 6, 1959 ; and Porter v. Herter, 278 F. 2d 280, decided April 28, 
I960 — the exercise of the power has been upheld, and in all three cases 
certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court (361 U.S. 
918 ) . In view of the significance of these cases to the legislative prob- 
lems, they deserve exposition. 

Worthy v. Herter 

The opinion in this case was written by Chief Judge Prettyman for 
a unanimous panel of the court of appeals, consisting also of Justice 
Burton (sitting by designation) and Circuit Judge Miller. 

William Worthy, Jr., was a newspaperman, duly accredited by the 
Afro-American Newspapers, the New York Post, and the Columbia 
Broadcasting System. A passport had originally been issued to him 
in 1955, containing a restriction stating that it was not valid for travel 
to five named areas under control of authorities with which the United 
States did not have diplomatic relations, including portions of China, 
Korea, and Vietnam under Communist control, and also a restriction 
against travel in Hungary. Under this 1955 passport, despite the 
restrictions. Worthy had nevertheless traveled extensively in both 
Communist China and Hungary. In 1957 Worthy applied for a 
renewal of this 1955 passport. He was asked whether he would make 
a commitment to abide these same restrictions in the 1957 renewal for 
which he applied. Worthy declined to make such a commitment, and 
the application for renewal of passport was refused. 

The refusal of the passport did not rest upon Woi^^^j's writings, 
character, or membership in any organization. This the court made 
clear, and thus distinguished the issue in this case from that involved 
in Kent v. Dulles, hereafter noted. The present case was an application 
of the general policy of refusing Government sanction to travel by 
United States citizens in certain areas of the world presently under 
Commmiist control, deemed to be trouble spots, where the presence of 
American citizens and the official approval of their presence would 
impede the execution of American foreign policy in relation both to 
those countries and to other coimtries. 

The court unanimously held that such designation of restricted areas 
was within the power and authority of the Executive, for the following 
reasons : 

(1) The designation of certain areas of the world as forbidden to 
American travelers falls within the power to conduct foreign affairs. 
The imposition of such restrictions is an instrument of foreign policy. 
"The essence of the conduct of foreign affairs is the maintenance of 
peace, the prevention of war. The Constitution places that task of pre- 
vention in the hands of the Executive. The two correlative powers, to 
conduct war and to prevent war, are Executive functions under our 
Constitution.'- The court concluded that the President has anii)le 
power to impose these restrictions under the Constitution itself, and 
apart from st at 1 1 to. 

(2) Although there is ample power under the Constitution itself to 
impose geographical restrictions, there is also a statutoiy power to des- 


ignate restricted areas under section llb5(b) of Title 8 U.S.C., the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Act of July 3, 1926 (22 
U.S.C. 211a).  .V 

(3) As to Worthy's claim that the right to travel is protected by the 
Constitution, being a part of tlie right to liberty, the court answered 
this claim in a lucid passage which deserves to be set forth in full, as 
follows : 

The right to travel is a part of the right to liberty, and a news- 
paperman's right to travel is a part of the freedom of the 
press. But these \'alid generalizations do not support unre- 
strained conclusions. For the maintenance and preservation 
of liberty, individual rights must be restricted for various rea- 
sons from time to time. In case of a clear and present danger 
to the national security, even so generally unrestrictable a 
right as speech can be restricted. In case of a reasonably an- 
ticipated threat to security or to law and order, many acts 
by individuals can be restricted. An assembling mob bent on 
disorder can be dispersed. A man with a contagious disease 
can be locked in his house. Potentially dangerous actions 
must be restricted in order to prevent harm to others. So we 
have sanitation, fire, building and speeding regulations. 

Liberty itself is inherently a restricted thing. Liberty is a 
product of order. There is no liberty in anarchy or in ciiaos. 
Liberty is achieved by rules, which correlate every man's ac- 
tions to every other man's rights and thus, by mutual restric- 
tions one upon the other, achieve a result of relative freedom. 
The mere day-to-day maintenance of the order which insures 
liberty requires restrictions upon individual rights. Some ac- 
tions, neither harmful nor potentially dangerous, must be re- 
stricted simply for the sake of g-ood order m the commimity. 
So we have parking, traffic and zoning regulations and rules 
of court. 

No individual may take whatever he pleases, and so all 
others are free to enjoy their possessions. One man may not 
assault another with whom he disagrees, and this restriction 
protects the freedom of all to speak and live peacefiUly. One 
may not spread vicious lies about another, and so all are free 
to enjoy their good reputations. Every person is forbidden to 
join with liis competitors to drive another person out of 
business, and so aU are free to pursue their trades and buy 
products at reasonable prices. Everybody's liberty is re- 
stricted by prohibitions against driving recklessly, spread- 
mg disease, and leaving hidden dangers on property, and so 
the whole community is free to enjoy health. One camiot 
trample his neighbor's flower beds, or even trespass on his 
lawn. Even in a neighborhood community every man's right 
to roam is drastically restricted. A man who asserts his own 
uninhibited freedom to go where he pleases is a menace and 
is quickly put in his place. He may not park where he pleases, 
or drink where he pleases, or spit where he pleases. In the 
community the police take care of these matters, and in so 
doing the officers act as servants of the rest of the community ; 
they are the government. 


Freedom to worship as each one chooses is restricted in some 
ways. Worship by hmnan sacrifice is forbidden. A member 
of one religion camiot interrupt the services of another reli- 
gion in order to worship in his own way. Through this re- 
striction all have freedom to worship as they choose. 

Freedom of the press bears restrictions. It does not include 
the right to publish what another has registered with the copy- 
right office. iSIerely because a newsman has a right to travel 
does not mean he can go anywhere he wishes. He cannot at- 
tend conferences of the Supreme Court, or meetings of the 
President's Cabinet, or executive sessions of Committees of 
the Congress. He cannot come into my house without my 
permission, or enter a ball park without a ticket of admission 
from the management, or cross a public street downtown be- 
tween crosswalks. He cannot pass a police cordon thrown 
about an accident, unless he has a pass from the police. A 
newsman's freedom to travel about is a restricted thing, sub- 
ject to myriad limitations. 

The peace-loving have rights. Those Avho recognize the 
fundamental necessities of liberty as a delicate product of 
order have power to protect themselves and their liberty. 
The liberty of everyone, law-abiding citizen and criminal 
alike, is involved in the maintenance of order and is threat- 
ened when disorder brings either the necessity or the oppor- 
unity for force to replace correlated rules of conduct. Such 
a threat may easily arise from conditions in foreign lands. 
The people have a right to protect their liberty, no matter 
whence the threat. 

Indeed it is quite clear that those who cry the loudest for 
unrestricted individual freedom of action would be the loud- 
est in bemoaning their fate if their plea were granted. The 
same release from constituted authoritv would set free per- 
sons so powerful, so ruthless, so bent on autocratic control 
that no newsman would have any liberty whatever. The 
customary prompt transformation of unrestrained liberty 
into dictatorship is one of tlie poignant lessons of history. 
These pleas for imrestricted individual freedom seem to us 
to be made upon a firm assumption that not too many people 
will be granted such liberty and not too much liberty in any 
event. Worthy himself says he does not plead for an un- 
restricted liberty for all people. His plea is for his own 
liberty to do what he happens to choose. 

So we conclude on the point that the right to travel, like 
every other form of liberty, is, in our concept of an ordered 
society, subject to restrictions under some circumstances and 
for some reasons. 

Franh v. Herter 

This case was decided for the court of appeals by Judges Bazelon, 
Fahy, and Burger. 

This decision is a per curiam decision of one paragraph, in which 
the court stated that the questions involved were decided by 
this court in Worthy v. Herter and that, therefore, the complaint of 
Waldo Frank to remove from his passport a travel restraint clause 
as to Communist China and to enjoin the enforcement of sanctions 

36-584—64 10 


against the plaintiff was dismissed upon a motion of the Secretary of 
State for summary judgment. 

However, there is a concurring opinion by Judge Burger, who felt 
that there was something more involved in this appeal of Frank than 
was involved in the "Worthy case. Judge Burger pointed out that 
the issue in the Worthy case related only to the power of the President 
to impose an area restriction on travel of United States citizens, 
whereas in the Frank case an additional issue was presented, namely : 
Conceding the Secretary's power to limit travel to Communist China, 
was the formula and criteria prescribed for the selection of a limited 
number of news correspondents who were permitted to travel to 
Communist China unconstitutionally discriminatory as to Frank? 

It appeared that Frank was a teacher and lecturer, who had an in- 
vitation to lecture in Communist China, and sought removal of a travel 
restraint clause in a duly issued passport which he held, restraining 
travel to that country. The passport held by Frank — like all those 
issued by the State Department in recent years — contained the follow- 
ing provision : 

This passport is not valid for travel to the following areas 
under the control of authorities with which the United States 
does not have diplomatic relations: Albania, Bulgaria and 
those portions of China, Korea and Viet-Nam under Com- 
munist control. 

In support of his complaint seeking removal of the restraint, 
Frank made three contentions: (1) The Secretray of State had no 
statutory authority to prevent United States citizens from traveling 
to China; (2) the travel restrictions are a violation of his first amencl- 
ment rights of free speech and j^ress and the deprivation of his right 
to earn a living by activities requiring travel; and (3) the Secretary's 
action in granting travel rights to 25 or 30 representatives of various 
news services, while denying the same rights to him individually, was 
an unreasonable discrimination in violation of due process under the 
fifth amendment. 

Frank's pleadings described him as a writer, scholar, and teacher, 
who has lectured here and abroad and who wrote for 20 Latin Ameri- 
can papers. He asserted that he had an invitation to lecture at the 
University of Peking. 

The Secretary of State in reply responded as he did in Worthy v. 
Herter: (1) That an essential feature of United States policy toward 
world communism generally and Communist China in particular is 
to withhold recognition, de facto and de jure, of that regime; (2) that 
in the implementation of that policy, travel of United States citizens 
to the China mainland has been prohibited; (3) that the Executive's 
power to conduct foreign affairs springs from the inherent powers of 
a sovereign, confirmed by the Constitution and implemented by joint 
action of the President and Congress in statutes; and (4) that in im- 
plementation of its policy, the Secretary has developed a formula to 
permit a limited number of news-gathering agencies to designate 
representatives to receive passports to Communist China, the agencies 
being selected on the basis of established past interest in foreign news 

Judge Burger said that the first two contentions of Frank were 
disposed of in Worthy v. Herter, but that the challenge to the Secre- 


tary's action as being discriminatoiy is not necessarily controlled by 
the Worthy case. Judge Burger then dealt with the charge of uncon- 
stitutional discrimination. He declared that the Secretary's decision 
relating to the manner of selection of correspondents to be afforded 
travel privileges to China is a political decision not subject to judicial 
review unless it appears that the decision of the Secretary was so 
arbitrary as to render the basis of the choice discriminatory : 

If, for example, the choice was limited only to Democrats or 
only to Republicans, obviously that would be improper and 
would fall. But judicial review even of the formula of selec- 
tion is narrow and it is limited to determining whether the 
basis of the choice bears some rational relationship to the ends 
to be served. The distinction made between news agencies 
with a demonstrated interest in foreign news coverage and 
individual reporters must have some relevance to the purpose 
to be achieved. 

In this case the Secretary invited each news-gathering agency with 
a demonstrated mterest in reporting foreign news to apply for leave 
to go to the China mainland and specifically set as an eligibility cri- 
terion the maintenance of at least one full-time correspondent over- 
seas. Judge Burger said : 

Our Government has decided to try out this program of 
allowing some news correspondents to go to Communist 
China on an "experimental and temporary basis" because 
presumably, as a calculated risk, in the conduct of foreign af- 
fairs it may help our ultimate objectives of world peace and 
stability, reduction of tensions, and resistance to Commu- 
nism. In such an experiment the political branches of the 
government must be allowed wide latitude in carrying out 
its policy. 

Judge Burger then said it was not the duty of the court to decide 
whether the Secretary of State had developed the best formula for tliis 
program, but to decide merely whether he had exceeded his authority 
or had acted discriminatorily. Judge Burger found that the formula 
established for the selection of a limited number of correspondents 
was not discriminatory and he therefore concurred in the judgment 
dismissing the complaint. 

Porter v. Herter 

This appeal was decided by Justice Burton (sitting by designation) 
and Circuit Judges Danaher and Bastian, in a brief per cukiam 

Porter was a Member of Congress, representing the Fourth Con- 
gressional District of the State of Oregon, who on August 7, 1958, was 
issued a passport on which appeared a restriction identical to that 
contained in Frank's passport and previously quoted. On June 10, 
1959, Porter applied to the Department of State for permission to 
visit Red China, asserting : 

A member of Congress has a right to go anywhere in the 
world to do his duty as a U.S. legislator as he sees it, except 
in time of war or emergency. Any other policy would seem 
to be an unconstitutional breach of the separation of powers. 


Porters application Tvas denied. He then instituted suit in the dis- 
trict court asserting that the Secretary's action was in violation of his 
rights under the Passport Act of 1926 and the Constitution of the 
United States. He asked for an injunction to restrain the Secretary 
from withholding passport facilities and for an order compelling 
the Secretary to remove the limitation upon his use of the passport 
for travel to China. 

The court in its decision noted that, although Porter as a member 
of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service had been authorized 
to travel on behalf of that committee in an official capacity to Okinawa 
and Japan to investigate personnel problems of overseas employees, 
he had no comparable authority from Congress to travel in Commu- 
nist China. The court held that his status as a Member of Congress, 
without more, does not entitle him to be exempted from regulations of 
the Executive in matters within the Executive's constitutional compe- 
tence. The court particularly pointed out that there was no question 
in this case of a conflict between the legislative and executive branches 
in which the court would be called upon to resolve opposing constitu- 
tional claims. The issue here was merely a right asserted by Porter 
in his individual capacity, although a member of the legislative 
branch: and, under such circumstances, he, as an individual Con- 
gressman, must conform to the passport regulations which are equally 
applicable to all citizens and which have been authorized by the 
branch of the Government having jurisdiction over the subject. The 
court said that, viewed in this light, his rights are subject to the 
considerations discussed in Worthy v, Herter and Frank v. Herter. 

It is significant that in the above-mentioned cases the courts did 
not question the general authority of the President — apart from spe- 
cific statute — to impose area restrictions on travel. Nevertheless, 
whatever powers may be vested in the President alone in this area, 
there is no doubt that the President and the Congress, acting together, 
may exercise the total powers of a sovereign state, subject to consti- 
tutional requirements, in matters concerning travel, including area 

The committee's hearings indicate, however, that the security prob- 
lem facing this country today is not so much one of power to regulate 
travel as it is the effectiveness of existing laws attaching penalties to 
travel undertaken in violation of Presidential directives. 

This is a problem the President alone cannot solve. Only the Con- 
gress, in the exercise of its legislative function, can create or impose 
penal sanctions for the infringement of such regulations or prohibi- 
tions as the President may promulgate. 

Although recognizing the historic power of the President to place 
area restrictions on travel, the committee believes that his hand should 
be strengthened by the enactment of legislation expressing the will and 
intent of the legislative branch of the Government, spelled out in di- 
rect and positive form. The committee takes this position because, 
as previously indicated, existing statutes contain weaknesses which 
need correction in the interest of national security. A review of the 
provisions of these statutes and their administration relative to unau- 
thorized travel to Cuba during the past 2 years indicates what these 
wealoiesses are and what steps should be taken to correct them. 

In the past, the Secretary of State has claimed and exercised 
the power to fix area restrictions on travel pursuant to the Act of 


July 3, 192G, 44 Stat. 887: 22 U.S.C. 211a. That act provides as 

follows : 

The Secretary of State may grant and issue passports, and 
cause passports to be granted, issued, and verified in foreign 
countries by diplomatic representatives of the United States, 
and by such consul generals, consuls, or vice consuls when in 
charge, as the Secretary of State may designate, and by the 
chief or other executive officer of the insular possessions of the 
United States, under such rules as the President shall desig- 
nate and prescribe for and on behalf of the United States, and 
no other person shall grant, issue, or verify such passports. 

Based on the authority of this statute the President, as long ago as 
March 31, 1938, adopted the following regulation (22 CFR 51.75) : 

The Secretary of State is authorized in his discretion to re- 
fuse to issue a passport, to restrict a passport for use only in 
certain countries, to restrict it against use in certain countries, 
to withdraw or cancel a passport already issued, and to with- 
draw a passport for the purpose of restricting its validity or 
use in certain countries. 

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Title 8, U.S.C, 
section 1185) provides that toheii the United States is at loar or during 
the existence of amy national emergency proclaimed hy the President: 

After such proclamation * * * has been made and pub- 
lished and while such proclamation is in force, it shall, except 
as otherwise provided by the President, and subject to such 
limitations and exceptions as the President may authorize 
and prescribe, be unlawful for any citizen of the United States 
to depart from or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter, 
the United States unless he bears a valid passport. 

Any person who shall willfully violate any of the provisions 
of this section, or of any order or proclamation of the Presi- 
dent promulgated, or of any permit, rule, or regulation issued 
thereunder, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than 
$5,000, or, if a natural person, imprisoned for not more than 
5 years, or both * * * and any vehicle, vessel, or aircraft to- 
gether with its appurtenances, equipment, tackle, apparel, and 
furniturej concerned in any such violation, shall be forfeited 
to the United States. 

This statute is the only expression of congressional intent specifically 
supplementing the President's constitutional power to impose area 
restrictions on travel and making violations of Presidential area re- 
strictions a punishable offense. It is limited, however, to conditions 
when the United States is at war or during the exi.:tence of a national 

It was called into effect after Castro seized power in Cuba — and is 
still in effect today — by reason of the national emergency proclaimed 
by President Truman on December 16, 1950 (64 Stat. A 454), and not 
since terminated. 

Prior to January 19, 1961, Department of State regulations did not 
require that a valid passport be possessed by a United States citizen 
traveling between the United States and any country or territory in 


North, Central, or South America (or in any island adjacent thereto) 
unless the citizen was traveling to, or arriving from, a place for which 
a passport would be required (i.e., some place outside the hemisphere) 
and was traveling to or from it via countries of this hemisphere. 

Following the break in diplomatic relations with Cuba on Janu- 
ary 3, 1961, the Department of State, on January 16, annomiced, in 
Public Notice 179, that : 

In view of the conditions existing in Cuba and in the ab- 
sense of diplomatic relations between that country and the 
United States of America I find that the unrestricted travel 
by United States citizens to or in Cuba would be contrary to 
the foreign policy of the United States and would be otherwise 
inimical to the national interest. 

4: 4: 4: H: 4: 

Hereafter United States passports shall not be valid for 
travel to or in Cuba unless specifically endorsed for such 
travel under the authority of the Secretary of State or mitil 
this order is revoked. 

Three days later, on January 19, 1961, U.S. travel regulations were 
amended to require a valid passport for any citizen of the United 
States traveling to Cuba. The new regulations specifically provided 
that no valid passport shall be required of a citizen of the United 
States or of a person who owes allegiance to the United States : 

"Wlien traveling between the United States and any country, 
territory or island adjacent thereto in North, Central, or 
South America, excluding Cuba : Provided, That this excep- 
tion shall not be applicable to any such person when travel- 
ing to or arriving from a place outside the United States for 
which a valid passport is required under this part, if such 
travel is accomplished via any country or territory in North, 
Central, or South America or any island adjacent there- 
to * * * (22 CFR 53.3). 

In the hearings undertaken by the committee relating to travel to 
Cuba in violation of these statutes and regulations, it became clear 
from the testimony of witnesses and various exhibits received in evi- 
dence that the travelers did not regard either the pertinent statutes 
or regulations as adequate to make punishable their travel to Cuba 
after January 19, 1961, although they possessed no passports specifi- 
cally endorsed for travel to Cuba. Their reasons, as claimed and 
asserted, although vaguely expressed in most instances, fell into three 
principal categories. 

One theory strongly advanced was that the statute and the regula- 
tions were unlawful infringements upon the "right" to travel and were 
thus unconstitutional and void. It was variously asserted that the 
"right" to travel was a personal matter not subject to governmental 
interference, that it was essential to the right to learn what is going 
on in various parts of the world, and was also involved in the exercise 
of the first amendment freedoms of speech and association. The pre- 
viously quoted court decisions, namely. Worthy, Frank, and Porter, it 
is believed, dispose of this claim. 

The second principal argument asserted was that the action of the 
State Department in regulating travel to Cuba was simply a "public 


notice" and was not based upon any "law" which specifically pro- 
scribed or limited travel to Cuba. It was claimed that the ''policy" 
of the State Department could not serve as a substitute for specific 
legislation and that, in any event, such legislation would be void 
because unconstitutional. 

It appears that this argument is lacking in validity because the 
State Department's regulations barring travel to Cuba without a 
specially validated passport^ as published in the Code of Federal 
Regulations, were based specifically on the authority to restrict travel 
granted to the President by Congress in section 1185 of the Immigra- 
tion and Nationality Act of 1952. Thus, despite the claims of the 
travelers to the contrary, the regulations were based on law. 

In form letters disseminated to proposed "student" travelers, the 
advice was also given, and the third claim made, that where the indi- 
vidual was in possession of a "valid ])assport" at the time he departed 
from the United States — which would be the case if he entered a 
Western Hemisphere nation for which no passport was required or 
some other comitry for which he held a "valid passport" — his travel 
to Cuba thereafter would not be an unlawful "departure" or in viola- 
tion of law unless he "used" his passport for entry to Cuba. It be- 
came obvious from the record that most of the witnesses were acting 
upon this advice and theory. They had obtained passports on the 
representation that they proposed to travel to countries of this hemi- 
sphere or Europe, not naming Cuba. They tlien traveled to Cuba 
after visiting other countries. 

Actually, it appeared from the context of the testimony that the 
validity of the law regulating travel to Cuba was not a matter of 
material concern to the travelers. The legal objections raised by 
them appear simplj'^ as a smokescreen to cover a basic Communist 
agitational effort to conduct propaganda favorable to the Castro re- 
gime, and to communism generally throughout the world, undertaken 
primarily under the leadership of the Progressive Labor Movement, 
a Communist splinter group. The record clearly shows that the travel 
was organized in aid of the immediate objective of breaking the ban 
on travel to Cuba and as a first step in the long-range objective of 
breaking the attempted isolation of Cuba by the United States. To 
obscure these objectives the Communists adopted a favored and basic 
technique of appearing to champion "civil rights" — the "liberty to 
travel" and the "right to learn" — to conceal the real objective of 
undermining American foreign policy designed to contain or suppress 
a regime hostile to the security of the Nation and to the interests of 
liberty-loving people everywhere. 

It was also clear that, by pointing up an alleged "right to travel" 
to Cuba, the travelers hoped to embarrass and degrade the United 
States in the eyes of the whole of Latin America and other areas as 
well. This was to be accomplished by creating the impression that 
a group of typical American students, at odds with their Government 
and its "repressive laws" and policies, were concerned only with seeing 
the truth which the Government was trying to withhold from them. 
By glowing speeches favorable to Castro and communism in Cuba, 
they would influence Americans at home and peoples in all parts of 
the world, non-Communist as well as Communist. A picture was to 
be painted, however false, that Cuban communism was wonderful and 
that the American Government had been suppressing and misrepre- 


senting the truth. The obvious hope was entertained that, by bring- 
ing American foreign policy into disrepute, the people of the United 
States would ultimately demand a cliange in governmental policy. At 
the same time, the travelers apparently saw an opportunity to dis- 
credit the legitimate channels of anticommunism in the United 
States, such as the State Department, the Federal Bureau of Investi- 
gation, and congressional committees. Finally, this '"daring" exploit 
and coup by the recently formed Progressive Labor Movement was 
expected to give stature to this new organization and to stimulate 
its growth. 

miile the objections of the Cuban travelers appear to be without 
substance in light of the broad language of the statute authorizing the 
President to make such limitations and exceptions as he may author- 
ize and prescribe concerning departure from or entry into the United 
States, it is clear that certain of their claims have not been expressly 
the subject of judicial determination. Undoubtedly, these issues will 
be presented for judicial determination under indictments recently re- 
turned in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
New York against several of the travelers who were subpenaed to ap- 
pear as witnesses before this committee. 

The investigations of the cormnittee revealed that certain of those 
who traveled to Cuba without specific passport validation for such 
travel were as fully conscious of the statutory support given to the 
President's restrictions on travel to Cuba by the Act of 1926 as they 
were of such support given them by section 1185 of Title 8, the Inimi- 
STation and Nationality Act. Therefore, in order to avoid the criminal 
penalties provided by the Act of June 25, 1948 (18 U.S.C. 1544), for 
the misuse of passports— that is to say a willful use or attempted use 
of passport in violation of the conditions or restrictions contained in 
it — those travelers who bore passports made a special eifort not to 
"use'- them when obtaining visas from Cuban authorities to visit that 
country. It appears from the testimony taken at the hearings that 
those travelers possessing passports were advised not to exhibit them 
to officials concerned with the issuance of visas for travel to Cuba. 

However, some doubt has been expressed as to whether the Act of 
1926 would be construed to authorize area restraints, or gives any 
authority to the Secretary of State beyond certain ministerial powers. 
What this statute authorizes has not been the subject of judicial de- 
termination, although there has been passing comment upon it in the 
recent case of Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, decided June 16, 1958. 
That cat^e dealt with the validity of individual restraints— the power 
of the Secretory of State to deny a passport to Commmiists — either 
under the Immigration and Nationality xlct of 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1185, 
or the aforesaid Act of 1926, 22 U.S.C. 211a. The Supreme Court 
there pointed out that no more should be inferred from section 211a 
of the Act of 1926 than that, in it, the Congress was adopting a prior 
administrative practice of reviewing passports falling into two cate- 
gories : the first pertinent to the citizenship of the applicant and his 
allegiance to the United States which had to be resolved by the Sec- 
retary- of State in the light of the command of Congress that passports 
shall'be granted to no other persons (22 U.S.C. 212), and the second, 
whether the applicant was participating in illegal conduct, that is, 
trying to escape the toils of the law, promote passport frauds, or 
otherwise enffaoine; in conduct which would violate the laws of the 


United States. The Court by its lant^iage was thus appearintr to 
confine the Act of 1926 largely to a ministerial function with little or 
no discretionary power. In any event, the Act of 1926 is merely a 
restriction upon the availability or use of passports for travel, but 
doe^ not prohihit the travel itself or make such travel iinfawful. 

The committee's investigations indicate that, since early 1961, over 
250 persons have traveled to Cuba without passports validated for 
such travel. The committee has no indication that the Department of 
Justice has been delinquent in its etl'orts to prosecute those who have 
traveled to Cuba illegally, and yet, as of this date, only six persons 
have been indicted for travel to Cuba in violation of existing regula- 
tions. It has been urged in some quarters that an obstacle to prose- 
cutive action under the existing statutes may be the need to prove that 
the traveler, on departing from the United States to go to a country 
for which no passport is required or to one for wdiich he has a valid 
passport, actually intended to go to Cuba and that he traveled in this 
fashion in an effort to avoid the penalties of the law. 

In the light of these problems, Chairman Willis on November 6, 
1963, introduced H.R. 9045. This bill would amend section 1185 and 
provides that when the President sliall find that ''the interests of the 
United States require" that restrictions and prohibitions shall be im- 
posed upon the departure of persons from and their entry into the 
United States, and shall make public proclamation thereof — 

it shall, except as otherwise provided by the President, and 
subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President 
may authorize and prescribe, be unlawful for any citizen or 
national of the United States to— 

(1) depart from or enter, or attempt to depart from or 
enter, the United States unless he bears a valid passport ; 

(2) travel to, enter, or travel in or through any coun- 
try or area, or attempt to travel to, enter, or travel in or 
through any country or area, unless he bears a passport 
speciall}' endorsed for and authorizing such travel or 
entry therein ; or 

(3) travel to, enter, or travel in or through any coun- 
tiy or area, or attempt to travel to. enter, or travel in or 
through any country or area to which travel by Ignited 
States citizens has been prohibited by the President. 

The committee believes this bill remedies the already noted deficien- 
cies found in existing statutes so far as relates to the effective and ex- 
peditious prosecution of persons who violate area travel l)ans, whether 
they apply to Cuba or any other country. 

First, the bill permits exercise of the Presidential power whenever 
he finds regulation of travel necessary in the national interest. He 
is thereby not confined, as in the operation of section 1185 of Title 8, 
U.S. Code, to time of war or national emergency. 

Secondly, the bill makes punishable the act of traveling into pro- 
hibited areas. Under the existing section 1185, the offense is limited 
to an unlawful departure from, or entry into, the United States with- 
out "a valid passport." The provisions of the bill remove the statute 
from any ambiguity of expression. It likewise relieves the enforce- 
ment agencies of an extremely difficult burden in particular cases — ^be- 


cause of investigative problems — of proving venue, that is to say, the 
specific point of departure from, or entry into, the United States. 

Thirdly, the statute likewise lightens the burden of proof in prosecu- 
tions under section 1185 with respect to proving the intent of the in- 
dividual to travel to a proscribed area at the time of "departure" from 
the United States. To sustain a prosecution under the statute it is now 
essential that the prosecution prove that at the time of "departure" 
from the United States, the traveler intended, for example, to travel 
to Cuba while not in possession of a passport specially endorsed for 
travel to that territory. Testimony received in committee hearings 
indicated that several of the witnesses traveled first to areas such as 
Mexico or Canada, for which travel is authorized without a passport, 
or traveled to areas in Europe while in possession of passports "valid" 
for that area, and then subsequently traveled to Cuba. Wliere the 
travel was not directly to Cuba, there is in many instances difficulty in 
proving that the "departure" from the United States was unlawful, 
or, as in the words of the statute, that the departure was without a 
"valid passport." 

Fourthly, the loophole apparently thought to exist by some of the 
travelers in the Act of 1926, namely, that under that statute only the 
"misuse" of a passport would be unlawfid, is eliminated. Under the 
bill, it is the travel itself that becomes unlawful without regard to 
the use of a passport. 

In all respects the bill strengthens the hand of the President in the 
execution of foreign policy, by giving him explicit legislative au- 
thorization to exercise a power already impliedly possessed by him 
and implementing this power with penal sanctions in the event his 
regulations are violated. For the reasons outlined, the committee 
deems it essential that existing law be amended, and for this purpose 
proposals along the lines of the chairman's bill are recommended. 


The need for clarification of congressional intent with respect to 
the terms "advocate" and "teach" as used in the Smith Act of 1940, 
is indicated by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Yates 
V. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957) . 

The Smith Act, as amended, provides that : 

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, 
or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of 
overthrowing or destroying the government of the United 
States or the government of any State, Territory, District or 
Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdi- 
vision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of 
any officer of any such govermnent ; or 

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction 
of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, cir- 
culates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or 
printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, 
necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or de- 
stroying any government in the United States by force or vio- 
lence, or attempts to do so ; or 

Wlioever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any 
society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or 


encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such govern- 
ment by force or violence ; or becomes or is a member of, or 
affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of per- 
sons, knowing the purpose thereof — 

Shall be fined not more than $20,000 or imprisoned not more 
than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for em- 
ployment by the United States or any department, or agency 
thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. 

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense 
named in this section, each shall be fined not more than 
$20,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, 
and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States 
or any department or agencv thereof, for the five years next 
following his conviction ( 18 U.S.C. 2385) .^^ 

Prior to June 17, 1957, the date Yates v. United States was decided, 
and following the adoption of the Smith Act in 1940, the Department 
of Justice prosecuted 146 leading Communist Party functionaries for 
violation of the Smith Act. Of this number, a total of 109 party 
members were convicted at trial in the district courts of the Nation. 
Of the total of 109 persons convicted, only 38 convictions were sus- 
tained on appeal or certiorari. The bulk of the convictions were 
reversed as a consequence of the principles enunciated in Yates v. 
United States, a decision which dealt a severe blow to the effectiveness 
of the Smith Act, hitherto the principal legislation aimed toward 
the containment of the Communist conspiracy within tlie United 
States. It is significant that not one single Smith Act prosecution 
has been instituted by the Department of Justice since the decision 
in that case of June 17, 1957. If the Smith Act is again to become 
an important weapon against the Communist conspiracy, it is vital 
that the Congress strengthen the act by the adoption of legislation 
which would renew its effectiveness. 

The Yates case was a prosecution charging 14 leaders of the Com- 
munist Party with conspiring to advocate and teacli the duty and 
necessity of overthrowing the Government of the United States by 
force and violence and to organize as the Communist Party of the 
United States a society of persons who so advocate and teach, with 
the intent of causing the overthrow of the Government by force and 
violence as speedily as circumstances would permit. The 14 defend- 
ants were convicted at trial, and each of them was sentenced to 5 years 
imprisonment and a fine of $10,000. The court of appeals affirmed. 
Upon grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court, the convictions were 
reversed. Although a new trial was awarded as to some of the de- 
fendants, the Department of Justice was unable to prosecute in view 
of the principles enunciated in Yates, and abandoned the prosecutions. 

In the district court, at trial of the defendants in Yates, the trial 
court had clearly charged that the holding of a belief or opinion did 
not constitute advocacy or teaching; that the Smith Act did not pro- 
hibit persons who may believe that the violent overthrow of the Gov- 

10 As a result of the Yates decision, this section was amended by adding the following 
new paragraph : 

"As used in this section, the terms 'organizes' and 'organize,' with respect to any 
society, group, or assembly, of persons, Include the recruiting of new members, the form- 
ing of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other 
units of such society, group, or assembly of persons" (Public Law 87-486, approved 
June 19, 1962). 


ernment is probable or inevitable from expressing that belief; and 
that any advocacy or teaching which did not include the urging of 
force or violence as the means of overthrowing the Government was 
not within the charge of the indictment. The trial court instructed 
the jury that: 

The kind of advocacy and teaching which is charged and 
upon which your verdict must be reached is not merely a 
desirability but a necessity that the Govermnent of the United 
States be overthrown and destroyed by force and violence 
and not merely a propriety but a duty to overthrow and 
destroy the Government of the United States by force and 

Yet the majority of the Supreme Court reversed a trial of 4 months' 
duration and held that this charge was inadequate; that the court 
should have added expressions that such advocacy and teaching must 
be "a call for action" and done — 

"with the intent that such teachmg and advocacy be of a 
rule or principle of action and by language reasonably and 
ordinarily calculated to incite persons to such action * '^ *.'" 

This is certainly a difference without a distinction. Is not the 
imposition of a duty a call for action and a "principle" of action? It 
is stronger; it imposes an obligation to act. Is not the advocacy of 
that duty, as necessity, together with the urging of force and violence, 
an intentional incitement ? ^^ 

In dissenting, Mr. Justice Clark pointed out that the majority 
decision in Yates was "an exercise in semantics and indulgence in 
distinctions too 'subtle and difficult to grasp'." Reminding the Court 
that the conspiracy in Yates included the same group of defendants 
as in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951), and United States 
V. Flynn, 216 F. 2d 354 (1954), although the defendants in Yates 
occupied a lower echelon in the party hierarchy, and reminding the 
majority that the convictions in Dennis and Flynn were based upon 
evidence closely paralleling that in Yates, he found the decision in 
Yates incomprehensible. He said : 

I thought that Dennis merely held that a charge was suf- 
ficient where it requires a finding that "the Party advocates 
the theory that there is a duty and necessity to overthrow the 
Government by force and violence . . . not as a prophetic 
insight or as a bit of . . . speculation, but as a program 
for winning adherents and as a policy to be translated into 
action" as soon as the circumstances permit. 

An example of the result of the Yates decision was a reversal in 
1958 of the prior conviction of six second-rank Communist leaders 
for violation of the Smith Act, on appeal to the circuit court of ap- 
peals in the case of United States v. James E. Jackson, et al., CCA. 
2d, 1958, 257 F. 2d 830. This decision was based upon the so-called 
call-for-action test laid down by the Supreme Court of the United 

^1 This was, in effect, long- ago recosrnized bv Justice Holmes (dissenting, in Gitlow v. 
Vew) York, 268 U.S. 652, at p. 673), -who wrote : "It is said that this manifesto was more 
than a theory, that It was an incitement. It offers itself for belief and if believed it is 
acted on unless some other belief outweighs it or some failure of energy, stifles the move- 
ment at Its birth. The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incite- 
ment in the narrower sense is the speaker's enthusiasm for the result." 


States in the Yates case. In commenting upon the holding- in Yates^ 
the court stated : 

In distinguisliing this extremely narrow diilerence between 
the advocacy or teachmg which constitutes a violation and 
that which does not, the Supreme Court said : "The essential 
distinction is that those to whom the advocacy is addressed 
must be urged to do something, now or in the future, rather 
than merely believe in something." 

In its Annual Report for the Year 1958, this committee noted the 
holding in United States v. James E. Jackson, et al., and we now re- 
peat what we then said : 

The committee is of the opinion that the Supreme Court of 
the United States in the Yates case, in attempting to con- 
strue the terms "advocate'" and "'teach"' as terms of art, wholly 
failed to ascertain the obvious intent of Congress as disclosed 
by the customary meaning of those terms when used in con- 
junction with the terms "duty"' and "'necessity"' as used in the 
act. The question of Avhether advocacy and teaching of the 
duty and i^ecessity of overthrowing the Government by use 
of force and violence constitutes mere advocacy and teaching 
of an abstract doctrine or whether it is advocacy or teaching 
directed at promoting of unlawful action, was neither con- 
sidered nor decided by the Court in the Yates case. To con- 
strue the terms "advocate"' and "teach" out of the context in 
which they were used could only result in doing violence to 
the plain intent of Congress in the use of those terms. 

The committee considers it essential that the Smith Act be buttressed 
by the adoption of appropriate legislation toward that end. 

It is believed that this would be accomplished by enacting statutory 
definitions of "advocate," "teach," "duty," "necessity," "force," and 
"violence" so that it would be clear to the courts the type of acts 
Congress intends to be outlawed by the Smith Act. To this end, the 
chairman of the committee on August 5, 1958, offered an amendment 
to Title 18, U.S.C., section 2385, which would define these words of 
art in the Smith Act. Subsequentlv, the same definitions were offered 
in H.R. 1991 (86th Congress), H.R. 6 (87th Congress), and H.R. 958 
(88th Congress) on January 9, 1963. 


It is strongly recommended that legislation be passed to close the 
breach in the Federal employee security program opened by the 
decision in Cole v. Young, 351^^ U.S. 536 (1956), which cut down the 
applicabilitv of the Act of August 26, 1950 (Public Law 733, 81st 
Cong.), to ''sensitive" positions only. 

The Act of August 26, 1950, gave to the heads of certam specifically 
named departments and agencies involved in activities of an obviously 
sensitive nature, the power smmnarily to suspend any civilian officer 
or employee "when deemed necessary in the interest of national secu- 
rity." The act included provisions for notification, to the employee 
concerned, of the reasons for suspension, to the extent that the interests 
of national security permit, and gave him an opportunity to submit a 


reply. The agency head was empowered, following such investigation 
and review as he deemed necessary, thereafter to tenninate the employ- 
ment of the suspended employee should he determine such to be neces- 
sary in the interest of the national security; but if the employee is one 
having a permanent or indefinite appointment and is a citizen of the 
United States, it is required that the employee be given a hearing upon 
request prior to termination of employment. 

The act authorized the President from time to time to extend the 
coverage of the act to such other departments and agencies of the Gov- 
ernment as he deemed necessary in the interests of national security. 
In April 1953, by Executive Order 104.50, President Eisenhower 
deemed it necessary to extend the provisions of the act to all other de- 
partments and agencies of the Govermnent. 

Cole, a food and drug inspector employed in the Department of 
Health, Education, and XVelt'are, was charged with having continued 
a close association with persons reported to be Communists and with 
maintaining a sympathetic association with an organization designated 
as subversive by the Attorney General. Cole did not answer the 
charges, replying that they constituted an invasion of his private rights 
of association and, although advised that he could have a hearing, 
requested none. The Secretary of the Department concerned made a 
formal determination that Cole's continued employment was not 
"clearly consistent with the interests of national security" and dis- 
missed him. 

On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, construing 
the act as applying not to all officers or employees of the Department, 
but only to "sensitive" positions within the Department. The major- 
ity of the Court thus cut down the applicability of the act to "sensi- 
tive" positions only. 

Justice Clark, with whom Justices Reed and Minton joined in dis- 
senting, declared, "We have read the Act over and over again, but 
find no ground on which to infer such an interpretation. It flies 
directly in the face of the language of the Act and the legislative 
history" (p. 566) . He added, at page 569, that : 

We believe the Court's order has stricken down the most 
effective weapon against subversive activity available to the 
Government. It is not realistic to say that the Government 
can be protected merely by applying the Act to sensitive jobs. 
One never knows just which job is sensitive. The janitor 
might prove to be in as important a spot security-wise as 
the top employee in the building. The Congress decided that 
the most effective way to protect the Government was through 
the procedures laid down in the Act. * * * They should 
not be subverted by the technical interpretation the majority 
places on them today. 

The immediate result of the majoritj- decision in Oole v. Young was 
the restitution of 109 persons from suspension or termination of their 
employment. Back pay was awarded, without the benefit to the Gov- 
ernment of loyal services, in the amount of $579,656.55. 

In order to correct the shocking situation created by the decision, the 
late Chairman Walter introduced H.R. 1989 in the 86th Congress; 
H.R. 6 (sec. 320) and H.R. 12367 (Title V) in the 87th Congress; and 
H.R. 952 in the 88th Congress on January 9, 1963. Such legislation 


as this is now necessary to clarify congressional purpose and provide 
a basis for maintaining adequate security for tlie executive branch of 

It must be made clear that the President, in whom is reposed the 
constitutional responsibility of executing laws and the duty of ap- 
pomting for that purpose those who will faithfully serve that end, 
possesses the necessai-y and concomitant power of suspending and ter- 
minating the employment of those who are disloyal or security risks, 
under reasonable safeguards to the individual which do not compro- 
mise our intelligence activities or impose midue burdens upon the 
exercise of administrative discretion. To intimate that such a power 
would not be decently exercised is an unwarranted slur upon our great 
body of able administrators. In these critical times there is no place 
in Government for those who are not clearly loyal to the institutions 
of our free society. 


It is urgently recommended that express legislative authorization 
be granted to the Secretary of Defense, under such regulations as the 
President may prescribe, to establish a security program with respect 
to defense contractors and their employees, for the protection of clas- 
sified information released to or within industry or any enterprise 
within the United States, and to prescribe procedures to be followed in 
personal appearance proceedings accorded to individuals whose access 
to classified information is denied or revoked under such program. 
Such legislation is essential to clarify the position of Congress with 
respect to questions raised in the case of Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 
474 (1959), which in part struck down the industrial security clear- 
ance review program established for some years prior thereto under 
regulations of the Secretary of Defense. A failure to assert con- 
gressional purpose and approval may result not only in unnecessary 
litigation and extensive damage claims against the Government, but 
also in compromise of vital national defense secrets. 

Greene, who began his employment in 1937 with the Engineer and 
Research Corp., a business devoted mainly to the development and 
manufacture of mechanical and electronic products, was first employed 
by that corporation as a junior engineer and, at the time of his dis- 
charge in 1953, was vice president and general manager. He had 
been credited with the development of a complicated electronic flight 
simulator and with the design of a rocket launcher, produced by this 
corporation and long used by the Navy. The corporation was engaged 
in classified contract work for the various armed services and had en- 
tered into a security agreement or contract by which the corporation 
agreed, in the performance of this work, to provide and maintain a 
system of security control and that it would not permit any individual 
to have access to classified matter unless cleared by the Government. 
During the World War II period, Greene had received security clear- 
ance, but in 1951 information came to the attention of the Government, 
including evidence of his maintenance of a close and sympathetic as- 
sociation with various officials of the Soviet Embassy, which showed 
clearly that Greene was a security risk, if not actually disloyal to the 
United States. 

A letter of charges was delivered to Greene, and he was informed 
that he could seek a hearing before the Review Board. He appeared 


with counsel, was questioned, and in a series of hearings was given an 
opportunity to present his witnesses and his case. Greene's own ad- 
missions would seem to establish what the Government had reason- 
ably concluded, namely, that he was a security risk, although the Gov- 
ernment presented no witnesses and, relying largely on confidential 
reports, did not give Greene the opportunity to confront and cross- 
examine confidential informants whose statements reflected on him. 
Greene's securit.v clearance was finally withdrawn and, as a result, his 
services were no longer useful to his corporation. He was forced to 
resign from his offices in the corporation and was discharged. 

Greene appealed to the district court, asking for a declaration that 
the revocation of his security clearance was unlawful and ^-oid. The 
district court and the court of appeals upheld the validity of the revo- 
cation, but a majority of the Supreme Court, in a decision by Chief 
Justice Warren, reversed, and held the relocation of clearance invalid 
on the ground that the administrative procedures of the industrial 
security program were not explicitly authorized by either Congress or 
the President. This decision left several basic questions suspended and 
unanswered. Chief Justice Warren said, at page 508 : 

Whether those procedures under the circumstances comport 
with the Constitution we do not decide. Nor do we decide 
whether the President has inherent authority to create such 
a program, wdiether congressional action is necessary, or what 
the limits on executive or legislative authority may be. We 
decide only that in the absence of explicit authorization 
from either the President or Congress the respondents were 
not empowered to depri^-e petitioner of his job in a proceed- 
ing in which he was not afforded the safeguards of confron- 
tation and cross-examination. 

Immediately after the decision m the Greene case, the then chair- 
man of this committee, on July 7, 1959, introduced in the House H.E. 
8121, with a view toward establishing congressional authority for the 
issuance by the Secretary of Defense of such regulations. This bill 
was reported out by this committee on September 2, 1959, and passed 
the House on February 2, 1960. However, there was no final Senate 
action. Further, in order to plug the hole in the dike, the President 
on February 20, 1960, issued Executive Order No. 10865, giving au- 
thority to certain departments, including the Department of Defense, 
to issue regulations and prescribe requirements for the safeguarding 
of classified information within industry. 

In the 87th Congress, the late Chairman Walter introduced H.E. 
10175 to provide an express legislative authorization for the Secretary 
of Defense, under such regulations as the President might prescribe, 
to establish a security program relating to defense contracts. Hear- 
ings were held upon this bill, and the views of interested departments 
of Government received. Following the hearings, the then chairman 
introduced a revised bill, incorporating the revisions requested by the 
departments. The revised bill, H.K. 11363, Avas reported out by this 
committee on June 28, 1962, House Eeport No. 1945, 87th Congress, 
second session. The bill was considered Ijy the House under suspension 
of rules on September 19, 1962, but fell short by six votes of the 
two-thirds majority required for passage under such procedure.. The 
Congress adjourned prior to further action upon the bill. 


H.E. lloGo basically enacts into law the principal provisions of 
Executive Order 10865, and has received the approval of all agencies 
of Government concerned. It gives clear expression of congressional 
purpose to support and strengthen such procedures as are adopted in 
Executive Order 10865 and improves the operation of such procedures, 
in particular by granting subpena powers to the Secretary of Defense, 
thereby assuring individuals affected, as well as the Government, a 
means"^for the adequate presentation of their case in the personal ap- 
pearance proceedings authorized by the bill. 

The procedures authorized in the bill are a solution which reconciles 
the imperative and overriding demand for the safeguarding of classi- 
fied information in the execution of vital defense projects, on the one 
hand, with the interests and expectations of the individual involved, 
on the otlier. The procedures afford the individual employees the 
maximum benefits consistent with the interests of the national secu- 
ritv. (See H. Kept. 1945, and hearings of March 15, 1962, relating to 
II.R. 10175, to accompany H.R. 113630 

In the 88th Congress, the late ('hairman Walter introduced H.R. 
952. which is identical to H.R. 11363. 

The necessity for a security ])rogram of this type is apparent. 
AVlien one reflects that approximately one quarter of every procure- 
ment defense dollar has been allocated for classitied defense work and 
that, according to reliable estimates, nearly 50 percent of the Com- 
munist Party membership is now concentrated in basic industry, the 
signilicance and necessity of a security program is clear. 

In the hearings before this committee on March 15, 1962, the repre- 
sentative of the Department of Justice, Mr. J. Walter Yeagley, 
Assistant Attorney General, Internal Security Division, testified : 

I can only put it this way : that we know that there are 
a great many people here who are Communists. We know 
where their loyalties are, and not only that, but their interests 
and their hopes and their desires. If they are in an area 
that is sensitive, where they have access to information, I 
would have to assume they are going to pass it on. 

When asked whether, based upon his knowledge and experience, Mr. 
Yeagley found that members of the Communist Party of the United 
States are disposed, and indeed required by the principles of their 
association, to commit sabotage and espionage under appropriate 
circumstances, he replied unequivocally in the affirmative. 


The committee recommends legislation establisliing an authoritative 
base for enforcing a strict security standard for tlie employment, and 
retention in employment, of persons in the National Security Agency, 
to achieve maximum security for the activities of the Agency and to 
strengthen the capability of the Secretary of Defense and the Director 
of the Agency to provide for such. With this conclusion the Depart- 
ment of Defense and the National Security Agency have concurred. 

In June of 1960, two employees of the Agency, Bernon F. INIitchell 
and William H. ]\Iartin, who had access to classified information, de- 
fected to the Soviet Union. This committee conducted an extensive 
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the defection, together 

36-384—64 11 


with a thorough and detailed examination of the personnel security 
regulations and procedures in effect at the time of the defection, and 
of subsequent measures taken by the Agency to resolve any weaknesses 
in its procedures. A detailed report of the investigation, titled 
Security Practices in the National Security Agency, M-as released by 
this committee on August 13, 1962. 

While the committee is aware that personnel security in the Na- 
tional Security Agency is dependent primarily upon continuing ef- 
fective administrative leadership and the enforcement of pertinent 
Department of Defense directives, the committee concludes that ad- 
ditional legislation is necessary to achieve maximum security. The 
committee is of the opinion that such legislation should establish a 
security standard and expressly prohibit the employment in the 
Agency of an}- person who has not been the subject of a full field 
investigation. In view of the special nature of the xA.gency"s activi- 
ties, legislation is recommended which will expressly exempt the 
Agency from the provisions of the civil service laws with respect to 
appointments to the Agency, and from the requirements of the Per- 
formance Rating Act of 1950. Moreover, the Secretary of Defense 
should be authorized summarily to terminate the services of employ- 
ees whenever such action is necessary in the interest of tb.e United 
States, should he determine that the procedures prescribed in other 
provisions of law relating to termination of employment cannot be 
invoked consistently with the national security. 

The specific legislative recommendations made by the committee, 
based upon its investigations, are incorporated in the above report 
of August 13, 1962. H.R. 950, introduced by the late Chairman Walter 
in the first session of the 88th Congress, embodies these recommenda- 
tions. This was reported out by this committee on March 13, 1963, 
House Report, No. 108, 88th Congress, first session. The bill passed 
the House on May 9, 1963.^2 


It is recommended that legislation be enacted which will provide a 
legislative base for remedying the deficiencies of the Magnuson Act 
revealed in the decisions of Parker v. Lester (227 F. 2d 708) and 
Graham v. Richmond (272 F. 2d 517) . 

During the Korean crisis in 1950, Congress enacted the Magnuson 
Act (50 U.S.C. 191, 192, 194) . This act provided that : 

'\\^ienever the President finds that the security of the 
United States is endangered by reason of actual or threat- 
ened war, or invasion, or insurrection, or subversive activity, 
or of disturbances or threatened disturbances of the interna- 
tional relations of the United States, the President is author- 
ized to institute such measures and issue such rules and regu- 
lations * * * to safeguard against destrucution, loss, or injury 
from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other 
causes of similar nature, vessels, harbors, ports, and water- 
front facilities in the United States, the Canal Zone, and all 
territory and water, continental or insular, subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States. 

" The bill, as amended, was subsequently, on March 26, 1964, signed by the President 
(P.L. 88-290). 


To implement the authorization contained in the Magnnson Act, the 
President on October 20, 1950, promulgated Executive Order 10173. 
This order, as amended, found that the security of the United States 
was endangered by subversive activity and prescribed regulations re- 
lating to the safeguarding of vessels and waterfront facilities in the 
United States. The order, vesting enforcement of the act in the Coast 
Guard, prohibited the employment of seamen on American merchant 
vessels unless they held validated documents which were not to be 
issued if the Commandant of the Coast Guard was satisfied that 
the "character and habits of life of such person are such as to author- 
ize the belief that the presence of the individual on board would be 
inimical to the security of the United States * * *." 

The order authorized the Commandant to issue regulations, which 
he did, for establishing procedures under which security clearance 
would be granted or denied. For reaching such determination, the 
Commandant's regulations provided that he "may consider whether 
on all the evidence and information available reasonable grounds ex- 
isted for the belief that the seaman (1) has committed acts of trea- 
son, espionage or sabotage; (2) is under the influence of a foreign gov- 
ernment; (3) has advocated the overthrow of tlie Government by force 
or violence; (4) has intentionally disclosed classified information to 
unauthorized persons; or (5) is or recently has been a member of, or 
affiliated with, an organization designated by the Attorney General as 
totalitarian, Fascist, Communist, or subversive. 

Under the initial practice provided by the Commandant's regula- 
tions, when a seaman applied for clearance to accept employment, his 
application was checked by the Coast Guard, and if clearance was 
denied at this stage he was notified in writing and informed of the 
"general basis" of such denial, which w^as accomplished by a form 
letter. In the event of security denial, the seaman was permitted to 
apply first to a local and then to a national appeal board, each com- 
posed of one Coast Guard member, one management, and one labor. 
The appeal board had before it the complete record upon which the 
denial had been based, although this was not disclosed to the seaman, 
who could, however, appear in person and by counsel and was priv- 
ileged to submit testimonial and documentary evidence. He had no 
right to know the names of confidential informants or to confront or 
cross-examine them. 

Under the procedures then established, approximately 1,800 seamen 
were screened from merchant vessels. Then followed Parker v. Lester^ 
decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Octo- 
ber 26, 1955, from which no application for review by the Supreme 
Court was made by the Solicitor General. In this case, several seamen 
brought action in the circuit court against the officers of the Coast 
Guard stationed in the San Francisco area to enjoin the enforcement 
of the regulations issued by the Coast Guard under the Magnuson 
Act, alleging principally that the regulations operated to deprive 
the plaintiffs of their liberty and property rights without due process 
of law, and asking for declaratory relief establishing the screening 
program to be void and unconstitutional. The court of appeals sus- 
tained the plaintiffs' contention, on the ground that the procedures 
established by the regulations provided for no hearing for the plaintiffs 
with opportunity to interrogate the witnesses testifying against them. 


Although tliis decision preceded the Supreme Court judgment in 
Greene v. McElroy^ oGO U.S. 474, decided June 29, 1959 (discussed 
under tlie Industrial Security Program, supra) ^ the language of the 
court in Parker v. Lester foreshadowed the pronouncements of 
Greene^ and indeed seems to have gone even further. While the court 
did not specificaily state that the Coast Guard could not adopt a pro- 
gram wJiich in some degree would qualify the right of confronta- 
tion and cross-examination, it seems clear that the sense of the 
decision would require the Coa^.t Guard to grant the applicant 
seaman an opportunity to be confronted with his accusers and to 
cross-examine witnesses. 

The blanket injunction issued by the court of appeals in Lester 
against the enforcement of the Coast Guard regulations had an im- 
mediate and disastrous eti'ect upon the screening program. As a re- 
sult of that decision, the Coast Guard was forced to issue documents 
validated for security clearance to several hundred seamen previous- 
ly determined to be security risks. Appearing before this commit- 
tee on June G, 1960, in hearings titled Communist Activities Among 
Seamen and on Waterfront Facilities^ Adm. James A. Hirshfield, As- 
sistant Commandant of the Coast Guard, testified that the require- 
ments laid down in Parker v. Lester have seriously hampered the 
Coast Guard in its administration of an effective port and vessel se- 
curity screening program, forcing the validation of security clear- 
ances to many of the seamen previously determined to be security 
risks. He testified there was no doubt that, except for the necessity 
of confrontation and cross-examination, many of these several hun- 
dred clearances would be revoked. In the absence of available wit- 
nesses and being precluded from using confidential information, the 
Coast Guard is compelled to issue a document evidencing security 
clearance even though the Commandant might not be satisfied as to 
the applicant's loyalty. He said that, although the regulations of 
tlie C'oast Guard were immediately altered after the decision in 
Parker v. Lester to conform to the requirements of that decision, the 
screening program was ineffective as a result of it. 

Following the Lester decision, Admiral Hirshfield testified that the 
Coast Guard maintained some degree of control by refusing to process 
applications in wdiich the applicant failed or refused to answer in- 
quiries necessary for a determination of his security status. How- 
ever, then followed Graham v. Richmond^ decided November 5, 1959, 
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Graham 
was an applicant who declined to answer three questions submitted to 
him in his application for security clearance. (Briefly, the questions 
dealt with vrhether he was a subscriber to certain Communist publica- 
tions; whether he had engaged in their sale, distribution, or publica- 
tion: and whether he had been a member of certain Communist 
organizations.) His application was denied for this reason, and his 
request for a statement of cliarges and for a hearing was rejected by 
the Coast Guard. Graham then brought his case to court. 

The court of appeals in Graham v. Richmond^ from wliich the Goy 
ernment made no application for review, althougli ruling that the 
questions were proper and relevant, held that the Coast Guard's re- 
fusal further to consider the application upon failure to answer the 
questions amounted to an outright denial of his application without 
a full hearing. Previously citing Greene v. McEIroy^ supra, the court 


poinfed out that it was nov:liere provided in the Magniison Act, in 
the Executive order, or in the ('onimaiKhxnt's reii'ulations that the 
faihire or refusal to answer certain questions would entitle the ap- 
plicant to no further consideration arid that, therefore, the applicant 
was entitled to a processinc: of the application in tlie manner for 
which the rec^ulations provided, namely, after a hearing upon all the 
evidence, although in the processing of the application the applicant's 
refusal to answer certain (juestions might be a critical factor. This 
decision was a further bloAv to the Coast Guard screening program. 
The Coa.=t Guard could not, in granting hearings, allow, in most cases, 
the confrontation and cross-examinatio7i of confidential witnesses. 
In the hearings referred to above, several of the seamen who had 
previously been denied clearance, but to whom clearance was subse- 
quently granted as a residt of these decisions, appeared and testified 
before the committee. That they constitute a grave danger to the 
security of the United States, should not be doubted. The evidence 
supports the conclusion tliat Communists will commit sabotage and 
espionage under appropriate circumstances; that seamen are in a posi- 
tion to act, and do act, as couriers for the international Communist 
movement; and that they engage in smuggling of subversive persons 
into the United States. Admiral Hirshfield testified : 

Anyone familiar with the work of men who follow the sea 
must agree with the conclusion of the Court as expressed in 
Parker v. Lester that merchant seamen are in a sensitive posi- 
tion in that opportunities for serious sabotage are numerous. 
Furthermore, because of the very na*^ure of their occupation, 
seamen may be used easilv as links in a worldwide Commu- 
nist comunication system and a worldwide espionage net- 

]\rr. rjay R. Murdock, Washington counsel of the Seafarers' Inter- 
national Union of North America, testified : 

Let me emphasize that, under existing conditions, the 
shipping industry constitutes a convenient conduit by whicli 
subversives from foreign countries can pour into tliis country. 
The dangers inherent in this situation cannot be over- 


But it must be remembered that the merchant marine is 
peculiarly vulnerable to sabotage. One skilled man can 
paralyze a great ship. If Ave are not able to prevent tlie in- 
filtration of our merchant marine by subversives, then the 
hazards become incalculable. If our merchant marine can 
lie paralyzed by sabotage, then all the billions we are spending 
for defense still leave us woefully unprepared. 

From the foregoing recital, it thus becomes apparent that a legis- 
lative base should be provided to correct the situation created by the 
Lester and similar cases. A personal appearance procedure, specifi- 
cally authorized by the Congress, that Avill provide certain reasonable 
limitations upon the privileges of confrontation and cross-examina- 
tion consistent with the interests of national security and individual 
rights, similar to that established under Executive Order 10865 or in 


the bill, H.R. 11363, relating to industrial security previously dis- 
cussed, would seem to offer a solution. It is also necessary to ])rovide 
by such legislation that any person who willfully fails or refuses to ap- 
pear before any agency, officer of the Coast Guard, or other person 
authorized to make such inquiries under the Magnuson Act, or who 
willfully fails or refuses to answer any question under oath pertinent 
to the inquiry in application for clearance or in any proceeding estab- 
lished under the regulations, shall by that fact be denied security 
clearance without further proceedings. 

H.R. 4469, introduced in the first session of the 87th Congress 
by the late Congressman Walter, was offered with the purpose in view 
of attempting to meet some of the difficulties posed under Parker v. 
Letter and Graham v. Richmond. This bill was reported out by tliis 
committee on February 23, 1961, was passed by the House on March 21, 
1961, and referred to the Senate. No final action was taken by the 
Senate. The committee recommends that a comprehensive program 
be adopted which would remedy the deficiencies disclosed above. 


The committee has repeatedly recommended legislation authoriz- 
ing the interception and divluging of communications by wire or 
radio, under appropriate circumstances and safeguards, in the con- 
duct of investigations and for the prevention and prosecution of 
crime, particularly those relating to activities or offenses involving 
the national security. Because of the status of existing law, many 
offenses go undetected, or unpunished, that are of serious consequence 
to the national security. The urgency of legislation of this type is 
again emphasized. 

Moreover, it is the view of the committee that State officials, as 
well as Federal, within reasonable limitations, should be authorized 
to acquire and intercept communications for such purposes. In the 
case of State law enforcement, it is felt that the prohibitions of section 
605 of the Communications Act of 1934 should be made inapplicable 
to the interception or divulging of any conmiunication by wire or 
radio either authorized pursuant to the statutes of such State for the 
purpose of enforcing certain serious and selected criminal laws of the 
State, or when done in cooperation with Federal officials in the en- 
forcement of laws involving the national security. In view of the 
fact that enforcement of local law with respect to State offenses is 
constitutionally committed to the States, it would seem that each State 
should be free to exercise the constitutional privilege of determining 
its OAvn public policy with respect to the prevention of crimes and 
enforcement of laws committed to its jurisdiction. 

The committee advocates legislation designed to give law enforce- 
ment such means of accomplishing its purposes as are consistent with 
the scientific and technological progress of this modern age and to 
relieve it of the handicap of being forced to operate with the tools of 
the horse-and-buggy era. 

Wiretapping does not involve the introduction of any new or unusual 
principle of law enforcement. Is it, for example, to be distinguished 
from the policeman on the beat who makes personal observation of the 
conduct and activities of persons under suspicion, or the old-fashioned 
eavesdropping of the detective in public places? The telephone and 


radio are largely public utilities, which extend beyond the privacy of 
one's dwelling, and should present no particular privileges or haven 
for the conduct of activities inimical to the national welfare. It seems 
clear that the Communications Act of 1934 must be modified so that 
law enforcement is brought abreast of modern techniques utilized by 
the criminal of today. We cannot assume that this privilege would be 
abused by public officials in any greater degree, if at all, than other 
privileges might be abused. And should an official abuse a privilege, 
the obvious remedies exist in this case as in others. Is it expected that 
law enforcement officers should be confined to the practice of clair- 
voyance and palmistry for the detection of crime? Legislation on 
this subject has long been overdue. 


It is recommended that the National Science Foundation Act of 1050 
be further amended so that, in addition to matters provided in Public 
Law 87-835 of the 87th Congress (H.K. 8556) , the following provisions 
be included: 

With respect to the provision of Public Law 87-835 of the 87th 
Congress, making it unlawful for any person to make application for 
a scholarship or fellowship who is a member of any Communist or- 
ganization registered or required to register by final order of the Sub- 
versive Activities Control Board, the provision should be extended to 
make it unlawful for any person to make an application for such 
scholarship or fellowship who has been a member of any such organiza- 
tion since the date on which it has registered or been ordered to register 
by final order or who has been a member of such organization within 
a period of 5 years from the date of such application, whichever period 
is shorter. 

In addition to the above amendment to Public Law 87-835, a fur- 
ther provision should be included relating to grants to institutions 
for projects contracted by the Foundation, making it unlawful for any 
person to receive such funds from the institution for the conduct of 
i-esearch miless the institution obtained from such pereon an oath or 
affirmation of allegiance and statement regarding any crimes com- 
mitted or criminal charges pending, as is required of an applicant for 
a fellowship or scholarship, and making it unlawful for such person 
lo receive or apply for funds from such institution if such individual is 
a member of a Communist organization registered or required to 
register as before mentioned or has been a member of such organiza- 
tion within 5 years past or from the time that such organization was 
registered or required to register, whichever period is the shorter. 

The National Science Foundation was created by act of Congi-ess in 
1050, which declared its purpose ''to promote the progress of science, 
to advance the national health, prosperity and welfare, to secure the 
national defense, and for other purposes." Among other powers, the 
Foundation was given authority to award fellovrships and scholarships 
to deserving science students and also gTants to institutions for scien- 
tific research projects. 

Members of the Congress were justifiably jolted in March 1061 when 
the Foundation announced a fellowship award to Edward Yellin, a 
graduate student at the University of Illinois. In 1958, Yellin had 
been identified as a member of the Communist Party by a former 


FBI undercover operative who testified before this conunitree in its 
investigations of Communist infiltration of basic industry. The testi- 
monv described Yellin as one of a number of well-trained, educated 
yomig Communist colonizers sent into the steel industry in an effort 
by the Communist Party to infiltrate the labor movement. In those 
hearings, Yellin refused to testify, invoking the protection of the first 
amendment to questions relating to his employment, his Comnnmist 
Party membership, and whether he had deliberately concealed facts 
concerning his college education when applying for employment with 
the Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation. In 1960, he was convicted of 
contempt of Congress, fuied $250, and sentenced to 1 year in prison. 
Plis conviction was upheld by the court of appeals on February 16, 
1961, a month before the National Science Foundation announced the 
award of a scholarship to him. 

Following this committee's disclosure, in early June 19G1, of the 
Foundation's award to Edward Yellin, hearings on the matter were 
also held by the House Committee on Science and Astronautics. On 
June 21, 1961, following these hearings. Chairman Brooks of that 
committee introduced H.R. 7806, a bill designed to prevent the award 
of fellowships and scholarships to persons such as Edward Yellin. 
This bill was superseded by a new bill, H.R. 8556, introduced by 
Chairman Brooks on August 8, 1961, which was favorably reported 
by the Committee on Science and Astronautics, passed by the House, 
favorably reported by the Senate Committee on Labor and Public 
Welfare, and enacted into law on October 16, 1962, as Public Law 

H.R. 8556, as enacted into law, prohibits the Xational Science 
Foundation from making scholarship or fellowship payments unless 
the awardee has taken an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and 
to the United States and has provided a full statement explaining 
any crimes of which he has been convicted or which have been'cliarged 
against him and are pending. Furthermore, it was made unlawful 
for any person to apply for a Foundation scholarship or fellowship 
if he is a member of a Communist organization ordered to register 
in accordance with the Internal Security Act of 1950, with knowledge 
of such order. The bill also included a provision authorizing the 
Foundation to refuse or revoke a scholarship or fellowship award if 
the National Science Board is of the opinion that such award is not "in 
the best interests of the L^nited States." 

H.R. 8556, as enacted into Public Law 87-835, requiring a full 
statement of all crimes charged or pending against an applicant, 
would very likely have been eil'ective in preventing an award to Yellin, 
for the Foundation officials had declared that they were totally un- 
aware of Yellin's conviction for contempt of Congress or of the 
charges relating to his membership in the Communist Party. How- 
ever, it is not believed that the act will be effective in accomplisliing 
its purpose of preventing awards to Communist Party members by the 
simple requirement that it shall be unlawful for a inember of a Com- 
munist organization to make application for a scholarsliip or fellow- 
ship award. 

This committee has had abundant experience under similar provi- 
sions of the Taft-Hartley law (Labor Management Relations Act 
of 1947, 29 U.S.C. Ill, 159(h)), which denies the benefit of the law 


to a labor or<2ranization unless its officers have filed affidavits dis- 
clainung membership in, or affiliation vith, the Communist Party. 
This provision has been repeatedly circumvented by officers of labor 
organizations who were in fact members of the Communist Party, but 
executed technical resignations from membership the day or moment 
before the affidavit was executed. Similarly, in appearances of Com- 
munists before this committee, the committee has frequently fomul 
that in response to questions relating to membership in tlie Coiumuiiist 
Party, they have denied such membership, but when asked if they had 
resigned technical membership immediately prior to their appearance 
on the witness stand, they invoked the fifth amendment privilege. 1 1 is 
therefore essential, if any such provision is to be elTective relating (o 
membership, that a reasonable period of time be fixed ])rior to and 
including the date of the award. It has also been found that many 
persons who are under the discipline of the Communist Party and who 
perform all of the activities of actual membership are in a security or 
underground status in the party, having severed technical or formal 
membership. The time element relating to membership is important 
with respect to actual present membership. The committee recomen- 
dation set forth in this section will go a long way toward obviating 
these problems. 

The present act is also defective because of its failure to deal with 
the situation relating to grants to institutions, which in turn engage 
individuals to coiiduct contracted work. The investigations of the 
committee pointedly reveal the circumstances. Columbia University, 
for example, received a grant of $4,500 from the National Science 
Foundation in 1956 and placed its project under tlie direction of 
Prof. Harry Grundfest. In 195S, Columbia University received an- 
other grant of more than $75,000 for a second project to be supervised 
by him. This was the same Ilarry Grundfest who continued to serve 
on the boards of directors of two organizations that had been cited as 
subversive and Comnmnist by the Attorney General: wlio iiumbered 
among his associates a member of the infamous Canadian Communist 
spy ring; who invoked the fifth am.endment in 1953 when questioned 
about Communist Party membership b}' a Senate committee investi- 
gating subversion in the Army Signal Corps; who on October 2, 1961. 
pleaded the fifth amendment to similar questions in an executive 
session of the Committee on Un-American Activities, in the course of 
the investigation of the National Science Foundation : and who 2 days 
later, on October 4, 1961, was the object of an additional grant of 
$156,000, awarded to Columbia Universit}^ by the Foundation. 

Dr. Alan T. Waterman, Director of the National Science Founda- 
tion, when questioned on October 25, 1961, about th.e grants made to 
Columbia in Grundfest's behalf, claimed that the Foundation had no 
knowledge of the professor's Communist affiliations. 

In 1957, the Foundation awarded a 2-year grant of $9,800 to Phil- 
ander-Smith College in Little Rock, Ark., for research to be con- 
ducted by Dr. Lee Lorch. In 1950, the same Lee Lorch had been 
identified as a member of the Communist Party by three witnesses in 
public testimony before the Committee on Un-American Activities. 
When Lorch had appeared as a witness before the committee in public 
session in 1954, he denied party membership as of the time he testified, 
but refused to answer questions about party membership for an earlier 


period. Pie was cited for contempt of Congress, but was acquitted 
by a Federal court on a technicality. Dr. Lorch had been dismissed 
by at least three colleges before the Foundation approved the grant 
for his project at Philander-Smitli. 

Dr. Waterman claimed that the National Science Foundation had 
none of this information about Dr. Lee Lorch at the time the grant 
was awarded to Philander-Smith. 

This situation relating to grants is not even partially covered in the 
National Science Foundation Act, as amended, as of this day. It is 
therefore essential to inake provision in the law for such purpose. 
Such provision may well take the form suggested in the recommen- 

{For full discussion of the National Science Foundation investiga- 
tion, see Annual Report for the Year 1961^ House Committee on 
Un-American Activities, pp. 93-103.) 



Tlie folloAving resolution in memory of the late Francis E. Walter of 
Pennsylvania, chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities, 
was unanimously adopted by the committee and ordered to be included 
in its Annual Report for the year 1963 : 

Whereas, our esteemed chairman and colleague, the late 
Honorable Francis E. Walter, readily contributed his full 
measure of duty to liis country in both World Wars I and II ; 

Whereas, having been trained in the professions of law and 
finance, he left a successful law practice in his home State of 
Pennsylvania and came to our Nation's Capital to serve in the 
House of Representatives for over 30 years — devoting all his 
abilities, talents, and untiring efforts to bettering and 
strengthening the country he so loved and safeguarding the 
freedoms he so cherished ; and 

Whereas, through the years, he came to be recognized and 
respected as one of the greatest Americans to serve in the 
Congress — a dynamic leader who was not only a skilled legis- 
lator and an expert parliamentarian with a keen and penetrat- 
ing insight, but a man of courage and action, a man faithful 
to his ideals ; and 

Whereas, he was assigned to the House Committee on Un- 
American Activities in 1949 and assumed its chairmanship i^i 
1955; and 

Whereas, as chairman of this committee, he brought with 
him a keen insight into the aims and tactics of the Communist 
conspiracy, a deep comprehension of the gravity of his 
responsibilities, and an unwavering devotion to his duties' 

W^hereas, his distinguished and courageous chairmanship 
of this committee gained him well-deserved national acclaim 
as a just and unyielding foe of all those forces determined to 
undermine our way of life ; and 

Whereas, his many contributions in the field of national 
security will be an everlasting monument to his memory and 
will serve as a living inspiration to all those who serve after 

Now. therefore, he it resolved, That the members of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities in tribute to the 
memorv of Francis E. W^alter, and in recognition of his out- 
standmg leadership, commend to all Americans his words of 
warning : 

The struggle for freedom never ends. It is a con- 
tinuing thing; a struggle we can never neglect or 




'I'lie folloAving resolution in memory of the late Clyde Doyle of 
California, member of the Committee on Un-American Activities, was 
unanimously adopted by the committee and ordered to be included in 
its Annual Report for the year 1963 : 

Whereas, our esteemed colleague, the late Honorable Clyde 
Doyle, viewed his long legislative labors on this committee as 
a personal expression of duty and devotion to the countrv he 
so loved; and 

Whereas,, his favorite motto, "Our beloved Nation deserves 
the best of whatever we are," so aptly defined the motives, 
the methods, and indeed the man himself; and 

Whereas,, his sincere passion for the principles of procedure 
and method singularly contributed to the committee's eifec- 
tiveness; and 

Whereas, his professional pride in justice and fair p]av 
harmonized with his high personal qualities of charity and 
compassion ; 

^ Now, therefore, he it resolved. That the men^bers of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities express their senti- 
ments to the memory of Clyde Doyle in lines he himself 
composed : 

Four things you must do 
Tf you would make your record true ; 
To think without confusion clearly, 
To love your fellow men sincerely, 
To act from honest motives purely. 
To trust in God in Heaven securely. 



A Pasje 

Adler, Friedrich . 125, 126 

Andres, Teresa Carvajal de. {See Carvajal de Andres, Teresa.) 

Apro, Antal 103 

Apthcker, Herbert 125 

Arcos, Matilde Morales. {See Morales Arcos, Matilde.) 

Ault, Paul 16 

Ballam, Sam. (See Marcy, Sam.) 

Barnes, Betsy 76 

Barnes, Jack 76, 77. 83 

Barranco Escavia, Jose 87 

Barranco, Rafael Lopez. {See Lopez Barranco, Rafael.) 

Bastian (Walter M.) 133 

Bateson, Nicholas 70-72, 75 

Batista, Fulgencio 127 

Battin, James F 11-1 

Bazelon (David L.) 131 

Bebrits, Lajos (Louis) 109 

Bentlev, Elizabeth . 111 

Bingham, James E. (Jim) 76, 77, 79, 81, 83 

Blodgett, Charles David 53 

Blossom, Frederick A 26 

Boudin, Leonard B 66 

Bravo, Nestor Otto 54 

Brooks, Overton 154 

Brower, Brock 89 

Brown, Fred 85 

Brown, Julia 6 

Brownell, Herbert, Jr 27 

Bryant, Valeda (Mrs. Robert E. Randolph). (See Randolph, Valeda 

Buhai, Harriett 54-56 

Burger (Warren E.) 131-133 

Burton (Joseph M., Jr.) 129, 133 

Cansinos Palma, Jose 87 

Carvajal de Andres, Teresa (wife of Angel Larroca Garcia) 86 

Castillo. Alejandro Heredero del. {See Heredero del Castillo, Alejandro.) 

Castillo Villarrubia, Eulogia del ' _. S6, 87 

Castro, Fidel 9, 10, 20, 30, 32, 35, 41, 42, 61, 62, 66, 81, 84, 127, 135, 137 

Castro Martinez, Sofia (wife of Rafael Lopez Barranco) 86, 87 

Chambers, Whittaker 102, 111 

Chase, Homer 11, 12 

Chi-Chou Huang 25, 28 

Cholmelev, Elsie Fairfax 27 

Clark, Tom 26, 119, 142, 144 

Cole (Kendrick M.) 143, 144 

Coleman, J. C 28 

Copeland, Vincent 18 

Cramer (William C.) 34 

Cucchiari, Salvatore 59, 60, 63 

Cuervo Rodriguez, Aladino 87 



D Page 

Danaher (John A.) . 133 

Davis, Benjamin 66 

de Villar, Melitta (Mrs. Louis Amster) 39, 40 

Dennis (Eugene) 142 

Dobbs, Ben 94 

Dougher, Joe 16 

Dovle, Clvde 15S 

Dulles (John Foster) 129, 138 


Eisenhower, Dwight D 30, 144 

Eisler, Gerhart (aliases: Hans Berger; Gerhard; Edwards; Brown; Julius 

Eisman; Gerhart; Samuel Liptzen) 85 

Elliott, Roland 113 

Elman, Richard M 42 

Engels (Friedrich) 9 

Epstein, Israel 26, 27 

Escavia, Jose Barranco. {See Barraneo Escavia, Jose.) 


Fahy (Charles) 131 

Fishman, Moe (Moses) 85, 86, 88-90 

Foreman, Clark Howell 63 

Frank, Waldo 129, 131-134, 136 

Fritchman, Stephen H 57 

Fritchman, Mrs. Stephen H 57 

Flynn (Elizabeth Gurley) 142 

Fuchs, Klaus Emil Julius 98 


Garcia, Angel Larroca. (See Larroca Garcia, Angel.) 

Gard, June Anita 69, 70, 72 

Gero, Erno 104, 109 

Gesell, Harold J. E 74 

Gitlow (Benjamin) 142 

Glenn, John R. (Jack) "6, 78-82 

Glenn, Marcia Haag (Mrs. John R.) 76,77,81-84 

Gluck, Sidney J 39 

Gojack, John T 121 

Gold, Harry 98 

Goldberger, Alexandria 102 

Goldstein, Eleanor 63 

Graham (Edgar W.) 148, 150, 152 

Greene (William L.) 145, 146, 150 

Greenglass, David ^ ^^ 98 

Groninger, Paulann (Mrs. William Groninger) 76,77,81 

Groninger, WiUiam (Bill) 76,77,81 

Grumman, Frank 121 

Grundfest, Harrv 155 

Guevara, Ernesto "Che" 41,42 

Gumpert, Peter__ 70, 71 


Haag, Marcia (Mrs. John R. Glenn). {See Glenn, Marcia Haag.) 

Hall, Gus 10, 22 

Hansen, Joseph '' 

Harlan (John M.^ 119 

Hartman, Louis Earl 121 

Hayes, Dorothy 28 

Hegcdus, Andras 108 

Heide, Paul 48 

Heredero del Castillo, Alejandro 87 

Hernandez, Ana Hernandez. {See Hernandez Hernandez, Ana.) 

Hernandez Hernandez, Ana (wife of Jose Barranco Escavia) 86, 8/ 

INDEX iii 


Herter (Christian) 129, 132, 134 

Hirsch, Walter. (See Jerome, Fred.) 

Hirshfield, James A 150, 151 

Hiss, Alger 98, 10? 

Hoffman, Parrv 59-G3, 73 

Holmes (Oliver Wendell) 142 

Hoover, J. Edgar 99 

Huberman, Leo 40, 41 

Ibarruri, Dolores (alias "La Pasionaria") 89 

Indebaum, Arnold (Arniej {see also Jacobs, J.) 69-76 

Jackson, James E__ 142 

Jacobs (or Jacob], J (or Jay) (see also Indeiibaum, Arnold) 65, 66, 69-75 

Jerome, Fred (alias Walter Hirsch) 13, 35, 36 

Jerome, V. J. (Victor Jeremy) 35 

Johnson, Azalena 40 

Johnson, John Allen (also known as Johnson, Allen) 52, 53 

Johnson, Lyndon B 128 

Johnson, Margaret Frances 53, 54 

Josephson 121 


Kadar, Jdnos 109 

Kennedy (Edward M.) 127 

Kennedy, John F xi, 16, 52, 124-128 

Kennedy (Robert F.) 127 

Kent (Rockwell) 129, 138 

Khrushchev, Nikita Sergeevich 9-11, 19, 32, 93, 97, 108, 112 

Kidwell, Jean Estelle (Mrs. Fank S. Pestana), (See Pestana, Jean Estelle 

Kiss, Karoly 103 

Koritschoner, Franz 126 

"La Pasionaria." (See Ibarruri, Dolores.) 

Larroca Garcia, Angel 86, 87 

Laub, Levi Lee 44, 46, 59-66, 69, 73, 75 

Lautner, John 102, 103 

Lee, Vincent Theodore 42, 43, 46 

Lehrer, Robert 121 

Lenin, V. L (alias for Vladimir H'ich Ul'ianov; also known as Nikolai 

Lenin) 3, 4, 9, 11, 20, 105, 112, 125, 126 

Lester (J. A) 148-152 

Levitt, Ralph 76, 77, 79, 81, 83 

Linke, Brunhilde 72, 73 

Lopez Barranco, Rafael 87 

Lorch, Lee 155, 156 

Luce, PhilHp Abbott 44, 62, 63, 66, 67 

Lustig, James 102, 103 

Lynn, Conrad J 39, 40 


Madrigal, Eustasia Sokolowski 54 

Malis, Victor 121 

Mao Tse-tung xii, 9, 11 

Marcy, Sam (also known as Sam Ballam) 18, 20 

Marsh, Jack 81 

Martin, Ana Salvador. (See Salvador Martin, Ana.) 

Martin, William H 147 

Martinez, EHzabeth Sutherland. (See Sutherland, Elizabeth.) 
Martinez, Ramon Martinez. (See Martinez Martinez, Ramon.) 
Martinez, Sofia Castro. (See Castro Martinez, Sofia.) 



Martinez Martinez, Ramon 87 

Martinet, Stefan (Steve) 44-46, 63, 64 

Marx, Karl 3, 9, 112, 125 

McAvoy, Clifford T 75 

Mc Cone, John 33 

McElroy (Neil M.) 145, 150 

Mc Li icas , Lero V 37-39 

Miller, Loiiis 39, 54 

Miller (Wilbur K.) 120, 129 

Minton (S herman) 144 

Mitchell, Bernon F 147 

Morales Arcos. Matilde (wife of Jose Cansinos Palma) 86, 87 

Morgan, Thomas G. (Tom) 76,77,83 

Morrav, Joseph Parker 41 

Murdock, Ray R 151 


Nagy, Imre 108, 109 

Nakashima, Wendie Suzuko. (See Rosen, Wendie (Wendy) Suzuko 

Nearing, Scott 26 

North, Joseph 55, 57, 58 

Nunez \'elanos, Encarnacion (wife of Ramon Martinez Martinez) 86, 87 


O'Connor, Harvev 122 

O'Neill, Edward R 73 

Ormazabal Ramon, Tife 87 

Ortiz, Vickie (Mctoria) 60, 63, 73, 75 

Oswald, Lee Harvey 124, 125, 127 

Palma, Jose Cansinos. (.See Cansinos Palma, Jose.) 

Paull, Irene (Mrs. Henry Paull) 51, 52 

Parker (Lawrence) 148-152 

Penha, Armando 25 

Perham, David 74 

Pestana, Frank Simplicio 51, 52, 54-57 

Pestana, Jean Estelle Kidwell (Mrs. Frank Simplicio Pestana) 47, 

51, 52, 54-56 

Peters, Joseph 102, 103 

Phelps, Larry WMlford 63, 68, 69, 71 

Popper, Martin 122 

Porter (Charles O.) 129, 133, 134, 136 

Prensky, Catherine Jo (Kathy) 63, 68 

Prettyman (Elijah Barrett) 129 


Qiiinn, Gerald Manuel 40 


Rabinowi tz, Victor 66 

Rajk, Las2lo 103, 109 

Rakosi, Matyas 103, 104, 108, 109, 112 

Randolph, Robert Eugene 47, 48 

Randolph, Valeda Bryant (Mrs. Robert Eugene Randolph) 48, 49 

Read, Jon Joseph 50 

Reed (Stanley Forman) 144 

Rein, David 27 

Richmond (Alfred C.) 148, 150, 152 

Roda Zarabozo, ALaria Paz 87 

Rodriguez, Aladino Cuervo. (See Cuervo Rodriguez, Aladino.) 

Roman, Armando 6 

Rose, Fred (born Fred Rosenberg) 98 

Rosen, Jacob (also known as Jake and Jack Rosen) 36, 67, 68, 70, 72 

Rosen, Milton 12-17, 45, 46, 64, 67, 72 



Rosen, Wendie (Wendy) Siizuko Nakashima (Mrs. Jacob Rosen) 63, 67, 68 

Rosenberg Rose Schorr (Mrs. Louis Rosenberg) 47, 55, 56 

Russell, Maud 25-29 

Russell (Norton Anthony) 120-122 


Salter, John Frederick 63 

Salvador, Gregorio Valero. (See Valero Salvador, Gregorio.) 

Salvador Martin, Ana 87 

Samter, Alfred James 121 

Santiago, Jo Ann 10 

Santiago, Jose 10 

Santo, John 101-114 

Sapirain , Sebastian 88 

Scheer, Mortimer 13, 14, 45, 46, 64, 67, 72 

Schlosser, Anatol Isaac 43, 44, 59, 63, 64 

Shallit, Ellen 59, 60, 63 

Shapiro, Joseph Abram 50 

Shaw, Edward Walter 41 

Shelton, Robert 120, 121 

Sherman, Durane U 70, 71 

Shriver, George 79 

Sik, Endre 102, 103 

Silber, Bernard 121 

Simon, Moses 103 

Sinclair- . 121 

Smith, Don 76 

Smith, Edwin S 28 

Smith, Polly (Mrs. Don Smith) 76 

Smith, Rhoden 63 

Soblen, Robert A 30 

Stalin, Josef (losif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili) 3, 7, 9, 11, 20, 97, 108, 112 

Stewart (Potter) 119 

Strong, Anna Louise 26, 27 

Sutherland, Elizabeth (born Elizabeth Southerland Martinez) 36-39 


Tarasov, Vladislaw Stepanovlch 90-92 

Tife, Ramon Ormazabal. (See Ormazabal Ramon, Tife.) 

Tishman, Mark 63 

Tito (alias for Josip Brozovich; also know as Josip Broz) 9, 10 

Travis, Helen (Mrs. Robert C. Travis) 26, 43, 46, 47, 54 

Trotsky, Lev (Leon) (born Lev Davidovich Bronstein) 3, 20, 77 

Truman, Harry S xi, 31, 135 

Turoff, Sidney 122 


Valero Salvador, Gregorio 87 

van der Jagt, H. J 73, 75 

Velanos, Encarnacion Nunez. (See Nunez Velanos, Encarnacion.) 
Villarrubia, Eulogia del Castillo. (See Castillo Villarrubia, Eulogia del.) 


Waegell, George (born Henri George Waegell) 40, 50 

Waegell, Henri George. (See Waegell, George.) 

Walter, Francis E 157 

Warren (Earl) 119, 146 

Warren, Susan (Mrs. Richard Frank; nee Susan Mildred Heiligman) 26, 27 

Washington (George Thomas) 120 

Waterman, Alan T 155, 156 

Weichinger, Jovita Lopez (Mrs. Karl Vladimer Weichinger) 51 

Weichinger, Karl Vladimer 51 

Weinstock, Louis 102. 107 

Weinstock, Rose (Mrs. Louis Weinstock) 107, 108 

Whelan, Joseph G 99 

.36-584—64 12 



White (Byron Raymond) 119 

Wilkes, Harold Glenn 76-78, 81, S3 

Williams, Robert F 39, 40, 62, 78, 79 

Worthy, William Jr 129, 130-134, 136 

Wright (James Skelly) 120 


Yakobson, Sergius 99 

Yates (Oleta O'Connor) 140-143 

Yeaglev, J. Walter 147 

Yellin, "Edward 119-12"2', 153, 154 

Yerkes, A. Marburg 47 

Young (Philip) 143, 144 

Youngdahl, Luther 121 


Zarabozo, Maria Paz Roda. (See Roda Zarabozo, Maria Paz.) 


AFL-CIO. (.See American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial 

Abraham Lincoln Brigade. (See International Brigade, Fifteenth.) 
Ad Hoc Committee to Oppose U.S. Aggression (see also Fair Play for Cuba 
Committee, University of Indiana; Young Socialist Alliance, "University 
of Indiana; Student Ad Hoc Committee Against U.S. Intervention in 

Cuba) 80, 83, 84 

Ad Hoc Student Committee for Travel to Cuba (see also Permanent Student 

Committee for Travel to Cuba) 43-45, 64, 66, 67, 80 

Advance 67, 68 

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 62 

American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born 10, 102 

American Communications Association (ACA) 121 

American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations 

(AFL-CIO) (see also Congress of Industrial Organizations) 16, 95 

American Labor Party (ALP) 75 

New York State:" 

New York City Area: 

Kings County Committee 75 

Second Judicial District Convention, 1950 75 

American Youth for Democracy 48 

Anti-Fascist Committee of the East German Democratic Republic 89 

Antioch College (Yellow Springs, Ohio) 44 

Black Muslims 16 

British Overseas Airways Corp. (BOAC) 60, 65-69, 71, 73, 74, 80 

Brooklyn College (Brooklyn, N.Y.) 64 

CIO. (See Congress of Industrial Organizations.) 

California Labor School 49, 53 

Canada, Government of 45, 59 

Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp 154 

Carpenters and Joiners of America, United Brotherhood of, AFL 53 

China, Government of: 

Communist Government 1-4, 26, 28, 29, 98 

Nationalist Government 98 

China Photo Service (Peking, China) 28 

Church World Service 113, 114 

City College of the City of New York (New York City) 36, 64, 67, 68 

Coast Guard. (See entry under U.S. Government, Treasury Department.) 

Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) 129 

Columbia Progressive Labor Student Club. (See entry under Progressive 
Labor Movement, Progressive Labor Clubs.) 



Columbia University (New York City) 15, 44-46, 64, 155 

Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy 26, 27 

Committee to Aid the Bloomington Students 77, 81 

Communist International. {See International III.) 

Communist Party, Australia 2 

Communist Party, Belgium 2 

Communist Part}', Brazil 2 

Communist Party, China xii, 2-4, 20, 29 

Communist Party, Cuba 1, 32 

Communist Party, France 3 

Communist Partv, Hungary. {See Hungarian Workers' (Communist) 

Communist Party, India 2, 3 

Communist Party, Italy 2, 3 

Communist Party, Puerto Rico 6 

Communist Partv of the United States of America xi, 

1-7, 10-14, 18, 19, 21-23, 29, 32, 66, 85, 93-96, 98, 124, 141, 147 
National Structure: 

Central Committee 102 

National Board 102 

National Committee 16, 55 

Secretariat 103 

National Conventions and Conferences: 

Seventeenth Convention, December 10-13, 1959 (New York 

City) 32, 94 


New England District 10, 11 

Ohio District 101 

Southern California District 29, 93-96 

District Conventions and Conferences: 

Second Convention, November 20-22, 1959, and 

January 29-31, 1960, Los Angeles, Calif 94, 96 

States and territories: 
California : 

Los Angeles: 

Engels Club ' 47, 55, 56 

Minnesota : 

Duluth 51 

New York State 13 

State Committee 6, 13 

Control or Review Commission 103 

Trade Union Commission 101 

Erie County 13 

New York City Area: 
Bronx County: 

Bronx Section 101 

New York County (Manhattan) : 

Puerto Rican Section 6 

West Side Village Club 85 


State Committee: 

District Bureau 101 

Cleveland 6 

Communist Party, Soviet Union 2-4, 9, 11, 19, 22, 29, 91, 92, 108 

Central Committee 11 


Twentieth Congress, February 1956 (Moscow) 108 

Twenty-second Congress, October 1961 (Moscow) 9 

Communist Party, Spain 88-90 

National Committee 87 

Communist Political Association: 

New York State Convention, August 1945 27 

Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) 16 

Constitutional Liberties Information Center (CLIC) 95, 96 

' Variously referred to as professional unit and lawyers cell or group. 

viii INDEX 


Cuba, Government of 32, 37, 41, 43, 48, 81, 127 

Consulates : 

Mexico 49 

Prague, Czechoslovakia 61 


Mexico City, Mexico 79 

Ottawa, Canada 79 

Cuban Federation of University Students 46, 61, 65 

Cuban Institute for Friendship Among the Peoples 61 

Cuban Writers and Artists Congress. (See National Congress of Cuban 

Writers and Artists.) 
Czechoslovakia, Government of: 

Washington, D.C 44,79 

Democratic Party: 

Young Democrats 95 

Department of Motor Vehicles, Raleigh, N.C 71 


Eighth World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs and for 
Prevention of Nuclear War. (See entry under World Congress Against 
Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs and for Prevention of Nuclear War.) 
Eighth World Youth Festival. (*See entry under World Youth Festivals.) 

Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, United (UE) 121 

District 4 102 

Emergency Civil Liberties Committee (ECLC) 39, 62, 63, 66 

Engineer and Research Corp 145 


Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) 37, 41-43, 46-49, 51, 80, 81, 83, 127 

Bay Area Committee 48, 50 

Palo Alto Committee 52 

University of Indiana Chapter. (See also Ad Hoc Committee to Op- 
pose U.S. Aggression.) 77, 79-81, 83 

Fair Play for Cuba Student Council, University of Indiana. (See Fair 

Play for Cuba Committee, University of Indiana Chapter.) 
Fifth 'World Youth Festival. (See entry under World Youth Festivals.) 

First National City Bank of New York 74 

First Unitarian Church, Los Angeles. (See Unitarian Church, First.) 

Friends of British Guiana 2a 

Friends of KPFK 57 


HELP. (See Help Establish Lasting Peace.) 

Hammer & Steel 2, 3, 10-14, 17 

Help Establish Lasting Peace (HELP) 95 

Hungarian Academy of Sciences 108 

Hungarian Trade Union Center 103 

Hungarian Workers' (Communist) Party 101, 103, 108, 110, 111 

Central Committee 104, 109 

Control Commission 103 

Political Committee 109 

Hungary, Government of 102-111 

Embassies : 

Washington, D.C 102, 103 


Immigration and Naturalization Service. (See entry under U.S. Gov- 
ernment, Justice Department.) 

Independent Student Union ^5 

Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR) -^7 



Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration 113 

Internal Revenue Department. (See entry under U.S. Government, 
Treasury Departnient.) 

International, III 85 

International Brigade, Fifteenth (also referred to as Abraham Lincoln 

Brigade) 85, 89 

International Union of Students (lUS) 49 

Executive Committee Meeting, May 23-June 2, 1961 (Havana, 

Cuba) 49 


Jefferson School of Social Science 27 

Jo Ann Santiago Defense Committee 10 

John Santo Defense Committee 10, 102 

Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, Md.) 25 

Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee (JAFRC) 90 


Kherson Nautical School (Soviet Union) 91 

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 60, 68-75 

Komsomol (See Young Communist League, Soviet Union). 

Labor Youth League 35, 48, 51 


Los Angeles 51 

Latin American Conference for National Sovereignty, Economic Emancipa- 
tion and Peace, March 5-8, 1961 (Mexico City, Mexico) 48 

Los Angeles Committee for Protection of Foreign Born 96 

Los Angeles Coordinating Committee for New Horizons for Youth 95 

Los Angeles Festival Committee. (See entry under World Youth Festivals, 
Eighth Youth Festival.) 

Los Angeles Medical Aid to Cuba Committee (see also Medical Aid to 

Cuba Committee) 47, 54, 55 

Los Angeles Progressive Youth Organizing Committee. (See entry under 
Progressive Youth Organizing Committee, Los Angeles.) 

Los Angeles Youth for Peace and Socialism 95 

Maupintour Associates 78 

Medical Aid to Cuba Committee (MACC) (see also Los Angeles Medical 

Aid to Cuba Committee; New York Medical Aid to Cuba Committee) 25, 

39, 47, 54 
Mexican Peace Conference. (See Latin American Conference for National 
Sovereignty, Economic Emancipation, and Peace, March 5-8, 1961, 
Mexico City.) 
Mexico, Government of: 

Havana, Cuba 41 

Militant Labor Forum, Oakland, Calif. (See entry under Socialist Workers 

Monthl}^ Review Press 41 


National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)__ 39, 83 
"National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE), Students for a 

Sane Nuclear Policy (City College of the City of New York) 67 

National Committee To Abolish the Un-American Activities Committee.. 62 
National Congress of Cuban Writers and Artists, First Congress, August 

18-23, 1961 (Havana, Cuba) 36, 37 

National Lawyers Guild 47, 122 

Hollywood-Beverly Hills Chapter 54 

Nationalists Party of Puerto Rico. (See Puerto Rican Nationalist Party.) 
New Left Club (see also Progressive Labor Movement: Progressive Labor 

Student Clubs, University of North Carolina) 15, 70 

New York Medical Aid to Cuba Committee (see also Medical Aid to Cuba 

Committee) 55 



New York University (New York City) 43 

North American Friends of Cuba 62 

North American Newspaper Alliance, Inc 42 

Northwestern University (Evanston, 111.) 77 

Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio) 66 

Organization of American States, Special Consultative Committee on 

Security 34 

Oxford University (London, England) 71 

POC. {See Provisional Organizing Committee for a Marxist-Leninist 

Communist Party.) 
Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers of America, Brotherhood of (AFL)_ 102 
Palo Alto Fair Play for Cuba Committee. {See entry under Fair Play for 
Cuba Committee.) 

Party Publishing House (Partiinoe Izdatelstvo) (Moscow) 126 

Permanent Student Committee for Travel to Cuba (see also Ad Hoc Stu- 
dent Committee for Travel to Cuba) 17, 44-46, 59, 64-76, 80-84 

Philadelphia Committee for a Six-hour Day with Eight Hours' Pay. (*See 
entry under Progressive Labor Movement.) 

Philander-Smith College (Little Rock, Ark.) 155, 156 

Pioneer Publishers (New York City) 77 

Progressive Labor Movement 3, 

10, 12, 13, 15-18, 21, 45, 63-65, 67, 68, 70, 76, 137, 138 

National organizational meeting, July 1, 1962, New York City 72 

Philadelphia Committee for a Six-hour Day with Eight Hours' Pay 16 

Progressive Labor Clubs: 

Buffalo, N.Y 15 

City College of the City of New York 15 

Columbia Progressive Labor Student Club 15, 45, 46 

Georgia 15 

Massachusetts If 

New York 15 

Philadelphia, Pa 15 

Progressive Labor New York Student Club 68 

San Francisco, Calif- - 15 

University of North Carolina (see also New Left Club) 15, 68, 70-72 

Wilhamsport, Pa 15, 16 

Williamsport Committee for a Six-hour Day with Eight Hours' Pay... 16 

Progressive Youth Organizing Committee: 

Los Angeles 95 

Provisional Organizing Committee for a Marxist-Leninist Communist 

Party (POC) 3-10, 12, 17 

Puerto Rican Nationalist Party vii 

RCA Communications, Inc 121 

Revolutionary Workers Party, Canada 77 

San Francisco State College (San Francisco, Cahf.) 64 

Seafarers' International Union of North America 151 

Simon and Shuster, Inc 36-38 

Sixth World Youth Festival. {See entry under World Youth Festivals.) 

Socialist Workers Party (SWP) 3, 18-20, 23, 50, 81, 83 

National Committee 18 

Militant Labor Forum, Oakland, Calif 50 

Stanford University (Calif.) 64 

Student Ad Hoc Committee Against U.S. Intervention in Cuba {see also 

Ad Hoc Committee to Oppose U.S. Aggression) 52 

Students for a Sane Nuclear Policy (City College of the City of New York). 

{See entry under National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy.) 



Swarthmore College (Swarthmore, Pa.) 36 

Switzerland, Government of: 
Embassies : 

Havana, Cuba 35, 38 

Syracuse University (Syracuse, N.Y.) 78 

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Interna- 
tional Brotherhood of 16 

Tom Maupintour Associates. {See Maupintour Associates.) 

Trans Canadian Air Lines 75 

Transport Workers Union of America (,CIO) 101 

Typographical Union, International (AFL-CIO).. 120 


Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Government of 1-4, 23, 33 

Defense (War), Ministry of: 

Army 110 

Unitarian Action for Social Justice, San Francisco, Calif 52 

Unitarian Center (Whittier, Calif.) 55 

Unitarian Church (Palo Alto, Calif.) 48 

Unitarian Church (Long Beach, Calif.) 55,57 

Unitarian Church, First (Los Ajigeles) 56,57 

United Nations 16, 20, 32 

Cuban mission 44, 80, 127 

United States Festival Committee for the Sixth World Youth Festival. 

(See entry under World Youth Festivals: Sixth Youth Festival.) 
United States Government: 

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) 59 

Defense, Department of 147, 148 

National Security Agency 147, 148 

Health, Education, and Welfare, Department of 144 

House of Representatives, United States: 

Fish Committee to Investigate Communist Activities in the 

United States (Special Committee) 109 

Science and Astronautics, Committee on 154 

Justice Department 42, 43, 58, 90, 93, 122, 141, 147 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 59, 62, 103, 128 

Immigration and Naturalization Service 58, 72 

Library of Congress 26 

National Science Foundation 153-156 

Senate, United States: 

Internal Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee 
(Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration of the In- 
ternal Security Act and Other Internal Securitv Laws) 14, 

27, 62, 75, 120, 121 

Labor and Public Welfare Committee 154 

State Department 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 38, 42, 44, 45, 52, 55, 58, 

59, 64-66, 68, 79, 98, 127, 132, 135-137 

Amsterdam, Holland 68 

Madrid, Spain 81 

Passport Offices: 

Los Angeles 54 

Miami, Fla 42 

New York 37,38,64,68 

Washington, D.C 58 

Subversive Activities Control Board (SACB) 27, 

35, 67, 84, 85, 90, 93, 102, 124, 153 

Supreme Court 93, 119-122, 124, 131, 138, 141-144, 146, 150 

Treasury Department: 

Coast Guard 124, 149-152 

Internal Revenue Service 124 

United States Information Agency (USIA) : 

United States Information Service (USIS) Libraries xi 

Voice of America 91 

Veterans' Administration 74 

xii INDEX 


University of California (Los Angeles, Calif.) 36, 47, 50, 57, 64 

University of Chicago (Chicago, 111.) 51, 64 

University of Illinois (Urbana, 111.) 153 

University of Indiana (Bloomington, Ind.) 76, 79, 80, 82 

Fair Play for Cuba Committee. {See entry under Fair Play for 

Cuba ConTmittee.) 
Young Socialist Alliance. (See entry under Young Socialist Alliance) 
(.see also Committee to Aid the Bloomington Students.) 

University of Maryland (College Park, Md) 25 

University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, Mich.) 64 

University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill, N.C.) 15, 68, 70, 71 

New Left Club. {See entry under New Left Club.) 
Progressive Labor Student Club. (See entry under Progressive Labor 
Movement, Progressive Labor Clubs, University of North Caro- 

University of Peking (Peking, China) 132 

University of Wisconsin (Madison, Wis.) 64,68 

Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade (VALB) 84-90 


WBAI-FM (radio station) (New York City) 42 

Walter Reception Committee 95 

West Side Committee for Iriendly Relations With Cuba 40 

Western Union 121 

Williamsport Committee for a Six-hour Day With Eight Hours' Pay. (See 
entry under Progressive Labor Movement.) 

Women Strike for Peace (WSP) 47, 55, 56 

Los Angeles • 95 

Women's International Democratic Federation: 

Second Congress, November 30-December 6, 1948, Budapest, Hungary.. 107 

Workers Press (Canada) 77 

\\ orkers World Party 18-21 

States : 

California : 

Los Angeles 18 

New York: 

BufTalo 18 

New York City 18 

Washington : 

Seattle 18 

World Congress Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs and for Prevention 
of Nuclear War, Eighth World Congress, August 1-6, 1962, Tokyo, 

Japan 48, 52 

World Peace Congress, July 9-14, 1962, Moscow. (See World Peace 

Council, World Congress for Disarmament and Peace.) 
World Peace Council: 

10th Anniversary Session, May 8-13, 1959, Stockholm, Sweden 56, 57 

World Congress "for General Disarmament and Peace, July 9-14, 1962, 

Moscow 48 

World Youth Festivals: 

Fifth Youth Festival, Julv 31-August 14, 1955, Warsaw, Poland 35, 36 

Sixth Youth Festival, .July 28- August 11, 1957, Moscow, Russia 36 

United States Festival Committee 36 

EighthYouth Festival, July 29- August 6, 1962, Helsinki, Finland... 50, 

67, 68, 95 

Los Angeles Festival Committee 95 


Young Communist League, Soviet Union (Komsomol) 90,91 

Young Communist League, U.S. A 39, 48 

Minnesota ^1 

Young People's Socialist League 83 

INDEX xiii 


Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) 70-78, 80, 81, 83 

University of Indiana {see also Ad Hoc Committee To Oppose IJ.S. 

Aggression) 76, 83 

Young Women's Christian Association, China Branch 26 



Afro- American N ewspapers 129 

America (Illustrated) 91 


Chinese Commercial Daily. {See Hua Shang Pao.) 

Comment on the Statement of the Communist Party of the United States 

of America, A (pamphlet) 11 

Communist Party — A Manual on Organization, The 102 


Daily News (Whittier, Calif.) 55-56 

Daily Tar Heel (University of North Carolina student newspaper) 15, 71, 72 

Daily Worker 102 

Esquire (magazine) 89 


Far East Reporter 25-27 

Far East Spotlight 26, 27 

Film Quarterly 36 

Hammer & Steel Newsletter 11 

Hua Shang Pao (Chinese Commerical Daily, Hong Kong) 26 


In Defense of the Cuban Revolution: An Answer to the State Department 

and Theodore Draper (pamphlet) 77 

Iskra (The Spark) (newspaper) 126 


liberal democrat, The (magazine) 48 

Long Live Leninism (pamphlet) 4 


Marxist Leninist Quarterly 13 

Miami Herald 127 

Militant, The 78 

Monthly Review 40 


New People in New China (pamphlet) 28 

New York Post 129 

New York Times 120 

1948 Manifesto of the Fourth International Against Wall Street and the 

Kremlin (pamphlet) 77 

On the Question of Stalin (pamphlet) 11 


People's Daily, The (Peking, China) 14 

People's World 96 

Progressive Labor 12-15, 17 

Proposal Concerning the General Line of The Communist International 

Movement, A (pamphlet) 11 

xiv INDEX 

Rights - 66 


Second Revolution in Cuba, The (Morray) 41 

Socialist Workers Party, The (pamphlet) 77 


Theory of the Cuban Revolution, The (pamphlet) 77 

Trotskyism and the Cuban Revolution — An Answer to Hoy (pamphlet) _. 77 

Uj Elore -- 109 

Vanguard 6 


Where to Begin (Lenin) 125, 126 

Which Path — Cowardice or the Teaching of Mao Tse-tung? (pamphlet).. 11 

Worker, The 103 

Workers World 3, 4, 18 

World Marxist Review 12, 88 

Young Socialist Forum 78